Big Business Is Even More Unpopular Than You Think

Robert Weissman

The U.S. public holds Big Business in shockingly low regard.

A November 2007 Harris poll found that less than 15 percent of the population believes each of the following industries to be “generally honest and trustworthy:” tobacco companies (3 percent); oil companies (3 percent); managed care companies such as HMOs (5 percent); health insurance companies (7 percent); telephone companies (10 percent); life insurance companies (10 percent); online retailers (10 percent); pharmaceutical and drug companies (11 percent); car manufacturers (11 percent); airlines (11 percent); packaged food companies (12 percent); electric and gas utilities (15 percent). Only 32 percent of adults said they trusted the best-rated industry about which Harris surveyed, supermarkets.[1]

These are remarkable numbers. It is very hard to get this degree of agreement about anything. By way of comparison, 79 percent of adults believe the earth revolves around the sun; 18 percent say it is the other way around.[2]

The Harris results are not an aberration. The results have not varied considerably over the past five years – although overall trust levels have actually declined from the already very low threshold in 2003.

The Harris results are also in line with an array of polling data showing deep concern about concentrated corporate power.

An amazing 84 percent told Harris in a poll earlier in 2007 that big companies have too much power in Washington. By contrast, only 47 percent said that labor unions have too much power in Washington (as against 42 percent who said labor has too little power), and 18 percent who said nonprofit organizations have too much power in Washington.[3]

These results have proven durable. At least 80 percent of the public has ranked big companies as having too much power in Washington since 1994. In 2000, Business Week and Harris asked a broader question: Has business gained too much power over too many aspects of American life? Seventy-four percent agreed.[4]

The November 2007 poll also asked about support for measures to control corporations. These results are eye-opening as well, though perhaps not in the expected way.

Harris asked which industries “should be more regulated by government – for example for health, safety or environmental reasons – than they are now?” Only oil companies (53 percent), pharmaceutical companies (53 percent) and health insurance companies (52 percent) crossed the 50 percent threshold. Even the tobacco industry managed to escape in the survey with only 41 percent favoring greater regulation. These data trend significantly negative – against greater regulation – over the last five years.

Does this show that while people distrust Big Business, they equally distrust the government to constrain corporate power?

No.

The U.S. skepticism to regulation is only skin deep. When polls present specific regulatory proposals for consideration, U.S. public support is typically strong and often overwhelming – even when arguments against government action are presented.

For example:

  • After hearing arguments for and against, 76 percent favor granting the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco, with 22 percent opposed.[5]
  • After hearing arguments for and against, 75 percent favor legislation that would significantly increase energy efficiency, including auto fuel efficiency standards, and the use of renewable energy.[6]
  • Eighty-five percent favor country-of-origin labeling for meat, seafood, produce and grocery products, and three quarters favor a legislative mandate.[7]
  • Seventy-one percent say it is important that drugs remain under close review by the FDA and drug companies after they have been placed on the market.[8]
  • And, from a Harris finding a week after the poll showing skepticism about industry regulation in general, the polling agency found that those who think there is too little government regulation in the area of environmental protection outpaced those who think there is too much by a more than 2-to-1 margin (53 to 21 percent).[9]

What the Harris findings on attitudes to regulation do show is that the business campaign against regulation as an abstract concept has been very successful.

It highlights the need for consumer, environmental, labor and other corporate accountability advocates to defend the concept of regulation, and to connect the rampant corporate abuses in society with the deregulation and non-regulatory failures of the last three decades. There’s little doubt that the general public attitude toward regulation significantly affects the willingness of politicians – none to eager to offend business patrons in the first place – to take on corporate power.

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, and director of Essential Action.

[1] http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=825

[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx

[3] http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=737

[4] http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_37/b3698004.htm

[5] http://tobaccofreekids.org/fdapoll/national.pdf

[6] http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/No_Time_To_Waste.pdf

[7] http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1970

[8] http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=716

[9] http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=828

Councillors oppose identity card scheme

0

Eric McGowan

NORTH Ayrshire Council are to officially oppose government plans for identity cards.

Councillors voted by a majority of three to reject the controversial documents on Wednesday.

Only Labour councillors voted against an SNP-led motion calling on the council not to co-operate with the National Identity Scheme.

Ardrossan SNP councillor Tony Gurney – who proposed the motion, seconded by Kilwinning Lib Dem councillor Andrew Chamberlain – said ID cards were an attack on civil liberties.

“It is vitally important that every citizen in Scotland lets Labour know this is an attack too far.

“This decision is the first part of that message that we are sending to the London government.”

The motion went to a vote after Labour’s Peter McNamara pleaded for an amendment which would have seen the issue referred to the Council’s Executive and Scrutiny Committees.

He said it was an opportunity for the council to prove that the cabinet committee system worked and rival councillors could trust each other.

He also said the process would also allow councillors time to thoroughly research the arguments for and against ID cards before any decision was taken.

But Councillor Gurney refused to back down, adding that recent events had shown the government could not be trusted with personal data and that the estimated £18bn it would cost to set up the scheme would be better spent on local services.

Former US congressman indicted

0

An ex-congressman is indicted for his part in an alleged terrorist fundraising and accused of sending $130,000 to a Taliban supporter.

A US grand jury indicted ex-Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice.

It is alleged he lobbied for a charity that sent funds to al-Qaeda and Taliban supporter Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Siljander was a congressman from 1981-1987 and served one year as a US delegate to the United Nations.

The 42-count grand jury indictment alleges Siljander lied about lobbying senators on behalf of the Missouri-based Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA).

The indictment alleges the charity sent about $130,000 (£66,000) in 2003 and 2004 to accounts in Peshawar, Pakistan, that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar had access to.

It says Siljander “engaged in money laundering and obstruction of a federal investigation in an effort to disguise IARA’s misuse of taxpayer money that the government had provided for humanitarian purposes”.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has long been a thorn in the US side in Afghanistan.

The US justice department says he has “vowed to engage in a holy war against the United States and international troops”.

JR/RA

Lawmaker: CIA tape destruction unauthorized

0

After hearing, Hoekstra says official acted against direction of superiors

The CIA official who gave the command to destroy interrogation videotapes apparently acted against the direction of his superiors, the top Republican House Intelligence Committee member said Wednesday.

“It appears he hadn’t gotten authority from anyone,” said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., speaking to reporters after the first day of closed testimony in the committee’s investigation. “It appears he got direction to make sure the tapes were not destroyed.”

Hoekstra said that raises the troubling prospect that there’s a thread of unaccountability in the spy culture.

“I believe there are parts of the intelligence community that don’t believe they are accountable to Congress and may not be accountable to their own superiors in the intelligence community, and that’s why it’s a problem,” he said.

‘I told the truth’
Hoekstra spoke after the CIA’s acting general counsel, John Rizzo, testified behind closed doors for nearly four hours as the first witness in what committee officials have said will be a long investigation.

“I told the truth,” Rizzo said in a brief appearance before reporters.

The man at the center of the controversy, Jose Rodriguez, had been scheduled to appear Wednesday, but his lawyer’s demand for immunity delayed his testimony. Rodriguez was the head of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, the CIA branch that oversees spying operations and interrogations. He gave the order to destroy the tapes in November 2005.

The tapes, made in 2002, showed the harsh interrogation by CIA officers of two alleged al-Qaida terrorists, both of whom are known to have undergone waterboarding, which gives the subject the sensation of drowning.

The White House approved waterboarding and other “enhanced” techniques in 2002 for prisoners deemed resistant to conventional interrogation. The CIA is known to have waterboarded three prisoners and has not used the technique since 2003. CIA Director Michael Hayden prohibited it in 2006.

‘Very close to a direct order’
A congressional official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation said the document trail the committee is following strongly suggests Rodriguez knew destruction would be against the advice and wishes of his superiors.

“If you look at the documents, you get very close to a direct order (not to destroy the tapes) without it being, ‘Jose, you’re not going to do this,'” the official said.

The official said the committee will try to determine whether any CIA officials suggested “with a wink and a nod” that the tapes should be destroyed.

Rizzo told the committee that CIA lawyers had concluded destroying the tapes would be legal but that he advised against it, the official said. Then-CIA Director Porter Goss also recommended against the tapes’ destruction, said the official, information confirmed by several former intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of an ongoing Justice Department criminal investigation into the matter.

Rizzo, who has been acting general counsel since 2004, participated in at least two key meetings about the tapes.

After Goss took over as CIA director in 2004, Rizzo asked him whether he opposed destroying the videotapes. He said he did, according to one of the former intelligence officials. Goss’ objection was primarily informed by his political career; he thought destroying the tapes would look suspicious, the official said.

Rizzo was also at a meeting in early November 2005 when Rodriguez told Goss that the tapes had been destroyed.

At the meeting it was decided that Rizzo would inform White House counsel Harriet Miers, Rodriguez would tell the leaders of the intelligence committees on Capitol Hill, and Goss would inform the director of national intelligence, according to former intelligence officials.

Committee leaders didn’t know
But intelligence committee leaders said they were not informed until more than a year later. Few committee members even knew the tapes had existed until CIA Director Michael Hayden announced their destruction to CIA employees in an e-mail on Dec. 6.

“I don’t have any indication Mr. Rodriguez has talked to Congress about the tapes,” committee chairman Sylvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said following Wednesday’s hearing.

Reyes said the CIA has given the committee access to more than 300 pages of documents, but that there are many more to review.

Hoekstra said Rodriguez must testify to the committee to determine on whose authority the tapes were destroyed, and he said the panel will consult with the Justice Department on whether granting Rodriguez immunity would undermine its own investigation.

“If there appears to be any criminal activity taking place, the last thing we would want to do is get in the way of a successful prosecution,” Hoekstra said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689742/

The Future of Big Brother

1

Homeland Security is bankrolling futuristic profiling technology to nab terrorists before they strike.

Robert L. Mitchell

As soon as you walk into the airport, the machines are watching. Are you a tourist — or a terrorist posing as one?

As you answer a few questions at the security checkpoint, the systems begin sizing you up. An array of sensors — video, audio, laser, infrared — feeds a stream of real-time data about you to a computer that uses specially developed algorithms to spot suspicious people.

The system interprets your gestures and facial expressions, analyzes your voice and virtually probes your body to determine your temperature, heart rate, respiration rate and other physiological characteristics — all in an effort to determine whether you are trying to deceive.

Fail the test, and you’ll be pulled aside for a more aggressive interrogation and searches.

That scenario may sound like science fiction, but the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is deadly serous about making it a reality.

Interest in the use of what some researchers call behavioral profiling (the DHS prefers the term “assessing culturally neutral behaviors”) for deception detection intensified last July, when the department’s human factors division asked researchers to develop technologies to support Project Hostile Intent, an initiative to build systems that automatically identify and analyze behavioral and physiological cues associated with deception.

That project is part of a broader initiative called the Future Attribute Screening Technologies Mobile Module, which seeks to create self-contained, automated screening systems that are portable and relatively easy to implement.

The DHS has aggressive plans for the technology. The schedule calls for an initial demonstration for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) early this year, followed by test deployments in 2010. By 2012, if all goes well, the agency hopes to begin deploying automated test systems at airports, border checkpoints and other points of entry.

If successful, the technology could also be used in private-sector areas such as building-access control and job-candidate screening. Critics, however, say that the system will take much longer to develop than the department is predicting — and that it might never work at all.

In the Details

“It’s a good idea fraught with difficulties,” says Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at security consultancy BT Counterpane in Santa Clara, Calif.

Schneier says that focusing on suspicious people is a better idea than trying to detect suspicious objects. The metal-detecting magnetometers that airport screeners have relied on for more than 30 years are easily defeated, he says. But he thinks the technology needed for Project Hostile Intent to succeed is still at least 15 years out. “We can’t even do facial recognition,” he says. “Don’t hold your breath.”

But Sharla Rausch, director of the DHS’s human factors division, says the agency is already seeing positive results. In a controlled lab setting, she says, accuracy rates are in the range of 78 to 81%. The tests are still producing too many false positives, however. “In an operational setting, we need to be at a higher level than that,” Rausch says, and she’s confident that results will improve. At this point, though, it’s still unclear how well the systems will work in real-world settings.

Measuring Hostile Intent

Current research focuses on three key areas. The first is recognition of gestures and so-called “microfacial expressions” — a poker player might call them “tells” — that flash across a person’s face in about one third of a second. Some researchers say micro expressions can betray a person when he is trying to deceive.

The second area is analysis of variations in speech, such as pitch and loudness, for indicators of untruthfulness.

The third is measurement of physiological characteristics such as blood pressure, pulse, skin moisture and respiration that have been associated with polygraphs, or lie detectors.

By combining the results for all of these modalities, the DHS hopes to improve the overall predictive accuracy rate beyond what the polygraph — or any other means of testing an individual indicator — can deliver.

That’s not a very high bar. The validity of polygraphs has long been questioned by scientists, and despite decades of research and refinements, the results of lie-detector tests remain inadmissible in court. While the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (DACA; formerly the Polygraph Institute) puts median accuracy percentage for polygraphs in the mid-80s when properly administered, others say that number is closer to 50% in the real world and that the results depend heavily on the skills of the examiner.

Schneier goes even further. He says lie detectors rely on “fake technology” that works only in the movies. They remain on the scene, he says, because people want them to work.

The presumption that combining the predictive results from the three areas being studied will increase predictive accuracy is also untested. “We can’t find any indicators that this stuff is being combined [in current research]. The feeling is that [the DHS is] doing some groundbreaking stuff here,” says Rausch.

Hearing Lies

Many researchers are already tackling different pieces of the Hostile Intent puzzle. Julia Hirschberg, a computer science professor at Columbia University, is investigating how deception can be detected by picking up on speech characteristics that vary when someone is lying. The research, funded by a DHS grant, has identified 250 “acoustic, intonational and lexical features” that may indicate when a subject is lying.

So far, the best accuracy rate is 67%. She admits that’s “not great,” but it’s better than human observation alone, she claims.

The results may not apply to real world situations, however. Her work is based on lab experiments in which the subject presses a pedal when he is lying, and machine-learning systems process the results. “It’s not ideal,” she acknowledges. Moreover, the accuracy rate in predicting deception varies with cultural background as well as personality type. Hirschberg says she has identified four or five personality types that could affect how the results should be interpreted.

Adjusting for personality type might improve accuracy in cases where the type can be identified, but it’s doubtful that interviewers in an airport or border setting will have the insight necessary to do so.

Dimitris Metaxas, a professor of computer science in biomedical engineering at Rutgers University, has received funding from both the DHS and the DACA to use technology to track and interpret the meaning of microexpressions and gestures. “I’m trying to find the expressions and body movements that are not normal and could be linked to deception,” he says.

Metaxas says his research focuses on movements of the eyebrows and mouth as well as various head and shoulder gestures, but he wouldn’t be more specific. That’s because the exact indicators that he is interested in remain secret.

Although the DHS’s Rausch believes that micro expressions are involuntary, she doesn’t want people to know exactly what expressions the agency will be measuring — just in case.

“Every system can be broken,” Metaxas points out.

Objections and Obstacles

Skeptics say that no tech-based system will work.

The Ekman Group has trained TSA staffers on techniques to help them recognize and interpret microexpressions. The consultancy was founded by Paul Ekman, a pioneer in research linking microexpressions to deception. At the TSA, trained officers use the techniques as part of the organization’s Screening Passengers Through Observation Techniques program.

John Yuille, the Ekman Group’s director, doesn’t think the technique can be automated. The discipline is a “social science,” he says, and microexpressions merely represent “clues to truthfulness” that require human interpretation. “Our methodology is not amenable to technological intervention,” Yuille says.

Metaxas says that what’s holding him back at this point isn’t technology. “The basic technology to track the face, I’ve solved that problem,” he says, claiming an accuracy rate of 70 to 80% with cameras positioned at distances up to nine feet from the subject.

The challenge is optimizing the algorithms that relate those expressions to deception. To do that, he needs more data from psychologists. The theories linking microexpressions to deception are largely based on academic research. Although it has been tested in lab settings, it has not been scientifically proved in large-scale, real-world studies.

Rules must also be applied in the correct context. For example, a measurement of something like a microexpression must be associated with what was being said at the time, and the meaning of what was said must be correctly interpreted, says Hirschberg. The system must also be able to determine whether there is a mismatch between a given expression or gesture and what was said.

“That is very difficult [for a computer] to do,” she says, so in the lab, the matching work has been done manually.

In an effort to refine the algorithms, Metaxas has collaborated with Judee Burgoon, a professor of communication, family studies and human development at the University of Arizona. She says the lack of rigorous research validating the use of microexpressions as indicators of deception “gives everyone pause.” It’s not known whether microexpressions correspond with underlying emotions or whether those emotional states correspond to deception, she says.

Although it is believed that microexpressions are involuntary, it’s unclear whether subjects can “game the system,” as they have done with polygraphs. And many researchers in the field believe that indicators of deception are culturally dependent. That means analysis that doesn’t take cultural background into account could amount to ethnic, rather than behavioral, profiling. That’s ironic, since using machines to analyze the data is supposed to help eliminate biases associated with human decision-making.

In fact, the development of “culturally neutral” indicators is a stated goal of Project Hostile Intent. Rausch believes that researchers can identify microexpressions and other indicators that are universal or “cross-cultural.” That won’t happen in time for the initial test systems. But by 2011, says Rausch, the DHS should have test systems that use only culturally neutral indicators.

For Metaxas, the challenge now is to prove that the fundamental assumptions linking microexpressions to deception are correct. “What I hope I can do is validate and verify the psychology,” he says.

To do that he needs to conduct further tests involving interviews in real-world situations. But that won’t be easy. Privacy and security concerns have prevented Metaxas and other researchers from monitoring interrogations or conducting interviews in real-world settings such as airports or immigration points. Even the DHS faces obstacles in testing the technology in the field, Rausch acknowledges. And in real-world testing, says Hirshberg, there’s another problem: “You don’t really know when the person’s lying.”

With an aggressive timeline for deployment, Rausch is well aware of the challenges, and she cautions that the technology is far from complete. “We’re very much in a basic research stage,” she says.

Beyond Hostile Intent

Project Hostile Intent is just one of the programs that the DHS’s human factors division is pursuing. Another is violent-intent modeling. By applying social behavior theory to terrorism, the division is hoping to assist analysts that must manually sift through thousands for publications, news feeds and other data.

Researchers are developing indicators for potential violent behavior, which are used in computerized architectural frameworks that help analysts extract relevant data as they review documents. “Computers help in running the models. As you put the data together, you get likelihood coefficients for violent behavior. Our goal is to get that automated for the analysts,” says Rausch.

The “information-extraction tools” will assist analysts by identifying important information as they’re reading it, but they won’t replace analysts. “We’re doing it in a way that’s consistent with the way analysts think,” Rausch says.

Another developing area is biometrics. Research is focused on developing mobile readers that can perform facial, fingerprint and iris recognition. “As we push out in years, we’ll get into remote biometric [sensors],” as well as more refined, “10-print” fingerprint recognition, says Rausch.

The systems will tap into “huge databases for identification and verification,” she says.

Other TSA Technologies

The TSA may eventually use the behavior profiling systems that come from Project Hostile Intent, but that’s just one part of the agency’s transportation security strategy. The layered approach includes “a technology factor, a human factor and shared intelligence,” a spokesperson says.

The TSA’s passenger screening technology hasn’t changed since the magnetometer, a metal detector, was introduced in 1973, but it’s working on other technologies including a so-called advanced technology X-ray. This high-resolution X-ray system provides clearer images of the contents of carry-on baggage and offers multiple viewing angles. The machines are already widely used in Europe. The TSA has purchased 250 of them and plans to have a total of 500 installed by the end of 2008.

That’s a fraction of the 751 checkpoints and 2,000 lanes in service, but 500 machines is enough to cover 75% of the security lanes at the nation’s largest airports, which represent 45% of all travelers.

Another technology is the puffer machine. The subject walks into this phone booth-like device, and translucent bifold doors close around him. The machine then blasts the subject with a burst of compressed air and analyzes it for trace amounts of explosives. The puffer is already in testing in some airports but hasn’t worked well. “They’re OK, but I think we’ll go more in the direction of whole-body imaging,” says a spokesperson.

In whole body imaging, a machine bombards the subject with radio-frequency energy as he walks through and creates a very accurate image of his body — perhaps too accurate — in order to detect any foreign objects. “There’s a whole lot of privacy issues with this,” a spokesperson acknowledges.

The TSA is testing two technologies: One, called back scatter, uses a privacy algorithm that changes the image to a “chalk outline” of the body while the other, called millimeter wave, creates what looks like a negative.

To address privacy concerns, facial images are blurred, and images aren’t saved. In addition, the screener who sees the passenger never sees the images.

The machines are already in use in Phoenix, where passengers can choose a pat-down instead, and will show up at Los Angeles International Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport soon. “You’ll see more whole-body imaging [in 2008], a spokesperson says.

Caveats and Ethical Issues

Even if Project Hostile Intent ultimately succeeds, it will not be a panacea for preventing terrorism, says Schneier. The risk can be reduced, but not eliminated, he says. “If we had perfect security in airports, terrorists would go bomb shopping malls,” he says. “You’ll never be secure by defending targets.”

Assuming that the system gets off the ground, Project Hostile Intent also faces challenges from privacy advocates.

Although the system would use remote sensors that are physically “noninvasive,” and there are no plans to store the information, the amount of personal data that would be gathered concerns privacy advocates — as does the possibility of false positives.

“We are not going to catch any terrorists, but a lot of innocent people, especially racial and ethnic minorities, are going to be trapped in a web of suspicion,” says Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington.

But Steinhardt isn’t really worried. He says Project Hostile Intent is just the latest in a long string of expensive and failed initiatives at the DHS and the TSA. “I’ve done hundreds of interviews about these [airline-passenger screening] schemes,” he says. “They never work.” Steinhardt adds that “hundreds of billions” of dollars have been wasted on such initiatives since 9/11. “Show me it works before [we] debate the civil liberties consequences,” he says.

The perfect lie detector may be waiting in the wings. Read all about it.

US Government to access any email or web search

0

US drafting plan to allow government access to any email or Web search

Rawstory

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a “walk in the park,” according to an interview published in the New Yorker‘s print edition today.

Debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “will be a walk in the park compared to this,” McConnell said. “this is going to be a goat rope on the Hill. My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”

The article, which profiles the 65-year-old former admiral appointed by President George W. Bush in January 2007 to oversee all of America’s intelligence agencies, was not published on the New Yorker‘s Web site.

McConnell is developing a Cyber-Security Policy, still in the draft stage, which will closely police Internet activity.

“Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the autority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search,” author Lawrence Wright pens.

“Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said,” Wright adds. “Giorgio warned me, ‘We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'”

A zero-sum game is one in which gains by one side come at the expense of the other. In other words — McConnell’s aide believes greater security can only come at privacy’s expense.

McConnell has been an advocate for computer-network defense, which has previously not been the province of any intelligence agency.

According to a 2007 conversation in the Oval Office, McConnell told President Bush, “If the 9/11 perpetrators had focused on a single US bank through cyber-attack and it had been successful, it would have an order of magnitude greater impact on the US economy.”

Bush turned to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, asking him if it was true; Paulson said that it was. Bush then asked to McConnell to come up with a network security strategy.

“One proposal of McConnell’s Cyber-Security Policy, which is still in the draft stage, is to reduce the access points between government computers and the Internet from two thousand to fifty,” Wright notes. “He claimed that cyber-theft account for as much as a hundred billion dollars in annual losses to the American economy. ‘The real problem is the perpetrator who doesn’t care about stealing–he just wants to destroy.'”

The infrastructure to tap into Americans’ email and web search history may already be in place.

In November, a former technician at AT&T alleged that the telecom forwarded virtually all of its Internet traffic into a “secret room” to facilitate government spying.

Whistleblower Mark Klein said that a copy of all Internet traffic passing over AT&T lines was copied into a locked room at the company’s San Francisco office — to which only employees with National Security Agency clearance had access — via a cable splitting device.

“My job was to connect circuits into the splitter device which was hard-wired to the secret room,” Klein. said “And effectively, the splitter copied the entire data stream of those Internet cables into the secret room — and we’re talking about phone conversations, email web browsing, everything that goes across the Internet.”

“As a technician, I had the engineering wiring documents, which told me how the splitter was wired to the secret room,” Klein continued. “And so I know that whatever went across those cables was copied and the entire data stream was copied.”

According to Klein, that information included Internet activity about Americans.

“We’re talking about domestic traffic as well as international traffic,” Klein said. Previous Bush administration claims that only international communications were being intercepted aren’t accurate, he added.

“I know the physical equipment, and I know that statement is not true,” he added. “It involves millions of communications, a lot of it domestic communications that they’re copying wholesale.”

Gitmo Torture Appeal Rejected

0

US appellate court rejects British victims’ suit for Guantánamo torture damages

By John Burton

On January 11, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a case brought by four British citizens seeking money damages to compensate them for having been tortured by the US government. The four individuals were held for more than two years at the United States Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

With an outlandish display of convoluted and specious logic, the three-judge panel issued a precedent establishing that non-US citizens outside US national borders cannot seek any redress in any US court for torture or other deprivations of constitutional and statutory rights inflicted by US government officials.

Ironically, the decision was issued on the sixth anniversary of the Guantánamo Bay’s opening, which was marked by protests and demonstrations around the world. About 200 demonstrators, many wearing orange jumpsuits, marched from the US Capitol to the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. Others demonstrations took place in London, Sydney, Rome, Athens and Madrid. Terry Hicks, the father of freed Australian Guantánamo prisoner David Hicks, participated in a protest in the Australian city of Adelaide.

Incarcerating as many as 800 prisoners at its peak, the Guantánamo prison population today is reportedly around 275.

To reach its politically pre-determined result–ratifying the Bush administration’s creation of a legal “black hole” beyond both domestic and international law–the three-judge panel concluded that Guantánamo Bay prisoners: (1) cannot sue under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) or the Geneva Conventions because their torturers acted within the scope of their federal employment; (2) have no rights under the US Constitution because they are neither US citizens nor within US territorial jurisdiction; and (3) are not “persons” protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal Al-Harith were captured in Afghanistan by General Rashid Dostum, a Northern Alliance warlord, on November 28, 2001. They were turned over to the US military and held in Guantánamo until their release in March 2004. (See “Britain: Freed Guantánamo Bay detainees detail beatings and abuse”)

The following October, attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York City filed a complaint for damages in federal district court, alleging that then secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with several high ranking military officers, expressly approved and promulgated policies to abuse and torture Guantánamo Bay prisoners.

The CCR complaint sets out in detail the “cruel, inhuman and degrading” conditions to which the plaintiffs were subjected. They were placed in “wire cages of about 2 meters by 2 meters” exposed to the elements, including scorching sunlight, and often were removed only once a week for a two-minute shower and again once a week for “five minutes recreation while their hands remained chained.”

Throughout their ordeal, the prisoners were repeatedly “beaten, shackled in painful stress positions, threatened by dogs, subjected to extreme temperatures and deprived of adequate sleep, food, sanitation, medical care and communication,” while being subjected to repeated, lengthy and coercive interrogations.

In addition to such physical and mental abuse, the plaintiffs allege “they were harassed while practicing their religion, including forced shaving of their beards, banning or interrupting their prayers, denying them copies of the Koran and prayer mats and throwing a copy of the Koran in a toilet bucket.”

The government and military defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reviewing court must accept all the factual allegations of the complaint as true and deny the motion to dismiss unless established law absolutely precludes recovery under any reasonable interpretation of the facts. In March 2005 the trial judge dismissed parts of the case, but allowed the claim that the defendants interfered with the prisoners’ religious freedom to go forward. Both sides appealed. Last Friday’s decision followed almost three years later.

Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson–appointed by George H.W. Bush to fill the seat vacated by Kenneth W. Starr in 1990–issued a 43-page opinion disposing of each claim on the most reactionary grounds possible.

Henderson was joined by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, also appointed by the first president Bush. Randolph has previously authored two noxious decisions upholding the Bush administration’s assault on democratic rights. In Al Odah v. United States, he ruled that Guantánamo prisoners have no habeas corpus rights (See “US appeals court upholds denial of habeas corpus rights to Guantánamo detainees”), and in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld he ruled that Guantánamo prisoners can be tried before military commissions that do not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (See “US court upholds military trials for Guantánamo prisoners”).

The Supreme Court later reversed both of these earlier decisions. Because of subsequent Congressional actions, however, the issues presented by them remain unresolved.

Henderson wrote that the four plaintiffs could not sue the defendants under the Alien Tort Statute or the Geneva Conventions because each defendant was acting “within the scope of his employment.”

Henderson made the extraordinary declaration, “Torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants.” On this basis, she rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the immunity for federal employees acting within the scope of employment should not apply because the defendants torture policy “was never authorized,” was “seriously criminal,” “has long [been] condemned” by the United States and was a “substantial departure from the government’s ‘normal method’ of detaining and interrogating persons of interest.”

Henderson then dismissed the constitutional claims based on denial of due process and cruel and unusual punishment by claiming, “Guantánamo detainees lack constitutional rights because they are aliens without property or presence in the United States.”

The argument is absurd as the US government exercises complete jurisdiction over the military base at Guantánamo, which it occupies pursuant to a perpetual $1 lease extracted from the Cuban government in 1903. The opinion also defies recent Supreme Court precedent directly on point. Even if this were not the case, the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution constitutes a restriction on US governmental power, not a grant of rights or special privileges limited to US citizens or people within the national borders.

The appellate court’s position means that under the Constitution anyone in the executive branch of the US government can go anywhere outside the strict territorial boundaries of the United States itself, capture anyone not a US citizen, and then subject him or her to extreme physical, mental and emotional abuse without any concern for liability in any US court arising from violations of US or international law.

Finally, the appellate court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants “inhibited and constrained religiously motivated conduct central to Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs,” when they “imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ abilities to exercise or express their religious beliefs” and “regularly and systematically engaged in practices specifically aimed at disrupting Plaintiffs’ religious practices.”

In the most patently offensive part of her opinion, Henderson wrote that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which provides that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,” cannot be used by the British plaintiffs tortured at Guantánamo Bay because “persons”–as used in the statute–do not include “aliens … located outside sovereign United States territory.”

This argument was too much for the third member of the panel, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a right-wing judge appointed by George W. Bush, who enjoys a well-deserved reputation as a judicial loose cannon. Brown attacked the majority’s reasoning, but not its result. “There is little mystery that a ‘person’ is an individual human being … as distinguished from an animal or thing,” Rogers wrote, adding that the opinion “leaves us with the unfortunate and quite dubious distinction of being the only court to declare those held at Guantánamo are not ‘person[s].’ This is a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level US government officials treated them as less than human.”

Eric Lewis, a law partner in Washington, DC’s Baach Robinson & Lewis, who argued the appeal for the plaintiffs, called it “an awful day for the rule of law and common decency when a court finds that torture is all in a day’s work for the Secretary of Defense and senior generals…. It is an awful day for our tradition of respect for religious freedom and for our moral standing in the world when a court finds that these detainees are not ‘persons’ whose rights to observe their religion with dignity and without harassment are worthy of protection.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights announced that it will be filing a petition for review in the Supreme Court.

60 minutes after drinking soda

2

Soda is not considered a health drink as it can make individuals more prone to diseases like obesity, diabetes, cancer and DNA damage.

Each can of soda contains about 10 teaspoons of sugar, 30 to 55 milligrams of caffeine, and is loaded with artificial food colors and sulphites. It is also the largest source of dangerous high-fructose modified corn syrup.

The following shows what happens in the body after drinking a can of soda:

Within the first 10 minutes, 10 teaspoons of sugar hit the system. This is 100 percent of the recommended daily sugar intake. The only reason the overwhelming sweetness does not result in vomiting is because phosphoric acid cuts the flavor.

After 20 minutes, the blood sugar spikes, and the liver responds to the resulting insulin burst by turning massive amounts of sugar into fat. This can later lead to high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, weight gain, premature aging and many more negative side effects.

Within 40 minutes, caffeine absorption is complete; the pupils dilate, the blood pressure rises, and the liver releases more sugar into the bloodstream.

After 45 minutes, dopamine production increases. This stimulates the brain’s pleasure centers, similar to what happens following heroin use.

After 60 minutes, sugar crash begins.

In the long run the phosphoric acid in soda interferes with the body’s ability to use calcium, leading to osteoporosis or softening of the teeth and bones. It can also neutralize the hydrochloric acid in the stomach and cause indigestion.

PKH/HGH

US spy chief puts security over privacy

0

Privacy will have to take a ‘back seat in the name of security’, warns Mike McConnell

By Iain Thomson

The Director of National Intelligence, who oversees all 16 US intelligence agencies, has revealed the extent to which domestic and international internet traffic is being monitored.

Mike McConnell, who advises President Bush directly on security issues, said in an article in the New Yorker that privacy will have to take a back seat in the name of security.

McConnell gave details of a proposed cyber-security policy which will closely police internet activity.

Lawrence Wright, the article’s author, claimed that Ed Giorgio, a former chief code breaker at the National Security Agency who is working with McConnell on the plan, had told him that this would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any email, file transfer or web search.

Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation,” said Wright. “Giorgio warned me that ‘privacy and security are a zero-sum game’.”

McConnell, who keeps a clock on his desk counting down the seconds of the Bush presidency, admitted that the plans would be a tough sell to the legislature but insisted that they are necessary.

“My prediction is that we are going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens,” he told Wright.

Wright suggested that this kind of monitoring is already going on. He spoke to an AT& T employee, Mark Klein, who claimed that he installed data switching systems in the company’s exchange that copied all internet traffic to the National Security Agency.

“I know that whatever went across those cables was copied and the entire data stream was copied,” said Klein. “We are talking about domestic as well as international traffic.”

He added that previous claims by the Bush administration that only international communications were being intercepted are not accurate.

“I know the physical equipment, and I know that statement is not true,” said Klein. “It involves millions of communications, a lot of it domestic communications that they are copying wholesale.”

No Immunity, No Testimony for CIA Official

0

By Scott Shane    Washington – Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., the former Central Intelligence Agency official who ordered the destruction of interrogation videotapes in 2005, will not be required to appear on Wednesday at a closed Congressional hearing on the matter but may be called to testify later, an official briefed on the inquiry said Monday.

    Mr. Rodriguez, who led the agency’s clandestine service in 2005 and recently retired, has demanded immunity before he will agree to testify before the House Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into the destruction of the videotapes, which recorded harsh interrogations of two suspected Qaeda figures.

    The committee has made no decision on a possible grant of immunity, so it postponed Mr. Rodriguez’s appearance. He remains under subpoena, however, and the committee may call him later.

    The only C.I.A. witness currently scheduled to appear Wednesday at the closed hearing is John A. Rizzo, the agency’s acting general counsel, who held that job when the tapes were destroyed.

    Committee members want to ask Mr. Rizzo what guidance lawyers inside and outside the agency gave on the possible destruction of the tapes. They also want to question him about why the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were not officially informed of the destruction when it happened, and whether agency officials deliberately concealed the existence of the tapes from the Sept. 11 Commission, as the commission’s leaders have said.

    Mr. Rodriguez has told colleagues he consulted two agency lawyers, who told him that he had the authority to destroy the tapes and that it would not be illegal.

Station Chief Made Appeal To Destroy CIA Tapes

0

 By Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus

In late 2005, the retiring CIA station chief in Bangkok sent a classified cable to his superiors in Langley asking if he could destroy videotapes recorded at a secret CIA prison in Thailand that in part portrayed intelligence officers using simulated drowning to extract information from suspected al-Qaeda members.

The tapes had been sitting in the station chief’s safe, in the U.S. Embassy compound, for nearly three years. Although those involved in the interrogations had pushed for the tapes’ destruction in those years and a secret debate about it had twice reached the White House, CIA officials had not acted on those requests. This time was different.

The CIA had a new director and an acting general counsel, neither of whom sought to block the destruction of the tapes, according to agency officials. The station chief was insistent because he was retiring and wanted to resolve the matter before he left, the officials said. And in November 2005, a published report that detailed a secret CIA prison system provoked an international outcry.

Those three circumstances pushed the CIA’s then-director of clandestine operations, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., to act against the earlier advice of at least five senior CIA and White House officials, who had counseled the agency since 2003 that the tapes should be preserved. Rodriguez consulted CIA lawyers and officials, who told him that he had the legal right to order the destruction. In his view, he received their implicit support to do so, according to his attorney, Robert S. Bennett.

In a classified response to the station chief, Rodriguez ordered the tapes’ destruction, CIA officials say. The Justice Department and the House intelligence committee are now investigating whether that deed constituted a violation of law or an obstruction of justice. John A. Rizzo, the CIA’s acting general counsel, is scheduled to discuss the matter in a closed House intelligence committee hearing scheduled for today.

According to interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.S. officials familiar with the debate, the taping was conducted from August to December 2002 to demonstrate that interrogators were following the detailed rules set by lawyers and medical experts in Washington, and were not causing a detainee’s death.

The principal motive for the tapes’ destruction was the clandestine operations division’s worry that the tapes’ fate could be snatched out of their hands, the officials said. They feared that the agency could be publicly shamed and that those involved in waterboarding and other extreme interrogation techniques would be hauled before a grand jury or a congressional inquiry — a circumstance now partly unfolding anyway.

“The professionals said that we must destroy the tapes because they didn’t want to see the pictures all over television, and they knew they eventually would leak,” said a former agency official who took part in the discussions before the tapes were pulverized. The presence of the tapes in Bangkok and the CIA’s communications with the station chief there were described by current and former officials.

Congressional investigators have turned up no evidence that anyone in the Bush administration openly advocated the tapes’ destruction, according to officials familiar with a set of classified documents forwarded to Capitol Hill. “It was an agency decision — you can take it to the bank,” CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview on Friday. “Other speculations that it may have been made in other compounds, in other parts of the capital region, are simply wrong.”

Many of those involved recalled conversations in which senior CIA and White House officials advised against destroying the tapes, but without expressly prohibiting it, leaving an odd vacuum of specific instructions on a such a politically sensitive matter. They said that Rodriguez then interpreted this silence — the absence of a decision to order the tapes’ preservation — as a tacit approval of their destruction.

“Jose could not get any specific direction out of his leadership” in 2005, one senior official said. Word of the resulting destruction, one former official said, was greeted by widespread relief among clandestine officers, and Rodriguez was neither penalized nor reprimanded, publicly or privately, by then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss, according to two officials briefed on exchanges between the two men.

“Frankly, there were more important issues that needed to be focused on, such as trying to preserve a critical [interrogation] program and salvage relationships that had been damaged because of the leaks” about the existence of the secret prisons, said a former agency official familiar with Goss’s position at the time.

Rodriguez, whom the CIA honored with a medal in August for “Extraordinary Fidelity and Essential Service,” declined requests for an interview. But his attorney said he acted in the belief that he was carrying out the agency’s stated intention for nearly three years. “Since 2002, the CIA wanted to destroy the tapes to protect the identity and lives of its officers and for other counterintelligence reasons,” Bennett said in a written response to questions from The Washington Post.

“In 2003 the leadership of intelligence committees were told about the CIA’s intent to destroy the tapes. In 2005, CIA lawyers again advised the National Clandestine Service that they had the authority to destroy the tapes and it was legal to do so. It is unfortunate,” Bennett continued, “that under the pressure of a Congressional and criminal investigation, history is now being revised, and some people are running for cover.”

Recorded on the tapes was the coercive questioning of two senior al-Qaeda suspects: Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, known as Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who were captured by U.S. forces in 2002. They show Zubaida undergoing waterboarding, which involved strapping him to a board and pouring water over his nose and mouth, creating the sensation of imminent drowning. Nashiri later also underwent the same treatment.

Some CIA officials say the agency’s use of waterboarding helped extract information that led to the capture of other key al-Qaeda members and prevented attacks. But others, including former CIA, FBI and military officials, say the practice constitutes torture.

The destruction of the tapes was not the first occasion in which Rodriguez got in trouble for taking a provocative action to help a colleague. While serving as the CIA’s Latin America division chief in 1996, he appealed to local Dominican Republic authorities to prevent a childhood friend, and CIA contractor, who had been arrested in a drug investigation, from being beaten up, according to a former CIA official familiar with the episode.

Such an intervention was forbidden by CIA rules, and so Rodriguez was stripped of his management post and reprimanded in an inspector general’s report. But shortly after the reprimand, he was named station chief in Mexico City and, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, was promoted to deputy director of the fast-expanding counterterrorism center. He served under the center’s director then, J. Cofer Black, who had been his subordinate in the Latin America division.

When Black — who played a key role in setting up the secret prisons and instituting the interrogation policy — left the CIA in December 2002, Rodriguez took his place. Colleagues recall that even in the deputy’s slot, Rodriguez was aware of the videotaping of Zubaida, and that he later told several it was necessary so that experts, such as psychologists not present during interrogations, could view Zubaida’s physical reactions to questions.

By December 2002, the taping was no longer needed, according to three former intelligence officials. “Zubaida’s health was better, and he was providing information that we could check out,” one said.

An internal probe of the interrogations by the CIA’s inspector general began in early 2003 for reasons that have not been disclosed. In February of that year, then-CIA General Counsel Scott W. Muller told lawmakers that the agency planned to destroy the tapes after the completion of the investigation. That year, all waterboarding was halted; and at an undisclosed time, several of the inspector general’s deputies traveled to Bangkok to view the tapes, officials said.

In May 2004, CIA operatives became concerned when a Washington Post article disclosed that the CIA had conducted its interrogations under a new, looser Bush administration definition of what legally constituted torture, several former CIA officials said. The disclosure sparked an internal Justice Department review of that definition and led to a suspension of the CIA’s harsh interrogation program.

The tapes were discussed with White House lawyers twice, according to a senior U.S. official. The first occasion was a meeting convened by Muller and senior lawyers of the White House and the Justice Department specifically to discuss their fate. The other discussion was described by one participant as “fleeting,” when the existence of the tapes came up during a spring 2004 meeting to discuss the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, the official said.

Those known to have counseled against the tapes’ destruction include John B. Bellinger III, while serving as the National Security Council‘s top legal adviser; Harriet E. Miers, while serving as the top White House counsel; George J. Tenet, while serving as CIA director; Muller, while serving as the CIA’s general counsel; and John D. Negroponte, while serving as director of national intelligence.

Hayden, in an interview, said the advice expressed by administration lawyers was consistent. “To the degree this was discussed outside the agency, everyone counseled caution,” he said. But he said that, in 2005, it was “the agency’s view that there were no legal impediments” to the tapes’ destruction. There also was “genuine concern about agency people being identified,” were the tapes ever to be made public.

Hayden, who became CIA director last year, acknowledged that the questions raised about the tapes’ destruction, then and now, are legitimate. “One can ask if it was a good idea, or if there was a better way to do it,” he said. “We are very happy to let the facts take us where they will.”

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Real ID: From “No Fly” to “No Drive” Lists?

0

Kurt Nimmo
Truth News


ABC breaks the ice for us: in the future, and not too far into it, the process of getting and renewing a driver’s license will become more difficult, stressful, and fraught with all manner of unnecessary nonsense supposedly designed to protect us from terrorists, or rather CIA patsies paraded about to frighten us into submission, and as well prevent illegals from taking to the roads, never mind Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and West Virginia allow illegals to hold a license, thus demonstrating the above is little more than a threadbare excuse.

Of course, when the rubber meets the road, we discern the real reason – a national ID, complete with RFID and possibly biometrics, is all about easing us into the control grid.

According to apparatchik Michael Chertoff and the commissariat of Homeland Security, the whole affair is a matter of national security. “We are now over six years from 9/11,” Chertoff impatiently declared, “we live every day with the problems of false identification. Simply kicking this problem down the road year after year after year for further discussion, further debate and analysis is a time-tested Washington way of smothering any proposal with process.”

In other words, never mind that most people oppose Real ID and civil libertarians warn of vexing abuse, Chertoff and the neocons are itching to get us all in lumbering databases, the next step in a plan that will ultimately result in the chipping of the population at large.

“I think the time has come to bite the bullet,” Chertoff continued, “and get the kind of secure identification I am convinced the American public wants to have,” or rather the government tells them they must have, as most people hate the idea and eighteen states have passed legislation rejecting the law and Congress has refused to put any money into implementing it.

But never mind. It is a win-win situation for AOL, Microsoft, Verizon and Yahoo, all who stand to clean up if Chertoff manages to force his card on Americans at large. “The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) sent a letter to Congress this week begging for more federal funding for Real ID,” Privacy Digest noted last October. In addition to the above corporate culprits, we can add Digimarc and Northrop Grumman, “companies that specialize in creating high-tech ID cards, as well as Choicepoint and LexisNexis, data brokers that make their money selling personal information about you to advertisers and the government. These companies stand to make millions in contracts from states who are struggling with a federal mandate to overhaul their licensing systems and share more data by the May 2008 deadline,” a date right around the corner, thus explaining Chertoff’s impatience.

“Real ID is so unpopular because in addition to being a $23 billion unfunded mandate, it will build a vast national database of personal information, expose us to a greater risk of identity theft, and move us ever closer to a total surveillance society.’

It may also be a way to keep “terrorists” off the roadways – not the Muslim cave dwelling brand of terrorist, mind you, but the kind that exercises his or her right to petition the government under that rusty old anachronism, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

As we know, thousands of Americans are on the Federal Aviation Administration’s No-Fly List and the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center has compiled a terrorist watch list of over 700,000 people. Moreover, as Dave Lindorff writes, the government is in the business of passing this information out to private companies. “The Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI made its list of people with even remote links to terrorism – having associated, perhaps inadvertently, with a terror suspect, for example – available to a wide range of private companies, from banks and rental-car companies to casinos.”

And who exactly are these primary terrorists, the ones you don’t want to associate with, that is if you ever want to fly again? They are “law-abiding Americans” who were detained and questioned – we used to call this harassment – “based on their political viewpoints,” according to Nancy Chang, a senior litigation attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “I think what they are doing is harassing people who are opposing the war and publicly speaking out against administration policy,” John Dear, a Jesuit priest and member of the Catholic peace group Pax Christi, told Lindorff.

td>

Back in 2003, we learned that the FBI “collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and … advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads,” the New York Times reported. Of course, this is simply a continuation of the FBI’s COINTELPRO, initiated in the 1960s to “neutralize” the opposition – i.e., render activists not only politically impotent, but often wreck their lives as well.

In 2006, we discovered that COINTELPRO didn’t go away, as the official history would have it, but lives on to this day at the Pentagon. “An antiterrorist database used by the Defense Department in an effort to prevent attacks against military installations included intelligence tips about antiwar planning meetings held at churches, libraries, college campuses and other locations,” reported the New York Times. The database, known as Talon, “showed that the military used a variety of sources to collect intelligence leads on antiwar protests, including an agent in the Department of Homeland Security, Google searches on the Internet and e-mail messages forwarded by apparent informants with ties to protest groups.”

In short, the FBI and the Pentagon are still in the business of compiling lists and checking them twice, and many if not most of these people end up grounded, as noted above.

Now we have Chertoff and ABC telling us the same rules may soon apply to driving a car. As Chertoff told ABC, the Real ID is about preventing “terrorists” from driving – with illegal immigration tacked on as a selling point – and, if the behavior of the FBI and the Pentagon are any indicator, the real terrorists are not Muslim guys who were trained on U.S. military bases and had a fondness for cruising topless bars, but are antiwar activists and other troublemakers.

Soon enough, many of us — those who believe the Constitution says what it means – may be reduced to walking to work and the grocery store… that is until a Real ID card will be required to hold job or buy a loaf of bread.

Ron Paul and 9/11

Why Ron Paul is so popular

(And why the US media hates him)


http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/257.html

Ron Paul and 9/11

Ron Paul may not believe (or want to get into the details of) the US government’s complicity in 9/11, but he sure understands the FUNCTION of 9/11.

Could this be why the US news media does everything it can to marginalize and neutralize Ron Paul’s obvious appeal?

Bottom line: If you’re a candidate and you’re against the idea of America as an ever-expanding, military-based, resource-looting empire, you’re not going to get a shot.

If Clinton elected, Bill will have 3rd term

0

So Hillary won in New Hampshire. By the women vote, of course — Men for Obama over Clinton by 12 percent; women for Clinton over Obama by 13 percent. Clearly it’s a gender thing.The vote also introduced into American democracy kinship as another factor: The notion that lineage, either through blood or marriage, can be translated into “experience,” which qualifies as the right to rule.

“No third term!” was the rallying cry when FDR attempted to continue his possession of power. And so “no third term” became a part of constitutional law until Bill Clinton found a way to legally get around that law (namely, elect my wife and I will rule).

First the Kennedys, then the Bushes, now the Clintons. Tomorrow, Jeb Bush will be pitted against Chelsea Clinton, or perhaps another Kennedy, all on the grounds that they have “experience.” These are the ones whom the military will salute as “commanders in chief” after the civilian population is disarmed from self-protection.

My advice? Pay attention to the candidates who are least mentioned in newspapers or television. Therein lies our only hope for change. Ask yourselves what do they say, and why, and vote for that, rather than who won what or why.

Bob Doel

The year of living dangerously: Bush in crisis

0

This year probably won’t be any worse for George W. Bush than last year or the year before, but it’s likely to be a wild ride for the rest of us. The president faces the prospect of leaving office, assuming we’re fortunate enough to actually get shed of him, in the throes of a recession inspired by a combination of laissez-faire lending and corporate socialism and without having accomplished anything other than leaving the world a much messier place than he found it, with the dead bearing witness because the living avert their faces.

The United States is nearly $10 trillion dollars in debt, and racking up more every second. That’s thanks in large part to Bush’s tax giveaways and the extra trillion dollars in defense spending racked up by the Iraq invasion and occupation. Big financial interests are cutting tens of thousands of jobs even as they reward feckless leadership with hundreds of millions in severance pay and retirement benefits. (But don’t mention that on the campaign stump, lest you go the way of John Edwards and get formally shunned by the press, risking the campaign cash and muscle people such as Hilary Clinton enjoy from people such as Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack, the former Bush Ranger who now backs her).

Thanks to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other graduates of the Miss Manners school of political confrontation, we have absolutely no chance of ridding ourselves of Bush and Cheney by means of impeachment. The executive pair have created a generation of orphans and refugees in Iraq, they’ve wrecked our ground-bound military, they’ve institutionalized torture as an official tool of US foreign policy, they’ve gutted the Constitution while inaugurating an illegal surveillance state, they’ve transformed Afghanistan into a narco-trafficking state on steroids, they’ve set back the fragile cause of peace in Palestine by a decade or more, and they’ve transformed our image abroad from one of a generally well-meaning if sometimes inexcusably clumsy giant to that of a frankly malevolent fiend. And that’s just a partial list, and the worst is undoubtedly yet to come.

Because time is running out. Even by their own increasingly low standards, Bush and Cheney have accomplished little of what they set out to do either at home or abroad. Sure, oil company profits are way up, as are the defense-related profits of organizations with which the pair of smash and grab artists have long-standing ties–think Halliburton and the defense industry pirates at the Carlyle Group, Bush père’s gravy train, among others–but Iran is still standing, the Palestinians are not completely broken, the poor still vote, however difficult and meaningless the process may be, and America’s middle class still has a grip on too much money that should be in the hands of America’s wealthy.

Dick Cheney is still running on borrowed time, four heart attacks past his expiration date and with his agenda in shreds. Bush, who is not the moron many people like to think he is, may just be smart enough to know he’s not smart enough to pull a Dick Nixon and rehabilitate himself as an elder statesman after a departure from office that may not be as abrupt as Nixon’s but will certainly be as widely celebrated. Neither man is temperamentally inclined to go out with a whimper, Bush because of his destructive petulance and Cheney because of his late-life fanaticism. As January 20 of next year draws closer, the temptation to double down with some grand, manic gesture will become overwhelming.

And who’s to stop them? Administration officials announced during Bush’s trip to the Middle East that they’re in the process of negotiating a status of forces agreement with Iraq to replace the UN mandate authorizing the presence of “coalition” troops, committing future US administrations to levels of military support far beyond what even the temporizing Clinton and Obama project. Clinton’s response to the prospect was to urge Bush to consult Congress. It wasn’t intended as a laugh line.

In truth, that bit of handcuffing probably doesn’t matter. Both Obama and Clinton have said they would keep sufficient US troops in Iraq to protect American diplomatic personnel and contractors, and to conduct anti-terrorism operations; raise your hand if you think anything less than a major US troop presence will stave off the collapse of the current Iraqi government and keep the Green Zone from turning scarlet. If one of them becomes president, he or she will probably be grateful that Bush is making the decision for them.

But other things do matter. Impeachment may be off the table, but Bush made clear this past week that an attack on Iran isn’t when he told Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who is little more popular in Israel than Bush is here, that the National Intelligence Estimate downplaying Iran’s capacity and ambition for producing nuclear weapons doesn’t reflect his own views. And Olmert, in kind, told Israeli parliamentarians that “[a]ll options that prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capabilities are legitimate within the context of how to grapple with this matter.” With Bush’s departure from office marking the likely end of the current US policy toward Israel–absolutely anything goes, as opposed to the modest restraints a less nihilistic administration might try to impose–Olmert is as much a hostage to January 20, 2009, as Bush is. As we all are.

Add the impending nasty recession to the current mix, with Iraq about to erupt again, Afghanistan in deep, deep trouble, our man in Pakistan struggling to keep his job and his life while we threaten to do for his border regions what we’ve done for Iraq, and the recipe for a magnificent disaster, an even more catastrophic success than the ones Bush and Cheney have delivered us to date, is about complete.

What will Democrats do about this? Nothing. As senators, Obama and Clinton have been spectacularly ineffective, and they’re doing little on the campaign trail to address the worst failures (or the worst successes) of the administration. About the only chance for reining in Bush and Cheney is to make supporting them or ineffectually opposing them a matter of political suicide on both sides of the congressional aisle. But the big money from establishment Democrats continues to flow to people such as Al Wynn while progressive Democrats remain party pariahs, and Republicans have for the most part staked their futures on running to the right of rabid.

Barring an unprecedented explosion of conscience and courage, no one is going to stop the administration from taking us further through the looking glass. I haven’t made many predictions about what 2008 will bring, but the one thing I can say with complete assurance is that whenever you think Bush and Cheney have done their absolute worst, they’ll prove you wrong. This will be a bad, bad, nasty year.

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1808

Iran says Bush’s accusations “words without value”

0

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran denounced on Monday as “words without value” President George W. Bush’s remarks that the Islamic state was threatening security around the world by backing militants.

Speaking in Abu Dhabi on Sunday, Bush said Iran was the world’s top sponsor of terrorism and accused it of undermining peace by supporting the Hezbollah guerrilla group in Lebanon, Palestinian Islamist group Hamas and Shi’ite militants in Iraq.

“Bush should understand that the hatred towards his policies exists … it has real and logical roots,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini was quoted as saying by state radio.

“Bush’s remarks display his desperation and disappointment because of his failures in the region … He is trying to divert attention from his failed policies,” he said, adding Bush’s comments were “repeated words without value”.

Iran blames sectarian violence in Iraq on the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003 and has repeatedly called on the United States to withdraw its forces.

Tehran and Washington are at odds over Iran’s nuclear work, which the West fears is a cover to build nuclear weapons, and Washington is pushing for a third set of sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment work, as demand by the United Nations.

Tehran says it wants nuclear technology for civilian purposes.

(Writing by Parisa Hafezi, Editing by Dominic Evans)

Gates recommends additional troops for Afghanistan

0

By David Morgan

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended sending additional troops to Afghanistan to reinforce NATO forces but there is no final decision yet, defense officials said on Monday.

The Pentagon chief will consult with President George W. Bush soon on a proposal to send 3,200 Marines to the South Asian nation, where stability is threatened by a surge in violence over the past two years, officials said.

One senior official said a decision could be imminent.

Gates has forwarded his recommendation to the White House and officials said the defense secretary would not order a deployment without first speaking to Bush, who returns from the Middle East on Wednesday.

“A recommendation has been forwarded for discussion. But at this point, no decision has been made. We’re still waiting,” Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. Mark Wright told Reuters, declining to discuss further details.

The White House said Bush looked forward to hearing from Gates.

“President Bush is committed to helping the Afghan people deal with the Taliban and other extremists who continue to take innocent life and attempt to derail Afghanistan’s progress,” spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

A decision to send extra U.S. troops to Afghanistan could be seen as a reverse for NATO, whose member nations have been unable to respond to U.S. calls for additional forces.

Lawrence Korb, a former defense official now with the Center for American Progress, said the Bush administration mishandled NATO involvement by delaying its role in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“It’s a step in the right direction because we have not had enough troops in Afghanistan. But does it bode well for the alliance? No. The way this was handled has made it more difficult to get NATO to do what it needs to do,” Korb said.

Violence in Afghanistan has increased, with the fundamentalist Islamist Taliban fighting a guerrilla war in the south and east and carrying out suicide and car bombings across the country.

The United States has about 27,000 troops in Afghanistan — the most since leading the 2001 invasion. About half serve in a 40,000-strong NATO-led force, while the rest conduct missions ranging from counterterrorism to training Afghan troops.

For months, Gates pressed NATO allies to provide more troops for Afghanistan. But after meeting allies in Scotland last month, he signaled a shift away from pushing them to make politically difficult decisions to provide combat troops.

A senior Pentagon official said the United States was expected to proceed with the deployment of some 3,000 Marines to make up for the NATO shortfall.

“It is widely anticipated that the secretary will soon approve a deployment of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan to fulfill unmet NATO requirements,” said a second senior defense official.

CNN reported on Monday that 3,200 Marines had been notified about an impending deployment to Afghanistan. The Marine Corps had no comment. (Additional reporting by Caren Bohan)

Let’s not spy for the FBI

0

Plans for the US to access UK citizen’s personal information via a shared international database are disturbing: we shouldn’t sign up to it

Nick Clegg

News that the US government is in the process of constructing an international “wanted” database to share biometric information on a grand scale should be treated with caution. Biometrics – including DNA and fingerprints – are a vital weapon in the fight against crime. And cross-border crime is a growing problem. I am determined that Britain should work with our allies, in Europe and beyond, to defeat it. But giant databases that don’t have adequate privacy protection systems are not the right way forward.

The details of how the US system will operate are still opaque. They may bring forward proposals we should support.

But I won’t be holding my breath. It is typical of the US administration to go for overkill: giant solutions that sound great on paper but are based on unproven and even unworkable technologies. The “son of Star Wars” anti-ballistic missile system, which would attempt to shoot down incoming missiles, is a case in point. It’s cost billions but not only does it anger countries like Russia, it doesn’t even work.

Unfortunately, it is also typical of the UK government to doff its cap and sign up to any idea that emerges from Washington, however kooky. We’re signed up to son of Star Wars. I expect we’ll be signed up the FBI’s “Server in the Sky” too, whether it’s the right thing to do or not.

Biometrics are invaluable, but they are not 100% failsafe: nothing is. Remember: it’s the US terrorism operations that put Yusuf Islam (the musician formerly known as Cat Stevens) on a “no-fly” list.

And once data is in the hands of the US authorities, there is no getting it back. We already send them massive amounts of information about air passengers, through a deal brokered by the European Commission, without any guarantee it will be properly safeguarded once it reaches the US. It would be foolhardy to start sharing further information without a simple guarantee: that data collected under UK law should continue to be protected even after it leaves Britain.

We should share information when other countries can guarantee data protection standards that match, or exceed our own. Otherwise, who knows which one of us will be on the no-fly list next.

World crime database proposed

0

Senior police officers are discussing plans to create an international criminal database that could hold biometric data, the Home Office confirmed.

An FBI plan for a “Server in the Sky” – which might hold iris, palm prints and other personal biological information – is being discussed to help fight terrorism around the world, a newspaper reported.

The network could hold information from millions of criminal suspects pooled by the US, the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the paper said.

The plan is likely to raise concerns about data security in the wake of a series of embarrassing data loss blunders by the Government and its agencies.

The Home Office confirmed the existence of “Server in the Sky” but stressed discussions were at a very early stage.

A spokesman said: “We are aware of the proposed project. As you would expect we consider a wide range of initiatives as we constantly look to enhance our investigative capabilities.

“Relevant safeguards are always considered as part of this process.”

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police confirmed it was in discussions with the FBI but emphasised the plans were at a preliminary stage.

The FBI told reporters the database would include details of major criminals such as international terrorists.

A spokesman said: “Server in the Sky is an FBI initiative designed to foster the advanced search and exchange of biometric information on a global scale.”

Bush takes arms deal to Saudis for support against Iran

0

US president seeks to persuade oil-rich ally into backing Washington against Iran.

The US administration is expected to formally tell Congress of a planned $20bn arms deal with Saudi Arabia, after George Bush, the US president, arrived in the Arab state as he nears the end of his Middle East tour.

The official announcement, expected on Monday, will start a 30-day review period during which Congress could try to block the deal.

The deal, which includes satellite-guided weaponry and high-tech munitions, has alarmed Israel and some US Congressmen since it was unveiled last July, especially as Saudi Arabia refuses to recognise the Jewish state.

During his visit to Saudi Arabia, his first visit to the oil-rich US ally, Bush hopes to rally support for his campaign to isolate Iran.

His administration, which has also announced a $30bn military aid pact with Israel, has argued the deal with the Saudis is needed to counter what it claims is a “major security threat” from Iran.

A senior US official said Bush will court Riyadh’s diplomatic influence and financial muscle which “could make an enormous difference in places like the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and other locations”.

While Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia has voiced concern over the rise of Shia Iran, it is opposed to another war after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq that has strengthened the Islamic regime in Tehran.

Diplomatic tour

In the last few days of his Middle East tour, Bush has been courting Gulf Arab allies to help shore up a US-backed peace effort between Israel and the Palestinians and combat Iran’s growing influence in the region.

Saudi Arabia is considered a linchpin for any broader Israeli-Arab reconciliation as Bush presses Israelis and the Palestinians to secure a peace deal before he leaves office in January 2009.

Iran was also expected to be an important part of Bush’s talks with King Abdullah, the Saudi monarch, and was also discussed in Bush’s earlier meetings with Gulf Arab leaders in the UAE.

While the Gulf leaders share US concerns about curbing their powerful Shia neighbour, they want to avoid another war in the region.

“All agreed it’s a difficult problem that needs to be addressed, and at this point pursue in a diplomatic fashion,” Hadley told reporters when asked how UAE leaders had reacted to Bush’s entreaties on Iran.

Engaging Iran

Analysts say there are growing signs that America’s Arab allies prefer to engage Iran.

Last year, Saudi Arabia invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, to undertake the Hajj, making him the first Iranian president to receive an official invitation to the annual Muslim pilgrimage.

Also in the region on Monday, was Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, who visited Qatar and was later to travel to the UAE.

At the start of his regional tour, Sarkozy also met kind Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, where he offered Saudi Arabia help in developing peaceful nuclear energy.

The French president expects to sign a a nuclear co-operation agreement in with the UAE on Tuesday.

Cossiga: US, Mossad behind 9/11

2

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga says global intelligence agencies assert the 9/11 attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad.

Although Osama bin Laden has confessed to launching the attacks, now all the European and American intelligence services are well aware that the attacks were planned by the CIA and the Zionists’ Mossad, Cossiga told Corriere della Sera.

The disastrous attack was aimed to put the Muslim world under powerful accusations and drum up support for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the former Italian president added.

Cossiga first expressed doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley’s book titled 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in the USA as stating that, “The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel.

He went on to add that the attack could not have been accomplished without penetration into the ranks of radar and flight security personnel.

CS/HAR

CIA Hid Other Tapes From 9/11 Commission

0

 jimd3100We know now that the CIA kept from the 9/11 Commission tapes of al Qaeda suspects in violation of law. But why isn’t mainstream media (MSM) reporting about other tapes U.S. Intelligence kept from the 9/11 Commission?

In today’s 2-minute news sound bites it’s easy to deceive. Anthrax is released in letters and you are to believe that it came from Iraq. Next thing you know, we have a war in Iraq to eliminate their none existent stockpiles of anthrax. An “al Qaeda” suicide tape is released and you are to believe it came from al Qaeda.

Since the most important 9/11 hijackers were ringleader Mohammed Atta and Ziad Zarrah, let’s take a close look at the release of their “last will” tape and how it was reported. Clearly, the CIA kept other important 9/11 tapes from the 9/11 Commission and MSM helped with the cover-up.

The so-called Laughing Hijackers tape was obtained by London Sunday Times on September 30, 2006 and reported the next day. Read closely this article from MSNBC and you will see this quote about this “Al Qaeda” video. “The images were taken from a videotape the U.S. military supposedly recovered from an al Qaeda compound after the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.” That’s right – the U.S Government had these tapes for five years before they were mysteriously delivered to the media.

But MSNBC didn’t break this story – the London Sunday Times did. “The Sunday Times has obtained a copy of the video through a previously tested channel.” “Previously tested channel” to me means, this isn’t the first time. It’s worth noting that the person the tapes were delivered to previously worked for Al Jeezra and was the one who broke previous al Qaeda tape releases. His name is Yosri Fouda.

How did ABC report this leak of these “new” tapes that the U.S. Government had for five years and that no one knew about? This is the first sentence under their headline “The Man Who Received Tape From Al Qaeda Talks to ABC About the Al Qaeda PR Machine.” Now am I wrong, or does that seem to indicate these tapes came from al Qaeda? In this article they pretend these tapes came from al Qaeda. They didn’t.

Here is a little nugget from CNN on their reporting “A U.S. intelligence official told CNN the intelligence community has been aware of the video for some time.” No kidding. They had these tapes for five years. I say tapes because when this was released there were two parts of this video according to the breaking story.

Dates on the tape show Atta was filmed on January 18, 2000, together with Ziad Jarrah, the pilot of United Airlines flight 93. The high quality, unedited film shows bin Laden addressing his followers at the mud-walled complex near Kandahar. Dating on the tape indicates that the Al Qaeda leader was filmed on January 8, 2000, ten days before Atta and Jarrah recorded their wills.

The tapes consist of two parts: Atta and Jarrah supposedly reading their wills dated January 18, 2000, and a speech by bin Ladin dated January 8, 2000. You can watch them here.

I urge you to watch the bin Laden speech and try to convince yourself that this is not a surveillance tape, made in order to capture the images of people there. That seems to be what it is. It pans the crowd and freeze-frames their images before moving on to another. There is not a whole lot of interest in the speech and the speaker. It is odd, don’t you think, to focus on people in the audience instead of the speaker at the event? Why would al Qaeda do surveillance on themselves? They wouldn’t.

But to pretend U.S. intelligence didn’t want to do surveillance on Al Qaeda is laughable. Of course they did, which brings up the ugly possibility that these tapes were not “found” in some house in Afghanistan in 2001 but were actually made by U.S. Intelligence.

One thing is not in question though, although MSM wouldn’t tell you this: this was used as a surveillance tape. While this tape was kept secret from the 9/11 Commission, it was being used on detainees in Guantanamo to try to get them to confess to being members of Al Qaeda. Here is the proof.

In March 2006, seven months before the world was told of these tapes a movie was already made and released documenting the experiences of three people who were actually held in Guantanamo. These three people who were finally deemed innocent had their experience acted out in the docudrama Road to Guantanamo.

At 1:38 into this clip, a person from Washington DC shows a tape of a bin Laden speech dated Jan 8 2000 this interrogation was being done in 2003. So in 2003, the Government was using this tape in Guantanamo as a surveillance tape. Three years later, they released it along with the Atta video to the reporter who received the “al Qaeda” tapes.

According to the MSNBC article, they had this tape just after 9/11 and before the start of the 9/11 Commission. After the 9/11 Commission was concluded, they anonymously released it to an overseas reporter who received the other “al Qaeda” tapes. It was then reported in MSM as an al Qaeda tape. The media helped the U.S. Government pass this off as an al Qaeda tape, keeping the public in the dark.

Does the 9/11 Commission even care that this was kept from them? Why don’t they bring this up? Why doesn’t the media? The only site that seemed to notice this and tried to get attention focused on it was PrisonPlanet.

Bush’s hate speech against Iran draws UAE opposition

1

Several Emirati officials and commentators have voiced opposition to military action against Iran after the US president’s UAE speech.

US President George W. Bush, who is on a Middle East tour hoping to rally up Arab support against Iran, attacked Tehran, in a speech he delivered in Abu Dhabi on Sunday. The speech drew interesting reactions in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

“The Iranians choose their own government, whether we agree (with their choice) or not. They don’t need what he said,” said Jamal al-Suwaidi the Director General of the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, a government-backed think tank which sponsored Bush’s address.

He was referring to parts of the speech where Bush claimed that Iran was ’the world’s leading state sponsor of terror’ and told the Iranian people they deserve a better government.

“It would be very dangerous if Iran develops nuclear weapons. But to hit Iran is something else… Nobody wants it [a US strike on Iran],” al-Suwaidi told AFP after Bush delivered the address.

Mariam al-Hammadee of the UAE’s Federal Environmental Agency said she would have preferred a less confrontational speech. “The region cannot put up with another war … In fact, the world badly needs peace,” she said.

She noted that the UAE has wide-ranging trading links with Iran and hosts a large number of Iranians, who are estimated to number around 400,000 in the oil-rich country.

An official UAE source also told AFP that he did not expect Bush’s remarks to harm ties between Abu Dhabi and Tehran. Bush’s remarks “do not commit the UAE to anything”, he said, requesting anonymity.

“[Iranian President] Ahmadinejad also came here [last May] and spoke,” the source noted, referring to a speech in which he warned that Iran would retaliate strongly for any US attack.

The UAE faces Iran across the Persian Gulf, which means that “the option of the negotiations [to resolve the nuclear row] failing is not an option”, the official added.

Nandigram… CPM’s hubris

Stephen Lendman and Arun Shrivastava
RINF Alternative News

Abstract: This review paper documents the events of Nandigram and role of the Communist Party of India Marxists (CPM), Kissinger in Kolkata pushing through Indo-US nuclear deal, Special Economic Zones and their true purpose, and the true character of a Marxist Party that has ruled West Bengal for 30 years, also a partner in the United Progressive Alliance’s Government in New Delhi. The authors wish to thank the many people who were interviewed and who sent their written opinion in a very short time.

Nandigram. Google it and you get over one million hits. Early 2006, it was just another Block of poor and landless Hindu and Muslim peasants. It shot to fame early this year when the people of Nandigram opposed the Chemical Hub of the Salim Group of Indonesia that would require 4000 acres of land under Special Economic Zone dispensation. On 14th March, 2007, the West Bengal Police in league with armed hoodlums of the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist), aka CPM, butchered unarmed people protesting forced sequestration of their farmlands. The savagery of attack and the sheer bestiality of attackers even surpassed those of the Zionists in Gaza strip and the US and NATO occupation forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. It was a naked assertion of supremacy of ruling elite by force of terror.

“Mohammed Salim, the businessman to whom the land was to be turned over, helped bankroll Suharto’s genocide of Indonesian Communists. The Communist-led government of West Bengal is eager to do business with him. If ever proof was needed of the irony of the current conjuncture of the Indian left, or of the way capital swallows up and transcends ideological animosities in its expansionary drives, it is here,” says Aditya Sarkar. (“Nandigram and the deformations of the Indian left”, issue 115; Indian Socialism, 2 July 2007; http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=333&issue=115)

We believe these events are not political aberrations or deformations but carefully crafted acts of the entrenched ruling elite taking control of natural resources, especially land, and destroying the independent farmers. Particularly the Indian Left parties are more unabashedly modifying their policies to accommodate the demands of the Neoconservatives in Washington. In so doing, the Left is not deforming itself; rather, it is now showing its true colour.

1. CPM’s alliance with neoconservatives

Three decades ago, having failed to engineer workers’ and peasants’ revolution, the Stalinist CPM re-packaged itself as pro-poor and became the ruling party in West Bengal, the first Communist state within India’s federal polity. Since then it has ruled continuously, not because it is popular but through a dependent class of 20-25% people. Through dispensations like petty contracts, allotment of shops and subsidized homes, appointment in government services, control over village councils through which billions of development funds are expended, and other petty privileges, it retains a loyal cadre. It has installed a highly politicized, pliable, and complicit intelligentsia in the universities. Any opposition to its misdeeds has been crushed by brute force.

The party of the poor is now systematically decimating the poor. It perfected the techniques in Marichjhapi (February, 1979 massacring an entire village to cover up its mischief in resettling East Bengal refugees whom it had used politically to come to power. “…the sight of the hopeless refugees living without food and water amid their own excreta on muddy islands attracted global attention. The Central government, which was then headed by Morarji Desai, offered the “friendly” regime in Calcutta a face-saver. The Centre (meaning Central Government in New Delhi) offered to transport the poor intruders back to Madhya Pradesh. But the Marxists were fearful of the political fallout. They owed their rise to power to the refugees, had promised them the moon, and even prevented them from taking up residence in alternative locations offered by the Centre on the Andaman Islands when it was still sparsely populated. Now, in 1979, it was case of a vote-bank paying diminishing returns. So, the Marxist government in emulation of the man closest to its heart, Joseph Stalin, ordered a massacre… Marichjhapi still figures in academic discourse as an example of CPM’s deceit.”

(Udayan Namboodiri; ‘Shame at Singur’; 17 December 2007; Organiser, page 7; http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=161&page=7) Even today no one knows how many were shot to death but some say it was over 3,000. (Prior to 1947 there was an East Bengal and West Bengal; after 1947 East Bengal became East Pakistan and in 1971 became Bangladesh. Many Hindus of East Bengal became refugees and settled wherever they could find vacant land. It is the refugees of 1947, who were massacred at Marichjhanpi by CPM.

It is the same party that condemned Salvador Allende’s murder (suicide?) in 1973 in unequivocal terms and consistently maintained its opposition to Gen Pinochet’s coup and subsequent brutalization of Chilean people. It opposed the ‘imperialism’ led by the USA everywhere from its Indian base (rats always operate from their hole), although it could never produce a Che Guevara in its long history.

It is the same party that consistently maintained that the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), that ruled India for just under five years to 2004, is a Fascist and anti-minority communal party. However, events of Nandigram clearly show that CPM cadre attacked Muslim (minority) peasants and Dalits. All political parties, particularly the Communists, in India have used these two groups to come to power but excluded their concerns and aspirations consistently since 1947. When Muslim leaders in Andhra Pradesh raised questions in the state assembly about CPM’s oppression of Muslims in Nandigram, the CPM floor leader said that they “have no right to criticize Marxists and Communists.” (Statesman News Service; Hyderabad; November 19, 2007) Folks, if the right to criticize is denied, that usually happens in a Fascist state! And we are almost there.

It is the same party that opposed the ruling Congress Party in India right from 1947 and even sided with China, in a grand treasonous act, when she attacked India in 1962. As alliance partner in the present United Progressive Alliance its ostensible posture is anti-Congress. It was its ostensible anti-imperialist, anti-bourgeoisie ideological position that appeared to almost scuttle the Indo-US nuclear deal. That’s how it looked, but as John McCarthy says. “their argument is with politics, not action.”

And it is the same party that shot and brutalized unarmed men and women and tore young children apart. Can you even imagine what tearing children apart looks like? It is the same party that allowed its workers to rape women and hack them to death. Just watch the video ‘For the sake of development’ for five minutes because I doubt anyone can take it longer: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=na+hannate&sitesearch=video.google.com And it is the same party that wanted marginal Muslim and Dalit farmers to leave their land for Salim Group’s chemical hub where Dow Chemicals, another criminal corporation in the news early this year for selling un-approved pesticides in India and tainted with Bhopal liability, would also set up its chemical plants. report on Dow Chemical’s criminals acts earlier this year here: http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/02/bhopal-criminals-at-it-again-this-time.html

The short-changed Bhopal survivors condemned the CPM led West Bengal Government for inviting Dow Chemicals, (See here: ‘West Bengal Government complicity with Dow in Nandigram’, Bhopal survivors condemn government of West Bengal for colluding with Dow Chemical, June 05, 2007 http://www.bhopal.net/blog_act/archives/2007/06/bhopal_survivor_2.html

This time these corporations are looting land while the party of the poor facilitates the loot and watches the loot from the grandstand.

And it is the same party that welcomed Dr. Henry Kissinger, the butcher of Vietnam and at least 60 other nations, in Kolkata.

2. Kissinger in Kolkata?

Kissinger was not in Kolkata to express his condolence for the Nandigram raped, nor to tell the Chief Minister of West Bengal to ensure peace, democracy, justice and equity. That is not the way the US Government works or has ever worked. Kissinger, the neocon global salesman of death, was here to sell nuclear reactors. Each nuclear reactor costs US$3-5 billion (120 to 200 billion rupees). (http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm)

He wanted West Bengal’s Communist Chief Minister to use his influence with national Politburo members, chiefly Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechuri, the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of the CPM to not oppose the deal, which would bring a windfall US$27-45 billion dollars worth of business to Kissinger’s friends in the US like General Electric and others and open up India to nuclear holocaust. ‘He said that the 123 deal would benefit both the countries,’ which is a lie. It should be noted that due to powerful grassroots anti-nuclear movement in the US, the industry had been languishing for 30 years until energy short India became an opportunity. “Nuclear reactors kill slowly” as Frieda Berryhill says, a leading anti-nuke activist in the US. Knowing the fact that low level radiation emanating from the reactors has turned sparsely populated America into a diseased nation, CPM never opposed the deal on health and environmental grounds. The latest report from Austria ‘Nuclear Power, Climate Policy and Sustainability’, 2007, clearly warns of the dangers of nuclear reactors. See here http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/austriangovtreport607.pdf.

The despicable Indo-US nuclear deal is through, after CPM gave its nod; the salesman of death rules okay, and the wheeler dealers of death rule okay too and that includes the CPM in India (http://in.news.yahoo.com/071116/43/6ncfd.html)

Secondly, Kissinger wanted to impress upon the Marxists to use their clout in Delhi not to have any energy deals with Iran because ‘Iran is facing international (US sponsored and illegal) sanction.’ He advised the Marxist Chief Minister to oppose Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project because Iran is a rogue state. Indians should note that a number of countries possess nuclear weapons outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including Pakistan, North Korea, India, and Israel; yet the US Government has not taken military action. Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear policy within the constraints imposed by IAEA, which again exposes Kissinger’s lie. Iran is not a rogue state and India needs Iran’s energy resources, not American nuclear reactor, as Arjun Makhijani of IEER has forewarned. (For high quality information on dangers of nuclear power, see Institute for Energy and Environmental Research at http://www.ieer.org)

He said that in Kolkata in order to spare great embarrassment to the Marxist-Neoconservatives in Delhi who back-seat drive the Prime Minister of India. Energy short South Asia is heading towards a major economic crisis. Kissinger nudged CPM to ensure total compliance of India’s Left-leaning [hellish] elite to lean more towards Neoconservative energy agenda.

Thirdly, Kissinger supported America’s stand on Iraq that a solution would be found soon, that India’s 9% growth is sustainable, and the two countries have common interests. This is the lousiest of all lies. More than 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html) and over 5 million are refugees. Children as young as six are being used as sex-slaves by the Americans in Iraq. In Afghanistan, a South Asian country, over 40,000 are dead, hundreds of thousand homeless. Worse, the depleted uranium weapons, used in these two Asian countries will continue to kill innocent civilians for thousands of years. ‘This relatively new monster, DU, has been around since 1943 and classified as a weapon of mass destruction when used as an area deniability weapon, as in contaminating an area to disallow human penetration, for ever,’ says John McCarthy, a weapons expert and a Viet-Vet. (Go to this page: http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id245.html to see what war crimes this US Government has committed). And John McCarthy is also on record saying that this sort of genocide has ‘Kissinger’s hand all over it.’ So, if Kissinger says that India’s 9% growth is sustainable, that sustainability is contingent upon utter subservience of the ruling coalition in Delhi to a global genocidal agenda. Despite two Asian countries rendered uninhabitable forever, the CPM laid red carpet for Kissinger.

Excerpt from its mouthpiece shows that the CPM knows about depleted uranium: “That Tony Blair, whose government sells lethal weapons to Israel, has sprayed Iraq and Yugoslavia with cluster bombs and depleted uranium and was the greatest arms supplier to the genocidists in Indonesia, can be taken seriously when he now speaks about the “shame” of the ‘new evil of mass terrorism’ says much about the censorship of our collective sense of how the world is managed.” (People’s Democracy; Volume XXV; No 38; September 23, 2001; quoting John Pilger. (http://pd.cpim.org/2001/sept23/2001_sept23_usattack_pilger.htm) That was in 2001, note the date. For six years these criminals in CPM have kept the brutal facts under wraps never bringing it up in policy discussions. So has the Leftist mainstream media in India.

US and NATO forces used depleted uranium /weapons in Afghanistan that contaminated the entire Northwestern India. The mutagenic, tumorigenic and neurotoxic effects of depleted uranium is becoming clear as is evidenced from a number of excellent studies conducted by experts (See, Brice Smith & Arjun Makhijani; “Emerging Pictures of Uranium’s Health Risks; Science for Democratic Action; Vol 13, No 2; June 2005). Dr Chris Busby found it over the British atmosphere as well. The global is ‘radiated’! Right now, as many scientists are saying, we are breathing aerosolized depleted uranium and none of us will complete our natural life. Neither will the CPM leaders. What sort of abominable minds they have belies our imagination, for they haven’t even raised their voice against these war crimes! The whole world is being Nandigrammed in a variety of ways.

And, finally, “The US had never thought India would lean towards that country,” said Kissinger, quoted in one newspaper report. Or is it something more sinister? (Lest we forget, it was Kissinger’s great ‘tilt’ towards Pakistan’s drunkard General Yahya Khan that resulted in the genocide of 1.5 million Bengalis, 10 million refugees from East Pakistan into India and a major war with Pakistan (1971), eventually leading to the formation of Bangladesh.) If India has ever leaned so unabashedly towards the US, it started with Manmohan Singh’s tenure as Finance Minister (1991), evolved through the two hotchpotch coalitions 1996 through to 1999, and further evolved under the ‘Hindu-Nationalist’ (as the Neoconservative sidekick BBC wants the world to believe) BJP. During events of 911, the Hindu-Nationalists were crawling on their knees to be recognized as most ‘dependable anti-Muslim terrorist ally’ but unfortunately lost to Parvez Musharraf. When the US and NATO forces invaded Afghanistan to grow opium poppy, and lilies over forty thousand dead civilians, and later Iraq to steal its oil, all parties kept mum. There has been a quiet tilt for over 17 years and Kissinger as usual is lying. Under normal circumstance, the Nandigram civil war would have forced the Central Government of Manmohan Singh to dismiss the state government of CPM and force an election within six months in accordance with the Constitutional provisions. Kissinger’s deal was that CPM drops its opposition to 123 and the Central government allows the barbarians to continue and retain their hold over West Bengal and that nefarious deed is done. The filthy hands of this supine coalition called United Progressive Alliance stands exposed.

So, Kissinger’s co-opted rulers are safely ensconced, not only in Delhi, but also in Kolkata, Islamabad and Dacca.

We believe that Kissinger’s visit was to ‘secure’ India’s diplomatic and military cooperation as a junior partner in Washington’s quest to expropriate oil and gas and redraw West Asian map. The map, copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006), is cited in Prof Michel Chussodovsky’s article here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4347.

Kissinger’s Kolkata meeting with CPM, alliance partners of the ruling UPA, was to ensure that US-NATO plan in West Asia, exposed by Chossodovsky, goes ahead unhindered. The neoconservative brotherhood expresses itself in various ways.

3. Special Economic Zones (SEZ) (a euphemism for land loot) (For Government data and policy statements see http://sezindia.nic.in/)

SEZ are 21st century’s mighty kingdoms. The concept was borrowed from China that has six mega SEZ. The previous BJP rulers thought of setting up ‘many.’ The present Commerce Minister, Kamal Nath, increased that to 500; India will set up 500 SEZs on Nandigrammed farmers.

Free zones

Except for issuing their own currency notes, SEZs are Indian territories in private hands. By May 2007, 234 were approved and 162 SEZs approved in-principle. These are all-tax-exempt zones: exemptions from excise duty, custom duty, sales tax, octroi, turnover tax, as well as income tax for ten years are some of the inducements. The fiscal sops extended to SEZs would cause a revenue loss of Rs. 1000 billion (US$25 billion) by 2009-10, which the Government itself has accepted. In water and electricity short India, the UPA government has assured round-the-clock electricity and water supply. The SEZ promoters have also been given a waiver from carrying out Environment Impact Assessment which is required in any infrastructure project. Promoters of SEZ can have their own security laws; Indian Police will not enter. For instance, Halliburton can acquire a SEZ, handover security to Blackwater, and invite armament manufacturers to reprocess depleted uranium into weapons of mass destruction; no questions asked.

No Inspection

SEZ owners are authorized not to permit any inspection of their premises by any official of the government and for conducting search and seizure operations without prior permission of the owners.

No restriction of capital flows

100 per cent foreign direct investment is permitted in these post modern fiefdoms. “They are permitted external commercial borrowings up to US $ 500 million without any maturity restrictions. They are free to bring in export proceeds without any time limit and make foreign investments from it and are exempted from interest on import finance. They are allowed to set up off-shore banking units with income tax exemption for three years and subsequently 50 per cent tax for another two years. And if they were to sub-contract production to local manufacturers, there would be duty drawbacks, exemption from state levies and income tax benefits. In the scheme of SEZ the livelihoods of small farmers and environmental concerns have been brushed aside.

Anti poor Left Parties

The Left parties, headed by the notorious CPM, enamored with the Neoconservative ideology, are not lagging behind in the race. The CPM in West Bengal has gifted over 900 acres of prime farmland in Singur to India’s Tata group for their NANO car project: two farmers opposing the acquisition of their land were beheaded and heads were kept as trophies by CPM hoodlums. Shamelessly, it has approved seven SEZ and given in-principle approval to fourteen more. The Left front ruled Kerala has approved ten SEZ and in-principle approved two more. SEZs kingdoms are slated to come up all over densely populated India.

The Great Land Loot

The official website says that for setting up of 396 SEZs 1750 sq km land would be required — all would not be on farmlands. Farmland would constitute only 1393.53 sq km. Krishan Bir’s estimate, however, points out that the loss of farmlands would be much more as has happened in the past. For example, the Russian backed Heavy Engineering Corporation project in 1960 required only 800 acres; instead 8,000 were acquired, and many farmers have not been compensated to this day. The government claims that with an estimated US$13.39 billion investment in 100 notified SEZ, 1.57 million additional jobs would be created; this is a complete hoax. Existing SEZs have not created the projected jobs with investments already made. Some of the best farmlands are gone and farmers have been forcibly uprooted. Once a SEZ, always a SEZ; there is no provision for returning the land to farmers, even if the industrial economy is devastated and modern mechanized manufacturing firms fold up.

Killing thousands to accommodate Salim Group

The Salim Group’s founder was manufacturing noodles in his backyard when accidentally he came across the young Suharto, the butcher of Indonesian communists. As Suharto grew in power, so did Salim group. Today, Suharto’s sons are stock holders in Salim Group and control many companies.

When Suharto was overthrown, Salim Group was in a financial mess. Tony Salim relocated to Singapore and used his considerable clout to restructure and expand. The patriarch had changed his name to a Muslim sounding one to appease the Muslims of Indonesia. They are Chinese and have also made huge investments in real estate in China. Majority of real money spinning firms of Salim group are closely held, not quoted on any stock exchange, leading some to remark that it actually fronts for Suharto ill-gotten gains.

And this fiefdom is expanding its hydra-headed tentacles in West Bengal, India, under the rule of ‘Peasants and Workers party,’ unraveling of CPM’s Chinese connections.
Since the CPM has signed a deal with the murderers of Indonesian communists, CPM has lost its credibility and it is now clear that it is complicit in Neoconservative agenda of looting whatever natural resources, especially land, remain in India.

4. Comments of a Nobel laureate

Dr Amartya Sen, was interviewed by Sambit Saha of The Telegraph on land acquisition for industrialization, the most important issue facing Bengal and India. Here are a few excerpts:

“Where there is a mistake in the government’s thinking, and I think it is a big mistake of a tactical kind, is not to recognize that if this land were available for industry in general, and not just for the Tatas (one of India’s largest conglomerates who were given lands at Singur), the value of the land would have been much greater. While the compensation paid is greater than the value of the land seen as agricultural land, the compensation paid by the government is less than what the value would have been had it been free for competition with industries. If you are part of the market economy, then you have to take into account what the value of the land would have been had it been freely available for industry. So there is an issue to be addressed. I think it is a mistake, an honest mistake and it can be corrected in the future…… “Nandigram is a much more complex issue. There is a question whether that kind of operation was needed, whether it was the right place. But I have not studied it in the way I have studied Singur. So I won’t comment,” said Dr Amartya Sen

(Full interview: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070723/asp/nation/story_8094453.asp)

Dr Sen should know the essence of land as a factor input. Since the amount of land available is fixed, it confers a monopoly on land owners and that monopoly in case of poor peasants must not be expropriated to favor big business, especially by invoking antiquated Land Acquisition Act of 1894, an act that was created and misused by the British particularly in the central Indian tribal region. Land to Indian peasants constitutes an inherited capital along with inherited wisdom of over six millennia that can’t be valued in cash terms. In fact this asset is immeasurable in terms of its intrinsic survival value given the present contingencies as elaborated by Heinrich, discussed below.

Dr Sen’s interview was published on 23 July, 2007, over four months after the Nandigram massacre. There are two basic issues that Dr Sen is inexplicably silent on. (a) Is the sort of industrialization policy being pursued by the ruling elite sustainable, given the impending energy crisis and threats posed by climate change? And (b) Should the farmers at all be forcibly removed from fertile farmlands when plenty of wastelands are available all over India and when one of the direct consequences of energy crisis would be food scarcity? Instead of strengthening India’s food production system, the present Governments, at Centre and States, are implementing the Neoconservative agenda of industrialization of farming, corporatization of food production, Walmartization of distribution, and concentration of most fertile lands in the hands of large corporations.

If ‘development’ means “Americanization of India, Corporatization of its agriculture, and Walmartization of its distribution, then this developmental model is a prescription for mass culling, famine on a scale unknown, starvation, civil unrest, perhaps food wars and water wars amidst rural poor thronging the cities as beggars for food and none to produce that food because best lands would be gone to SEZ. It is inconceivable that CPM top brass does not know about these issues Governments are extremely well briefed by top experts.

5. Chavez’s visit to India

President Hugo Chavez visited India March 2005 and was feted everywhere. During his visit the CPM courted him; the pro Neoconservative, peddling the dope of being pro-poor, had to court the genuinely pro-poor Chavez. Excerpts from Chavez interview here:

“… Mr. Chavez made it clear that he would like to have an energy relationship with India, and that Indian companies would be welcome to help exploit the oil resources of Venezuela. Indeed, the scope for cooperation is enormous despite the distances. Apart from New Delhi benefiting by extracting Venezuelan oil for use in India or sale through swap agreements (which would reduce the dollar hegemony), Caracas gets to further diversify its markets and reduce the monopolistic power of the U.S. Indian companies like IRCON are also well placed to assist Venezuela in the construction of railway lines and roads, not to speak of low-cost housing, which is a priority area for Mr. Chavez. His visit last week has done a lot to exorcise the ghosts of previous agreements that fell through at the last moment. The crucial factor in all this is the determination to follow through.”

(Full report here: http://www.hindu.com/2005/03/11/stories/2005031101881000.htm)
While Mr. Hugo Chavez was outlining an alternative plan to the ‘New American Century,’ the rogues in CPM were planning to stab him in the back. This, despite the fact that one Indian company (ONGC) has significantly contributed to successful extraction of heavy oil in Venezuela (Sam Hopkins, ‘Indian Innovation in Heavy Oil,’ www.energyinstitution.org; October 24th, 2007). It remains to be seen how the CPM does the balancing act of working simultaneously to deprive India of energy resources from Iran under Kissinger’s pressure and of Venezuela, a country also in the crosshair of the criminals in DC. If Indian farmers are denied access to cheap energy till such time that the farmers have transited to low-energy food production and distribution, agriculture productivity will fall steeply causing mass starvation in both rural and urban areas.

All evidences suggest that this is the intention of CPM in India, leaders. Effectively, CPMWashington’s agenda of ensuring an energy-enslaved India, the ability to grow foodAnd because this party believes in industrialization-through-destruction-of-peasantry, it does not even have a strategy to help Indian farmers move towards low energy agriculture. While the Bolivarian circles are achieving in less than six years what the CPM could not achieve in sixty, it is driving small farmers out of the most fertile lands.

6. The massacre at Nandigram:

Time line
The people of Nandigram were massacred on 14th March. Survivors continued to oppose, till the Government of West Bengal (GoWB) withdrew Salim’s project. But the attack by CPM cadre on unarmed people continued. From 29th October to 8th November 2007, there were nine major events of violence. The civil war is going on unabated. Media persons have been beaten up. Delegation of civil society, including artists, writers, and intellectuals were prevented from visiting Nandigram. Here’s the brief time line:

March 31, 2006 A basic understanding between GoWB and Salim Group was arrived at wherein the Salim Group would set up a SEZ (a Chemical hub)

October 6, 2006 On the recommendation of GoWB, the empowered committee of the Government of India approved Salim Group’s SEZ

January 3, 2007 Facing farmers’ opposition to acquisition of lands for SEZ, the Police indiscriminately fired at unarmed farmers.

January 4, 2007 GoWB sought modifications in SEZ rules from Government of India

January 6, 2007 Formation of Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Samittee, or BUPS, (People’s Committee to oppose acquisition of lands).

January 9, 2007 Mamta Bannerjee, opposition leader, demands President’s rule in West Bengal.

Violence of ruling party cadre continued through these months; Krishi Bhumi Raksha Samittee (KBRS) (Save Farmlands Committee) formed.

March 14, 2007 Police and CPM cadre fire indiscriminately at unarmed women,
children and men. Nandigram Massacre begins. Women are beaten up, raped and hacked to death; children torn apart.

No one knows the true figure of dead and ‘missing’.

No one knows how many women & children were brutalized.

March 15, 2007 The West Bengal High Court orders inquiry into the events by the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) (Our version of the FBI).

April 29, 2007 BUPC and KBRS confront CPM, more violence

May 24, 2007 All Party meet to resolve the Nandigram issue fails.

July 30, 2007 BUPC calls for State-wide Bundh; successful.

October 29, 2007 CPM cadre entered Takapura, Kamalpur and Ranichowk and at least 16 homes torched.

October 30, 2007 CPM hoodlums fired on a peaceful rally of thousands of farmers who were on their way from Nandigram to Tekhali. There was bombing and firing from Khejuri, a CPM stronghold. Armed miscreants, allegedly hired by the CPM, attacked Ranichowk village and set fire to two homes of BUPC supporters and looted a few. There was one death and 10 injured. Media persons and opposition leaders…were not spared either. Three journalists were beaten up.

October 31, 2007 CPM cadre bombed Bhangabera to terrorize the villagers.

November 02, 2007 CPI(M) cadre from Khejuri started firing while policemen deployed in the area turned a blind eye. All entry points into Nandigram have been sealed off by the cadres and there were attempts to take control over villages in Nadigram.

November 03, 2007 Further intensification of terror as armed CPM cadre reduced Satengabari to a virtual graveyard and the firing continued unabated. More than 200 thatched houses were burned to ashes after they were looted and ransacked, rendering approximately 1,000 people homeless. Women molested.

November 4, 2007 CPM Politburo member Brinda Karat, wife of Prakash Karat, the CPM supremo in Delhi, prescribed “Dum Dum Dawai” (harsh medicine, like severe beating – a slogan of the sixties advocating public thrashing of the corrupt) as a solution. She blamed the opposition politicians for the continuing trouble in Nandigram in the presence of Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, the same man who would entertain Dr Henry Kissinger. Instead of fading out gracefully, Brinda in her middle age is advocating violence.

November 6, 2007 In a repeat performance of 14th March, a savage attack was mounted by CPM cadre. Nine villages were torched. At least 15,000 people were hounded out of their homes The state home secretary Mr. Prasad Ranjan Roy admitted that firing started from Khejuri, indicating that CPI-M cadres unleashed the violence.

November 7, 2007 Yet another attack on villagers, over 3000 rendered homeless.

November 8, 2007 Prominent citizens attempting to enter Nandigram were attacked, women members (particularly Anuradha Talwar and Medha Patkar) were slapped, insulted and beaten up, cars wrecked and drivers assaulted.

7. The parallel with China

“At the Center the sky is blue,
In the provinces clouds are gathering,
In the counties there is flooding,
In the townships people are drowning
And are running for their lives”

(Quoted in Thomas P Bernstein’s ‘Unrest in Rural China: A 2003 Assessment.’ This is also called ‘the peasant’s cries’ (Nongmin de huhan) as explained by Yang Hao, 1999)
There have been over 248,000 peasants’ unrest in China in eleven years ending 2003. (Albert Keidel, ‘The Economic Basis for Social Unrest in China,’ The George Washington University, 2005; page 1) Among other issues, social unrest has been caused by land acquisition for industry and ‘modernization.’ People have been arrested, beaten up, perhaps tortured, because lower level officials and the security forces are as bad as in India. ‘The peasant’s cries’ sums up the normal brutality of lower level officials and cadres but the Chinese peasants believed that by petitioning higher authorities they would get some solace. Not there. Not here in India either.

India doesn’t have 248,000 peasants’ movements but getting uncomfortably close. Despite the Governor of West Bengal and the Home Secretary (in-charge of internal security) saying that the situation is bad (meaning very bad because Home Secretaries always understate the facts), the centre took its own time sending special protection force (Central Reserve Protection Force or CRPF). They have finally managed to enter Nandigram and recovered arms and explosives from the homes of CPM supporters.

8. The role of the media and the intelligentsia in this episode

Surprisingly, even the Leftist intellectuals have eventually decided to raise their voice against this genocide. The Internet is buzzing in the middle-class intellectual homes to oppose the “massacre at Nandigram.” Some have shown spine, most are spineless. Those who have shown spine are also much guarded in what they say and much of what they say appears that what CPM has done is a bit of aberration that can be ‘corrected’ by their pressure group, that its ‘expansionary drive’ can be curbed and reformed. Famous Leftist icons come out in support of the farmers but as one Nandigram activist, who blogs from Kolkata, said ‘they are there when the TV cameras are there’ (Palash Biswas in conversation with the authors). Over fifty ‘leading Leftists’ signed a ‘protest note’ opposing the acts of the CPM in Nandigram but instead of exposing the true Machiavellian machinations of the CPM, they merely denounced their acts in Nandigram. One ‘intellectual’ went so far as to say that events of Nandigram have been engineered by ‘communalist forces’. Do we need colonialists when we have home grown criminals to loot our natural resources?

9. Democide

The parties of the peasants and workers have history of exterminating the peasants. A researcher, R.J Rummel (We question many of his assumptions because he almost condones the American Democides, but he is right about Soviet Russia and China during their collectivization phase), has calculated that the Soviets under Stalin killed about millions of domestic citizens and China under the Communists killed about 35 million, majority peasants, some dissidents, two most lethal regimes of the 20th Century. (Details are here: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM) We do credit Rummel with having coined the phrase ‘Democide’ or death by governments. CPM ruled West Bengal has killed people in Nandigram and that is “Democide.”

The Communist parties are experts at turning the educated middle-classes into supine, spineless core support base. The so-called Leftist intellectuals in India’s top universities owe their positions not because they are serious thinkers but because they support the Left parties. The Communist Party of India, allied with Soviet Russians supported Indira Gandhi’s emergency (total dictatorship) in June 1975, just as the CPM is now allied with the UPA, inching towards total dictatorship.

Essentially totalitarian in nature, the Communists have found the small farmers difficult to control. The small farmer invariably is forced to take a stand against them because he/she can grow food and has land to grow food, no matter how small. In India’s case, the small farmers brought CPM to power in West Bengal but in the grand old Communist tradition of governance they are up against a Frankenstein monster.

As one wit told the author recently: politically correct disposition ensures material wealth and recognition! The politically correct disposition in India Today is to be Leftist, when Leftists are treasonous sycophants of Anglo-American Neoconservatives. If they fail, Washington will need a different strategy to pummel South Asia, a far worse hubris. The question is this: should India succumb to the terrorists? Or should the people of India, including conscientious socialists, resolve to demolish this UPA monster backed by CPM and other self serving Leftists and make an example of this democidal group?

10. CPM’s hubris

CPM, a party that ruled by manipulating ballots now rules by bullets. It is now openly stealing lands from poor peasants as part of the global Neoconservative strategy of destroying the independent farmers. It is determined to make an example of the people of Nandigram as part of the tribute to its traditional masters.

In trying to set an example for the rest of the country, the ruling coalition in Delhi is also banking on successful crushing of Nandigram revolt. In this hubris lies the success of the ‘sustainable 9% growth rate’ fondly blessed by mass murderer Kissinger, and eagerly sought by a small clique of former World Bank and IMF economists shaping the policies of India and South Asia. Framers’ suicides, taking place on a daily basis in India, is the real cost of Washington based Neoconservative’s agenda in which our present government is complicit.

Nandigram is a Democide; it is the beginning of a wholesale culling of farmers in India; the CPM must stand trial for Democide. All Politburo members of India’s CPM must stand trial for Democide.

VIDEO: Preparations for War with Iran?

0


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=54b_1200327598

Why would Bush go to the Mideast now? It is likely he went to nail down commitments from the Israelis and acquiescence from the Saudis prior to a planned attack on Iran. Bush, who neither reads nor writes well, has a low comfort level with diplomatic go-betweens, so this is a look’em in the eye trip to talk about what happens when he pulls the trigger.

If not, what is the alternative explanation for the trip? He is going to talk about peace talks likely to drift into the fall; change diplomatic tact, such as a demand Israel end the blockade of Gaza; schedule another Annapolis photo-op? Not likely. In addition, by White House standards this is a stealth trip with the US press attention focused elsewhere.

One possibly related diplomatic element: the White House is demanding North Korea “come clean” about its nuclear program, with the objective of getting some statement from them about working with the Iranians. Why an urgent deadline, especially one not in the agreement, unless it is linked to concomitant events? Any statements by North Korea affirming their assistance to Iran, no matter whether the nuclear assistance was weapons related or prior to the reported shut down of the Iranian program, would be presented as “new” intelligence and sold much like the “Sadam/9-11″ connection, trumping, or at least blunting, the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program.

Another indication of the White House’s intentions is promotion of an ordinary encounter in the Strait of Hormuz between US Navy Ships and Iranian Patrol Boats into an “incident,” including the imposition of addition sanctions on Iranian officials.

Assuming a decision to attack Iran, given weather and other logistical concerns, combined with attention to the domestic political schedule, the timing would likely be within two to three months or early fall.

Should this occur, the potential for destabilizing domestic and foreign consequences increase substantially, approaching near certainty. This nominally unattractive and reckless gamble would fit Bush’s character as well as the pattern of his governance. Also, this is his last shot, with a chance to create conditions in the Mideast that lock in future policy options, as he has in domestic policy with a massive deficit. Given the consequences, he would attack not only his foreign enemies, but at the same time strike at his domestic foes under the cover of the resulting emergency.

The later the attack on Iran comes, or a significant response from Iran, the more likely it would be combined with or be followed by a formal declaration of a national emergency, possibly affecting US national elections. The result would be a de facto coup d’état.

Finally, to further assess its likelihood, ask the question: who is to stop him? Not Congress; not the courts; not pubic opinion nor the press. The only chance, however slight, of stopping Bush would rest almost entirely with the British government, if Parliament became aware of the plan prior to the commencement of hostilities.

Related News – Naval Encounter:

Video from Iranian Patrol Boat by Iran Press TV 01/10/08

Video from US Naval Vessel by US Department of Defense 01/09/08

Degrees of Confidence on U.S.-Iran Naval Incident by The New York Times (Blog) 01/10/08

Related News – North Korean Declaration:

U.S. Nuclear Envoy Puts Gentle Pressure on North Korea by The New York Times 01/10/08

North Korea Says Earlier Disclosure Was Enough by The New York Times 01/05/08

U.S. Will Hold North Korea to Nuclear Commitments by The New York Times 01/02/08

Related News – Bush Visit:

ANALYSIS-Gulf Arabs chart delicate course between Iran, U.S. by Reuters 01/10/08

Saudi defends Iran links ahead of Bush visit by Reuters 01/09/08

Iran High on Bush Mideast Trip by Associated Press 01/07/08

Bush to press allies on Iran during Mideast trip by Reuters 01/05/08

Intelligence chief condemns ‘waterboarding’ as torture

0

By Stephen Foley

 

The head of the US intelligence community has come closer than any other official in the Bush administration to comdemning the interrogation technique of “waterboarding” as torture, stoking a legal row over its use by the CIA.

Mike McConnell, the US Director of National Intelligence, said the legal test for torture should be “pretty simple: Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?”

Although waterboarding has been considered torture for more than a century and the US military is banned from using it, President George Bush has defended “enhanced interrogation techniques” by the CIA. Waterboarding is a process of controlled drowning in which a suspect’s lungs are filled with water and he is made to believe he is dying.

Controversy over whether the practice constitutes torture has put Mr Bush on a collision course with the Democrats, who want it banned. More significantly, CIA agents who have carried out waterboarding — and their superiors who approved the practice — could face legal action.

“If it ever is determined to be torture, there will be a huge penalty to be paid for anyone engaging in it,” Mr McConnell told The New Yorker magazine yesterday. “If I had water draining into my nose… oh God, I just can’t imagine how painful. Whether it is torture by anybody else’s definition, for me it would be torture.”

Last month, a former CIA officer revealed that Abu Zubaida, a senior al-Qai’da suspect, was subjected to waterboarding and broke down in about 35 seconds. John Kiriakou, who was based in Pakistan, said it “was like flipping a switch”.

France planned to give Saddam nukes

0

An Iranian commander has revealed that France had plans to equip Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons during the Iraq-imposed war on Iran.

According to General Mir-Feisal Baqerzadeh, the now retired French general and former intelligence official, Philippe Rondot, had made the offer to the Iraqi Baathist regime during a visit to the country as an advisor to the French prime minister .

Baqerzadeh made the remark citing a document registered at the defense ministry of the former Iraqi Baathist regime dated April 20, 1987.

The document was prepared by the Iraqi General Adnan Khairallah reporting to Saddam about his meeting with the visiting Rondot, said the Iranian general.

During the meeting, Rondot expressed his delight with the measures taken by Saddam’s regime against the Iranian forces.

In the meeting, Rondot also informed Khairallah about the meeting held earlier at the French military headquarters on ways to tackle potential moves by the Iranian forces and suggested the idea of using high-flexibility boats against them.

For his part, Khairallah briefed Rodot on the vast amount of satellite-based information on the Iranian military formations made available to the Iraqi side by the US.

Based on the document, the former French general emphasized the advisability of occupying Iranian cities, with particular reference to the southwestern city of Abadan.

Baqerzadeh says that Rondot also spoke of his ‘effective’ role in persuading the French authorities to provide Iraq with Mirage aircraft and Ronald missiles.

According to the document, the French had been looking at the possibility of giving Iraq ‘a very small type’ of nuclear weapon. It is underlined in the document that the matter must be kept confidential.

Rondot is reported in the document as having told Khairallah that possessing such a weapon, despite its being small, would be necessary and effective in helping Iraq impose its conditions on Iran.

MJ/GM/BGH

Scientific Technique and the Concentration of Power

Brent Jessop

“So long as the rulers are comfortable, what reason have they to improve the lot of their serfs?”- Bertrand Russell, 1952 (p61)

Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society* he describes the effects of “scientific technique” on the increasing control of societies by an ever shrinking number of people. As we will see, “scientific technique” is much more than just the development and widespread use of new technology, but first some of its effects.

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.

Increasing Organization

From Impact of Science on Society:

“This [the telegraph] had two important consequences: first messages could now travel faster than human beings; secondly, in large organizations detailed control from a centre became much more possible than it had formerly been.

The fact that messages could travel faster than human beings was useful, above all, to the police…” – 33

“Electricity as a source of power is much more recent than the telegraph, and has not yet had all the effects of which it is capable. As an influence on social organisation its most notable feature is the importance of power stations, which inevitably promote centralisation… as soon as a community has become dependent upon them for lighting and heating and cooking. I lived in America in a farm-house which depended entirely upon electricity, and sometimes, in a blizzard, the wires would be blown down. The resulting inconvenience was almost intolerable. If we had been deliberately cut off for being rebels, we should soon have had to give in.” – 35

“But what is of most importance in this connection is the development of flying. Aeroplanes have increased immeasurably the power of governments. No rebellion can hope to succeed unless it is favoured by at least a portion of the air force.” – 36

“In industry, the integration brought about by scientific technique is much greater [than agriculture] and more intimate.

One of the most obvious results of industrialism is that a much larger percentage of the population live in towns than was formerly the case. The town dweller is a more social being than the agriculturist, and is much more influenced by discussion. In general, he works in a crowd, and his amusements are apt to take him into still larger crowds. The course of nature, the alternations of day and night, summer and winter, wet or shine, make little difference to him; he has no occasion to fear that he will be ruined by frost or drought or sudden rain. What matters to him is his human environment, and his place in various organisations especially.

Take a man who works in a factory, and consider how many organisations affect his life. There is first of all the factory itself, and any larger organisation of which it may be a part. Then there is the man’s trade union and his political party. He probably gets house room from a building society or public authority. His children go to school. If he reads a newspaper or goes to a cinema or looks at a football match, these things are provided by powerful organisations. Indirectly, through his employers, he is dependent upon those from whom they buy their raw material and those to whom they sell their finished product. Above all, there is the State, which taxes him and may at any moment order him to go and get killed in war, in return for which it protects him against murder and theft so long as there is peace, and allows him to buy a fixed modicum of food.” [emphasis mine] – 44

“The increase of organisation has brought into existence new positions of power. Every body has to have executive officials, in whom, at any moment, its power is concentrated. It is true that officials are usually subject to control, but the control may be slow and distant. From the young lady who sells stamps in a Post Office all the way up to the Prime Minister, every official is invested, for the time being, with some part of the power of the State. You can complain of the young lady if her manners are bad, and you can vote against the Prime Minister at the next election if you disapprove of his policy. But both the young lady and the Prime Minister can have a very considerable run for their money before (if ever) your discontent has any effect.” [emphasis mine] – 45

“The increased power of officials is an inevitable result of the greater degree of organisation that scientific technique brings about. It has the drawback that it is apt to be irresponsible, behind-the-scenes, power, like that of Emperors’ eunuchs and Kings’ mistresses in former times. To discover ways of controlling it is one of the most important political problems of our time. Liberals protested, successfully, against the power of kings and aristocrats; socialists protested against the power of capitalists. But unless the power of officials can be kept within bounds, socialism will mean little more than the substitution of one set of masters for another: all the former power of the capitalist will be inherited by the official. [emphasis mine]” – 47

“As we have seen, the question of freedom needs a completely fresh examination. There are forms of freedom that are desirable, and that are gravely threatened; there are other forms of freedom that are undesirable, but that are very difficult to curb… The resultant two-fold problem, of preserving liberty internally and diminishing it externally, is one that the world must solve, and solve soon, if scientific societies are to survive.

Let us consider for a moment the social psychology involved in this situation.

…The armed forces of one’s own nation exist – so each nation asserts – to prevent aggression by other nations. But the armed forces of other nations exist – or so many people believe – to promote aggression. If you say anything against the armed forces of your own country, you are a traitor, wishing to see your fatherland ground under the heel of a brutal conqueror. If, on the other hand, you defend a potential enemy State for thinking armed forces necessary to its safety, you malign your own country, whose unalterable devotion to peace only perverse malice could lead you to question…

And so it comes about that, whenever an organisation has a combatant purpose, its members are reluctant to criticise their officials and tend to acquiesce in usurpations and arbitrary exercise of power which, but for the war mentality, they would bitterly resent. It is the war mentality that gives officials and governments their opportunity. It is therefore only natural that officials and governments are prone to foster war mentality.” [emphasis mine] – 51

“I incline to think that ‘liberty’, as the word was understood in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is no longer quite the right concept; I should prefer to substitute ‘opportunity for initiative’. And my reason for suggesting this change is the character of a scientific society.” – 68

More Organization is More Power

“The effect of the telegraph was to increase the power of the central government and diminish the initiative of distant subordinates. This applied not only to the State, but to every geographically extensive organization. We shall find a great deal of scientific technique has a similar effect. The result is that fewer men have executive power, but those few had more power than such men had formerly.” [emphasis mine] – 35

“We have seen that scientific technique increases the importance of organisations, and therefore the extent to which authority impinges upon the life of the individual. It follows that a scientific oligarchy has more power than any oligarchy could have in pre-scientific times. There is a tendency, which is inevitable unless consciously combated, for organisations to coalesce, and so to increase in size, until, ultimately, almost all become merged in the State. A scientific oligarchy, accordingly, is bound to become what is called ‘totalitarian’, that is to say, all important forms of power will become a monopoly of the State.” [emphasis mine] – 56

“In the first place, since the new oligarchs are the adherents of a certain creed, and base their claim to exclusive power upon the rightness of this creed, their system depends essentially upon dogma: whoever questions the governmental dogma questions the moral authority of the government, and is therefore a rebel. While the oligarchy is still new, there are sure to be other creeds, held with equal conviction, which must be suppressed by force, since the principle of majority rule has been abandoned. It follows that there cannot be freedom of the Press, freedom of discussion, or freedom of book publication. There must be an organ of government whose duty it is to pronounce as to what is orthodox, and to punish heresy. The history of the Inquisition shows what such an organ of government must inevitably become. In the normal pursuit of power, it will seek out more and more subtle heresies. The Church, as soon as it acquired political power, developed incredible refinement of dogma, and persecuted what to us appear microscopic deviations form the official creed. Exactly the same sort of thing happens in the modern States that confine political power to supporters of a certain doctrine.” – 57

“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

What is Scientific Technique?

Scientific technique is much more than just the impact of new technology on the machinations of society. It is the use of science, in its most calculating and inhumane ways, to analyze, control and guide societies in a desired direction. This topic was elaborated on in a couple of talks given by Alan Watt (here and here) particularly through the writings of Jacques Ellul.

The rest of the articles in this series will also elaborate on other aspects of scientific technique, especially its application to education and human breeding. But first, I will examine Bertrand Russell’s views about the stability of scientific societies and the possibility of a scientific world government.

*Quotes from Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952). ISBN0-415-10906-X

Note: I first heard about this book from talks given by Alan Watt at Cutting Through The Matrix.com, an individual well worth looking into.

The Pentagon Plan to Drug Troops

Chris Floyd  

Penny Coleman at Alternet.com gives us a look at a new program designed to dull the moral sensibilities of American soldiers in combat on the imperial frontiers: Pentagon, Big Pharma: Drug Troops to Numb Them to Horrors of War.But as we’ll see below, this attempt to peddle magic pills to chase away the horrors of war is just one front in a long-term, wide-ranging “warfighter enhancement program” — including the neurological and genetic re-engineering of soldiers’ minds and bodies to create what the Pentagon calls “iron bodied and iron willed personnel”: tireless, relentless, remorseless, unstoppable.

I.
Coleman takes specific aim at the “Psychological Kevlar Act,” aimed at reducing the alarming spread of soldier suicides and post-traumatic stress disorder spawned by the illegal invasion of Iraq. The program relies heavily on dosing soldiers with Propranalol, which, “if taken immediately following a traumatic event, can subdue a victim’s stress response and so soften his or her perception of the memory,” as Coleman notes. “That does not mean the memory has been erased, but proponents claim that the drug can render it emotionally toothless.” She continues:

But is it moral to weaken memories of horrendous acts a person has committed? Some would say that there is no difference between offering injured soldiers penicillin to prevent an infection and giving a drug that prevents them from suffering from a posttraumatic stress injury for the rest of their lives. Others, like Leon Kass, former chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics, object to propranolol’s use on the grounds that it medicates away one’s conscience…Barry Romo, a national coordinator for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is even more blunt. “That’s the devil pill,” he says. “That’s the monster pill, the anti-morality pill. That’s the pill that can make men and women do anything and think they can get away with it. Even if it doesn’t work, what’s scary is that a young soldier could believe it will.”


It is “a kind of moral lobotomy,” says Coleman, whose husband killed himself after coming home from the Vietnam War. She puts the bill — which is being sponsored by Robert Kennedy Jr., among others — in the historical context of military training:

Since World War II, our military has sought and found any number of ways to override the values and belief systems recruits have absorbed from their families, schools, communities and religions. Using the principles of operant conditioning, the military has found ways to reprogram their human software, overriding those characteristics that are inconvenient in a military context, most particularly the inherent resistance human beings have to killing others of their own species. “Modern combat training conditions soldiers to act reflexively to stimuli,” says Lt. Col. Peter Kilner, a professor of philosophy and ethics at West Point, “and this maximizes soldiers’ lethality, but it does so by bypassing their moral autonomy. Soldiers are conditioned to act without considering the moral repercussions of their actions; they are enabled to kill without making the conscious decision to do so. If they are unable to justify to themselves the fact that they killed another human being, they will likely — and understandably — suffer enormous guilt. This guilt manifests itself as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and it has damaged the lives of thousands of men who performed their duty in combat.”


II.
Killing the soul is the ultimate aim of those who seek to create tools for empire, instead of recruiting citizens to defend the Republic from attack. I wrote about this in 2004 (Manufacturing Intent:The Army’s Cult of Killing Leaves a Generation Gap):

Yet despite the vast tonnage of celluloid and printer’s ink devoted to [the] praise [of the “greatest generation” soldiers of WWII), what is perhaps the truest, highest measure of their worth has been almost universally neglected. And what is this hidden glory, which does more honor to the people of the United States than every single military action ordered by their corruption-riddled leaders during the past fifty years? It’s the fact that in the midst of history’s most vicious, all-devouring, inhuman war, only about 15 percent of American soldiers on the battlefield actually tried to kill anyone.

In-depth studies by the U.S. Army after WWII showed that between 80 to 85 percent of the greatest generation never fired their weapons at an exposed enemy in combat, as military psychologist Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman reports. Many times they had the chance, but could not bring themselves to do it. They either withheld their fire altogether or else shot into the air, to the side, anywhere but at the fellow human beings — their blood kin in biology, mind and mortality — facing them across the line…These were not “warriors,” bloodthirsty automatons with stripped-down brains and cauterized souls, slavering in Pavlovian fury at the bell-clap of command. No, they were real men, willing, as Grossman notes, to stand up for a cause, even die for it, but not willing, in the end, to transgress the natural law (implanted by God or evolution, take your pick) that says: Do not kill your own kind — and every person of every race and nation is your own kind.

…But far from celebrating this example of genuine glory, the military brass were horrified at the low “firing rates” and anemic “kill ratios” of American soldiery. They immediately set about trying to break the next generation of recruits of their natural resistance to slaughtering their own kind. Incorporating the latest techniques for psychological manipulation, new training programs were designed to brutalize the mind and habituate soldiers to the idea of killing automatically, by reflex, “at the bell-clap of command,” without the intervention of any of those inefficient scruples displayed by their illustrious predecessors.

And it worked. The dehumanization process led to a steady rise in firing rates for U.S. soldiers during subsequent conflicts. In the Korean War, 55 percent were ready to pump hot lead into enemy flesh. And by the time the greatest generation’s own children took the field, in Vietnam, the willingness to slaughter was almost total: 95 percent of combat troops there fired with the intent to kill.

And today in occupied Iraq, the brutalizing beat goes on. “Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, it’s like it pounds in my brain,” a U.S. soldier told the Los Angeles Times last week. Another shrugged at the sight of freshly slaughtered bodies. “It doesn’t bother me at all,” he said. “I’m a warrior. My soldiers, they are all warriors. They have no problems. There’s no place in this Army for men who aren’t warriors.” Said a third: “We talk about killing all the time. I never used to be this way…but it’s like I can’t stop. I’m worried what I’ll be like when I get home.”

…Yet strangely enough, this new model army, imbued with eager “warrior spirit,” has not produced the kind of lasting victories won by the reluctant fifteen-percenters of yore. It was stalemated in Korea, defeated in Vietnam, chased out of Lebanon and Somalia, balked in Afghanistan…and is now [bogged down] in bloody quagmire [in Iraq].

Could it be that the systematic degradation of natural morality and common human feeling — especially in the service of dubious ends — is not actually the best way to achieve national greatness?


II.
But the endless efforts to raise “kill rates” are just part of the picture. As I noted in the Moscow Times back in 2003, “warfighter enhancement” is being taken to whole new levels of technological advancement — and moral depravity. I’m doing further research on the current state of the “enhancement” programs, but they are still going full-bore since the time the excerpts below were written:

Pentagon dark lord Donald Rumsfeld is shoveling billions of tax dollars into the research furnaces of federal laboratories and private universities across the land in the wide-ranging effort to spawn “super soldiers,” fired by drugs and electromagnetic “brain zaps” to fight without ceasing for days on end. The work is being directed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

The DARPA “war fighter enhancement” programs — an acceleration of bipartisan biotinkering that’s been going on for years — will involve injecting young men and women with hormonal, neurological and genetic concoctions; implanting microchips and electrodes in their bodies to control their internal organs and brain functions; and plying them with drugs that deaden some of their normal human tendencies: the need for sleep, the fear of death, the reluctance to kill their fellow human beings.

The research is “very aggressive and wide open,” says Admiral Stephen Baker of the Center for Defense Information. Indeed, the U.S. Special Operations Command envisions the creation of “iron bodied and iron willed personnel” who can “resist the mental and physiological effects of sleep deprivation” while relying on “ergogenic substances” to “manage” the “environmental and mentally induced stress” of the battlefield. Their bodies juiced, their brains swaddled in Prozacian haze, the enhanced warfighters can churn relentlessly, remorselessly toward dominion.

And the term “creation” is not just fanciful rhetoric: some of the research now underway involves actually altering the genetic code of soldiers, modifying bits of DNA to fashion a new type of human specimen, one that functions like a machine, killing tirelessly for days and nights on end. These mutations will “revolutionize the contemporary order of battle” and guarantee “operational dominance across the whole range of potential U.S. military employments,” the DARPA wizards enthuse.

Of course, the Pentagon is not waiting on sci-fi technology to enhance the physical abilities of its warfighters; old-fashioned off-the-shelf “additives” have long been shoved down soldiers’ throats. For example, the use of amphetamines for pilots has been widespread for decades; during the first Bush-Saddam War, whole squadrons were cranked up on the stuff. Not only is the gobbling of speed officially sanctioned, it’s actively encouraged, even implicitly mandated–careers can be derailed for pilots who refuse to drug themselves.

The results of this dope-peddling were clearly seen on the new imperial frontier of Afghanistan last spring, when two U.S. pilots — hopped up on speed — killed four Canadian allies in a “friendly fire” bombing raid. The pilots, now facing legal charges, say Air Force brass pressured them into taking the mind-altering drug before the fatal flight.

But such glitches are inevitable in any grand scientific undertaking, and DARPA remains undeterred in its bold quest to “push the limits of human input/output,” advance the “symbiotic relationship between man and machine,” and customize “pharmaceutical technology” to “embolden the warfighter and his superiors,” as military scientists declared at a Pentagon-sponsored conference on “future warfare.”

What happens to the burnt-out husks of these “iron” soldiers after their minds and bodies have been eaten way by relentless modification and ceaseless toil is, of course, of no concern to the Bush Regime. Even now, the White House is cutting back on health benefits to military veterans — even going so far as to order veterans hospitals not to advertise their available services, lest broken soldiers actually seek to claim the promise of support their government once gave them. For men like Bush — protected scions of privilege who sit out wars in safety, in booze-addled luxury — such promises are just cynical sucker ploys, aimed at coaxing decent soldiers into acting as the hitmen of empire, then discarding them when they’re no longer needed.

How very strange it is: those who want to turn American soldiers into mindless, drug-addled mutants and send them off to kill and die in far-flung wars of imperial conquest are seen as patriots, noble leaders, doing the will of God; while those who would rather see these good men and women called home, treated with honor and respect–their talents and dedication applied solely to the defense of their own great country, not pressed into the service of a greedy, rapacious elite–are denounced as “traitors,” “anti-American agitators,” “allies of terrorism.”

But such is the inversion of values — the wisdom gone astray and turned to fell practice – -that now rules in Bush’s Washington, and in the Pentagon’s fiery crucibles of war.

ID cards are staying voluntary… for now

0

It is unlikely that UK citizens will be made to get an ID card for ‘several years’ a minister said.

Liam Byrne has said on the Today programme that the voluntary scheme, which will come into force in 2009, will need time to “run in”. To make ID cards compulsory, parliament would have to pass new legislation, he said. When asked on the programme if the government would be drawing up legislation this year, Byrne said they were keeping ID cards voluntary for now, but the government remained enthusiastic about compulsory ID cards in the future.

Former Home Secretary David Blunkett, who introduced the initial identity card bill, said the scheme would not work unless everyone had to have a card.

“In my opinion, without it being mandatory, there is little point in doing it,” he said.

Fingerprints Required for Britain Visas

0

 LONDON (AP) – All visitors to Britain requiring visas will have to be fingerprinted starting Monday, the government said.

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said those applying for a British visa from any of 133 countries would now have their fingerprints checked against a database.

Byrne said the system, which the government has gradually been introducing around the world since September 2006, had already captured biometric information from more than 1 million people. He said the system had flagged nearly 500 cases of identity fraud.

Logging and checking visitors’ biometric information is one of the central planks of the government’s new immigration strategy, which includes the introduction of an Australian-style points system intended to select encourage skilled immigrants, the creation of police-like border force and fines for bosses who do not ensure their employees are legally entitled to work in Britain.

Tourists from the United States and the European Union, who do not require visas for short visits to Britain, will not be fingerprinted.

‘War criminal Bush persona non grata’

0

A senior Lebanese cleric has called on Arab and Muslim countries to declare George W. Bush persona non grata and sue him for ‘war crimes’.

“We want our Muslim and Arab people to …declare that he is a persona non grata who represents crimes,” Seyyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah said in a statement released on Sunday.

“He should soon be tried as a war criminal and a prominent symbol of terrorism in the world,” he added.

Fadlallah’s statement came as Bush was visiting Persian Gulf Arab countries in a bid to win their support for confronting Iran.

“Attempts to portray Iran as a threat and strategic enemy have failed,” said the cleric, “It has been clear that the motive behind creating an enemy for the Muslims from within is to boost the sales of American weapons,” the senior cleric said.

He also said the years Bush has spent in office were the ‘bloodiest’ since World War II and coincided with the most ‘unjust crimes and massacres in our region, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine.’

JS/RE

US official wants Guantanamo shut

0

 

The highest US military officer says he would like to see the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay closed because its image has damaged America’s international standing.

“I would like to see it shut down,” Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US military’s joint chiefs of staff, said on Sunday.

On his first visit to the jail in Cuba since taking up his post in October, Mullen toured Guantanamo facilities including the construction site of a new high-security courtroom that US officials say should speed up inmate trials.

He said: “I believe that from the standpoint of how it reflects on us that it’s been pretty damaging.”

But he acknowledged closing the prison posed major legal problems.

 

Legal issues

“There are enormous challenges associated with that,” Mullen said.

“There are enormously complex, complicating legal issues that are way out of my purview.”

He said there were some “really, really bad people” detained at Guantanamo who had committed “extraordinary crimes”.
 
Among those detained is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington DC.
 
Mullen also said steps had been taken to reduce the population at the camp, which now stood at 277.

Waterboarding ‘torture’

Earlier, Mike McConnell, the chief of US national intelligence, was quoted as saying he believed the US interrogation practice known as “waterboarding” could be described as torture.

“Whether it’s torture by anybody else’s definition, for me it would be torture,” he told The New Yorker magazine on Sunday.

Protesters enact ‘waterboarding’ in one of the
many rallies held against its practice [Reuters]

The comments came as the US House Intelligence Committee continues an investigation into the CIA’s destruction of videotapes that are reported to have shown the use of the interrogation technique on suspects.

McConnel also said that should waterboarding ever be determined as torture, “there will be a huge penalty to be paid for anyone engaging in it”.

“If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can’t imagine how painful!” he said.

“Waterboarding”, involves pouring water over subjects who are bound, gagged and hooded in order to terrify them by stimulating the feeling that they are drowning.

McConnell stopped short of categorically describing the interrogation process as torture and declined to say whether he believed it should be formally labelled as such.

No dispute

 

A spokesman for McConnell later said he did not dispute the quotes attributed to him in the story the Associated Press reported.

Kevin Lanigan, from Human Rights First, told Al Jazeera: “It’s a very important step for such a senior official in this [US] administration for the first time to admit that – with some caveats on his admission – that this technique is torture.”

Michael Mukasey, the US attorney general, has declined to rule on whether “waterboarding” is torture.

A ruling that the technique does constitute torture would put at risk the CIA interrogators who were given permission by the White House in 2002 to use the technique on three prisoners who were considered resistant to conventional interrogation.

‘Excruciatingly painful’

McConnell said in his interview that the legal test for torture should be “pretty simple”, suggesting: “Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?”

The CIA has said it has not used the technique since 2003 and Michael Hayden, the agency’s director, prohibited it in 2005.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, refused to comment on the issue on Saturday.

He said: “We don’t talk about interrogation techniques. And we are not going to respond to every little thing that shows up in the press.

“We think it’s vitally important he and the intelligence community have all the tools they need.”

VIDEO: Police Arrest Brian Haw and Protesters

0

If The Video Does Not Load Click Here To View

If The Video Does Not Load Click Here To View

Unauthorised demo in London, England, against SOCPA legislation which criminalises freedom of expression and freedom of assembly within a zone around Parliament. This legislation is under review and fears are that it might be extended.

After meeting up in Trafalgar Square it was decided to go for a walk in ‘Our streets’. The police were pretty laid back to begin with while several places of interest were visited such as the Home Office, New Sotland Yard, MI5, Parliament Square and Downing Street. They even allowed a sit down in the road for a short while in Parliament Square but then began forcing people back onto the pavement. The walk then proceeded to Downing Street where people sat down just outside the gates, and then lay down in the road. Several people were arrested, including Brian Haw and Steve Jago. The people lying down in the road were dragged back into the crowd outside Downing Street.

Bush maintains illusion of Iran threat

0

US President George W. Bush claims Iran is a threat to global security, calling on Arab allies to join the US to confront the nation.

“Iran is today the world’s leading state sponsor of terror,” Bush alleged in his speech in the capital of the UAE, Abu Dhabi.

He said that Washington and Arab countries must join together to deal with the danger ‘before it’s too late’.

Bush alleged that Iran funded terrorist extremists, undermined peace in Lebanon, and provided arms for the Taliban.

Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere; it seeks ‘to intimidate its neighbors with missiles and bellicose rhetoric’, Bush continued.

US allies in the region have expressed concern that Bush’s war of words against Tehran may be aimed at drumming up support for military action against Iran.

The oil-rich Arab countries say any conflict could lead to insecurity in the whole region.

Senior Arab officials have repeatedly said that they will not allow the United States to use their countries as a launch pad for any strike against Iran.

“Mr. President, the region needs smart initiatives not smart bombs,” wrote Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai in a front-page editorial, following Bush’s trip to the country.

CS/DT/RE

Civil liberties groups criticize Bush

0

Dispute centers on upgrading of driver’s licenses

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff unveiled details of the Real ID program yestereday in Washington.

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff unveiled details of the Real ID program yestereday in Washington. (Kevin Wolf/Associated Press)

WASHINGTON – A new Bush administration plan to create national standards for driver’s licenses drew heavy criticism yesterday from civil liberties groups, some Republican and Democratic lawmakers, governors, and the travel industry.

more stories like this

The critics said the new licenses expected under the plan, which is aimed at screening out potential terrorists and uncovering illegal immigrants, could still be forged.

They also complained that the program, known as Real ID, would be costly for states to implement, potentially restrict summer travel and access to federal buildings, and allow private companies access to the personal data of most US citizens.

But they also welcomed yesterday’s official announcement that states have until May 2011 before they need to begin issuing licenses that meet the department’s new guidelines, and until December 2014 to begin replacing current licenses. Drivers over age 50 will not have to obtain new licenses until the end of 2017.

The deadline extensions give both Congress and future presidents time to reconsider what opponents have depicted as a national identification system that will infringe on privacy rights and leave room for large-scale identity theft. The 2005 law required states to collect and store additional data on driver’s license applicants, such as birth certificates, Social Security numbers, and home addresses.

So far, 17 states have passed legislation or resolutions objecting to the Real ID Act’s provisions, many due to concerns it will cost them too much to comply. The 17, according to the ACLU, are Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington state.

Massachusetts has been granted an extension until 2010 to decide whether the state will comply with the new law, according to Juliette Kayyem, the state’s undersecretary for homeland security.

“There is nothing that happened today, or that will happen tomorrow, that will change Massachusetts’ citizens drivers licenses,” she said. “We have plenty of time to assess the impact of the new regulations and whether we will ultimately comply. Our hope is that after November the new leadership in Washington – whoever it is – will take another look at this.”

Under Real ID, all new licenses would be machine-readable and contain personal information that could be scanned by governments and potentially by corporations.

At a news conference yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the guidelines represent a balance between security and privacy in accordance with the Real ID Act.

He warned that residents in states such as Georgia and Washington, which have refused to comply with the program, may be subject to additional security checks or prevented from boarding flights once the program begins this spring.

He urged those states to seek waivers to allow their residents to continue flying as of May 11, when the regulations begin to take effect.

The ACLU called Chertoff’s warning an empty threat designed to pressure states to join the program.

“The airline industry is not going to allow the federal government to prevent citizens of noncompliant states from getting on airplanes,” said Timothy Sparapani, the group’s senior legislative counsel.

The Travel Industry Association of America welcomed “flexibility” from DHS on the program’s implementation schedule but said “no American should be denied the right to travel because of disagreements between federal and state lawmakers.”

State and local officials also expressed concerns. In a joint statement, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators said they need time “to determine whether the act can be implemented in a cost-effective and feasible manner.”

DHS estimated that the program will cost states $3.9 billion to implement, a significant decrease from earlier estimates as high as $14 billion. But many state officials have said the financial burden is still too great.

Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, whose state is among those resisting the program, said it is “unrealistic to expect our state to conform” when “the federal government has only provided a mere 3 percent of the funds needed for implementation.”

Fascist Police Assault Then Arrest Brian Haw

8

rikki
Indymedia

During the freedom to protest assembly this afternoon, brian haw (who was peacefully filming events in whitehall) was violently attacked by a territorial support group policeman who lashed out at him, smashing his camera into his face and causing a deep cut. police then arrested brian for an unspecified public order offence and further assaulted him in a police van.

a bloody-faced and frightened brian haw (minus hat)
a bloody-faced and frightened brian haw (minus hat)


a number of people were milling around the road outside downing street where a group of around a dozen had laid down with linked arms in the road.

without warnings the territorial support group moved in and began violently pushing and man-handling people to the pavement. one young woman was grabbed round the throat and dragged. others were pushed from behind. brian was miving backwards towards the pavement with a camera to his face when officer U1019 lunged at him deliberately and without provocation. the blow was aimed directly at brian’s face and pushed his camera into his cheek causing a deep wound.

shortly afterwards, brian was snatched from the crowd and taken to a police van, from which witnesses heard him screaming. after several minutes he was dragged out of the van looking very alarmed and frightened, and taken to another cell van where he was driven to belgravia police station.

supporters there are worried for his safety, but after an hour of no news, they were told that he was being taken to see the prison doctor. there are concerns about his treatment during that hour.

steve jago, on seeing the snatch, pushed forward to try to help brian, but was immediately pounced on by four heavy tsg thugs who violently dragged him to the ground, sat on him, and aggressively hand-cuffed him before apprently arresting him for an unknown offence.

in an afternoon of filming, at no time did i see a single act of violence towards the police from the peaceful protestors, and yet police used completely disproportionate and aggressive tactics to disperse and control peaceful sit-downs and blockades. i saw a 61 year old woman being dragged wihout any heed for ‘health and safety’ and dumped on the pavement. another elderly man was thrown over his bicycle (despite having recently had an accident leaving him in considerable pain)

there were several other arrests this afternoon, mainly for obstruction and public order offences. one person was arrested for ‘organising an unauthorised protest’

attached photo was taken by nuj journalist terence bunch and remains his copyright although he has kindly allowed publication here – for any commercial usgae please contact him via
www.terencebunch.co.uk

Update:

brian is back in parliament square, shaken and bloodied. apart from the time spent inside the police van at whitehall during which witnesses heard his screams and he alleges police held him in torture positions and beat his testicles, he was then subject to further abuse and humiliation at belgravia police station, during which other prisoners heard his screams.

in the end he was only charged with a simple section 4 public order offence and released around 1.30am after being further ‘interviewed’ by cid:

[[4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress]

[(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he–

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.]

given that brian had just been viciously assaulted by an officer, and that the senior officer didn’t remove that officer from duty or treat brian seriously, i’d have thought paragraph 3 will be shown to be pertinent:

[(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove–

(b) that his conduct was reasonable.]

brian is in court tomorrow at southern crown court in a challenge to a ‘contempt of court’ ruling made by judge nicholas evans originally at westminster magistrates’ during another trial. the case sets legal precedent as brian had to go to the high court first to win the right to appeal a ‘contempt of court’ allegation – there was no clear route to do this and the high court had to give judgement first on the process for this to happen. judge evans is on a warning that he may be summonsed to the court to give evidence.

another detainee at belgravia was rob little. he recently walked into marylebone police station with a dossier of evidence of war crimes, and after further meetings with him, chris coverdale (war law expert), and others, there will be a press conference announcement on tuesday that the anti-terror and war crime unit is actually launching an investigation into possible breaches by tony blair and the then attorney-general goldsmith. police pounced on rob at the protest yesterday and arrested him under suspicion of being an organiser of an unauthorised protest. he was also interviewed by cid, held for over twelve hours and let out after 4am, and refused food during this time as they didn’t have anything vegan.

there were several others arrested, for minor public order offences and socpa breaches. it sounds as though police were at first reluctant to press any socpa charges, but then had a change of heart and threw them in before rebailing most of the defendants until dates in mid-february.

steve jago seems to have a hole in his elbow and his face is swollen with a black eye.

Prisoners ‘to be chipped like dogs’

0

Hi-tech ‘satellite’ tagging planned in order to create more space in jails
Civil rights groups and probation officers furious at ‘degrading’ scheme

By Brian Brady

Ministers are planning to implant “machine-readable” microchips under the skin of thousands of offenders as part of an expansion of the electronic tagging scheme that would create more space in British jails.

Amid concerns about the security of existing tagging systems and prison overcrowding, the Ministry of Justice is investigating the use of satellite and radio-wave technology to monitor criminals.

But, instead of being contained in bracelets worn around the ankle, the tiny chips would be surgically inserted under the skin of offenders in the community, to help enforce home curfews. The radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, as long as two grains of rice, are able to carry scanable personal information about individuals, including their identities, address and offending record.

The tags, labelled “spychips” by privacy campaigners, are already used around the world to keep track of dogs, cats, cattle and airport luggage, but there is no record of the technology being used to monitor offenders in the community. The chips are also being considered as a method of helping to keep order within prisons.

A senior Ministry of Justice official last night confirmed that the department hoped to go even further, by extending the geographical range of the internal chips through a link-up with satellite-tracking similar to the system used to trace stolen vehicles. “All the options are on the table, and this is one we would like to pursue,” the source added.

The move is in line with a proposal from Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), that electronic chips should be surgically implanted into convicted paedophiles and sex offenders in order to track them more easily. Global Positioning System (GPS) technology is seen as the favoured method of monitoring such offenders to prevent them going near “forbidden” zones such as primary schools.

“We have wanted to take advantage of this technology for several years, because it seems a sensible solution to the problems we are facing in this area,” a senior minister said last night. “We have looked at it and gone back to it and worried about the practicalities and the ethics, but when you look at the challenges facing the criminal justice system, it’s time has come.”

The Government has been forced to review sentencing policy amid serious overcrowding in the nation’s jails, after the prison population soared from 60,000 in 1997 to 80,000 today. The crisis meant the number of prisoners held in police cells rose 13-fold last year, with police stations housing offenders more than 60,000 times in 2007, up from 4,617 the previous year. The UK has the highest prison population per capita in western Europe, and the Government is planning for an extra 20,000 places at a cost of £3.8bn — including three gigantic new “superjails” — in the next six years.

More than 17,000 individuals, including criminals and suspects released on bail, are subject to electronic monitoring at any one time, under curfews requiring them to stay at home up to 12 hours a day. But official figures reveal that almost 2,000 offenders a year escape monitoring by tampering with ankle tags or tearing them off. Curfew breaches rose from 11,435 in 2005 to 43,843 in 2006 — up 283 per cent. The monitoring system, which relies on mobile-phone technology, can fail if the network crashes.

A multimillion-pound pilot of satellite monitoring of offenders was shelved last year after a report revealed many criminals simply ditched the ankle tag and separate portable tracking unit issued to them. The “prison without bars” project also failed to track offenders when they were in the shadow of tall buildings.

The Independent on Sunday has now established that ministers have been assessing the merits of cutting-edge technology that would make it virtually impossible for individuals to remove their electronic tags.

The tags, injected into the back of the arm with a hypodermic needle, consist of a toughened glass capsule holding a computer chip, a copper antenna and a “capacitor” that transmits data stored on the chip when prompted by an electromagnetic reader.

But details of the dramatic option for tightening controls over Britain’s criminals provoked an angry response from probation officers and civil-rights groups. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: “If the Home Office doesn’t understand why implanting a chip in someone is worse than an ankle bracelet, they don’t need a human-rights lawyer; they need a common-sense bypass.

“Degrading offenders in this way will do nothing for their rehabilitation and nothing for our safety, as some will inevitably find a way round this new technology.”

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said the proposal would not make his members’ lives easier and would degrade their clients. He added: “I have heard about this suggestion, but we feel the system works well enough as it is. Knowing where offenders like paedophiles are does not mean you know what they are doing.

“This is the sort of daft idea that comes up from the department every now and then, but tagging people in the same way we tag our pets cannot be the way ahead. Treating people like pieces of meat does not seem to represent an improvement in the system to me.”

The US market leader VeriChip Corp, whose parent company has been selling radio tags for animals for more than a decade, has sold 7,000 RFID microchips worldwide, of which about 2,000 have been implanted in humans. The company claims its VeriChips are used in more than 5,000 installations, crossing healthcare, security, government and industrial markets, but they have also been used to verify VIP membership in nightclubs, automatically gaining the carrier entry — and deducting the price of their drinks from a pre-paid account.

The possible value of the technology to the UK’s justice system was first highlighted 18 months ago, when Acpo’s Mr Jones suggested the chips could be implanted into sex offenders. The implants would be tracked by satellite, enabling authorities to set up “zones”, including schools, playgrounds and former victims’ homes, from which individuals would be barred.

“If we are prepared to track cars, why don’t we track people?” Mr Jones said. “You could put surgical chips into those of the most dangerous sex offenders who are willing to be controlled.”

The case for: ‘We track cars, so why not people?’

The Government is struggling to keep track of thousands of offenders in the community and is troubled by an overcrowded prison system close to bursting. Internal tagging offers a solution that could impose curfews more effectively than at present, and extend the system by keeping sex offenders out of “forbidden areas”. “If we are prepared to track cars, why don’t we track people?” said Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).

Officials argue that the internal tags enable the authorities to enforce thousands of court orders by ensuring offenders remain within their own walls during curfew hours — and allow the immediate verification of ID details when challenged.

The internal tags also have a use in maintaining order within prisons. In the United States, they are used to track the movement of gang members within jails.

Offenders themselves would prefer a tag they can forget about, instead of the bulky kit carried around on the ankle.

The case against: ‘The rest of us could be next’

Professionals in the criminal justice system maintain that the present system is 95 per cent effective. Radio frequency identification (RFID) technology is unproven. The technology is actually more invasive, and carries more information about the host. The devices have been dubbed “spychips” by critics who warn that they would transmit data about the movements of other people without their knowledge.

Consumer privacy expert Liz McIntyre said a colleague had already proved he could “clone” a chip. “He can bump into a chipped person and siphon the chip’s unique signal in a matter of seconds,” she said.

One company plans deeper implants that could vibrate, electroshock the implantee, broadcast a message, or serve as a microphone to transmit conversations. “Some folks might foolishly discount all of these downsides and futuristic nightmares since the tagging is proposed for criminals like rapists and murderers,” Ms McIntyre said. “The rest of us could be next.”

Energy rip-off exposed

BRITAIN’S biggest energy companies have stifled competition to raise prices and make record profits of more than £4.5 billion, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

The six companies that control Britain’s gas and electricity are now facing demands that they be referred to the Competition Commission.

Executives in charge of the six major companies were last week confirmed to be holding confidential meetings at least every two months to discuss market strategy. Smaller rivals are excluded.

The new disclosures come as a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times reveals that more than eight out of 10 customers believe they are being “ripped off” by the energy firms. Alistair Darling, the chancellor, is to meet Sir John Mogg, the head of regulator Ofgem, tomorrow for an explanation of the latest round of price rises.

Industry insiders said they are ready to give evidence about how the “big six” have driven up prices and boosted profits by:

– Keeping each other’s prices in step by raising and lowering tariffs within a few weeks of each other.

– Denying smaller rivals fair access to energy from their own power plants at affordable prices.

– Charging loyal customers significantly more than those who switch, so keeping up profits.

– Stifling competition by supporting laborious and expensive accreditation for new companies.

Allan Asher, chief executive of Energywatch, the consumer watchdog, said: “The problem with the energy market is that it’s lazy, complacent and uncompetitive. It has been able to drive out the possibility of any vigorous challenge to the prominence of the big six energy suppliers.”

The companies enjoyed a “bumper year” in 2007, profiting from a dramatic fall in the wholesale price of gas amid allegations they failed to pass on savings to householders. Analysts believe the companies are now poised to report record annual profits of more than £4.5 billion.

The companies last week confirmed that they were meeting regularly under the auspices of the Energy Retail Association. The association says market-sensitive issues are never talked about and pricing policies are discussed only in the context of a public debate about best practice. Rival energy companies say the association is a “closed shop” for the dominant companies and the minutes of meetings should be published.

The Sunday Times YouGov poll found that 85% of customers felt they were being ripped off by the energy firms. This compares to 76% of people who felt they were being ripped off by the railways; 74% by the petrol companies; and 59% by the banks and financial service industry.

Ron Paul Forcefully Responds To Racism Charges

0

Ron Paul explain his dislike for collectivist racist views

VIDEO: Fuel From Water

0

FUEL is produced in large quantaties fr om just tap water using pulsed system with battery shielded by diode.

The Film About Vaccines You Simply Must See

This stunning censored interview (top) was cut from the TV program The Health Century due to its huge liability — the admission that the Merck drug company has been injecting cancer viruses into people worldwide.

If you find the content shocking, consider watching the second video, the entire movie, “In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood & Bioterrorism”.  

This film is produced and freely distributed by consumer protector and public health expert, Dr. Leonard Horowitz, and features the world’s leading vaccine expert, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, explaining why Merck’s vaccines have spread AIDS, leukemia, and other horrific plagues worldwide. 

It may seem inconceivable to some of you, but disease is Big Business. And, if you’re cynical — which seems to become easier with each passing day — it’s a way to achieve population control while making huge profits in the process.  

Take this enlightening 2007 investors’ presentation for GlaxoSmithKline, for example. GSK’s overall sales performance rose 9 percent in 2006, with pharmaceutical sales totaling ₤20.1 Billion, or just under $40 Billion. Other statistics include: 

  • The U.S. market accounts for more than 50 percent (about $20.6 Billion) of all GSK pharmaceutical sales, with an increased sales volume of 16 percent in 2006

  • Europe’s pharmaceutical sales went up by 1 percent, and the international market increased by just 6 percent

  • Total vaccine sales rose by 23 percent in 2006, bringing in just under $3.4 Billion (₤1.7 Billion)

  • Vaccine sales in the U.S. rose 40 percent, compared to Europe’s 20 percent, or the international market’s 13 percent                   

Now, remember — that’s just GlaxoSmithKline’s numbers for ONE year, which does not include sales by any other pharmaceutical companies, such as Merck. 

To give you an idea of where Merck stands, in terms of motivation, Merck’s 2005 Annual Report includes Merck’s plan to win, which is centered on five strategic actions: 

  1. We are prioritizing our areas of research, based on scientific opportunity and value to our customers (That’s the shareholders, folks, not you!)
  2. We are committed to completely redefining our discovery and development process to yield new high-value products more efficiently
  3. We will devote more resources to bringing relevant information to payers and consumers, all of whom are becoming more and more involved in the choice of medicines. We will provide more information resources through easily accessible channels – for example, on the Internet and through health professionals (That means more direct advertising, and more bribing of doctors to prescribe their blockbuster drugs)
  4. Emerging pharmaceutical markets worldwide provide enormous opportunity because the need for our medicines and vaccines is so great and our ability to meet those needs so clear
  5. We are committed to leading the industry in supply strategy. These actions to dramatically alter our cost structure will make a significant contribution toward our goal of double-digit earnings growth… As *** Clark, Merck’s CEO and president, has said repeatedly, “Effort counts, but results count more, and I am counting on results.” 

See, pharmaceutical companies are in the business of making money, just like every other competitive business — they’re not in the business of protecting public health. In the financial section of Merck’s 2005 Annual Report to shareholders we find the following statistics, showing a healthy increase in sales of vaccines as well:

 
Merck 2005 Annual Report to Shareholders.

Folks, please take the issue of whether to vaccinate or not seriously. Do your homework. You can begin by watching the videos above — it will be worth your time, I guarantee it. Then, you can continue researching through the links provided below. Don’t blindly buy into the lies. Seek the truth. Protect your health, and the health of your loved ones by opting out of dangerous vaccines.

Everything You’ve Ever Wanted from a Cooking Oil
Before you cook with oil again, consider making Fresh Shores Extra Virgin Coconut Oil part of your regular diet. With its numerous health-supportive  benefits and delicious taste, you’ll wonder why you ever used any other oil.

Dollar Mixed As Wall Street Tumbles

0

Associated Press

The dollar rose slightly against the euro and pound on Friday, benefiting from nervous currency investors withdrawing from risky “carry trades.”

A slumping Wall Street, which fell more than 300 points on Friday, drove traders away from those trades.

Carry trades involve borrowing currencies from countries with low interest rates, such as Japan and Switzerland, and investing the funds in higher-yielding assets elsewhere. Carry-trade beneficiaries are usually the euro and currencies of countries with high interest rates, such as the New Zealand kiwi.

The 15-nation euro was worth $1.4785 in late New York trading, a little below the $1.4793 it was worth Thursday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the U.S. central bank would act aggressively in confronting economic woes – signaling more interest rate cuts – and the European Central Bank sounded a hawkish note on interest rates. Those announcements drove the dollar lower.

Lower interest rates can jump-start a country’s economy, but may weigh on the currency as traders transfer funds to countries where they can earn higher returns.

The British pound dropped to $1.9573, down from $1.9609. On Thursday, the Bank of England kept its own rate unchanged, but signaled a cut was likely in February.

The dollar was down to 108.91 Japanese yen from 109.54 yen and 1.1010 Swiss francs from 1.1045 Swiss francs.

Also on Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department reported that the country’s trade deficit surged to the highest level in 14 months in November, reflecting record imports of foreign oil. The deficit with China declined slightly while the weak dollar boosted exports to another record high.

In other New York trading, the dollar rose to 1.0206 Canadian dollars, up from 1.0108 Canadian dollars.

Bush: US should have acted on Auschwitz

1

By ARON HELLER

A teary-eyed President Bush stopped in front of an aerial photo of Auschwitz on Friday at Israel’s Holocaust memorial and said the U.S. should have sent bombers to prevent the extermination of Jews there.

Yad Vashem’s chairman, Avner Shalev, quoted Bush as saying the U.S. should have “bombed it.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush referred to the train tracks leading to Auschwitz, not the camp itself, where between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were killed by Nazi Germany.

The issue of bombing the Nazi death camps or the rail lines leading to them has been debated for years – and the lack of action was interpreted by some as a sign of Allied indifference.

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz toward the end of World War II from escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort.

Some experts note only late in the war did the United States have the capability to bomb the infamous camp in occupied Poland, and also faced a moral dilemma since such an operation could kill thousands of prisoners. Even Jewish leaders at the time struggled with the issue and many concluded that loss of innocent lives under such circumstances was justifiable.

Bush twice had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of the museum, said Shalev, who guided Bush through the exhibits.

Upon viewing an aerial shot of Auschwitz, taken during the war by U.S. forces, he said Bush called the decision not to bomb it “complex.” He then called over Rice to discuss President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision, clearly pondering the options before rendering an opinion of his own, Shalev told The Associated Press.

Shalev quoted Bush as asking Rice, “Why didn’t Roosevelt bomb it?” He said Rice and Bush discussed the matter further and then the president delivered his verdict.

“We should have bombed it,” Shalev, speaking in Hebrew, quoted Bush as saying.

Briefing reporters later on Air Force One, Rice said Bush was talking about the rail lines to the camp.

“We were talking about the often-discussed ‘Could the United States have done more by bombing the train tracks?'” Rice said. “And so we were just talking about the various explanations that had been given about why that might not have been done.

“It was an exhibit about the train tracks. And so we were just talking about the various explanations because, you know, there are three or four different explanations about why the United States chose not to try to bomb the train tracks,” she said.

Rice did not detail those reasons.

Later Friday night, asked about Rice’s remarks to reporters, Shalev told the AP the president was not specific about what the Allies should have bombed.

Tom Segev, a leading Israeli scholar of the Holocaust, said Bush’s reported comment, which appeared spontaneous, marked the first time a U.S. president had made this acknowledgment.

“It is clear now that the U.S. knew a lot about it,” Segev said. “It’s possible that bombing at least the railway to the camps may have saved the lives of the Jews of Hungary. They were the very last ones who were sent to Auschwitz at a time when everybody knew what was going on.”

At the dedication of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington in 1993, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel famously asked, “Why weren’t the railways leading to Birkenau bombed by allied bombers? As long as I live I will not understand that.” Birkenau was the site of the main gas chambers and crematoriums at Auschwitz. UNESCO last year approved a name change from Auschwitz concentration camp to Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Is Bush Losing Control Of The Military?

0

U.S. Navy report undermines Bush’s drive to isolate Iran

TEHRAN: The U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet has released a statement saying it cannot say with any certainty that threats to blow up its vessels actually came from Iranian Navy speedboats in Sunday’s Straits of Hormuz incident.

The revelation tacitly supports the Iranian version of events, in that it was a normal challenge by Iranian naval officials for the American vessels to identify themselves, and at no time was there any serious danger of an escalation or any hostile action.

According to the commander of the Iranian naval forces, the patrol boats were on a regular patrol when they challenged the three American vessels to identify themselves and declare any helicopter activity in the area.

The U.S. quickly released a video showing Iranian speedboats in close proximity to the warships, with audio that the Iranians claimed was fake.

On Thursday the Iranian Navy released its own footage, taken on board one of the speedboats, showing a radio operator making clear requests in English for identification and activity reports.

One of the American vessels can be heard to reply; “This is coalition warship 73, I am operating in international waters.”

Shortly after the challenge and the response, the Iranian speedboats left the area.

The incident came as President George W. Bush began his first ever visit to Israel, where he frequently cited the Hormuz incident as further evidence of Iran’s belligerence.

The latest U.S. Navy report, however, appears to suggest quite the opposite, and undermines current efforts by Bush to isolate Iran and build an anti-Tehran alliance among its Arab neighbours.

But the question is; Did naval commanders opposed to escalating tension in the Persian Gulf deliberately rob their Commander-in-Chief of a timely stick to beat the Iranians with?

“There may have been tendency among the command levels to assume that those radio messages came from the Iranian boats, and their initial reports were based on their assumptions rather on what their equipment actually told them,” said Carl Osgood, a Washington-based writer and political analyst.

“I think one possible reason why the admission was made is because there is concern in the American military command about going to war by accident,” he said.

There is resistance among the highest levels of the United States military against a war with Iran, Osgood said, “and that could be the source, or a source, of that admission.”

He pointed out that Admiral William Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command, had expressed his opposition to escalating tension with Iran.

Fallon told al-Jazeera television in September, “This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful.

I expect there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for.”

In February 2007, Fallon had expressed strong opposition to the deployment of a third carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf.

According to an article written by respected analyst Gareth Porter and published in May 2007, Fallon had once confided that “there would be no war with Iran while I am head of Central Command.”

The electronic warfare and signals intelligence teams on the American warships should, at the very least, have been able to instantly identify the direction and relative distance from source of each and every signal coming in.

Therefore, it is fair to assume that they knew the Iranians were not responsible for the threats even as the first U.S. Navy reports of the incident were being released.

The U.S. Navy’s subsequent admission would suggest that rather than being a correction to a report that was made in haste, in the heat of the moment; an order had come down the line to release the real facts of the incident, whether or not they damaged or contradicted statements being made by the President of the United States.

So is Bush, the Commander-in-Chief, losing control of the U.S. military?

Perhaps, given the growing opposition in the armed forces to expanding the war, and the fact that Bush’s rhetoric against Iran is frequently at odds with reality.

“What we have to keep in mind is the intention of the Bush administration, particularly from Vice President Dick Cheney that for at least the past two years their intention has been to trigger another war in the region, this time targeting Iran,” said Osgood, “and that’s the background for this latest incident.”

Osgood noted the historical precedents, such as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that broadened America’s involvement in South East Asia and the Vietnam War.

“In the United States there is definitely a political faction that is very concerned that this administration is looking for any pretext for war, and it is one of the elements of an impeachment resolution that was introduced into the House a couple of months ago in November, calling for the impeachment and removal from office of Vice President Dick Cheney,” Osgood said, “so there are political splits over the question of war with Iran.”

Article based on interviews conducted by author and first broadcast on PressTV, Friday, 11 January 2008

http://chrisgelken.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-bush-losing-control-of-military.html

New probe aims to cover up CIA tortures

1

In an attempt to limit political damage and protect the highest officials, the new U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has ordered a special investigation of the decision in 2005 to destroy tapes of CIA interrogations made in 2002 of two alleged high-level Al-Qaeda officials. The investigation is limited to how the decision was made and who made it. It is not supposed to probe the content of the tapes, which are said to show brutal interrogations using torture.

Washington often claims to be the champion of “human rights” and uses an alleged lack of human rights to attack or impose sanctions on those it considers its enemies. Since the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, however, Washington and especially the CIA have become identified with torture of prisoners, from Baghram in Afghanistan, to Abu Ghraib in Iraq, to Guantánamo on the U.S.-occupied eastern tip of Cuba.

Since torture is illegal within the U.S.–at least on paper if not in practice–the CIA has even outsourced interrogations to client states, a process called “rendition.”

The tapes destroyed involve hundreds of hours of interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Both were captured in 2002 and are now being held at Guantánamo Bay among the 275 remaining prisoners of the 800 who had been held there since 2001. Zubaydah was captured in a firefight in Pakistan in March of 2002 and interrogated then at a CIA safe house in Thailand. Al-Nashiri was captured in the United Arab Emirates.

Zubaydah confessed to being a high-ranking al-Qaeda official. Al-Nashiri said he planned the 2000 attack against the USS Cole in Yemeni waters, which blew a hole in the side of the guided-missile destroyer and killed 17 sailors. The U.S. authorities classified both as “enemy combatants.”

Since U.S. interrogators admittedly used extreme sensory and sleep deprivation, along with waterboarding–and who knows what else–to get these confessions, it is possible that in 2002 the two prisoners told their interrogators anything they believed might stop the punishment. Both have since challenged the confessions, saying they were obtained under torture.

By the end of 2002, the CIA says it stopped taping interrogations. For the next three years, CIA legal counsels, CIA heads George Tenet and Porter Goss, discussed among themselves and with White House counsel whether or not the CIA could get away with destroying the tapes. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter advising the CIA not to destroy the tapes.

Bush gang promotes torture methods

Despite legal advice that destroying the tapes might interfere with future investigations, the CIA kept pushing to destroy the tapes. The Bush administration, whose Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez had provided a legal defense of brutal interrogation techniques (while refusing to call them torture), at the very least failed to order the CIA to desist from destroying the tapes.

In June 2005, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy ordered the Bush administration to safeguard “all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay,” which would include the above tapes. Nevertheless, in November 2005, the CIA destroyed the tapes, under orders from Jose Rodriguez, who headed the National Clandestine Service.

The CIA claimed it destroyed the tapes to protect the safety of the interrogating officers from retaliation from al-Qaeda. Other observers said it was also to protect these officials’ careers.

But most suspect the CIA destroyed the tapes with the blessing of the White House because public exposure of the torture would make Washington even more hated than the Abu Ghraib prison scandal did.

The New York Times wrote: “Interrogations of Abu Zubaydah had gotten rougher, with each new tactic approved by cable from headquarters. [U.S.] American officials have said that Abu Zubaydah was the first al Qaeda prisoner to be waterboarded, a procedure during which water is poured over the prisoner’s mouth and nose to create a feeling of drowning. Officials said they felt they could not risk a public leak of a videotape showing [U.S.] Americans giving such harsh treatment to bound prisoners.” (Dec. 30)

Mukasey, while being questioned by Congress before his appointment as attorney general, refused to say if he believed that waterboarding was torture. The tapes would leave no doubt that it is.

While the Justice Department is attempting to limit the investigation, a popular revulsion against the Bush administration makes it possible that the probe will go further than expected. Already, progressive organizations of attorneys like the Center for Constitutional Rights–which has taken the lead in organizing legal defense of the prisoners in Guantánamo and elsewhere–have raised protests against the Bush gang’s attack on constitutional rights and have called on Congress to act. The last word on the CIA tapes is yet to be spoken.

VIDEO: Demonizing 9/11 Truth

0

Research = Terrorism

“We Are Change” has 26 chapters around the country and the world.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an affiliated group.

What is the mission of these groups?

To get to the truth of what happened on 9/11.

The government would like to criminalize this activity.

Why?

Because the movement is too big, too well organized and its fact base is too compelling.

How will the government turn patriotic action into a crime ?

They’re going to do it with “education” sessions like this:

“Using the web as a weapon: The Internet as a tool for violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.”

US Navy withdraws claims against Iran

0

The US Navy withdraws the allegation that Iranian patrol boats had threatened to blow up a three-ship US convoy in the Hormuz Strait.

“It could have been a threat aimed at some other nation or a myriad of other things,” The Washington Post quoted US Navy spokesman Rear Admiral Frank Thorp IV as saying on Friday.

This is while senior US Navy sources have told the BBC that an alleged threat to blow up the US warships ‘may not have come’ from Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Pentagon alleged five Iranian boats belonging to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) had harassed three US Navy warships by threatening to ‘blow them up’ on Sunday.

“No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats,” said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

However, President Bush characterized the incident as ‘provocative’ and ‘dangerous’, warning Iran of serious consequences if it happens again.

Iranian officials have dismissed the allegation saying the incident was a routine maritime identification check, which is common between vessels in the Persian Gulf.

MD/RE

‘Bush violates Palestinians’ rights’

0

A Palestinian lawmaker has said that Bush’s proposal of denying refugees’ right of return to their homeland violates UN resolution 194.

The resolution 194 calls for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their original homes they were forced to flee in 1948.

US President George W. Bush said Thursday that Palestinian refugees should receive compensation for the loss of homes they were forced to flee during the establishment of the Zionist regime.

“Bush believes he has made progress in his new approach, but he never accounts for Palestinian rights in this new initiative,” Basam al-Salehi told Iran’s Alalam network Friday.

He also urged all Palestinian groups to insist on their right of return to their homeland and on all the related UN resolutions.

MRI/DT

Protests mark 6th anniversary of Gitmo

0

On the sixth anniversary of the Guantanamo Bay, protesters took to the street worldwide, with over 80 people arrested in the US capital.

On Friday, around 200 demonstrators in prisoner-style orange jumpsuit marched from Congress in Washington DC to the nearby Supreme Court building, calling for the shutdown of the prison where the US military put terrorist suspects in detention.

In addition, a petition signed by 1,100 parliamentarians from across the world, and 100,000 other signatures from US citizens, was to be handed in to the White House.

People also staged protests in the Philippines, Sweden, Paraguay, Bahrain, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Greece.

The US Supreme Court is to rule in the coming months on whether prisoners at Guantanamo Bay can challenge their detention in civilian courts. Currently they face special military tribunals at the base, outside the US soil.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, despite hundreds who have been released from Guantanamo to various countries, there are still 275 remaining in the prison.

SG/GM

‘British spies bugged Diana, leaked tapes to smear her’

0

British intelligence was spying on Princess Diana and recording embarrassingly private conversations, which were later leaked to the world, three years before she separated from the heir to the throne, her former bodyguard has said.

Ken Wharfe, Diana’s former bodyguard, told the long-running inquest into her death that the infamous “Squidgygate” tapes of Diana talking in an intimate fashion to an alleged lover were recorded by the British intelligence listening station GCHQ.

They were later deliberately leaked to embarrass the Princess, he said, in a damaging suggestion the royal family was “jealous” of Diana’s “popularity” and aides to the British Queen and her husband were “sharpening their knives” against her.

The revelation, splashed as the front-page lead story of the traditional and generally monarchist Daily Telegraph newspaper, has transfixed royal-watchers. Many believe it gives ballast to 10-year-old conspiracy theories about Establishment involvement in Diana’s death in Paris, alongside Dodi, the playboy son of Egyptian millionaire grocer Mohammed al-Fayed.

But Wharfe, the beefy, thickset, veteran royal protection officer who formerly cashed in on his association with Diana by writing a book about the six years he served her, added the caveat that British security services also regularly bugged other members of the royal family and cabinet ministers in the 1980s and 1990s, ostensibly to help protect them against assassination by the IRA.

On the ‘Squidygate’ tapes, which were relayed to a prurient world three years after Diana’s 1989 conversation with childhood friend and alleged lover James Gilbey, the man is heard repeatedly telling her “I love you”. The half-hour conversation had Gilbey, heir to the eponymous gin empire, calling Diana “Squidgy”, a pet name, 53 times.

The allegation that the tapes were made at the British government’s top secret monitoring station had Wharfe claiming that “Diana Diana did say to me on a number of occasions she felt she and other members of the family were being monitored.”

Wharfe’s account is seen to square with long-held suspicions the tapes were leaked to smear Diana at a time her relationship with Prince Charles was at its most acrimonious.

Barely a year after the tapes were leaked, Diana hired electronic surveillance experts to sweep her apartments for bugs, the bodyguard claimed.

Diana ‘believed she would be bumped off’

0

By Nick Allen

Diana, Princess of Wales believed she was going to be “bumped off” by MI6 because of her high profile campaign against landmines, the inquest into her death has been told.

Her friend Simone Simmons said the Princess was about to “name names” and publish a dossier called Profiting Out of Misery.

 
Diana, Princess of Wales
Diana, Princess of Wales, ‘believed M16 were out to kill her’

“Top of her list of culprits was the Secret Intelligence Service which she believed was behind the sale of British landmines that were causing so much misery to so many people,” Miss Simmons said.

On one occasion the Princess sent her a note which said: “If something happens, MI5 or MI6 will have done it.”

Miss Simmons said the Princess gave her the landmines dossier, which was up to six inches thick, and she kept it for several months under her mattress along with the note.

Later, she burned them. She said: “I was more than nervous. If I had the material, I might have been bumped off as well.”

At Kensington Palace in February 1997, the Princess asked her to listen into a phone call she was on in which she was threatened over the landmine campaign, Miss Simmons said.

“This person was saying to her that she shouldn’t interfere in matters she knew nothing about,” she said.

The caller told the Princess “Well accidents can happen” and she was “very pale” after the conversation.

Miss Simmons said the Princess told her the caller was Conservative MP Nicholas Soames.

Mr Soames, the grandson of Winston Churchill, has previously told the inquest that the suggestion was “grotesque and preposterous”.

According to Miss Simmons, the Princess had secret meetings with Tony Blair in the months before he became Prime Minister about becoming a roving ambassador in relation to landmines.

“That’s what he promised her and she thought he was going to announce it when he was elected.

“She was very disappointed,” Miss Simmons said.

The testimony of Miss Simmons, who describes herself as an “energy healer”, provided an insight into the world of the Princess, including her belief in alternative therapies.

From 1993 she went to Miss Simmons up to three times a week at a complementary medicine clinic.

They later became friends and she would go to Kensington Palace up to five times a week and was teaching the Princess how to be a healer herself, Miss Simmons said.

The Princess’s flat had “bad energy” which Miss Simmons had to clear it of in an “exhausting” procedure.

The two women once spent 10 hours on a single phone call to each other, the inquest heard.

“We talked about everything and if she was upset I would calm her down reassure her,” Miss Simmons said.

“I believed her calls were being listened to and every time there was a click on the phone she used to say ‘hello boys, time to change the tape’.”

In November 1996 she had a premonition the Princess would be one of four people in an accident in a Mercedes.

When she told the Princess, she replied: “Oh my God, Charles”.

The inquest also heard about an “Arab conspiracy”.

Miss Simmons said: “She wasn’t paranoid, somebody had told her there was a fatwa on her head because the Arabs liked Charles.”

The inquest continues.

Man dies after police Taser him

0

BY DAVID OVALLE

A man in his 20s died after a Coral Gables police officer used a Taser stun gun to subdue him Friday morning.

He was identified Friday afternoon as Xavier Jones, 29.

Jones had been disruptive at a party and resisted arrest, according to Miami-Dade police, whose homicide bureau is investigating the death.

About 2 a.m., police officers responded to a call about a scuffle at University Inn Condominium, 1280 S. Alahambra Cir., near the University of Miami. The building is across the street from the university and borders on U.S. 1.

After the man became disruptive inside the apartment, a security guard attempted to remove him from the property. The confrontation spilled outside.

Miami-Dade police said Jones displayed ”aggressive and combative behavior” so a police officer used a Taser stun gun to restrain him.

After the discharge, Jones became unresponsive, and paramedics took him to Doctor’s Hospital in Coral Gables, where he was pronounced dead.

The investigation by Coral Gables and Miami-Dade police closed an area of U.S. 1 between Red Road and South Alhambra Circle until 7 a.m.

A cause of death will be determined by the Miami-Dade medical examiner’s office.

US judge refuses to probe CIA tapes

0

 

A US judge has denied a request by a group of Guantanamo inmates to investigate the CIA’s destruction of interrogation videotapes and said a justice department probe of the issue would be sufficient.

Lawyers for 11 Yemeni detainees had asked Henry Kennedy, the US district judge, to investigate whether the CIA violated a 2005 court order to preserve documents on the mistreatment of prisoners at the US-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

They said trusting the justice department to investigate the issue would be a “classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse” and called for a broad inquiry into the US handling of interrogation records.

Waterboarding

  

The CIA disclosed last month that it had destroyed hundreds of hours of tapes showing the harsh interrogations of two terrorism suspects – suspected al-Qaeda members Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

  

Among the techniques believed to be used in the 2002 interrogations were a simulated form of drowning, known as waterboarding, which has been condemned internationally as illegal torture.

  

However, Kennedy wrote in denying the investigation request that the two suspects were interrogated before they had been at Guantanamo, so they would not have been covered by his order to preserve evidence.

  

The detainees’ lawyers “offer nothing to support their assertion that a judicial inquiry … is warranted,” Kennedy wrote. He also said he accepted justice department assurances that it would tell the court if the CIA had violated its order to preserve evidence.

Federal probe

Michael Mukasey, the US attorney general who took office last November, launched a criminal investigation last week into the videotapes’ destruction.

  

His choice to lead the probe, federal prosecutor John Durham of Connecticut, began work last week with briefings in Washington, officials said.

  

But human rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics have questioned the independence of the federal probe.

  

They have asked that the probe look into the broader issue of whether the interrogators broke anti-torture laws, and have called for an independent prosecutor.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BA1EDB37-AE42-413A-91C0-5471A0F8C110.htm

FBI hits a hang-up with wiretaps

0

Surveillance shut off because of unpaid phone bills

BY LARA JAKES JORDAN

Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau’s repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.

A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the lost connections on the FBI’s lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. In one office alone, unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.

In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation “was halted due to untimely payment,” the audit found. FISA wiretaps are used in the government’s most sensitive and secretive criminal and intelligence investigations and allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies.

“We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence,” according to the audit.

More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication surveillance in five FBI field offices were not paid on time, the report shows.

Assistant FBI Director John Miller said wiretaps were dropped only a few times because of the backed-up billing, which he said didn’t significantly set back the investigations under way.

Brown cooling towards compulsory ID cards

0

 PM stresses it will be for parliament to decide 
He may be seeking wriggle room on issue, says Vaz

Patrick Wintour and Will Woodward
The Guardian

Senior Labour MPs yesterday seized on comments by Gordon Brown to suggest that he intends to shelve a compulsory universal identity card scheme. They interpreted his remarks at prime minister’s questions as a sign that he is cooling towards a compulsory scheme and may instead settle for a scheme that applies to foreign nationals.The prime minister’s spokesman insisted that the government’s policy and timetable on ID cards remained unchanged, after Brown had stressed that that it would be “for parliament to decide” on a compulsory scheme.

MPs have detected a less enthusiastic tone in Brown’s remarks on ID cards since the recent government data losses.

Speaking at PMQs today, the Tory leader, David Cameron, accused Brown of failing to give a “straight answer” on ID cards. “What’s your personal view? Are you in favour, yes or no?” Brown replied only: “It is the government’s policy to move ahead with this, but subject to a vote of parliament, depending on how the voluntary scheme works.”

Brown said in an interview at the weekend that the envisaged scheme did not involve compulsion – and added on Tuesday that compulsion was just an “option”.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the home affairs select committee, suggested that Brown’s performance at prime minister’s questions indicated that he might be looking for wriggle room, adding that he believed Brown would use the imposition of ID cards on foreign nationals as a pilot.

A 2006 act allows for the registering and issuing of an ID card to be linked to the issuing of official documents such as passports and immigration documents. Around 8% of the adult population receive a passport each year, but further primary legislation will have to be laid before parliament to provide the powers to issue ID cards to the rest of the population. Meanwhile the Tories will today seek to exploit Labour embarrassment over recent increases in child poverty by championing many of the proposals made by David Blunkett, the former home secretary, to improve social mobility.

In an article in the Guardian, George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, supports Blunkett’s idea of giving good tenants of social housing a share of their homes, backs residents taking control of poor neighbourhoods, and says giving extra cash to poorer students echoes Tory proposals.

No trust in keeping our data

0

A Record 37-million items of personal data went missing last year, new research by the Liberal Democrats reveals.

Most of the data was lost by Government officials, but councils, NHS trusts, banks, insurance companies and chain stores also mislaid or published personal information about staff or members of the public.The details lost included names, addresses, passports, bank and mortgage accounts, credit cards, hospital records, dates of birth, national insurance numbers, driving licences and telephone numbers. The shocking total of 36,989,300 items has prompted further calls for the Government to kill its plans for national identity cards.

This Government’s shocking record of data loss means we need a total rethink on data protection enforcement and an immediate end to the identity cards plan. The ID card project is now in freefall, because faith in the Government’s ability to handle personal data has hit crisis point.

There is simply no way any democratic government can expect an unwilling public to accept having their precious personal data cropped and stored in the world’s largest database when they aren’t confident that database will be safe.

Coun Neil Poole

Iran slams US propaganda campaign

0

US is launching a new propaganda campaign against Iran by showing the video of incident in Hormuz Strait, Iran’s Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar says, PressTV reported.Americans have always pursued a vicious plan to present Iran as a threat to the regional countries, Mohammad-Najjar said.

“This propaganda campaign is nothing new, especially during the US President Bush’s visit to the Middle East.”

The US’ anti-Iran efforts are doomed to failure since Tehran has always had cordial relations with its neighbors, the minister stressed.

Iranian boats call on the US warships to identify themselves was a routine responsibility taken by them on determining identity of any vessels entering into the waters of the Persian Gulf, he elaborated.

Earlier Wednesday, a member of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)Navy told Press TV the US video of Sunday’s incident was archive footage and the audio was fake.

The US Navy has released a footage purportedly showing Iranian boats menacing US Navy warships in Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.

Source

History of Rudy Giuliani’s Temper

0

Before he decided that September 11 was his own personal self-aggrandizement machine, Rudy Giuliani pissed off a whole slew of people in a remarkable number of ways. A look at the dark, petty, vindictive, small-minded maneuvering of “America’s mayor”

Giulianismall

“Hello, dear. I’m talking to the members of the NRA right now.” Rudy Giuliani’s wife had reached him on his cell as he stood on a dais in Washington, D.C., in September. “I love you,” he went on, “and I’ll give you a call as soon as I’m finished.” Putting aside what appeared to be the painfully obvious staging of the scene, its message was clear: Giuliani is not only hard as nails when it comes to criminals and terrorists and freedom-threatening immigrants; he also has a soft candy center. But for those in New York who’ve witnessed firsthand the workings of this most autocratic of mayors, the ruse was as crude as that employed by the three-card-monte dealers he so gleefully swept off the city’s streets. GQ tracked down all the sources bold enough to talk–even some still constrained by pledges of loyalty–and asked them to help us understand the man and the atomic temper he’s trying so hard to live down.

DAN COLLINS (coauthor, Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11): I think he has a problem with his temper.

STANLEY FRIEDMAN (former Bronx Democratic Party chairman): And if you want witnesses to that, I’m sure none will talk to you.

ED KOCH (former mayor of New York City): Anybody I know would be afraid to talk to the press about Giuliani. They don’t want to incur his anger. I don’t give a shit.

ERIC LANE (former executive director, New York City Charter Revision Commission): He’s running for president. There’s far too much at stake. What if something slipped out? What if he wanted to blame someone for screwing up a quote?

MARK GREEN (former New York City public advocate; Air America president): I remember going to public events and chatting with people I liked in the Giuliani administration, and when the press approached they would melt away. That happened again and again. They didn’t want to be in the same camera shot with me because they were afraid of what Rudy might say.

COLLINS: One of his closest guys is Denny Young. If Rudy sees something in the papers that pisses him off, Denny tries to calm him down. That was Denny’s job–to keep Rudy on the straight and narrow as far as excesses of his temper and angry phone calls to reporters. To almost anyone.

LOUIS ANEMONE (retired chief, NYPD): He has this streak, Rudy, where he looks for unnecessary confrontations. Is he overcompensating? I sure as hell don’t know. But I worked with men, I worked with real men, and they didn’t have to do that. They knew where and when someone had to get knocked on their ass.

RANDY MASTRO (longtime aide): I’ve seen a person who has taken on enormous challenges and enormous pressures and has handled them with grace, wisdom, authority, and leadership.

JERRY HAUER (former director, New York City Office of Emergency Management): Rudy has this litigious nature about him where he’s out to screw anybody that doesn’t go along with what he wants.

PETER POWERS (former first deputy mayor; chairman, Giuliani Partners): I’ll leave it to his detractors to think if he overstepped. I’m not going to comment on whether I thought he overstepped.

FLOYD ABRAMS (constitutional lawyer): A few months ago, I spoke with a person I know well, a very conservative former federal prosecutor. I asked him if he was surprised at how well Giuliani seemed to be doing in the polls. He said no; he thought he was a good candidate. I said, “Are you supporting him?” And he looked at me and said, “Well, no. I know him.”

*****

In 1989, Giuliani, running as a moderate Republican, lost to David Dinkins, a Democrat, in the closest mayoral election in New York City since 1905. Four years later, Giuliani ran again, this time on a law-and-order platform calculated to appeal to conservative white outer-borough voters. On September 16, 1992, before he had announced his candidacy, Giuliani addressed New York City police officers at a City Hall rally.

ROBERT POLNER (former reporter, Newsday): It was a rally against Dinkins for trying to create the Civilian Complaint Review Board, in order to field police-
misconduct complaints.

WAYNE BARRETT (reporter, The Village Voice; author, Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani): I don’t think there’s ever been a time when he publicly lost his cool more than at the police riot of 1992.

ERIC ADAMS (retired captain, NYPD; state senator): The police department was angry to the point of obsession about Dinkins’s election. The cops hated having a black mayor.

FREDDY MALDONADO (retired captain, NYPD): The police department is still run by Irish and Italians. That day they were calling Dinkins “the washroom attendant.” Giuliani heard the comments, he saw the signs, he didn’t tone it down. That’s a real dog day in history. There were thousands of white cops there. Who was riling them up? Giuliani.

ADAMS: Giuliani should have been arrested for inciting the riot, because he worked those guys up into a frenzy.

BARRETT: Thousands of cops were shouting epithets and overturning vehicles.

AL SHARPTON (political activist): According to all reports, many in the crowd were using the N-word, and he led chants of “Bullshit!”

DAVID SEIFMAN (City Hall bureau chief, The New York Post): I know officials whose cars were trampled. Cops jumped on the top of the cars and the roofs caved in.

POLNER: Giuliani had a bullhorn. Dinkins wasn’t in his office at the time, but the cops who were marauding seemed intent on breaking in, so he had to do something he rarely did, which is lock down City Hall. That’s how pitched it got.

SHARPTON: Can you imagine if I led a rally like that, what they would do to me? That would be all you would see about me when I ran for president. These are policemen who are engaged in property damage and violence. It was stunning. And Giuliani led it.

BARRETT: And the terrible thing was not just that he said “Bullshit! Bullshit!” at a race riot, but that he gets in the car afterward and he thinks everything’s gone terrific. He said so to an aide! He can’t see–he’s blind, really, to his own personal explosiveness. In the vulnerability study they did, his own staff said that this was one of his worst moments ever, and that they feared it in the ’93 campaign. It never really became a major issue because no television stations ever played the tape. They’ll have to explain why.

*****

Giuliani narrowly won election as mayor of New York City thanks to the overwhelming support of the city’s white ethnic stronghold, Staten Island, where he took more than 80 percent of the vote.

GREEN: On inauguration day, I was told I had ten minutes to speak. I just talked about how I wanted to help everyone in the city prosper, and I used a few metaphors that may have struck some chords. Within a day, his chief deputy called me and said, “Mark, the mayor didn’t like your speech.” I said, “Excuse me?” Apparently, the mayor hadn’t liked my remarks because they sounded “mayoral.” I said, “Well, I don’t work for the mayor. I’m independently elected.”

POLNER: At press conferences, he’d walk into the room as if it were booby-trapped. If things weren’t going his way, he’d turn on his heels and storm off. He announced one day that he was offering a billion dollars in subsidies to keep the stock market in Lower Manhattan. I asked him to explain to the average New Yorker why one of the wealthiest institutions in America should be receiving such a gigantic public subsidy. I felt like he was going to leap across the entire room and grab me by the throat. He snapped, “Your question is simplistic and inaccurate, and the amount is much less,” and so on. When you saw the fine print, it was in fact a billion dollars. That was characteristic of him, to lash out when you had a good, legitimate story.

GREEN: After his first city budget had been negotiated, Giuliani told the speaker, “Oh, one more thing. I want Mark Green’s office cut by a third.” Everybody else was taking 10 percent cuts. Giuliani got abusive but the speaker was adamant, so the budget went forward without the cuts.

*****

Under newly appointed police commissioner William Bratton, the NYPD focused on quality-of-life offenses and produced an astounding reduction in crime in New York City. Bratton was celebrated around the world for his success.

ADAMS: I’ll never forget having dinner with my good friend Jack Maple, deputy police commissioner, at the peak of his success. Jack and Bratton started the crime decrease in New York. I told him, “Y’all are on top!” And he says, “Giuliani is having a problem with Bratton’s popularity.”

ANEMONE: Giuliani was angry that Bratton had the cover of Time magazine. They searched for reasons to get rid of him. Giuliani used city agencies to look at the fact that Bratton accepted a plane ride.

ADAMS: Bratton said you hit the beats with quality-of-life policing–everything from jumping the turnstile to pissing in the corner. The people who were carrying out these actions were the same people who were contributing to a state of anarchy. Then you start building relationships with the good people who’d been living in fear. But Giuliani said, “John in the Bronx is drinking a beer at the softball game. Lock his ass up for that beer.” Bratton said, “This is not how it’s supposed to work.” And Giuliani said, “It’s time for you to go.” Bratton hated going after the nine-to-five guy for bullshit. He wanted to go after the guys who were destroying the city.

FRED SIEGEL (author, The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York, and the Genius of American Life): The biggest mistake Giuliani made was pushing Bratton out.

*****

The next commissioner, Howard Safir, lacked his predecessor’s feeling for community relations. With Giuliani’s encouragement, he had his men conduct random–often assaultive–street searches of minority civilians at an unprecedented rate. The result was a series of shocking cases in which police brutalized or killed unarmed black and Hispanic victims.

POLNER: Bratton has said that by Giuliani’s second term, the city had calmed down. But Giuliani, even in the face of objections from high-level people in the police department, wanted to increase the size of the Street Crime Unit, the one that was involved with the Amadou Diallo shooting.

SHARPTON: Here’s Diallo, an unarmed man, shot forty-one times.

SAIKOU DIALLO (Amadou Diallo’s father): I thought my son was just killed by coincidence, that it was a one-time mistake. But so many more families who were surrounding us had been victimized by the police. They have pictures of their sons and daughters, the photos pinned on their clothes. I looked on the TV and I saw Giuliani defend the police. So I understand that something more than my son was happening here.

BARRETT: After almost every shooting, he would say almost instantly that the police were justified. Without really knowing the facts of the case, he would say it.

ADAMS: The police in the city reached a level where they felt untouchable. Think about what [police officer Justin] Volpe did. He brought [Abner Louima] into the bathroom, broke off the handle of the broomstick, and sodomized him. Sodomized him! What comfort does one have to have to believe that one can even get away with that?

BARRETT: During his reelection campaign, he appointed a task force to examine the Louima case. It came out with an extraordinarily detailed volume of recommendations. After he was safely reelected, he rejected every recommendation but one: He agreed to change the name of one law-enforcement agency.

MARIE ANDRE DORISMOND (sister of Patrick Dorismond): Patrick was leaving work with three friends. The cops approached him and asked, “Do you know where I could get some weed?” He said no. They’re trying to meet their arrest quota for the night, and they’re altercating, trying to start an argument with him, and this officer, who was wearing a wire, said the password: “What are you trying to do, rob me?” Other cops come running, and one of them has the gun in his hand already, and he shot my brother straight through the chest and killed him in his aorta.

SANFORD RUBINSTEIN (civil rights attorney): At his press conference, Giuliani said that Patrick Dorismond wasn’t an altar boy. In fact, he was an altar boy. But what was significant was that his administration allowed sealed family court records to be released in an obvious attempt to dirty up the victim.

SHARPTON: Like somebody has to be an altar boy not to be shot by police.

DORISMOND: My brother had a juvenile incident with another kid. Giuliani tried to make it look like my brother was a thug who didn’t come from a very good family. My brother went to Bishop Loughlin High School, just like Giuliani.

MARGARITA ROSARIO (mother of Anthony Rosario): Two police officers came here to tell me that the cops had had a shoot-out with my son and his cousin, and that both of the kids were killed. I did not believe that. [The medical examiner] called me up the day after the autopsy, and she said the kids had been shot multiple times while they were facedown on the floor. From time to time, I would see Giuliani speak on the news and defend these two officers. I called him on his radio show, and he said I should look at my background, the way I was raised, the church I went to, how I raised my child. That as a mother, I didn’t do the right job. But I wonder if he would say the same thing to Volpe’s mother.

JOESEPH LHOTA (deputy mayor under Giuliani): Rudy Giuliani in many ways has the same skill set that a priest and a minister have in consoling people.

BARRETT: You can understand that, as a policy imperative, he thinks the police have to be defended. But there’s no requirement that the parents have to be attacked. That’s why he was so mistrusted and despised by the black people of New York.

CHARLIE RANGEL (U.S. congressman, D-N.Y.): I guess the best contribution that Giuliani ever made to the African-American community is just not meeting with them. And that included the state comptroller and the borough president.

C. VIRGINIA FIELDS (former borough president, Manhattan): Was there a period when Rudy stopped talking to me? Well, actually, he never started.

KOCH: I said to him, “Why won’t you meet with them?” His answer was incredible: “I don’t agree with them.” I said, “Rudy, you only meet with people you agree with?”

H. CARL McCALL (former state comptroller, New York): I was in fact the highest elected black official in the state, and we met once during the entire eight years that he was mayor and I was the state comptroller. I’m not sure what the disagreement was.

KOCH: I remember the leadership in the black and Hispanic communities would come to me and say, “He’s a racist!” I would say, “He’s not. He’s nasty to everybody.”

GILLIAN SORENSEN (assistant secretary-general, United Nations): In 1995, the New York Philharmonic performed a concert honoring the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. More than a thousand people attended, including many presidents and prime ministers. We were backstage with his aide, Randy Mastro, and suddenly the mayor saw Yasir Arafat in the audience. The mayor went ballistic. He totally exploded. He turned red in the face, he started waving his arms, he yelled at his trembling aide as if he were a worm, he yelled at me in language that I have not in my entire life been spoken to with. He jumped up and down. I have never seen a grown person act like a 3-year-old, but that is the way I have to describe it.

MASTRO: Up close and personal, I have seen how much his creativity, courage, and tenacity are an asset.

SORENSEN: I said to him, “Mr. Mayor, Arafat has been invited.” And the mayor yelled at me, “I don’t want to hear it!” He told Mastro to tell Arafat to get out. I urged him not to do that, but he was utterly out of control. Arafat apparently told Mastro, “We will leave when we are ready.” And he stayed for about the first two movements of Beethoven’s Ninth, and then quietly he slipped out. I’m not making a case that Arafat was a wonderful man. But he was a leader; he was invited. Giuliani didn’t like Arafat; he disagreed with him. To insult him achieved nothing. Giuliani talks about this today as if it was great statesmanship.

ALFONSE D’AMATO (former U.S. senator, R-N.Y.): I would say his endorsement of [Democratic gubernatorial candidate] Mario Cuomo was probably one of the low points in his political life.

KOCH: I got a call from Giuliani during the gubernatorial election between Pataki and Cuomo. I had been on the radio criticizing [Giuliani’s] administration for taking down Pataki’s placards from the trees. He wasn’t taking down the placards of Mario Cuomo. I was home; there was a call from City Hall. Rudy gets on: “Ed, you’re all wrong about the placards. It’s against the law to put them on the telephone poles and trees.” I said, “Rudy, I know it’s against the law. I’m the one who initiated that law. But it’s understood you don’t enforce that law until after the election.” He says, “Don’t interrupt me.” I thought, Who does he think he is? So I took the phone and I put it in the crook of my arm, and I started to do other things that I needed to do, having nothing to do with him.

*****

Mayor Giuliani inherited a city wracked by homelessness and AIDS, yet he immediately set about eviscerating New York’s social services and actively defied the landmark 1979 case establishing a legal right to shelter.

MARY BROSNAHAN (executive director, Coalition for the Homeless): We dogged him. I remember getting word that he was about to speak at Port Authority on homelessness. We had something like fifty homeless people go and confront him and shout him down. And I remember him giving me this seething, furious look, like, “I’m gonna win, and you’re totally fucked when I do.” On the one hand, he was dismantling the right to shelter, ejecting people who were found in noncompliance of administrative rules; on the other, he was directing police to arrest homeless people who refused to go into shelters. Nobody could follow that logic. Our pro bono ad company produced an ad showing a stereotypical out-of-it homeless guy pushing a cart down the street. The text read, “Deranged, delusional, and dangerous. But enough about Mayor Giuliani–let’s talk about the homeless.”

CHRISTOPHER DUNN (associate legal director, New York Civil Liberties Union): Giuliani had very little tolerance for protests. It just wasn’t a form of citizen activity that he respected.

ARMEN MERJIAN (senior staff attorney, Housing Works): We provide social services for people living with HIV and AIDS, and Giuliani was so enraged by Housing Works’ persistent though fair criticism of his policies that he canceled $20 million in city contracts.

MATTHEW BRINCKERHOFF (counsel, Housing Works): We have him on tape getting very upset at a press conference when asked about Housing Works. He’s just sick of them. He throws up his hands, and he’s like, “Ugh! Housing Works!” and he stomps off the podium.

MERJIAN: He advanced a subterfuge that there were accounting irregularities in Housing Works’ books. Housing Works sued him, and ultimately the city, at taxpayer expense, was forced to settle the case for $4.8 million in taxpayer money.

BRINCKERHOFF: The city denied us about $3 million in HUD funds that was due us. The judge suggested strongly that the city just give us the money, because it’s no harm to them, right? And that we on our side forgo any right to the attorneys’ fees we were entitled to and agree to a gag order. Housing Works’ primary concern was just getting the money to operate, so we agreed. The city was told they were going to lose, yet they ended up not agreeing. It was on the front page of the Times. Rudy was given the opportunity to walk away with no bad press, without a penny of city money being spent on anything. And he completely lost it and started screaming, “There’s no way! I will never settle this case! You can forget about it!” I think the judge was trying to confirm what he’d intuited, which is that this was really about Giuliani’s vindictiveness. And that confirmed it.

MERJIAN: Giuliani’s lawyers were so intransigent in the cases against him and so impervious to any reasonable settlement offers that at one point a judge exclaimed, “All the defendants are asking for is that you comply with existing laws. I thought this was New York, not Mississippi!”

BROSNAHAN: A young white woman was smashed in the head with a brick on the street, and Giuliani said that this underscored why we needed to arrest all the homeless people. In the press conference, we handed out a list of questions that we felt reporters needed to ask him. When Giuliani said that the advocates for the homeless had psychiatric problems, one of the TV reporters said, “Mary Brosnahan is right here. Do you want to tell her what your diagnosis is?” The color drained out of his face. “This is a setup!” he shouted and stormed out. He was just apoplectic. He told the police he wanted me arrested for trespassing. They caught the thug eventually, and he wasn’t a homeless person. But we’re still dealing with this. One of the last things Giuliani did before he left office was appeal the right to shelter.

MERJIAN: Another lawsuit that we had to bring had to do with the conditions in the housing where the Giuliani administration was placing people: facilities where the management was involved in money laundering and drug dealing, where bathrooms were not at all maintained, where the security was such that people were murdered, where there was a lack of elevators so that people living with AIDS passed out crawling up stairs on their hands and knees.

POWERS: I can’t explain to you what it was like every day going into City Hall, the criticism and the vicious remarks. We were accused of hurting the poor and being insensitive and everything, when you knew you were right and you had to stick to your guns. That’s the essence of Rudy Giuliani.

ABRAMS: A professor at NYU School of Law was quoted by the AP as saying that she could teach a whole course on the First Amendment just on cases involving Giuliani.

LANE: Giuliani’s sense that he has to control everything was ridiculous. He even tried to impose his tastes, in the Brooklyn Museum thing.

ABRAMS: He focused on a single picture by a distinguished English-Nigerian artist which showed a colorfully clad black woman as the Virgin Mary. I know he had not seen the painting. Through an aide, he had a journalist ask him about it at a press conference, where he exploded–the art was “sick” and “an outrage,” and the city would take away the museum’s funding because the painting had elephant dung on it, which is used routinely in Nigeria for decorative purposes. He said he was going to evict the museum from the building it had occupied since the end of the nineteenth century, and that they would throw out the board and appoint a new one.

HAUER: I was at the press conference when he went through that fit of hysteria. I was standing behind him, and the minute he went off on his rant, I started backing up to get out of the shot, because I didn’t want to be on TV that night associated with his craziness.

ABRAMS: My reaction was partly one of disbelief. One of the most clearly established, least ambiguous principles of First Amendment law is that the state may not act to retaliate against speech of which it disapproves. This was retaliation. He was outraged. He was filled with fury. I don’t think he cared what the law was. I think he thought that First Amendment law is for Upper West Side liberals to play around with. The resolution was a complete humiliation for him–a court order repeatedly mentioning him by name, and eventually agreed to by him, that said he would not treat the museum differently from any other museum in the future or attempt to reduce its funding.

MARCIA PAUL (attorney): New York magazine had placed an ad on the sides of New York City buses featuring its logo and the words possibly the only good thing in new york rudy hasn’t taken credit for. I received a phone call in which I was advised that Rudy had called the Metropolitan Transit Authority and demanded that the ads be taken down. The ads were summarily removed, and the magazine wanted to know what it could do. This was Rudy exercising his political muscle to make things happen without going the normal legal route. A judge’s decision required the city to put the ads back up. The MTA sent an emergency appeal and a stay of the judge’s order. The stay was denied and we won the appeal. Then they petitioned the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. Almost every single night, Rudy would have a news conference. New York got far more publicity through Rudy’s uncontrollable need to talk about the ad every night on the news than it ever would have gotten otherwise. I still don’t get it. One wonders more than anything else whether the man has a sense of humor.

*****

Despite a burgeoning crisis in New York City’s public schools, the mayor engaged in political combat, not cooperation, with a series of unhappy chancellors and boards.

KAREN FINNEY (director of communications for chancellor Harold Levy): Harold Levy became chancellor immediately after his predecessor was ousted by Mayor Giuliani, but he wasn’t the mayor’s choice. For the first several months of Levy’s tenure, Mayor Giuliani refused to meet with him. You have 1.1 million children in New York City public schools, 80,000 teachers. What kind of person, what kind of leader just says, I’m not going to talk to the schools chancellor just because he wasn’t my pick?

RANDI WEINGARTEN (president, United Federation of Teachers): Once I said on the radio that I wasn’t going to rule out a strike. I heard over the course of the next few days that he was infuriated and that his staff was looking for a way to put me in jail. It was just ridiculous.

ANEMONE: Another schools chancellor was understood to be gay, though not publicly or openly. So the mayor was asked a question at a press conference about the differences between his plan for education and the chancellor’s, and his answer was, “The little victim,” “so precious.” That was code, and everyone who lived in the city knew what he was saying. That was just mean. The mayor really enjoyed doing that.

FINNEY: After 9/11, there were concerns about contaminants in the air. Rudy pressured the chancellor to reopen seven schools near the World Trade Center. He wanted to show that we were getting back to normal. He was under a lot of pressure from Wall Street. But all of our data showed that the air quality was incredibly dangerous for children. Rudy didn’t care. Levy made it very clear that he was not going to reopen the schools until the air quality was appropriate for children. Rudy was just enraged. He was unwilling to listen to scientific evidence. Why? Because he wanted what he wanted, and that’s all he could see.

WEINGARTEN: One day, after a State of the City address, it was snowing. He had just taken the school system apart in his speech. It was a bravura performance, so disconcerting, so dispiriting and disheartening. And I see him outside City Hall, and I did not have my coat on. He had just ripped right into the school system and the union, but he looked at me and said–and his tone was quite caring–“You have to wear a coat. Why are you not wearing a coat?” I said something like “My blood’s burning enough right now that I don’t need to.” He just laughed. I remember thinking, Is this real, or is it all a game to him?

COLLINS: I think he just lacks a basic sense of empathy. It’s not an unusual characteristic in a criminal prosecutor. Look at his relationship with his children, his divorcing his wife at a press conference.

POLNER: I actually covered that. We went over to Bryant Park for some kind of event. Rudy and his people kept huddling and talking, and the event was delayed and delayed. They seemed very nervous and charged. And then they gathered us in the restaurant there, and Rudy announced that he had a “special friend” in his life and that she had helped him through his prostate cancer. He went on to talk about his love for this woman and that he would be leaving Donna Hanover. Pretty soon after the press conference, it emerged that Donna Hanover didn’t know. She learned about it on the news. And this affair had gone on for ten months. She came out of Gracie Mansion that evening around five o’clock and was fighting back tears. The two kids were old enough to really be hurt by this. You can see now that they are taking their mom’s side and want nothing to do with their father, who wants to be an American father figure.

ANEMONE: It took an event the size of 9/11 for this son of a gun to show the slightest bit of human compassion.

GREEN: I don’t think it’s arguable that he rose to the occasion on that day and immediately afterward and struck the right note of compassion and strength.

GABE PRESSMAN (chairman, Freedom of the Press Committee, New York Press Club): My most vivid memories of Rudy were right after 9/11, when he quickly shut off the World Trade Center area to television crews. All this in the name of God knows what. There were no explanations given.

SIEGEL: He’s best in crisis. He is not a man for all seasons. His oversize personality will capsize the ship of state in calm waters.

GLENN CORBETT (associate professor of fire science, Department of Public Management, John Jay College of Criminal Justice): If we’re going to be invaded by a whole army of squeegee men from abroad, then maybe he’s your guy. But he’s basically running on his 9/11, um, what he calls credentials. What’s weird about this whole situation is that people across the country think that Rudy is tremendously beloved by the emergency responders. And it’s the complete opposite. We knew that communications were an issue after [the radios failed during] the 1993 bombing, and they used the same radios on 9/11.

MALDONADO: There were recommendations made years ago that were never complied with, which would have given the fire department the ability to communicate with the police department. When the order was given to evacuate the towers, the firefighters didn’t receive it.

CORBETT: Giuliani basically made a claim at the 9/11 hearings in 2004 that these emergency responders chose to stay behind and rescue people. They essentially decided to ignore the evacuation order. And of course, this whole situation revolves around the fact that you have to hear an evacuation order to follow it. And if your radios are not working, then how are you going to hear that message? The other presidential candidates will not bring this up. They will not talk about it. It’s like a third rail for them. We feel a moral obligation to say something about this.

RAYMOND HORTON (Frank R. Lautenberg professor of ethics and corporate governance, Columbia Business School): To me, 9/11 symbolizes the worst of Rudy, not the best of Rudy. Because his immediate response was that we should suspend the mayoral elections so he could be mayor beyond his term. It gave him a second life, politically. He was dead and gone politically until 9/11.

LANE: There was a serious conversation about the charter and term limits, about whether or not he could run again. I was asked by people who had power how I would finagle that, if I were doing it. They wisely decided that it would have looked horrible. I was thinking at the time, Wow, he envisions himself as indispensable.

POLNER: Jimmy Breslin calls him a small man in search of a balcony.

KOCH: He couldn’t have been elected dogcatcher on 9/10.

HAUER: The minute I endorsed Mark Green [as Giuliani’s successor], some detective took away my credentials to Ground Zero. When my staff heard, they had ten more sets of credentials produced and delivered to me surreptitiously, just because they hated Rudy. He threw his hissy fit. He called me on my cell phone, and I had horrible reception, so I could barely hear him. He thought I was playing games with him. He’s got such a frail ego. I said, “Mayor, I can barely hear you.” And he said, “I heard you endorsed Mark Green today with Bratton.” He didn’t like Bratton, and he particularly hated Mark Green. He said, “If you do that, you’re done.” He started yelling and screaming, and I couldn’t tell what he was saying, so I just hung up. Within an hour, two of his aides were calling the press, talking about how I was gone.

POLNER: During all this hero worship going on in the national press, he had one of his last town-hall meetings. It was in a Bronx high school, and he lashed out at a teacher for saying that he didn’t know anything about the schools, that the schools are still a mess, that there was too much overcrowding in the classroom, that you can’t teach that way. I remember he just laid into her. He said that it was people like her who were responsible for the lamentable state of the New York City school system. I remember chuckling to myself in the audience: That’s the Giuliani I know. Okay, we’re getting back to normal here.

POWERS: I’ve known him fifty years. And I’ve never seen him lose his temper. No way.

Reported by Hilary Elkins, Alex French, David Gargill, Randy Hartwell, Cole Louison, Laurence Lowe, Raha Naddaf, and Alexander Provan.

Illustration by Zohar Lazar

http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2008/01/an-oral-history.html

US worst in preventable death ranking

0

By Will Dunham

France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, and ranked nations on how they did.

They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country’s health care system.

Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance — about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates — probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.

“I wouldn’t say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don’t, I think that’s the main problem, isn’t it?” Nolte said in a telephone interview.

In establishing their rankings, the researchers considered deaths before age 75 from numerous causes, including heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, diabetes, certain bacterial infections and complications of common surgical procedures.

Such deaths accounted for 23 percent of overall deaths in men and 32 percent of deaths in women, the researchers said.

France did best — with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.

After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.

PREVIOUS RANKINGS

The researchers compared these rankings with rankings for the same 19 countries covering the period of 1997 and 1998. France and Japan also were first and second in those rankings, while the United States was 15th, meaning it fell four places in the latest rankings.

All the countries made progress in reducing preventable deaths from these earlier rankings, the researchers said. These types of deaths dropped by an average of 16 percent for the nations in the study, but the U.S. decline was only 4 percent.

The research was backed by the Commonwealth Fund, a private New York-based health policy foundation.

“It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,” Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen said.

“The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference,” Schoen added in a statement.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

First Air-Powered Car: Zero Emissions by Next Summer

By Matt Sullivan

India’s largest automaker is set to start producing the world’s first commercial air-powered vehicle. The Air Car, developed by ex-Formula One engineer Guy Nègre for Luxembourg-based MDI, uses compressed air, as opposed to the gas-and-oxygen explosions of internal-combustion models, to push its engine’s pistons. Some 6000 zero-emissions Air Cars are scheduled to hit Indian streets in August of 2008.

Barring any last-minute design changes on the way to production, the Air Car should be surprisingly practical. The $12,700 CityCAT, one of a handful of planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles. It will take only a few minutes for the CityCAT to refuel at gas stations equipped with custom air compressor units; MDI says it should cost around $2 to fill the car’s carbon-fiber tanks with 340 liters of air at 4350 psi. Drivers also will be able to plug into the electrical grid and use the car’s built-in compressor to refill the tanks in about 4 hours.

Of course, the Air Car will likely never hit American shores, especially considering its all-glue construction. But that doesn’t mean the major automakers can write it off as a bizarre Indian experiment – MDI has signed deals to bring its design to 12 more countries, including Germany, Israel and South Africa.

Rudy to 9/11 heroes: “Drop dead”

Dear activists, colleagues and friends,With your help millions of Americans now know the story behind The Real Rudy, and his disastrous handling of events before, during and after 9/11.

In the wake of that tragic day, he completed a triumvirate of tragically inept behavior by ignoring the health of the very heroes who toiled day and night at Ground Zero.

They want to meet with him, and they want to ask him what is he going to do to help them.

Watch the video: http://therealrudy.org/heroes.php?utm_source=rgemail

This is the Real Rudy Giuliani. Every time he heartlessly utters 9/11 9/11 9/11 to try and help his flagging political career, let’s make sure people shake their heads in disgust, because they know the true story of Rudy Giuliani, the 9/11 failure.

Sign the petition telling Rudy to meet with the real heroes of 9/11:

http://therealrudy.org/heroes.php?utm_source=rgemail

Thanks again for all of your time, passion and commitment!

Sincerely,


Cliff Schecter, Leighton Woodhouse and the Brave New Films team

P.S. The video has already received coverage in the Los Angeles Times and on The Huffington Post. But we need everyone to know the truth. Please help us get this story out as far and wide as possible. Only you can make sure our films are a continuing success in contributing to the success of progressive politics across the country.

Sadly, you already know much of the real story about The Real Rudy. That he chose to put his anti-terrorist command center in the only spot in New York City that had been hit by terrorists before, against the advice of every professional and his own people, because The World Trade Center was more convenient for him.

Furthermore, you’re aware that his inaction in updating the radios used by firefighters who perished that day borders on the criminal. He knew the radios didn’t work at least 8 years before that day, and when he finally chose to replace them, did so in grand Bushian style with a no-bid contract for radios that didn’t work.

Yet, these were not even the worst aspects of Giuliani’s 9/11 record. He completed this triumvirate of tragically inept behavior by ignoring the health of the very heroes who toiled day and night at Ground Zero after the attack. Nothing I could tell you here could prepare you for what you’re about to watch–once healthy human beings now suffering from a range of illnesses that are a direct result of a toxic brew they inhaled in downtown Manhattan, while Rudy was telling them everything was safe and sound from his perch at Yankee Stadium and they were spending sleepless nights trying to save lives (often not wearing respirators because The Giuliani Adminstration ignored that federal requirement).

This is the Real Rudy Giuliani. A man who wants to be President and has 9/11 Tourette’s Syndrome. Well, every time he heartlessly utters that simple phrase to try and help his flagging political career, let’s make sure people shake their heads in disgust, because they know the true story of Rudy Giuliani the 9/11 failure.

And one more thing. Please sign the petition, demanding that Rudy meet with 9/11 first responders he has chosen to heretofore ignore. It is the very least this man could do.

Mr 911 – The Giuliani Anthem

0

A new animated short that lampoons and exposes Rudy Giuliani is making waves on the internet.

The cartoon, produced by www.headastate.com/ titled Mr 911, pulls no punches as it highlights Giuliani’s consistent use of 9/11 for political and personal gain, delves into his mob connections and his relationship with the now disgraced former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.

The short is a parody of an original campaign ad by John F Kennedy which aired in 1960.

“This cartoon promises to go where others have fallen short.” the Heada’State group states on its website.

“Heada’State aims to give life to those little read back page stories in the newspaper that have such a large effect in the world. Our subject is not just the news, but the people who are a part of that often misinterpreted world.” creator Andrew Arnold continues.

The creators are taking one dollar donations to determine who will be their next target for lampoonery. All candidates are in the frame except for Ron Paul. Should the Congressman be the top vote winner, the Heada’State crew will create a special positive ad in his honor.

Visit the site and vote for Ron Paul!

Ron Paul: How Do I Say Thank You?

0

Dr Ron Paul writes – In Iowa, many hundreds of volunteers worked day and night for our campaign. College kids took their Christmas vacations in the snow for freedom. Thousands of people donated to make it all possible. We had many phone calls, brochures, mailings, advertising. Revolutionaries from all over the country sent handwritten letters to every voter, and despite national media attacks and censorship, we got more than 10 percent of the vote. We also soundly beat a certain ex-mayor who started off the first debate by attacking a pro-American foreign policy and the explanatory doctrine of “blowback,” the CIA’s term for foreign intervention that causes trouble for us in return. The Golden Rule applies to nations as well as to individuals.

And speaking of debates, FOX blocked my participation in its last New Hampshire debate, but I think that hurt FOX more than us. We had a terrifically successful townhall meeting at the same time, and Jay Leno invited me on the Tonight Show again to discuss it. Many members of our movement were galvanized to overcome the bias, including me!

In our Iowa campaign, since it was a caucus, we were dealing with party activists for the most part, not the people. And some of the activists were very unhappy to hear our views, trying to scream them down! Others thought that peace violates Christianity. But New Hampshire is another story. There is a state and a people tailor-made for us. Live Free! Then there are Michigan, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday and its nearly 20 primaries. Frankly, we need $23 million more to have a chance of beating the establishment candidates.

I am working hard for our ideas, as I know you are. The attacks and even smears will increase as we do better. But they will not defeat our ideas. They cannot defeat out ideas. At this moment of urgency for America, with spending, taxes, spying, inflation, and wars out of control and threatening all we love, let us rededicate ourselves to freedom, prosperity, and peace. Already, I owe you all my thanks. Join me in this great endeavor in New Hampshire and beyond. Please make your most generous donation now: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate

Jerusalem lights to go out so Bush can enjoy sunrise

0

JERUSALEM (AFP) – Lights in the Old City of Jerusalem will be turned off before dawn this week so visiting US President George W. Bush can get a better view of the sun rising over its ancient walls.

Bush, who arrives in the Middle East on Wednesday for a visit lasting more than a week, had made a request to watch the sun rise over the Old City from his suite at the King David Hotel, a municipal spokesman said on Tuesday.

To make the scene more dramatic, the authorities have decided to turn off the lights illuminating the limestone walls before dawn on Thursday and Friday, the spokesman told reporters.

The gesture is just one of several that Bush’s Israeli hosts will extend to the president of their main ally during his landmark three-day visit this week — the first by a sitting US president to Israel and the Palestinian territories in nine years.

Awaiting Bush at his King David suite — reportedly costing 2,600 dollars a night — will be a white terry bathrobe embroidered with his name in gold, local media have reported.

Israeli television broadcast footage of the garment throughout the day on Tuesday.

And the main highway leading into Jerusalem from the west — already plagued by traffic problems — will be completely closed in one direction for an hour on Wednesday after Bush arrives to allow the unhindered passage of the convoy containing his hundreds-strong entourage.

How To: Install micro wind turbines and solar panels

£25 million in grants issued for micro wind turbines and solar panels

Small scale renewable energy grants worth some £25 million have now been claimed from the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP). The news came as Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks called for more homes and business to follow his lead by adopting a ‘go green’ new year’s resolution.

His call comes as more and more homes, schools and businesses have been helped with Government grants to install technologies such as solar panels, biomass boilers and ground-source heat pumps.

Grants claimed under BERR’s Low Carbon Buildings Programme since it launched in April 2006 are up to approximately £25 million:

* £7.5 million to help 4,600 households generate their own clean and green energy.

* £18 million for a total of 739 projects on school, community, housing association and business buildings.

Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said: “It’s vital that recent efforts by world governments to reach a deal on cutting global carbon emissions are matched by action by each and every one of us. Deciding to go green and generate your own clean energy is one of the most valuable New Year’s resolutions you can make. It is certainly my intention to make a difference, and make my own house more energy efficient and install clean and green electricity.

“There are still grants available to householders who want to follow in the footsteps of the thousands across the UK who have been helped by the Government to fit microgeneration technology at their homes. Many schools have benefited also and the pupils there have been able to see renewable energy in action and understand more about its important benefits.”

There are still £11m in grants available under Phase 1 for householders who want to generate renewable energy at home. Schools, charitable bodies and other public sector organisations can apply for a share of the £44m that remains from the original £50m set aside for them under Phase 2.

It has also been another year of progress for the wider renewable sector.

* Consent for eight major renewables projects, including the world’s largest biomass plant in Port Talbot; the innovative Wave Hub project off the Cornish coast; the 66MW Fullabrook Down wind farm in Devon and a 450MW offshore wind farm at Walney in the Irish Sea.

* Announcement by Energy Secretary John Hutton of plans for a massive expansion in offshore wind power. The vast bulk of the seas around the UK are to be covered by a new Strategic Environmental Assessment, opening up the possibility of enough offshore wind to power all of the UK’s homes.

* The announcement by John Hutton of a feasibility study into the possibility of clean energy generation in the Severn Barrage that could generate up to 5% of the UK’s future electricity.

In 2008 the momentum will be maintained with the introduction of legislation that will aim to ‘band’ the Renewables Obligation to bring on more support for less developed renewables technologies such as wave, tidal and offshore wind.

Background

For more information on the Low Carbon Buildings Programme and to apply for grants click here: http://www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk/about/hfaqs/ 

Some successful applicant case studies:

Christ Church Chislehurst, Kent

Michael Milton Church Warden.

http://www.chislehurst-christchurch.diocese-rochester.org


Grant £10k of £51k system cost

6 boreholes; 34kw ground source heat pump system

The ground source heat pumps will heat the new community building which will be linked to both the church and the refurbished church hall. The church grounds were used for the installation of boreholes and the the new extension incorporated underfloor heating. With the availability of a grant to partially fund the installation, this form of technology also offers a realistic payback period, which off-sets the need to raise additional funds by private individual donations.

Bute Cottage Nursery School, Penarth.

Cery Hoffrock, Headteacher

butecottns@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk

£1.7k of £3.5k system cost

Education of 3 to 5 year olds, community learning for a catchment that includes the whole of Penarth. 80 children are on roll and these children are replaced by 80 new ones each year. The nursery school is committed to conservation & recycling and engages & educates the wider community in joining with it to ensure that it continues to be recognised as an International Green Flag Eco-School.

Runshaw College, Leyland, Lancs

Grant £27k of £54k system cost

11kWp Solar PV system

Further education college, electricity for sports hall, fitness suite, indoor and outdoor changing facilities. Analysis ruled out wind power. The visual presence of Solar PV coupled with the active system monitoring from an educational point of view, the long life of the technology and the opportunity to claim renewable obligation certificates and rewards for any export payments all underlined Solar PV as the right choice.

Fulston Manor School, Kent

Clive Johnson, Headmaster

http://www.solar4schools.co.uk/schools/fulston_manor_school.html

Grant £10k of £20k system cost

4kWp Solar PV system

Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue, Halifax, Yorks

Jean Burchell

http://www.tiagreyhounds.org.uk/

6kW Proven Wind Turbine

Grant £10k of £21k system cost

As the Charity’s name suggests the objects are to provide refuge and veterinary care for dogs in need – in particular Greyhounds and Lurchers. The wind turbine will power the farmhouse which is the charity’s headquarters incorporating living accommodation for the on-site Trustee, office space and housing for older/sick dogs as well as the kennel block housing in the region of 80 dogs at any one time.

Source

If you have a question that’s not listed below you can post a new one on the Energy Saving Trust’s frequently asked questions database, click here to go to this database.

A.) What levels of grants will be available?
The current grant levels are as follows and we will regularly review them as the market for each technology develops:

 Technology  Maximum Amount of Grant
 Solar photovoltaics Maximum of £2,000 per kW of installed capacity, subject to an overall maximum of £2,500 or 50% of the relevant eligible costs, whichever is the lower
 Wind turbines Maximum of £1,000 per kW of installed capacity, subject to an overall maximum of £2,500 or 30% of the relevant eligible costs, whichever is the lower
 Small hydro Maximum of £1,000 per kW of installed capacity, subject to an overall maximum of £2,500 or 30% of the relevant eligible costs, whichever is the lower
Solar thermal hot water Overall maximum of £400 or 30% of the relevant eligible costs, whichever is the lower
Ground source heat pumps Overall maximum of £1,200 or 30% of the relevant eligible costs, whichever is the lower
Automated wood pellet fed room heaters/stoves Overall maximum of £600 or 20% of the relevant eligible costs, whichever is the lower
Wood fuelled boiler systems Overall maximum of £1,500 or 30% of the relevant eligible costs, whichever is the lower

B.) Who can apply for a grant?
Individual property owners including private householders can apply for grants from the programme.

C.) How will the application process work?
Applications are accepted on a rolling first-come-first-served basis.
An outline of the process is as follows:

  1. Complete the energy efficiency measures required by the programme, obtain planning permission for your installation if necessary and obtain a quote from an accredited installer. 
  2. Make an application online. 
  3. After receiving a grant offer letter via email, order the equipment and begin installing the technology. The grant validity period varies by technology. See D.) below for more details.
  4. After you have completed the installation and you have paid the installer, you can submit the claim documents to the Energy Saving Trust.
  5. The grant claim is checked and, if in order, the grant will be issued within 25 working days of receipt of all the documentation.

Applications can be received from properties located within England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland (excluding the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands).

Please note: you should wait until you have received a grant offer letter before commencing the installation.

D.) How long will my grant be valid for?
Grant validity periods vary by technology.

Installations on existing buildings:

  • Solar Thermal Hot Water — 3 months
  • Solar PV — 4 months
  • Wind Turbines — 4 months
  • Ground Source Heat Pumps — 6 months
  • Wood Fuelled Boilers — 6 months
  • Pellet Stoves — 6 months
  • Small Scale Hydro — 12 months

Installations on buildings under construction:

  • Solar Thermal Hot Water — 6 months
  • Solar PV — 6 months
  • Wind Turbines — 6 months
  • Ground Source Heat Pumps — 6 months
  • Wood Fuelled Boilers — 6 months
  • Pellet Stoves — 6 months
  • Small Scale Hydro — 12 months

E.) How long will it take to receive my grant payment?
We aim to process grant claims within 25 working days of receipt of full claim documents. Currently our grant processing time is 22 working days as of 7th January 2008.

F.) Is there any guidance available for the online application system?
Yes, please read the following guidance notes

G.) What are the required energy efficiency measures?
You must undertake a number of energy efficiency measures before you are eligible to apply for a grant from the Low Carbon Buildings Programme. These measures will ensure that you are minimising your energy requirements. Before applying we require you to have:

a. insulated the whole of the loft of the property to meet current building regulations e.g. 270mm of mineral wool loft insulation or suitable alternative
b. installed cavity wall insulation (if you have cavity walls)
c. fitted low energy light bulbs in all appropriate light fittings
d. installed basic controls for your heating system to include a room thermostat and a programmer or timer.

We recommend that you complete a home energy check to assess which measures are most suitable for your home. You can also call your local Energy Saving Trust advice centre on 0800 512 012 for guidance on energy efficiency measures and energy efficiency grants available in your area.
H.) I applied for a householder grant online and was successful. Why haven’t I received my email confirmation?
When you successfully apply for a householder grant online you will receive a grant offer letter via email. Therefore you must enter your email address accurately. If your email account has a spam filter your grant offer letter may be sent to your junk items box. If you have not received your grant offer letter within 3 working days and it is not in your junk items box please call our helpline on 0800 915 0990.

I.) I applied for a grant with a paper application. Why haven’t I received any response?
Paper application forms will be processed within 15 working days of receipt. If you have given an email address on your application form and ticked to say you are happy to receive communications by email, any response to your application will be sent to that email address. If you do not have an email address a response will be sent by post to the correspondence address listed on your application form.
 
J.) Where can my installer obtain a completion certificate?
These can be downloaded from this website, click here to download the completion certificates.

K.) Provisional certification
Installers certified under the Low Carbon Buildings Programme can be either provisionally or fully certified. Provisional certification means that a certified installer can carry out 5 installations; the installer must be inspected by the certification organisation before they can become fully certified and do an unlimited number of installations.

Both provisionally and fully certified installers are available for selection on the online application system. However, please note that once the provisionally certified installer you have selected has reached the 5 installation limit, the online system will not allow you to proceed with an application. You will only be able to select them again once they have become fully certified; the same rules apply for applications made on paper.

L.) What are the criteria for receiving a grant?
The main criteria for householders are:
1. Applicants must be the householder / owners of the property for which the grant is applied (applicants who have leasehold ownership must have permission of the property freeholder).
2. Applicants must be resident of, and the installation address be situated in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (excluding the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands).
3. Systems must supply a permanent building (mobile homes, caravans, house boats etc. are not eligible).
4. You have installed the basic level of energy efficiency measures as outlined in FAQ G above. You may be able to access grants for energy efficiency measures. Have a look at the Energy Saving Trust’s grants information database or call your local Energy Saving Trust advice centre on 0800 512 012 for information on energy efficiency grants .
5. You must have received planning permission for your installation or received confirmation from your local authority that it is not required.  

M.) Can I still receive a grant if a non-certified installer performs the installation?
Only if the certified installer who installed the technology was not contracted to you directly, but was sub-contracted by your main contractor. In this case, the certified installer must fill out the completion certificate, and you must provide a suitable chain of copy invoices evidencing to the Energy Saving Trust’s satisfaction that the work was carried out by the certified installer and that the certified installer has been paid in full for that work.

N.) I live in a house owned by the council; can I apply for a grant?
Unfortunately you can’t apply for a grant. The council – as the owner of the building – must apply for the grant under the Phase 1, Stream 2 or Phase 2 of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme.

O.) I would like to install a microgeneration technology on my property, but I rent part of it out. Will I be eligible for a grant?
It depends. In order to be eligible for a grant, the benefit of the system must be clearly accrued only to the domestic owner and resident. For example: you would like to install photovoltaic tiles on the ground floor extension of a property you own but let out the top floor. In this case, you will be eligible for a grant as long as you use the ground floor flat as a dwelling, and the electricity generated by the installation only benefits that flat (through separate metering).

P.) Can I apply more than once for the same project for different technologies?
Yes you can. You can apply for funding for up to 3 different technologies on one building, with a maximum of 3 different buildings funded (NB these have to be on separate applications). There is a maximum of £2,500 of funding available per installation address.

Q.) What if the grant applications are for different addresses?
Different addresses are still eligible as the programme is all about maximising the number of low carbon buildings.

R.) I received a grant under the old schemes (Clear Skies and PV schemes), can I have a grant from the Low Carbon Buildings Programme too?
Yes, provided it is for another technology. You cannot have more than one grant from this or the previous programmes for the same technology.

S.) I live in Scotland / Northern Ireland, can I also get a grant from the schemes operating here?
You will not be allowed to receive a grant from the Low Carbon Buildings Programme along with a grant from the Scottish Community and Household Renewables Initiative (SCHRI) or the Northern Ireland’s Renewable Energy Fund for the same project or installation; i.e. double funding for projects will not be allowed.

T.) Can I obtain lottery funding in addition to the Low Carbon Buildings Programme Grant?
Yes, you will be able to apply for funding under the Low Carbon Buildings Programme as well as for lottery funding, provided the total sum of funding received does not exceed 100% of the cost of the installation.

U.) What can be funded?
Grants are available for more than one microgeneration technology at the same address. All new systems supported with Low Carbon Buildings Grants must deliver an output of greater than 0.5kWp for electrical installations. There is no minimum for thermal installations.

Applications must be related to installations on permanent buildings. Applications for temporary and mobile buildings or non-building related installations will not be considered for Grant support (e.g. mobile homes, houseboats, motorway sound barriers, telecommunication towers).

Grants will only be awarded in respect of equipment and work directly related to the installed system. This includes design of the system, the cost of the plant and/or materials, installation and connection. Unrelated building works are not eligible.

Grants may only be claimed for approved (certified) products/systems. Your certified installer will be aware of this list. Where you have applied for a grant and installed a product not listed on the approved register, your grant will NOT be paid. 

Installations should be designed and commissioned by certified installers. If a non-certified installer carries out the installation, then the grant will not be awarded in respect of this part of the cost. A certified installer must confirm that the system has been satisfactorily installed by signing the programme completion certific.

Please note the grant will not cover:

  • Value Added Tax (VAT)

  • Un-associated costs (e.g. roofing works outside the direct installation of the microtechnology system, vandal covers, asbestos removal, upgrades to your household ring main, new radiators or heat distribution system, etc.)

  • Warranty costs — all accredited microgeneration installers are required to provide an installation warranty free of charge. Manufacturers usually provide an extensive lifetime warranty for their technology. Consult your installer for details of these warranties before committing

  • Expenditure on works or activities which any other person or organisation has a statutory duty to undertake

  • Any liability arising out of negligence on the part of the Applicant or its representatives

  • Expenditure of a political or religious nature

Please refer to the term and conditions for further details.

V.) Can I pay a deposit before I apply for my grant?
Please note that any payment you make to your installer is done at your own risk. Grant assistance is not automatically guaranteed to all who make an application; we therefore advise applicants not to make any payments before the receipt of a grant offer.

W.) My grant offer letter now contains out of date information due to changes to my installation project; what can I do?
If your grant offer letter becomes out of date due to changes to your installation project, you must, as a condition of the grant, inform us in writing of these changes. You may

EITHER

Withdraw from your current grant offer and reapply with details from your newly appointed installer. In this instance your grant offer would be re-issued with the correct details listed.

OR

Continue installation work at your own risk under your current grant offer. In this instance, your grant offer and web entry will not be updated with the details you have supplied. We will accept a grant claim against your original grant offer though please note that:
1) the maximum grant payable will be capped at your original offer amount but may be reduced
2) the grant claim will only be honoured where:
– All information complies with the terms and conditions of the grant
– The new installer has the correct certification
– The equipment installed is approved
If when you come to claim, there is a problem with your installer’s certification, or they have installed unapproved equipment then we will reject your claim and no monies will be payable.
Please click here to check certification status of your proposed system and new installer.

X.) Which technology is right for me?
It depends on the location of your house and the type of microgeneration system that you are considering on installing. You could take a look at the section on this website on microgeneration technologies to consider the technology that might be most suitable for you.

If you would like to read about other case studies of previously funded microgeneration installations take a look at: 

The Clear Skies website and the Energy Saving Trust’s website.
 
Y.) Can grants be obtained for Air Source Heat Pumps?
The current accreditation schemes does not cover this technology. The new scheme will do so after appropriate standards for this technology have been developed. 

Z.) Are wind turbines suitable in all locations?
The Energy Saving Trust does not guarantee or underwrite the performance of any technology grant funded under the Low Carbon Buildings Programme. You are advised to ask your installer (or the product manufacturer) what reassurances they can provide you in support of any performance claims they make.

This is especially important for small wind turbines, due to the variability in local wind conditions. For some newer wind turbines, particularly those designed for mounting on buildings, there may not be (or only limited) independent long-term performance data verifying performance claims.

AA.) How long must the microgeneration system operate?
The system installed must operate at the Installation address for a minimum of 5 years from the date of the completion certificate. The Energy Saving Trust, or its authorised representative, may carry out a site inspection to ensure compliance of these programme conditions. Applicants must also ensure that end users of the microgeneration system co-operate with any energy monitoring exercise carried out by the Energy Saving Trust or its authorised representatives.

AB.) What if I decide to sell my property before the 5 years are up?
You must then write to the Low Carbon Buildings Programme to inform us of this as well as of the details of the person(s) that have bought the property. The new owner(s) must be made aware that the terms and conditions of grant have now passed on to them.

AC.) I can’t find an installer for Fuel Cells, Renewable CHP or Micro CHP?
The new certification scheme will cover these technologies after appropriate standards for these technologies have been developed. 

AD.) I would like to use a particular installer that is not on the list, what can I do?
The onus for obtaining certification for the installation of renewable energy technologies lies with the installer and not with the certification organisation. If an installer wishes to become certified, and so be able to service customers who are also looking to apply for a grant under the Low Carbon Buildings Programme, they will need to join the UK Microgeneration Certification Scheme
www.uk-microgeneration.co.uk.

AE.) How many grants have been given so far?
By clicking here you can view statistics on stream 1 – household grant applications by country and region.

Source

Republicans Vote to Impeach Dick Cheney

By Kamal El-Din

 In what may be the biggest political news of the century a sitting vice-president may be impeached at the hands of his own party. In a stunning reversal today House Republicans have broken with the President and have voted to impeach vice-president Dick Cheney. House Republicans have insisted that the resolution to impeach, sponsored by Dennis Kucinich, be debated on the floor of the House.

The news has sent shockwaves across the country as the GOP faithful find their beleaguered party imploding before their very eyes. Under pressure from a deeply divided and angry base congressional Republicans have split with President Bush and Vice —President Cheney.

The White House would not comment on the matter officially, but our sources indicate that the enraged Cheney tried to order the Air Force to drop napalm on the Capital building, only to be told that ‘..we don’t do that anymore.” We expect some kind of official statement on the issue early tomorrow morning.

In the mean time all of Washington is trying to understand what it all means.

“I’m amazed they had the guts to do it.” Says Washington insider David Brooks. “But really, what did the congressional Republicans have to lose? Do you really think that they were going to go lock step with this terribly unpopular President over the cliff? Not on you life. These guys, lead by Pete Sessions, read the writing on the wall and decided that the President and Cheney were a liability. Bush and Cheney are done next year, but the rest of the Republican Party doesn’t want to wonder in the wilderness for another forty years. They are cutting their losses in an attempt to regroup by the next election.”

The resolution accuses Cheney of violating his oath to protect the U.S. Constitution and lying to the public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime.

‘No end to extremism with US policies’

0

PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto has said that extremism could only be tackled when the US stops supporting dictators in the region.

The son of slain Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto told reporters on Tuesday that Washington’s support for dictators in the region was one of the factors behind the spread of extremism in the world; The News, a leading Pakistani daily reported on its web site.

“The family’s and party’s request is for a UN-sponsored investigation, because we do not believe that an investigation under the authority of the Pakistan government has the necessary transparency,” Bilawal said, referring to the assassination of his mother.

He warned that rigged elections will lead to chaos in the country.

Bilawal said his mother’s death had made him resilient, and adamant that democracy would be restored in Pakistan.

JR/RE

Democratic Party complicit in CIA torture

0

Declassified letter exposes Democratic Party complicity in CIA torture

By Joe Kay

Last week, the CIA declassified a February 2003 letter from Democratic Representative Jane Harman of California discussing the planned destruction of videotapes depicting the interrogation and torture of prisoners held by the CIA.

Harman requested that the CIA release the letter in order to show her supposed criticism of the agency’s plans to destroy the evidence. In a statement on the letter, Harman said that it “makes clear my concern about possible destruction of any tapes.” In fact, the letter only underscores the fact that the Democratic Party was aware of and supported the CIA’s secret policy of torture.

Democrats knew of plans to destroy evidence of interrogations, but made no serious attempt to stop it or inform the American people. Indeed, Harman’s “concern” was in effect an indication to the CIA that the Democrats would not challenge a decision to destroy the tapes and would not expose the agency if it did so.

The videotapes, involving hundreds of hours of interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, were secretly destroyed in November 2005. Their destruction was only publicly disclosed last month, though several Democrats had been made aware of the action at least a year ago.

Perhaps the most significant section of the three-paragraph letter is that dealing with the CIA’s interrogation policy, not the plans for destroying the tapes. Harman made clear that she supported the program of “enhanced interrogation,” which included the use of the notorious torture technique of waterboarding. The letter amounted to a green light for the continuation of the program, which was kept secret from the American people for several more years.

In the letter, addressed to CIA General Counsel Scott Muller, Harman discusses a briefing given to a few leading Democratic and Republican congressmen the week before. She says that the briefing “brought home to me the difficult challenges faced by the Central Intelligence Agency in the current threat environment. I realize we are at a time when the balance between security and liberty must be constantly evaluated and recalibrated in order to protect our nation and its people from catastrophic terrorist attack…”

Harman reported that at the hearing, Muller “assured us that the [redacted] approved by the Attorney General have been subject to an extensive review by lawyers at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice and the National Security Council and found to be within the law.”

Harman, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School, indicated no disagreement with these legal findings, even though the methods employed by the CIA are clear violations of anti-torture statutes and international treaties. She merely questioned whether or not what she later calls “enhanced techniques” were consistent with US policy and whether or not they had been “authorized and approved by the President.”

Many of the documents arguing for the legality of torture have never been released to the public. However, one such document was leaked to the public–the infamous August 2002 “torture memo,” prepared by Justice Department lawyers–which argued that the president has the constitutional right to torture as part of his war powers. This memo presumably formed part of the legal rationale presented by the CIA to Harman and others to justify the torture methods.

Harman’s acceptance of the legal rationale for torture was in line with the reaction of the entire Democratic Party to the antidemocratic policies implemented by the White House, using the “war on terror” and the attacks of September 11 as a pretext.

According to a Washington Post article published last month, in 2002 four congressional leaders, including the current speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, another Democrat from California, were “given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators devised to try to make the prisoners talk.”

The meeting with Harman in February 2003 evidently also included a discussion of the CIA’s plans to destroy the tapes. Harman wrote to Muller, “You discussed the fact that there is a videotape of Abu Zubaydah following his capture that will be destroyed after the Inspector General finishes his inquiry. I would urge the Agency to reconsider that plan.”

Harman does not suggest that the tapes should be preserved because they depict illegal activity and therefore constitute evidence of a crime. She also does not oppose the Bush administration’s determination that the destruction of the tapes would be legal. Rather, she suggests, “The videotape would be the best proof that the written record is accurate, if such record is called into question in the future. The fact of destruction would reflect badly on the Agency,” she concludes. In other words, Harman’s concern was largely one of public relations.

The references to an inquiry by the CIA inspector general apparently refers to an examination, carried out by inspector general John Helgerson, into the CIA’s interrogation techniques. The inquiry was completed in the spring of 2004, but there were no public references to it until November 2005. It was reportedly critical of the “enhanced interrogation” techniques.

On November 9, 2005, the New York Times published an article citing officials familiar with the report. According to the Times, the officials “said the report expressed skepticism about the Bush administration view that any ban on cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment under the treaty does not apply to CIA interrogations because they take place overseas on people who are not citizens of the United States.”

The Times exposure of the Inspector General report is another possible motivating factor behind the CIA’s decision to go ahead and destroy the tapes in November 2005. That same month, other reports exposed for the first time the existence of the CIA network of secret prisons. The government was also being pressed in several court cases to turn over all evidence and records of interrogation.

The role of the Democrats in supporting and helping cover up the CIA’s torture program and the subsequent destruction of videotapes ensures that any Congressional investigation will be a whitewash. It appears increasingly likely that Democrats will scale down Congressional inquiries on the grounds that the Justice Department has launched its own criminal investigation.

Last week, Democrats moved quickly to praise an announcement by Attorney General Michael Mukasey that a criminal investigation will begin. Mukasey’s selection of John Durham, a deputy US attorney from Connecticut, has been portrayed in the media and by Democrats as a move to give the investigation greater independence. This is false. Durham’s work will be subordinate to and filtered by the Justice Department, which means the Bush administration. It will have no “independence” from those who are deeply complicit in the crime that is supposedly under investigation.

The attitude of sections of the liberal establishment was expressed in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times on January 4. The Times is the principal newspaper in California–the home state of both Harman and Pelosi.

The editors wrote that Mukasey “has displayed a commendable sensitivity to appearances” by appointing Durham to lead the criminal investigation. The newspaper said that congressmen “shouldn’t complicate his assignment by forcing key figures in the criminal investigation to testify on Capitol Hill–at least for now.”

Meanwhile, the Justice Department investigation will likely be dragged out for an extended period of time and possibly through the end of the Bush administration’s term of office.

Step forward for open government, new media

0

THE FIRST significant reform in more than a decade of the federal Freedom of Information Act, signed into law last week by President Bush, is an important step forward for open government and the ability of citizens to hold government representatives accountable for their actions.By improving the process by which the federal government carries out the requirements of the act, the law should correct a tendency to delay action on requests for public information. At the same time, by broadening the definition of who is a journalist, the new law improves accessibility for bloggers and other non-traditional journalists at a time when technology is changing media.

The Open Government Act of 2007 improves FOIA by creating an independent ombudsman to resolve citizen disputes, creating a system for the public to easily track the status of requests and allowing those making requests to more effectively recover legal costs incurred when federal agencies improperly deny requests. It also broadens the scope of information that can be requested.

“The Open Government Act will help to reverse the troubling trends of excessive delays and lax FOIA compliance in our government and help to restore the public’s trust in their government,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who sponsored the bipartisan legislation with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

No doubt, some bureaucrats will continue to try to deny the public access to information. But our hope is that such foot-dragging just became much more difficult.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/oped/ci_7910804

CIA tapes: What do we still not know?

0

By Jane Harman

In February 2003, just weeks after becoming ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, I learned at a briefing that the CIA intended to destroy a videotape of the interrogation of a high value detainee, Abu Zubaydah. I advised against it and followed up days later with a strong letter that the agency just declassified.

It was only after CIA Director Michael Hayden disclosed in December that videotapes had been destroyed that I was able to discuss the matter and my letter publicly.

The facts surrounding the 2005 destruction of the tapes – about which I was never told – must be learned. Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced last week that a veteran prosecutor will oversee a criminal investigation into whether the CIA broke the law when it destroyed the tapes. This probe and any others must be thorough and unflinching.

There is a distinct possibility that CIA testimony before the Intelligence Committees was misleading. It is a fact that Congress was not informed at the time of the tapes’ destruction.

Not only was Congress reviewing the Bush administration’s interrogation and detention policy during those years, the 9/11 Commission was also making inquiries of the agency, and several federal prosecutions were proceeding. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 Commission, recently accused the CIA of obstructing the panel’s investigation by failing to turn over the videotapes.

Who did what?

Senior White House officials – such as former legal counsel Harriet Miers and former attorney general Alberto Gonzales, among others – have revealed they were involved in discussions about the tapes’ disposition. The Department of Justice was, too.

Porter Goss, the CIA director in 2005, says he opposed destroying the tapes. The role of his subordinates, however, is still unclear.

While it is suddenly difficult to find anyone at CIA, the Justice Department or the White House who believed that the tapes should have been destroyed, the fact is they were – resulting in a breach of faith with Congress and possible criminal wrongdoing. It would be grossly unfair to make some in the agency take the fall for decisions made by others. This smells like the coverup of the coverup.

Since the 9/11 attacks, I have been calling on the Bush administration to articulate a clear legal framework for U.S. detention and interrogation policy – to protect privacy and civil liberties and also to provide the intelligence community with the guidance it needs to do its job without fear of reprisal or prosecution.

I voted against the Military Commissions Act, which passed Congress but provided in my view an inappropriate exemption for the CIA’s interrogation policy. More recently, I supported legislation to prohibit any interrogation techniques not contained in the Army Field Manual – effectively closing the loophole that allowed the CIA’s separate program to be established.

Unanswered questions

This episode is not just about the destruction of videotapes and those involved in the decision to do so. The thrust of my February 2003 briefing was about the administration’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques since 9/11. My contemporaneous letter questioned whether the White House had determined that those techniques were consistent with “the principles and policies of the United States” and whether the president had approved them.

I never got answers to my questions, nor has Congress ever received the Justice Department legal memoranda that we asked for.

The rest of the world is watching closely. We still have not recovered from the black eye of Abu Ghraib.

These latest revelations do enormous damage to our international standing and credibility – and are additional evidence that we stand at the brink of constitutional crisis.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., is chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and Terrorism Risk Assessment.

Guantanamo: Six Years of Injustice – and Counting

0

By Mary Shaw 

January 11, 2008, will mark the sixth anniversary of the first arrival of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

While some of Gitmo’s residents probably are terrorists who want to kill Americans, we have reason to believe that many others are actually innocent of any ties to terrorism and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were arrested due to an unfortunate language misinterpretation, or were arbitrarily sold to U.S. troops by bounty hunters.

And, as of this writing, only 10 Gitmo detainees have ever been charged with any crime.

In fact, a study by Seton Hall University found that 55 percent of Gitmo detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

According to the same study, only eight percent were characterized as al-Qaeda fighters. 40 percent of the remaining detainees have no definitive connection with al-Qaeda at all, and 18 percent have no definitive affiliation with either al-Qaeda or the Taliban!

Imagine being an innocent person locked up in a 6.5′ x 8′ cage and mistreated for six years straight — 2,191 days — without charge, and with no real means to challenge your detention or prove your innocence — just an unfair military tribunal system that has been condemned by Amnesty International and other human rights groups as a travesty of justice. But, you see, the Bushies say that the Gitmo detainees are “the worst of the worst” and therefore don’t deserve basic human rights.

In other words, they’re presumed guilty until proven innocent — but they have no opportunity to prove their innocence. Catch-22.

Imagine the helplessness, hopelessness, and despair that the innocent detainees must feel. And think of their families. These innocent detainees are not just numbers; they are fathers, sons, husbands, brothers, uncles, nephews, cousins, and friends. And some of them were just kids when they were arrested.

Congress blessed this horrific system when it passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which turned a really bad policy into really bad law.

Congress should be ashamed. And Congress should waste no more time in correcting that mistake.

We need to close Guantanamo — a national embarrassment — and give each detainee a fair trial, in accordance in international law. Sort them out in a credible court of law, release the ones found innocent, and punish the true bad guys.

Why is a fair trial so unacceptable to the Bush administration — and to Congress?

Gordon Brown still clueless on ID Cards

0

SpyBlog.org.uk

Gordon Brown still clueless on ID Cards and the National Identity Register centralised biometric database

Our unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown still does not seem to have grasped the fundamentals of his NuLabour compulsory centralised biometric database the National Identity Register scheme according to this propaganda interview with The Observer newspaper this Sunday

Gordon Brown demonstrated how shockingly out of touch with the real world, by trying to justify the multi-billion pound compulsory national population surveillance and control infrastructure that is the National Identity Register, partly because of some small scale, unproven fingerprint biometric trials in some US and, allegedly, European shops, even though there have been no such successful trials in the UK, and no major UK retailer has decided that the idea is worth spending money on nationally.

The Yorkshire Ranter got in ahead of us, to point out some of the obvious flaws in Gordon Brown’s muddled answers to the rather soft and friendly questioning by The Observer regarding so called “ID Cards”.

    Maybe when you go to a supermarket, as happens in some parts of the States and Europe, you are going to be safer, instead of carrying a credit card which can easily be stolen, to use your biometrics to shop.

This has to be some kind of record for biometric scienciness; the Government has historically always handwaved reality-based objections to ID cards away by claiming that we wouldn’t need them very often, whilst also floating insanely grandiose visions of biometric imperialism. Charles Clarke, we may recall, advertised them as “making it easier to rent videos”; as well as offering horrific new possibilities for total surveillance, this would have blasted the Government’s hazy costings down to nothing, demanding vast numbers of readers and numbers of transactions per second that even telecoms engineers would consider ambitious. To say nothing of insulting our intelligence.

This idea is both ridiculous, and, typically for Gordon Brown, a re-tread of a previously announced idea – see Gordon Brown – part 3 of the Chatham House speech on the 10th of October 2006, when he was still Chancellor of the Exchequer, trying unsuccessfully to pretend that he had a grasp on “security” and foreign affairs.

See also this NO2ID discussion forum thread on this latest spin by Gordon Brown.

See also Ideal Government, for another dissection of Gordon Brown’s ideas on “ID Cards” as outlined in the Observer interview.

We have not forgotten the other recent, dishonest and misleading attempts by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and by his “no longer a safe pair of hands” sidekick Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, who tried to pretend that the ongoing missing HMRC data .privacy and security breach scandal , which has not gone away, for which they are personally responsibler, would somehow have been less serious, if the the wretched biometric National Identity Register had been in place and linked to the missing Child Benefit Award database.

These political lies were punctured elegantly by this open latter from leading academic experts, who described them as a “fairy-land” scenario.

2007 ‘worst ever year’ for privacy

0

Research by the Liberal Democrats has revealed that 37 million items of personal data went missing during last year. The party has claimed the figure raises further questions about the government’s ability to handle personal data and calls into doubt plans for ID cards.

Losses include a laptop stolen from King’s Mill Hospital in Nottinghamshire that contained 11,000 records on children aged between eight months and eight years, including their names, addresses and dates of birth, and the 80 passports which go missing in the post every month.

Before Christmas, transport secretary Ruth Kelly admitted to Parliament that the names, addresses and phone numbers of three million learner drives had been lost by the Driving Standards Agency. This followed the loss by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of two discs containing the details of some 25 million people, after officials had failed to follow the proper procedures for handling data.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, branded 2007 as the “worst ever year” for personal privacy.

“Vast numbers of British people have been the victims of serial incompetence. This shocking record of data loss means we need a total rethink on data-protection enforcement and an immediate end to the ID cards plan,” Clegg said.

“There is simply no way that any democratic government can expect an unwilling public to accept having their precious personal data cropped and stored in the world’s largest database when they aren’t confident that database will be safe,” Clegg added.

Clegg said the crisis in personal-data handling had reached crisis point and that the government’s plans to introduce a national ID cards scheme were now in freefall.

“Gordon Brown must now have the courage to admit that his government’s obsession with data retention has hit a brick wall, and drop it for good,” Clegg added.

MPs on the House of Commons Justice Committee are calling for tougher sanctions for government organisations which commit serious breaches of data-protection law.

Under current law, neither government departments nor agencies can be held criminally responsible for data-protection breaches.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39291984,00.htm

VIDEO: Irrelevant Election Delusion Begins

0

Irrelevant Election delusion gets under way in the corporate states of america violent post election scuffle continues in kenyan corruption franchise In the UK vomiting sweeps nation as billions are lost in NHS scams

Double Agent Gadahn Threatens Bush In Neo-Con Stunt

0

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet

Zionist who once called Muslims “bloodthirsty terrorists” helps Giuliani’s flagging numbers before New Hampshire primary

Adam Pearlman, the Jewish Mossad agent who once wrote stinging essays condemning Muslims as “bloodthirsty terrorists”, has once again popped up as an “Al-Qaeda spokesman” to boost the Neo-Con’s imperial agenda by threatening George Bush on the eve of his trip to the middle east.

In a new videotape, Pearlman, now calling himself Adam Gadahn, states, “The occupied territories are awaiting their first visit by the crusader Bush and the mujahideen are also waiting for him,” reports ABC News.

According to the tape, Gadahn promises to welcome Bush “with bombs and traps.”

Gadahn‘s appearance is also perfectly timed to boost the flagging poll numbers of Rudy Giuliani and other establishment Republican candidates who have invoked the imaginary threat of terror for political points scoring before the New Hampshire primary tomorrow.

But who is the mysterious Adam Yehiye Gadahn?

The FBI lists Gadahn’s aliases as Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki, Abu Suhayb, Yihya Majadin Adams, Adam Pearlman, and Yayah.

Adam Pearlman is his real name and his grandfather is none other than the late Carl K. Pearlman; a prominent Jewish urologist in Orange County. Carl was also a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League, which was caught spying on Americans for Israel in 1993. Mike Rivero has the scoop at WhatReallyHappened.com.

Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency was caught in 2002 creating a phony Al-Qaeda group to justify attacks on Palestinians.

Pearlman has a knack of releasing his tapes at the most politically opportune time for Bush, having first burst onto the scene shortly before the 2004 presidential election and then again right after Katrina when the President’s approval rating was tanking fast.

Even more mainstream publications, like the Los Angeles City Beat, have dismissed Pearlman before as nothing more than “cartoonish propaganda.”

Pearlman had a hippy upbringing, a brief but intense flirtation with death metal and before a sudden transformation, once referred to Muslims as “bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorists.” Pearlman was a hardcore Jewish Zionist and wrote essays and screeds bashing the Muslim faith. He even got into fights at mosques and beat up Muslim worshippers.


Pearlman, the hardcore Jewish Zionist who trashed Muslims and beat them up, grows a beard and suddenly becomes an “Al-Qaeda spokesman” – nothing suspicious here, move along!

Pearlman’s personal history and the highly suspicious nature in which he suddenly professed his conversion to Islam in a single Internet posting and later appeared on the scene as a spokesman for “Al-Qaeda” are all the ingredients needed to draw the conclusion that Pearlman is working as a double agent and most likely for Mossad.

The new tape is once again the work of As Sahab, Al-Qaeda’s alleged media arm and was released by the U.S. government affiliated IntelCenter organization.

The previous Pearlman tape, released at the end of May last year, was also obtained by the IntelCenter group, a U.S. government contractor, and its head Ben Venzke gave the tape credence in media interviews concerning the story, as he has done again on this occasion.

It also emerged that Gadahn was the scriptwriter for the September 11, 2007 Bin Laden tape in which segments of Bin Laden’s previous statements were hastily slapped together and the contrast altered to make his dubious beard appear darker, an attempt to hoodwink viewers into thinking the tape was new material.

In our previous groundbreaking expose, we unveiled the ties between Intelcenter, a group that regularly ‘obtains’ Al-Qaeda tapes and the Pentagon. Intelcenter is an offshoot of IDEFENSE, which was staffed by a senior military psy-op intelligence officer Jim Melnick, who has worked directly for Donald Rumsfeld.

Intelcenter were behind the October 2006 release of the “laughing hijackers” tape that showed Mohammad Atta and Ziad Jarrah allegedly attending a 2000 Al-Qaeda meeting and reading their last will and testament.

Segments of the video that were interspersed with footage of the “laughing hijackers,” Jarrah and Atta, showing Bin Laden giving a speech to an audience in Afghanistan on January 8 2000, were culled from what terror experts described as surveillance footage taken by a “security agency.”

News reports at the time contained the admission that the U.S. government had been in possession of the footage since 2002, while others said it was found when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and yet it was still bizarrely reported that the tape, bearing all the hallmarks of having been filmed and edited by undercover US intelligence and having admittedly been in US possession for five years, was released over the weekend of September 31/October 1 by Al-Qaeda.

The video also contained segments that were first broadcast in a British documentary called The Road to Guantanamo, which was originally aired in March 2006. The context of the corresponding scene in the dramatized documentary featured U.S. interrogators attempting to coerce Gitmo detainees into confessing Al-Qaeda membership by showing them fake videos where their likeness had been computer generated to appear as if they were in attendance during Bin Laden’s January 8 2000 speech.

The new Pearlman/Gadahn propaganda tape will no doubt be seized upon by bellicose Neo-Cons who desperately yearn for another terror attack like junkies yearn for their next hit. Unfortunately for them, crass videotapes presented by discredited intelligence double agents don’t have nearly the same impact they did before masses of people started waking up to the fact that the entire war on terror is a complete fraud propped up by crude smoke and mirror stunts which manage to fool only the dumbest of Americans.

How to make a 100 Watt wind turbine‏

18

This page is all about a rather silly, quick project where in about 1 day I built a small wind generator using the following items, and nothing else….

(1) Wood

(2) Copper wire

(3) Surplus Neodymium magnets

(4) Dirt

(5) 10″ piece of 3/8″ steel shaft

(6) Two bolts, but these are optional.

…and that’s all, unless we count glue, and linseed oil which I used for finishing. Initially the project started out to simply be an alternator experiment. Once I had the armature finished and a couple of the coils wound on the stator, I realized it was definitely going to be a successful one, so I decided to build it into a small wind generator. Mostly simple tools were used, although a band saw, wood lathe, and drill press came in pretty handy.

magnet

Pictured above is one of the magnets I used. These are surplus magnets from computer hard drives, one of my favorites for alternator experiments. They are about 1.75″ long, 1.4″ wide, and a quarter of an inch thick. 8 of them will fit together to make a ring. We no longer have these magnets in stock. They were surplus, they are sold out, and we can’t get any more. But this design could easily be adapted to use different size or shape NdFeB magnets.

armature

Above you can see the armature for the alternator. I simply laminated wood until I felt it was thick enough to hold the magnets securely. After they were glued together, I lathed the armature down to match the diameter of a ring of 8 magnets, I cut a slot so the magnets could be pressed/glued in. Epoxy is probably the best glue for this. In the center I drilled a hole and glued/pressed in the 3/8″ diameter shaft. Keep in mind, this alternator has 8 poles, and the magnets must have alternating poles facing out.

wooden bearings

Pictured above you see the wooden pillow block bearings. I simply drilled a hole, slightly under 3/8″ diameter, and then using a gas stove, heated the shaft to almost red hot, and forced it through the holes. This makes for a good tight fit, and it serves to harden the wood, and the inside of the holes has a layer of carbon, which makes for a better bearing. These bearings are from pine, certainly a harder wood would work much better! In the top of the pillow blocks I drilled a small hole so that the bearings could be oiled/greased. Once the alternator was assembled, there was no play in the shaft at all, and it turned freely. Even after several hours of hard running, the bearings are holding up well. It’s interesting information, although I would certainly encourage anybody building a windmill to use steel ball bearings. I just did wooden ones for the sake of fun, and simplicity. Odds are, on a slow running machine, like a slow water wheel, wooden bearings, properly made could last for years. This is actually a high speed windmill and I should think these would wear out quickly.

wooden stator

The stator, on which the coils are wound was cut from two pieces of 2″ X 4″ lumber. The inner diameter is 1/2″ larger than that of the armature, and to the sides are thin plywood pieces with holes drilled for winding the coils. Inner diameter of the plywood pieces is only slightly larger than the diameter of the armature. This allowed for “hollow coils” into which I would have a “dirt” core to attract the magnetic field through the coils. These coils are wound with #22 AWG enameled copper wire, each coil is 100 turns. The coils are wound in opposite directions.

dirt

I dragged a magnet around in the dirt of my driveway, so that it would attract the magnetite sand. Pictured above you can see the pile I used, with a stack of magnets demonstrating its magnetic properties.

wood coils and dirt

The dirt was mixed with epoxy, so that I had a thick paste. I simply spooned it inside the hollow space in the stator. This makes for a reasonable core, and although it does not work nearly as well as steel laminates, it’s much easier. Making steel laminates is a nearly impossible task without significant time and tooling. The magnetite paste does a good job of attracting the magnetic field, and is non-conductive so eddy currents are not a problem.

wooden alternator

The completed alternator! I was real surprised by the performance. I could easily spin it up with my fingers to produce over 12 volts. Attaching a cordless drill to the shaft, it would light up a 25 watt 12 volt light bulb easily! Although this may not seem breath taking, I thought it was, considering the simplicity of the project! It was at this point I decided it deserved a windmill for testing!

wooden chassis

To stay with the “style” of the project I decided to build the whole windmill out of wood, it’s a fairly simple design and should be self explanatory. It’s glued and pinned, with wooden dowels, no bolts are used except to bolt the alternator on it. I cheated there.

wooden propeller

The prop is wooden, made from 1″ X 4″ lumber. Each blade is 3.5″ wide at the base, 2.5″ at the tip, and 2′ long, for a total diameter of 4 feet. The pitch of the blade is 10 degrees at the hub, and 6 degrees at the tip. The hub is simply made from 2″ thick wood, and glued to the shaft with epoxy. The blades are held on by one small nut at the end of the shaft, and several wooden pins. So far its held up well! Hope I never feel like taking it apart, because it would be nearly impossible…

wooden wind generator

So there it is, all finished up! I took it for a test drive in the model A Ford. I didn’t want to break it, so I never took it over 25 miles per hour, but it seems to perform well (considering). In a 25 mph wind it produces about 60 watts (5 amps into a 12 volt battery), so I think I can give it an optimistic rating of 100 watts…not bad for a 1 day project made entirely of wood. Obviously, it’s not made to hold up over the long term, it was merely a fun little test, but I think the alternator provides some interesting data. I feel pretty sure now that with little work one could definitely build a very useful alternator completely from scratch. By simply increasing the diameter some one could get a LOT more output from a very similar machine. Of course, using better bearings would be wise, but I like the use of wood, because it is a material which is widely available, and easily worked with the simplest of tools. Thanks for dropping in and letting me show off this silly windmill!

VIDEO: Bush – I don’t care were Osma is

0


http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/246.html

Bush:

If the unproven government theory that Osama bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 attacks, why has he not been captured and brought to justice?

After all, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives, and the US Constitution has been shredded to deal with the “threat” posed by Osama bin Laden and other wild-eyed Middle Eastern terrorists.

From this video, it’s clear that taking Bin Laden out of circulation is not only not a priority for Bush, Bush is not even remotely interested in the topic and visibly contemptuous of those who are.

Why Bush was not impeached within a week of making this statement and then tried, found guilt of treason and hung* (by lawful court order), I’ll never understand.

Why there are still millions of Americans who look to this fraud and his minions as their source of security in the world is a similarly profound mystery.

* Too hard on Bush? This is a man who has governor of Texas was a one-man cheer leading squad for capital punishment.

Treason is a capital offense. A president who actively undermines the Constitution and willfully permits the country’s chief enemy run wild is traitor.

The western war of terror against its own citizens

0

W.J.C. Rhys-Burgess

In an address to the UN Human Rights Council on 13 December 2007, the International Commission of Jurists expressed particular concern as to the human rights implications of the recent proliferation of so-called counter-terrorism legislation.

In its intervention, the Commission particuarly mentioned the practice of “rendition” or abduction of suspects, without due process of law, to places of secret or arbitrary detention, and highlighted how protection of human rights and the rule of law had been gravely undermined by the purported grant of impunity to state agents, as well as of private contractors engaged by them, for serious human rights violations.

For example, under section 7 of the UK’s Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Foreign Secretary is ostensibly permitted to grant immunity from civil proceedings or criminal prosecution to any member of the security services (including private “contractors”) in respect of any tortious or unlawful act, which would presumably include abduction, false arrest, wrongful imprisonment, torture and extrajudicial killing.

In July 2007, The Eminent Jurists’ Panel heard testimony expressing concerns about serious departures from international human rights law arising from State counter-terrorist measures. The Panel is composed of eight judges, lawyers and academics from all regions of the world and is supported by the ICJ.

Of particular concern to the Panel was the role of some European states in supporting or facilitating the US-led system of “extraordinary renditions”, including secret and incommunicado detention, and the use of internationally proscribed methods of interrogation; the use of some European States of information secured through such methods and the presence of or participation by members of the security services of some European states in the interrogation of persons prior to or following their rendition. The Panel considered that it was wholly unacceptable that any country, in Europe or elsewhere, should co-operate in renditions, with the multiple violations of human rights this involved, including the prohibitions on torture, enforced disappearances, and arbitrary or incommunicado detention. It strongly recommended that institutions of the EU and Council of Europe should hold those responsible for such practices accountable, and to ensure that the victims of renditions are accorded effective remedies for violations of their human rights. It held that such effective accountability was vital to deter continuation of this practice in other parts of the world.

The Panel also heard evidence relating to the apparent failure of some European states to establish meaningful oversight and effective accountability of intelligence services, in particular military intelligence services; and the reliance on secret intelligence by various European countries as a basis for administrative measures of a punitive nature, including deportations of persons suspected of involvement in or support for terrorism. It was satisfied from the testimony it had heard, including in Europe, as to the importance of effective supervision and accountability of all branches of the intelligence services, including military intelligence. It urged all European states to review and where necessary strengthen their systems of supervision of intelligence services, to ensure respect for human rights and the rule of law in all aspects of intelligence operations.

Evidence was heard of the failure by some European states to respect the basic principle of non-refoulement, recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the reliance on diplomatic assurances against torture to justify the deportation of suspects to states known to use torture. The Panel was especially concerned that deportations were being undertaken on the basis of diplomatic assurances, as a preventative counter-terrorism measure by some European states. The Panel considered that it was unacceptable to deport persons to states that use torture, on the basis of such assurances in that they were unenforceable and that reliance on them in these circumstances was contrary to the obligation of non-refoulement whereby there was a grave risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and that such renditions undermined the absolute prohibition of such treatment in international law.

Concern was particularly expressed as to the wide definition of offences in anti-terrorism legislation, including offences of membership of a terrorist organization, and offences of incitement to and apology for terrorism, which could result in persons engaged in legitimate political or social dissent being branded as terrorist.

The tendency to increase periods of detention incommunicado prior to charges being brought against suspects, without adequate safeguards, including access to counsel during detention was also condemned.

Also of concern was the increasing scope of the collection of personal data for law enforcement, immigration and related purposes, without adequate safeguards being established to guard against the misuse of such information; as well as the alienating effect of counter-terrorism measures on minority communities, particularly Muslims, who bear the brunt of powers vested in security services, sometimes applied in a discriminatory way. The Panel condemned the particularly disproportionate impact of counter-terrorism measures on members of Muslim communities and considered that such measures had an alienating (and therefore counter-productive) effect. It considered it essential that the concerns of these communities are addressed by making anti-discrimination measures a central part of counter-terrorism policies, at both national and European inter-governmental levels.

The Panel heard concerns regarding the absence of fair and credible procedures for the inclusion of individuals or organisations on national, European Union or United Nations so-called “blacklists” that may seriously prejudice the rights of those affected. Concern was also expressed about the lack of fair procedures to remove persons wrongly “blacklisted” and compensated for the injury suffered by such conduct.

The Panel whilst acknowledging the need for effective cooperation between states to counter terrorism, emphasised that such cooperation must take place within a human rights framework, and must be subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards.

The Panel held hearings in Australia, Colombia, East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda), the United Kingdom (in London on current counter-terrorism policies and in Belfast on lessons from the past), North Africa (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia), the United States, the Southern Cone (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay), South-East Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand), the Russian Federation, South Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Maldives), Canada, and the Middle East (Egypt, Yemen, Jordan and Syria).

President Bush Torturer-in-Chief

0

US constitutional expert Jonathan Turley says only the United States president could have ordered the torture of al-Qaeda suspects.

Following a report that the Justice Department had opened an investigation into the destruction of CIA torture tapes, Turley observed that “the investigation will essentially be the Justice Department investigating itself”.

“Picking some guy in Connecticut or any other state doesn’t make any difference. His boss is Michael Mukasey. And Michael Mukasey’s boss is the president of the United States. If torture occurred, he was the guy who ordered it,” Turley told MSNBC’s Countdown.

When Keith Olberman, the Countdown’s host, asked if the investigation ‘could still lead to criminal culpability for the president’, Turley replied, “most certainly it can. That original crime could only have been ordered by the president and it leads directly to his office”.

The controversail dewtroyed tapes are said to be footage of the torture/interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, widely held to be the logistical mastermind behind the 9/11 terror bombings of New York and Washington.

During a year’s end press conference, President George W. Bush refrained from giving any comment on recent CIA tape revelations, saying that he would have no comment on the debate until an investigation is completed.

The issue of torture has roiled the Bush administration since revelations began trickling out with the unprecedented opening of the Guantanamo prison facility in Cuba and coining of the neologism “enemy combatants”, a supposed legal definition without precedent in legal lexicons and related to the Taliban, al-Qaeda and their supporters subsequently picked up primarily in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries.

Under that classification several hundred people were incarcerated at Guantanamo and Bagram airbase north of Kabul and subsequently hundreds are still being held there without charges, amid allegations and now dozens of recorded testimonies of torture of the men released from those facilities.

In May 2004, pictures leaked of US military prisoner sexual abuse and torture in what is now known as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq–a detention center that was formerly a detention killing field for Saddam Hussein’s regime. That sordid incident brought the question of US military abuse of detainees to world attention.

These incidents are known to have originated with orders from the US departments of defense and justice and ultimately with President Bush. Some law enforecement officials have expressed the opinion that if Bush and and Vice- President Dick Cheney are spared impeachment, there will still be a raft of lawsuits awaiting them once they leave office in January 2009, many of them relating to systematic prisoner abuse and torture they are widely held to have been the ultimate authors of.

CS/HGH/HAR

List of Bush Administration Scandals

7

List of Scandalized Administration Officials

By Paul Kiel

Boy, was it time for an update.

Late last year we decided to take stock of all the Bush Administration officials who’d been accused of corruption and/or resigned in the face of scandal. Although we had fun doing it, we altruistically started the project in order to help our friends at Powerline, who professed an inability to think of any Bush officials beset by scandal.

This year´s result, which built on Justin Rood´s original gem, is, like our catalog of the administration´s efforts to disappear information, a staggering monument to the Bush Administration. And it wouldn’t have been possible without TPM’s research hounds, Adrianne Jeffries, Andrew Berger, and Peter Sheehy.

A quick note on methodology. Since a complete catalog of administration officials who’ve been accused of some form of corruption or abuse of power would be endless, we tried to maintain a high standard for inclusion. Most of those below were the subjects of criminal probes, but we also included officials who were credibly accused of acts that, if not criminal, were a corruption of office (like the U.S. attorney scandal). And even then, such officials were only included if their accusers had them dead to rights (which is why Karl Rove didn’t make the cut). We also limited ourselves to officials who were either political appointees or whose actions were so political that they were effectively political appointees (like John Tanner).

Enjoy:

Indicted / Convicted/ Pled Guilty

* Eric G. Andell – deputy undersecretary in charge of newly created Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (previously senior adviser to Secretary of Education Rod Paige) – pleaded guilty to one count of conflict of interest for using government travel for personal causes and was sentenced to one year of probation, 100 hours of community service, and fined $5,000.

* Claude Allen – Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

* Lester Crawford – Commissioner, FDA – resigned in late September 2005 after only two months on the job. On October 17th, he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts, making a false writing and conflict of interest. On February 27, 2007, Crawford was sentenced to to three years of probation and was fined $90,000.

* Brian Doyle – Deputy Press Secretary, Department of Homeland Security – Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Doyle was arrested on April 4th, 2006 and pleaded no contest on September 19, 2006 to seven counts of use of a computer to seduce a child and sixteen counts of transmitting harmful material to a minor. On November 17th, 2006 Brian Doyle was sentenced to five years in state prison and ten years of probation. He will also need to register as a sex offender.

* Steven Griles – Deputy Secretary at the Interior Department – is the highest-ranked administration official yet convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. In March 2007, Griles pleaded guilty to lying about his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Sentenced to 10 months incarceration.

* John T. Korsmo — Chairman of the Federal Housing Finance Board from 2002 to 2004 — pleaded guilty in 2005 to lying to the Senate and an inspector general. He swore he had no idea how a list of presidents for FHFB-regulated banks were invited to a fundraiser for his friend’s congressional campaign. On the invites, Korsmo was listed as the “Special Guest.” Got 18 months of probation and a $5,000 fine.

* Scooter Libby – Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff – resigned after being indicted for lying to a grand jury and investigators in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of Valerie Wilson’s covert CIA operative’s identity. Convicted on four of five counts, making him the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-contra scandal. Sentenced to thirty months imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. On July 2nd, after a judge decided that Libby would remain in prison during the appeals process, President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence by removing the thirty months in prison.

* David Safavian – former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget – convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. On October 27, 2006, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He is currently appealing the ruling.

* Robert Stein – former comptroller and funding officer for the now disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority, Southern Central Region in Al-Hillah, Iraq – pleaded guilty to conspiracy, bribery, conspiracy to commit money laundering, possession of a machine gun, and being a felon in possession of a fire arm. On January 30, 2007 Stein was sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to forfeit $3.6 million.

* Roger Stillwell – desk officer, Interior Department – pleaded guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.

Resigned Due to Investigation, Pending Investigation or Allegations of Impropriety

* Philip Cooney – chief of staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality – a former oil industry lawyer with no scientific expertise, Cooney resigned after it was revealed he had watered down reports on global warming.

* George Deutsch – press aide, NASA – resigned amid allegations he prevented the agency’s top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming.

* Michael Elston – chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty – announced his resignation on June 15, 2007. Despite allegations that he’d threatened at least four of the eight fired US Attorneys, McNulty said Elston had served the Justice Department “with distinction for nearly eight years.”

* Kyle Dustin “Dusty” Foggo – appointed executive director of the CIA, the agency’s third-highest post, in October 2004 – resigned and was ultimately indicted on bribery charges related to the Duke Cunningham scandal.

* Alberto Gonzales – former Attorney General – resigned without explanation amidst investigations of the firings of U.S. Attorneys, the politicization of the Justice Department, warrantless surveillance, and the torture and mistreatment of detainees.

* Monica Goodling – former Justice Department liaison to the White House and senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – resigned on April 7, 2007 amidst the investigation of the firings of U.S. Attorneys.

* Michelle Larson Korsmo – deputy chief of staff, Department of Labor – Helped her husband (see John Korsmo, above) with his donor scam. Quietly left her Labor plum job in February 2004, about two weeks before news broke that she and her husband were the targets of a criminal probe.

* Howard “Cookie” Krongard – former State Department inspector general — accused of not properly investigating State Department contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan; of retaliating against whistleblowers in his own office; and of not telling the truth about his knowledge of his brother’s ties with Blackwater, a State Department contractor. Faced with a possible perjury investigation, Howard Krongard resigned on December 7, 2007.

* Julie Macdonald – former deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at the Interior Department – resigned in May 2007 after an “inspector general’s report found she had improperly leaked information to private organizations, bullied staff scientists and broken federal rules.” The Department of the Interior is investigating many of her decisions regarding endangered species; so far seven have been overturned.

* Paul McNulty – Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice — resigned, after questions about his involvement in the U.S. attorney firings and his testimony to Congress about the firings.

* Richard Perle – Chairman, Defense Policy Board – resigned from Pentagon advisory panel amid conflict-of-interest charges.

* Susan Ralston – assistant, White House – resigned amidst revelations that she had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff without compensating him, counter to White House ethics rules.

* Janet Rehnquist – inspector general, Department of Health and Human Services – resigned on June 1, 2003 in the face of an investigation into her alleged efforts to block a politically dangerous probe on behalf of the Bush family.

* James Roche – secretary, U.S. Air Force – resigned in the wake of the Boeing tanker lease scandal, after it was revealed he had rather crudely pushed for Boeing to win a $23 billion contract.

* Kyle Sampson -former chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – resigned amidst the investigation of the firings of U.S. Attorneys.

* Joseph Schmitz – Inspector General, Defense – Resigned amid charges he personally intervened to protect top political appointees.

* Bradley Schlozmanresigned from his third and final post with the Justice Department after accusations of actively politicizing the department. He’s currently under investigation by the Department’s inspector general.

* Thomas Scully – Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services – shortly after Scully resigned in 2003, an investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general found that Scully had pressured the agency’s actuary to underestimate the full cost of the Medicare reform bill by approximately $100 billion until after Congress passed the bill into law. Scully was also hit with conflict of interest charges by the U.S. attorney’s office for billing CMS for expenses incurred during a job search while he still headed the agency. He settled those charges by paying $9,782.

* David Smith – deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks, Interior Department – resigned on July 21, 2006 after shooting a buffalo and accepting its skeletal remains and meat as an illegal gratuity. He eventually paid over $3,000 for the dead buffalo, but only after the internal inquiry had commenced. The Department of Interior inspector general also noted in a May 16, 2006 report that Smith’s involvement in the designation of Houston as a port of entry for imported wildlife in order to benefit a friend was inappropriate.

* John Tanner – Voting Rights Section Chief, Justice Department – resigned in December of 2007 and moved to the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. Already under suspicion for aiding efforts to politicize the voting section, the bumbling proponent of voter identification laws angered lawmakers with his comments that such laws actually discriminate against white voters because “minorities die first”. Even more impressive was his apology for the comment. The DoJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility is currently investigating his travel habits and those of his deputy.

* Sara Taylor – Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House, where she was Karl Rove´s top aide – resigned amidst the U.S. attorneys investigation and other probes of Rove´s alleged politicization of the government.

* Ken Tomlinson – Board Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting; member, Broadcasting Board of Governors – resigned at the release of an inspector general report concluding he had broken laws in spending CPB money to hire politically connected consultants to search for “bias” without consulting the board. At BBG, a separate investigation found he was running a “horse racing operation” out of his office, and continuing to hire politically-wired individuals to do “consulting” work for him. After being nominated and serving another term, he finally stepped down from that spot earlier this year.

* Carl Truscott – Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau – resigned. A report by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that Truscott wasted tens of thousands of dollars on luxuries, wasted millions on whimsical management decisions and violated ethics rules by ordering employees to help his nephew with a high school video project.

* Paul Wolfowitz – World Bank President – resigned in May 2007 after a committee report found that he broke ethics rules by giving his girlfriend a substantial raise.

Nomination Failed Due to Scandal

* Linda Chavez – nominated, Secretary of Labor – withdrew her nomination in January 2001 amidst revelations that an illegal immigrant lived in her home and worked for her in the early 1990s. Chavez blamed what she said were the “search-and-destroy” politics of Washington.

* Timothy Flanigan – nominated, Deputy Attorney General (also Alberto Gonzales’ top deputy at the White House) – withdrew his nomination in October 2005 amidst revelations that he’d worked closely with lobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was General Counsel for Corporate and International Law at Tyco, which was a client of Abramoff’s.

* Bernard Kerik – nominated, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security – withdrew his nomination amidst a host of corruption allegations. Eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor relating to improper gifts totaling tens of thousands of dollars while he was a New York City official in the late 1990’s. Subsequently, on November 8, 2007, Kerik was indicted on sixteen counts for bribery, tax fraud, and false statements with a maximum sentence of 142 years and more than $5 million in fines. Kerik has pleaded not guilty. For a rundown of Kerik’s myriad indiscretions, check out TPM’s Ultimate Kerik Scandal List!.

* William Mercer – the former associate deputy attorney general and US Attorney for Montana – withdrew his nomination to be the permanent number three official at the Department of Justice on June 22, 2007 due to his role in the U.S. attorney firings.

* Hans von Spakovsky – Commissioner, FEC – nomination to another term after his recess appointment failed due to allegations that he’d worked at the Justice Department to suppress minority voter turnout.

Under Investigation But Still in Office

* Stuart Bowen – Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) – was once admired for his successes while investigating allegations of waste and fraud in Iraq, but now employee allegations have prompted four government investigations into the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).

* Lurita Doan – Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration – still in office, despite investigations by both the Office of Special Counsel and the House oversight committee that found that Doan had “crossed the line” by suggesting that the GSA use its resources to help Republicans get elected.

* Alfonso Jackson – Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – following reports that Jackson told a business group in April 2006 that he once canceled a contract after the contractor criticized President Bush, an investigation by the HUD inspector general found that while Jackson told his deputies to favor Bush supporters, there was “no direct proof that a contract was actually awarded or rescinded because of political affiliation.” A second, criminal investigation was triggered in part by Jackson’s claim before Congress in May 2007 that “I don’t touch contracts.” That probe, now before a federal grand jury, has turned up evidence that Jackson may indeed have touched contracts – and steered them towards friends.

Speed Cameras Spy INSIDE Cars

0

New super-cameras mean no hiding for drivers who smoke, eat or use a phone

By RAY MASSEY

Digital speed cameras which capture drivers smoking or eating at the wheel are being introduced nationwide in a new move to hammer motorists.

Drivers will also face fines, bans and even jail for infringements such as driving without a seatbelt, using a hand-held mobile phone or overtaking across double white lines.

The hi-tech DVD cameras, which have instant playback, will also be used to provide photographic evidence against those eating sandwiches or rolling-up cigarettes at the wheel.

Scroll down for more …

Super cameraThe DVD camera snapped a driver apparently steering by his feet

These are now considered serious offences under new guidelines drawn up for prosecutors.

The development will massively increase the number of fines and prosecutions against normally law-abiding drivers for relatively minor offences.

As well as being fined £60 and given three points on their licences, motorists now face two years in jail if their actions are considered to have been a factor in dangerous driving.

Virtually every police force in England, Wales and Scotland is now equipped with the new digital cameras. They were given Home Office approval in April but are quietly being rolled out nationwide.

More than 100 have been sold. The manufacturers have said their order book is full until next April.

The DVD cameras can operate as conventional speed traps. But thanks to the instant playback, they also double up to photograph motorists flouting laws other than speeding.

Set up by a police officer on sites such as motorway bridges, they constantly scan the cars and can digitally record drivers behind the wheel committing a vast array of minor traffic offences.

Crucially the new technology, called Concept, allows officers to play back the footage to locate, view and capture the offence instantly.

Photographs taken using the device show how effective it is, capturing pictures such as a man apparently steering his Renault with his bare feet and the driver of an Alfa Romeo with a mobile phone clamped to his ear.

Scroll down for more …

Super cameraThis driver was pictured with a mobile phone clamped to his ear

The device is made and sold by Tele-Traffic UK whose chief executive, Jon Bond, is a former police chief superintendent in charge of speed cameras in Warwickshire.

He said: “It is the first camera to record offences other than speeding and give an instant playback.

“If the camera is being used for speed enforcement, but the police officer spots another driving offence being committed – or even thinks he saw something – he can play it back in a second. The offences are easily and quickly detectable.”

Mr Bond, whose Warwick-based company employs 20, added: “At present, officers can record an offence such as driving with a mobile phone clamped to their ear or without a seatbelt but would then have to look through perhaps two hours of tape in order to find it again.

“Concept means that those operating the camera can digitally log everything. They are linked to the team in the back office who can instantly find the offence, see the proof and send out a penalty charge notice to the car’s registeredowner.

“This will cut down massively on the amount of time police officers have to spend on paperwork and so speed up prosecutions. The days of the police having to chase after people who are infringing the law in these ways are gone. That will make the roads a safer place.”

The Concept digital DVD technology costs £17,750. But police forces who already use Tele-Traffic’s existing analogue (non-digital) system, can upgrade for a fraction of that price.

Smoking at the wheel was recently included in the Highway Code as something which courts can consider as a factor when police accuse drivers of failing to have proper control of their vehicle.

More than 300,000 drivers a day are still illegally using hand-held phones at the wheel, recent government figures revealed.

The penalties for using a handheld phone while driving, which was outlawed in 2003, were increased in February this year from a £30 fine to £60, plus three penalty points.

Under new sentencing rules, motorists using hand-held mobile phones could be jailed for two years and be disqualified if this was an aggravating factor in dangerous driving.

Those who kill while using a mobile face 14 years behind bars, under a charge of causing death by dangerous driving.

Last October, Mr Bond and his Tele-Traffic team were under fire after admitting to undercover reporters posing as customers that speed cameras were a “scam” and that setting up cameras in new areas was the equivalent of having “a blank chequebook” that would result in “bucketfuls” of cash.

Self-styled Captain Gatso of the campaign group Motorists Against Detection said: “This is yet another example of the Big Brother surveillance society where there’s no escape from the cameras.”

Report on Faulty Voting Machines for 2008 Election

0

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK Coming between the Iowa and New Hampshire tallies, this Sunday’s cover of The New York Times Magazine ought to strike a chord. It shows a man inside an exploding voting booth with a WARNING label over it and the words: “Your vote may be lost, destroyed, miscounted, wrongly attributed or hacked.”

The massive Clive Thompson article, titled “The Bugs in the Machines,” is quite chilling. “After the 2000 election,” it opens, “counties around the country rushed to buy new computerized voting machines. But it turns out that these machines may cause problems worse than hanging chads. Is America ready for another contested election?”

One key passage: “The earliest critiques of digital voting booths came from the fringe — disgruntled citizens and scared-senseless computer geeks — but the fears have now risen to the highest levels of government.”

One expert says that “about 10 percent” of the devices fail in each election.

The piece focuses on the newly popular “touch-screen” machines, noting that “in hundrds of instances, the result has been precisely the opposite” of the intention to add “clarity” to results: “they fail unpredictably, and in extremely strange ways; voters report that their choices ‘flip’ from one candidate to another before their eyes; machines crash or begin to count backward; votes simply vanish. (In the 80-person town of Waldenburgh, Ark., touch-screen machines tallied zero votes for one mayor candidate in 2006–even though he’s pretty sure he voted for himself.)”

During this year’s primaries, about one-third of all votes will be cast on touch-screens. The same ratio will likely hold this November, even with some states junking the devices.

The Times notes that “what scares election observers is this: What happens if the next presidnetial election is extremely close and decided by a handful of votes cast on machines that crashed?”

Then there’s this: “If the machines are tested and officials are able to examine the source code, you might wonder why machines with so many flaws and bugs have gotten through. It is, critics insist, because the testing is nowhere near diligent enough, and the federal regulators are too sympathetic and cozy with the vendors.”

The reporter seems to agree with this, detailing “a regulatory environment in which, effectively, no one assumes final responsibility for whether the machines function reliably,” and everyone points fingers at each other.

Thompson declares, chillingly: “In essence, elections now face a similar outsourcing issue to that seen in the Iraq war, where the government has ceded so many core military responsibilities to firms like Haliburton and Blackwater that Washington can no longer fire the contractor.”

Comments one elections supervisor: “This is a crazy world. The process is so under control by the vendor.”

Thompson reveals that during a visit to the polls a suburb of Pittsburgh just days before last November’s elections, he was left alone with six iVtronic voting machines. It looked easy to cut and reseal the seals. “In essence,” he concludes, “I could have tampered with the machines in any way I wanted, with very little chance of being detected or caught.”

Privacy watchdog calls for RFID regulations

0

 Ian GrantConsumers who buy RFID-enabled goods should have an automatic veto against their personal details being collected and associated with the device, says the European Data Protection Supervisor.

Responding to the European Commission’s communication on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) in Europe, Peter Hustinx said self-regulation might be enough to start with, but that new privacy legislation may be needed.

He called for the commission to give clear guidance on how to apply the current legal framework to the RFID environment. He said there should be European Community legislation to regulate RFID usage in case the existing legal framework failed.

Such measures should lay down the opt-in principle at the point of sale as a precise and undeniable legal obligation, he said. He called for the identification of best available techniques to enable manufacturers to build in privacy in their system designs.

Are new technologies sacrificing privacy?

0

Are companies being fair with what they do with the data they collect. If they aren’t, then we need some rules in place.

Patrick Thibodeau

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), gives his take on how young people view privacy and discusses the privacy ramifications of shopping courtesy cards, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and bar-coded driver’s licenses.

Some privacy advocates argue that the younger generation of Internet users — the Facebook and MySpace users — are less guarded about data privacy. Is this younger generation in the vanguard of a new way of thinking about privacy, or are they just naïve?

Younger people today have a different way of thinking about privacy. I think it’s a mistake to believe that they value privacy less [than other users do]. And in many respects, that’s actually the experience we’ve often had in this country: notions of privacy evolve based on what technology makes possible. But I think the mistake that people sometimes make is to believe that because kids have a different expectation of privacy, somehow it’s a diminished expectation.

Do you think, though, that young users are sharing more information about themselves in public environments than they should be?

I think the interesting issue, and where the privacy debate begins, is when the information that they make available to their friends — for example, on a social network site — is gathered surreptitiously and used for marketing purposes. And there, I think there really is a [valid] debate about whether people, and kids in particular, understand what’s going on and if it’s really fair.

The courtesy cards that retailers issue to customers to qualify for discounts can be used to record everything that someone like me buys. How can that information be used? And as a consumer, should I worry about it?

I generally think that being worried is a helpful way to talk about privacy. In terms of how businesses collect and use personal information, the right approach is really to ask the question, “Are companies being fair with what they do with the data they collect?” If they aren’t, then we need some rules in place.

Do you think that retailers are being fair about how they use the purchasing information they collect?

I think it’s a very serious issue. One of the big paradoxes about privacy is that the companies that collect and use so much information about consumers tend to be very secretive about their own practices, and as a result, it’s just very difficult for people to really know what’s happening to the data that is provided to [the companies]. So typically, when we talk about privacy laws, one of the main things we’re arguing for is simply making companies more accountable in the collection and use of data that they collect.

At an IBM conference that I was at recently, the ID badges for attendees included RFID tags that automatically tracked what sessions people attended. IBM’s conference organizers had a reasonable explanation: instead of scanning people’s badges as they went into sessions, they just RFID’ed them. But where can this all go if things like driver’s licenses or library cards get RFID tags?

Your story is very interesting, and in fact, [IBM’s] analogy is imperfect. When you scan a card, there’s a moment when the card is removed, it’s turned over to a reader and the person is aware of the fact that the card is being read. The problem, of course, with an RFID tag is that it can be read at any time by anyone who is in possession of a reader — whether or not the person knows that their card is being scanned. And this is precisely the debate we are having right now with the Department of Homeland Security over many of the identity schemes.

How do you think the DHS is going to use RFID tags?

We know that they are adopting a standard that a lot of people, not only in the privacy community but also in the security community, are not very happy about. It’s the so-called vicinity read or contactless read RFID tag. It’s designed precisely to prevent the ability of people to know when the data on the tag is being read. That violates a central principal of [personal] security, and that is basic access control — you want people to know when information about them is being requested by others, if for no other reason than to be able to make sure that it’s being requested for an appropriate purpose and not a purpose that might create a problem.

VIDEO: Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus

What the US government doesn’t want you to know about the “terror pilots” and their friends

From Mad Cows News

Who were the 9/11 pilots?

The FBI doesn’t seem to want to know.

And the US news media has been very cooperative in not seeking or reporting the facts.

Far from being a devout Muslim or diligent military intelligence operative, “Mohamed Atta” was a scotch-drinking, coke-snorting, strip-club-attending loud mouth who was widely known in Venice, FL for his anti-social behavior.

Daniel Hopsicker’s well researched book “Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus” indicates that Atta looks a whole lot more like a government protected drug pilot than anything else.

But don’t tell the FBI or any other US law enforcement agency. They clearly don’t want to know – and they don’t want you to know either.

The source of this remarkable video is: Daniel Hopsicker’s investigative journalism web site

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/48.html

Low-energy bulb disposal warning

1

The Environment Agency has called for more information to be made available on the health and environmental risks posed by low-energy light bulbs. It says because the bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, more information about safe recycling is needed.

It also wants health warnings printed on packaging and information on how to clear up smashed bulbs in the home.

But a toxicologist has played down the risks, saying several bulbs would have to be smashed at once to pose a danger.

Toxic substance

Environmental scientist Dr David Spurgeon said: “Because these light bulbs contain small amounts of mercury they could cause a problem if they are disposed of in a normal waste-bin.

“It is possible that the mercury they contain could be released either into the air or from land-fill when they are released into the wider environment.

“That’s a concern, because mercury is a well known toxic substance.”

Official advice from the Department of the Environment states that if a low-energy bulb is smashed, the room needs to be vacated for at least 15 minutes.

A vacuum cleaner should not be used to clear up the debris, and care should be taken not to inhale the dust.

Instead, rubber gloves should be used, and the broken bulb put into a sealed plastic bag – which should be taken to the local council for disposal.

Unbroken used bulbs can be taken back to the retailer if the owner is a member of the Distributor Takeback Scheme.

Otherwise, many local waste disposal sites now have the facilities to safely collect and dispose of old bulbs.

However, this advice is not printed on the packaging that low-energy bulbs are sold in.

Toxicologist Dr David Ray, from the University of Nottingham, said about 6-8mg of mercury was present in a typical low-energy bulb, which he described as a “pretty small amount”.

“Mercury accumulates in the body – especially the brain,” he said. “The biggest danger is repeated exposure – a one off exposure is not as potentially dangerous compared to working in a light bulb factory.

“If you smash one bulb then that is not too much of a hazard. However, if you broke five bulbs in a small unventilated room then you might be in short term danger.”

Information campaign

Adrian Harding of the Environment Agency said: “More information does need to be made available by retailers, local authorities and the government to alert people to the best way of dealing with these products when they become waste.”

Louise Molloy from the environmental group Greenpeace said that a public information campaign was needed in order to advise people how to dispose of low-energy bulbs safely.

But she added: “Rather than being worried about the mercury these light bulbs contain, the general public should be reassured that using them will actually reduce the amount of mercury overall in our atmosphere.”

The lighting industry and the government say the risk of mercury pollution posed by low-energy bulbs is minimal.

Kevin Verdun of the Lighting Association said: “Fluorescent strips, like the ones used in garages and kitchens, also contain mercury and have been used for many years without poisoning anyone.”

But he said that warnings on how to safely dispose of smashed bulbs “might” be put on packaging in future, if the government and the public demanded it.

This month shops in the UK will begin the process of phasing out traditional tungsten bulbs as part of a government plan to completely replace them by 2011.

Ministers hope that using the more environmentally-friendly bulbs will save at least save 5m tonnes-worth of carbon dioxide emissions every year.

Report: Rampant Smuggling of Radioactive Materials

0

Clarissa Ward Reports:

Reportreveals_mn_2 In a troubling disclosure, the Russian Federal Customs Service has revealed that authorities thwarted more than 850 attempts to smuggle highly radioactive materials in and out of Russia in 2007. Eighty-five percent of these smuggling attempts were going into the country, and 15 percent were going out.

The figures are likely to fuel fears about how many illegal exports were not detected, and what the potential dangers of such radioactive materials can be. In December last year, police in Slovakia arrested three people, who were attempting to sell 2.2 pounds of uranium for $1 million. Meanwhile, Britain continues to demand the extradition of Russian MP, Andrei Lugovoi, the prime suspect in the poisoning of former KGB officer, Alexander Litvinenko, who was killed with radioactive polonium-210 in London in November 2006.

Radioactive materials are not hard to come by in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). During the Soviet era, more than 15 different agencies had access to radioactive materials, from the Ministry of Geology to Metallurgy. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is little knowledge of where all these radioactive materials ended up.

In addition, following the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986, there is still a large piece of contaminated land which has not been fenced off. Vladimir Chuprov, who heads the energy section of Russian Greenpeace, told ABC News that a significant part of confiscated radioactive materials come from this area.

“Part of what is brought in comes from Chernobyl and the zone around Chernobyl,” he said. “If there was no Chernobyl, there would be no problem with radioactive materials.”

Pavel Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based military analyst, told ABC News that a blackmarket for radioactive materials does exist in Russia but that it is not very serious and does not pose any great risk.

“What happens quite often is that those involved sell the stuff to each other — and often to the criminal underworld. This is radioactive material — not nuclear, not enriched plutonium and nothing to do with nuclear weapons.”

Chuprov though cautions against dismissing the danger of these radioactive materials.

“A part of this material is uranium. It is not nuclear, but nevertheless it can be enriched to a nuclear level. Uranium is in demand by terrorist groups,” he warned.

According to the Customs Service report, state-of-the-art, Russian monitoring systems have made it possible to detect radiation which is higher than the background level with great precision. The Federal Customs Service plans to equip all customs posts in the Russian Federation with this equipment before 2010.

Malcolm Grimston, an associate fellow on nuclear policy with Chatham House, told ABC News that it is a good sign that Russia is raising the issue and talking publicly about it.

“Russians are very serious about improving the system,” he said. “They are to be congratulated for that.”
Clarissa Ward is reporting from Moscow.

Alexandra Nadezhdina contributed to this report.

Sears Spying On Its Users & Reveals Their Data

0

Weren’t we just discussing the idea of criminal liability for egregious security problems with data? And… weren’t we also just discussing Sears’ offering to install spyware on your computer without much notice and all in the name of community? Well, let’s combine those two stories. Ben Edelman has been doing some more digging on the Sears website and discovered a rather massive security hole allowing you to look up the purchases at Sears of just about anyone so long as you know their name, address and telephone number. As Edelman notes, this appears to be in direct violation of Sears’ own privacy policy (and, well, common sense, but that’s a different story…). So, now, Sears.com is spying on users without making it all that clear and revealing all customer purchase data with poorly implemented security. It’s not a particularly comforting picture.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080104/010843.shtml

CIA to yield to criminal probe

0

An outside prosecutor will oversee a criminal investigation into whether the CIA broke the law when it destroyed videotapes of its interrogations of two suspected terrorists, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Wednesday.

“I have concluded that there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this matter,” Mukasey said in a statement.

Mukasey said he selected John Durham, 57, a career prosecutor and deputy U.S. attorney from Connecticut, to avoid an appearance of conflict. Such an investigation normally would be handled by U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg of the Eastern District of Virginia, where the CIA’s headquarters is located. A spokesman from Rosenberg’s office declined to comment.

Durham is best known for taking on street gangs and successfully prosecuting an FBI agent with Mafia ties.

CIA Director Michael Hayden acknowledged Dec. 6 that his agency destroyed the videotapes in November 2005. The CIA had videotaped al-Qaida operatives Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri when agents interrogated them in 2002.

The House and Senate Intelligence committees also are investigating whether the CIA destroyed the tapes to avoid congressional scrutiny. Hayden issued a statement in December that House and Senate Intelligence committee leaders were informed of the existence of the tapes and of the agency’s plan to destroy them. He later said after a closed-door meeting with the House committee that the CIA “could have done an awful lot better” at informing the committees.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the Senate committee has not located any record of being informed of the decision.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said his committee’s investigation will continue regardless of the Justice Department’s criminal probe.

“There must be an independent congressional review of this matter,” he said in a statement.

The House committee has subpoenaed Jose Rodriguez to appear Jan. 16. Rodriguez retired as the CIA’s director of the National Clandestine Service last year and authorized destroying the tapes.

Rodriguez “did absolutely nothing illegal and acted in the best interest of the United States,” said his attorney, Robert Bennett. “I think the acting U.S. attorney who was just appointed will confirm that by the end of this investigation.”

The CIA “will, of course, cooperate fully with this investigation as it has with the other inquiries into this matter,” CIA spokesman George Little said.

CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, who conducted the preliminary inquiry in cooperation with the Justice Department’s National Security Division, has recused himself and the office from conducting the criminal investigation.

“Personnel from the Office of the Inspector General reviewed the tapes at issue some years ago as part of the Office’s review of (the) CIA’s detention and interrogation activities,” Helgerson said in a statement. “I was personally involved in the preparation and approval of the subsequent Office of Inspector General report and in discussions of the issues raised in that report with U.S. government officials.”

In an opinion piece published Wednesday in The New York Times, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 Commission, accused the CIA of obstructing the panel’s investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by failing to provide the videotapes when the committee requested intelligence reports in June 2003.

“Those who knew about those videotapes – and did not tell us about them – obstructed our investigation,” they wrote. “There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the CIA – or the White House – of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to (al-) Qaida detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.”

Federal district Judge Henry Kennedy, who is presiding over a case involving prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had also demanded before the tapes were destroyed that the federal government preserve evidence from detentions and interrogations. The Justice Department has argued to Kennedy that the videos weren’t covered by his order because the two men were being held in secret CIA prisons overseas, not at Guantanamo Bay.

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3283361

Insecure RFID Passports Get Stamp of Approval

U.S. State Department Approves RFID Passports Amidst Privacy Concerns

With the original incarnation slammed over security concerns, a new breed of RFID-enabled passports received the U.S. State Department’s stamp of approval last Monday. The new passports are set to launch this spring for U.S. citizens entering the United States through land and sea checkpoints.

Readable at up to 20 feet, the next-generation design is supposed to help increase passports’ security and reduce the omnipresent lines found at entry points around the country.

Compared to the previous generation of RFID passport — dubbed “e-Passports” — the new generation of RFID passports contain security features that are far more protected, with many of its developments based on the 4,000+ responses received by the State Department on a public request for comment in December 2006. New security features include:

  • A “randomized unique identification” system that produces a different ID each time the chip is accessed
  • A digital signature that can help identify when the passport’s data has been altered
  • A metallic insert in the passport’s spine and front cover that blocks radio signals when the cover is closed.

While many critics continue to express privacy concerns, the new security features are sufficient to pacify at least some of the passport’s vocal critics. “At the moment, the security protections in U.S. passports are pretty good,” said Ari Juels, Chief Scientist and Director of Massachusetts-based RSA Laboratories, in a December 14 statement to the Los Angeles Times.

The new passport design will use “vicinity read” RFID technology, as opposed to the previous generation “proximity read” technology, which need to be swiped at a scanner and were only readable from a few inches.

However, while the new passports are a definite improvement, critics stress that they are far from perfect. Critics have particularly attacked the new passports’ increased range, which many claim will help facilitate identity theft. In one example, mobile security company Flexilis found the passport’s metallic shielding inadequate, allowing for the passport’s transmitter to be read even when it is closed.

To demonstrate this, Flexilis posted a YouTube video demonstrating a proof of concept where a trashcan armed with an explosive charge detonates as a dummy equipped with the “shielded” passport passes by. The threat, it says, is that terrorists could use the passports’ increased range to selectively identify Americans in foreign lands, possibly taking action against them that may include bodily harm.

Despite the new passports’ flaws — which the Los Angeles Times says are nothing to lose sleep over — most everyone agrees that the changes are a much-needed improvement over the current RFID passport, which gained pariah status among security circles for notoriously weak security features.

Citizens have right to records

0

Revisions to the state’s Sunshine Law won’t be considered until the state Legislature convenes this month, but Tennesseans can look forward to more immediate help regarding the state’s open records. A new ombudsman office has been created.Under the Public Records Act, all state, county and municipal records are to be available for inspection by any Tennessee citizen unless specifically exempted.

Last year, the Legislature approved Gov. Phil Bredesen’s recommendation to create an ombudsman post to help Tennesseans who need help with public records.

It was formed under the state comptroller’s office.

The need for an ombudsman became clear when a 2004 audit by reporters, college students and volunteers found about third of the time government agencies denied access to records that should be public.

The ombudsman office, headed by Ann Butterworth as director, is a good first step toward ensuring greater public access to the government that citizens of this state fund through their tax dollars.

It’s only a first step because when the Legislature created the new office, it didn’t give it enforcement powers. That means Butterworth and her staff can work with government officials who should make records more accessible – but they won’t have the power to compel them to do so.

The Legislature should address this shortcoming. In the meantime, Butterworth intends to start educating the public and officials about the open records law.

The government belongs to the people. With knowledge and tools, they can take rightful ownership of it.

Source

Taser Torture Cop Suspended

0

Charges were dismissed today against a northeast Ohio woman who was handcuffed and tasered by a patrolman whose actions were recorded by police dashboard video.

The Warren officer who arrested 38-year-old Heidi Gill outside a bar has been fired for lying to investigators in an unrelated traffic stop.

Richard Kovach had refused to testify against the tasered woman on the advice of his attorney. The FBI is currently investigating the matter, and Kovach himself may face federal charges.

A video made from a cruiser shows Kovach using a Taser on the woman as she screams and tries to kick out a rear window of the patrol car.

The officer got a two-month suspension in the stun gun case.

Tracy Timko Rose, the Warren Assistant City Prosecutor, said the city was prepared to go forward with charges against Gill but that Kovach’s unavailability to testify forced them to drop the case.

“Had he been here we would have pursued the matter,” she told CBS Affiliate WKBN “We believe there was probable cause. We believe should he testify the charges would be substantiated. But without his testimony we cannot prove the charges against her.”

Gill’s attorney, Mark Hanni, believes Kovach will face federal charges.

“The torture he put Miss Gill through is just totally unexcuseable and cannot be tolerated in the United States of America,” Hanni told WKBN.

Gill may not be off the hook for good; charges could be reinstated if Kovach is cleared in the investigation.

The Associated Press

The Neo-Con Runaround

0

In March 2003, Dick Cheney said, “My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” In May 2003, George W. Bush said, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” In November 2004, Lt. General John Sattler said that U.S. forces (in Fallujah) had “broken the back of the insurgency.” In May 2005, Cheney said, “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”

These yahoos have turned more corners than a monkey with a Rubik’s cube. Their quotes were not only repeated, ad infinitum, but were portrayed by the media as gospel truth. Yet, with unparalleled naïveté, there are those who constantly rail against the media for their bias in neglecting to report the “progress” being made in Iraq. Some even go so far as to allegedly troll for unbiased statistics on the Department of Defense Web site.

The justification “du jour” for the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, according to Bush appeasers, is the safety and prosperity of that country. Well, it’s nice to see that fictional accounts of WMD and Saddam Hussein/Al Qaeda links have finally been abandoned. How many lies can these Bush/Cheney sycophants swallow before they choke on their own gullibility? How many more American and Iraqi lives must be sacrificed on the altar of their ignorance? Robert Baruch

Sinking dollar alters the game in 2008

0

Templewest

Almost every news network did a story in 2007 about foreigners coming to the states to shop and invest, even in real estate. What compelled this behavior?

Among the many troubles confounding Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke during this credit crisis is the steady decline of the U.S. dollar. He and the Fed have reduced the federal funds target rate, which now stands at 4.25, attempting to stimulate lending by the country’s major banks. But as ”Helicopter Ben” tries to save the credit business, he has put more dollars on the street. With more supply out there, the dollar has lost value, and investors see the possibility higher of inflation or even a currency crisis on the horizon.

Currency exchange works like a see-saw. The U.S. dollar sits on one side and another currency, like the Euro, sits on the other. In a perfectly equal world, the two players would be balanced: one dollar equals one Euro. But this never happens as financial and political conditions tilt the board up and down. So they see-saw. But they never go beyond a certain point. One player cannot shoot herself up into space or propel her friend through the ground. They hit a point where going further would ruin the game.

Let’s say you make Gucci sunglasses in Italy. You don’t want the exchange rate to get to a point where Americans will stop buying your sunglasses. If the Euro gets too expensive, you lose business. This effect creates the see-saw game. 

Economists say the U.S. dollar will approach that nadir in 2008. Economist Adolfo Laurenti, of Mesirow Financial Holdings Inc., said the dollar should continue to decline in 2008, but will eventually level off. The U.S. dollar closed at 0.6781 Thursday against the Euro and lost value to many other major currencies in ‘07. Market conditions will tug the dollar back up in the New Year. And there are 20 reasons why the falling dollar is good for Americans.

But, sorry Ben, you can’t sleep soundly yet. The low dollar makes imports more expensive. What’s the most notorious import? Oil. Light, sweet crude broke the $100 a barrel mark on Wednesday. Even the Iowa Caucus could not drown this story. To illustrate the problem, the U.S. imports more oil from Canada than any other country. And in September, the Canadian loonie became more valuable than the U.S. dollar for the first time since 1976.

Why 1976? Oh, right. That oil stuff.

VIDEO: The True Story of Charlie Wilson

0

As incredible as anything in the pages of Tom Clancy or John le Carré, this is a gripping story of international intrigue, booze, drugs, sex, high society and arms deals. It is the true story of Texas congressman Charlie Wilson’s and CIA operative Gust Avrakotos’s covert dealings in Afghanistan, and how they armed the Afghan Mujahideen in what became the CIA’s largest and most successful campaign in history. Their goal was to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet Union’s Vietnam. The effort would blow back to haunt America into the next century.

WATCH VIDEO

VIDEO: CIA Cocaine – Then and now

0

2007

1990s

1980s

On and on it goesPulitzer Prize winner Gary Webb, the journalist who broke the original CIA-Crack story in the 1990s, was rewarded by his employer the San Jose Mercury with a demotion.He was also hounded out of the journalism profession by a smear campaign whose participants included the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Examiner.

In 2004, Webb who remained active as an independent journalist reportedly, committed suicide by shooting himself in the head – twice.

Webb joined three other men – authors Danny Casolaro and J.H. Hatfield and artist Mark Lombardi – who “committed suicide” after getting too close to Bush family secrets.

I asked a mathematician to calculate the numerical odds of four American men who all were interested in this subject committing suicide and this is what he said:

“Examining the male U.S.suicide rate for recent years, we can extrapolate a conservative estimate of 17 male suicides per 100,000 people, or 0.017%. The odds of 4 specific, male biographers committing suicide would be the 4th power of 17/100000, or 8.3521 4.913 x 10^-17…roughly 1 chance 10,000,000,000,000,000. About as good a definition of impossible as you can get.

A person would stand a better chance of playing the Canadian lottery 6/49 exactly twice in one’s lifetime and winning the grand jackpot BOTH TIMES! (That is, picking 6 numbers out of 49 possible numbers and matching all 6 numbers out of 6 random draws, on 2 separate occasions, and having only purchased two Canadian lottery tickets ever.)

This calculation should be regarded as a conservative estimate: the actual odds against such a “coincidence” would be much greater. For example, if any of the biographers were female, the odds would be even greater.”

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/245.html

F. William Engdahl’s Seeds of Destruction

Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

Bill 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 also wrote two important books – “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order” in 2004. It’s an essential history of geopolitics and the importance of oil. Engdahl explains that America’s post-WW II dominance rests on 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’s newest book is just out from the Centre for Research on Globalization. It’s a sequel to his first one called “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation” and subject of this review. It’s the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply and why that prospect is chilling. The book’s compelling contents are reviewed below 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 the people.”

Remember also, this cabal is one of many interconnected ones with fearsome power and ruthless intent to use it – Big Banks controlling the Federal Reserve and our money, Big Oil our world energy resources, Big Media our information, Big Pharma our health, Big Technology our state-of-the-art everything and watching us, Big Defense our wars, Big Pentagon waging them, and other corporate predators exploiting our lives for profit. Engdahl’s book focuses brilliantly on one of them. To fully cover its vital contents, this review will be in three parts for more detail and to make it easily digestible.

Part I of “Seeds of Destruction”

In 2003, Jeffrey Smith’s “Seeds of Deception” was published. It exposed the dangers of untested and unregulated genetically engineered foods most people eat every day with no knowledge of the potential health risks. Efforts to inform the public have been quashed, reliable science has been buried, and consider what happened to two distinguished scientists.

One was Ignatio Chapela, a microbial ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley. In September, 2001, he was invited to a carefully staged meeting with Fernando Ortiz Monasterio, Mexico’s Director of the Commission of Biosafety in Mexico City. The experience left Chapela shaken and angry as he explained. Monasterio attacked him for over an hour. “First he trashed me. He let me know how damaging to the country and how problematic my information was to be.”

Chapela referred to what he and a UC Berkeley graduate student, David Quist, discovered in 2000 about genetically engineered contamination of Mexican corn in violation of a government ban on these crops in 1998. Corn is sacred in Mexico, the country is home to hundreds of indigenous varieties that crossbreed naturally, and GM contamination is permanent and unthinkable – but it happened by design.

Chapela and Quist tested corn varieties in more than a dozen state of Oaxaca communities and discovered 6% of the plants contaminated with GM corn. Oaxaca is in the country’s far South so Chapela knew if contamination spread there, it was widespread throughout Mexico. It’s unavoidable because NAFTA allows imported US corn with 30% of it at the time genetically modified. Now it’s heading for nearly double that amount, and if not contained, it soon could be all of it.

The prestigious journal Nature agreed to publish Chapela’s findings, Monasterio wanted them quashed, but Chapela refused to comply. As a result, he was intimidated not to do it and threatened with being held responsible for all damages to Mexican agriculture and its economy.

He went ahead, nonetheless, and when his article appeared in the publication on November 29, 2001 the smear campaign against him began and intensified. It was later learned that Monsanto was behind it, and the Washington-based Bivings Group PR firm was hired to discredit his findings and get them retracted.

It worked because the campaign didn’t focus on Chapela’s contamination discovery, but on a second research conclusion even more serious. He learned the contaminated GM corn had as many as eight fragments of the CaMV promoter that creates an unstable “hotspot.” It can cause plant genes to fragment, scatter throughout the plant’s genome, and, if proved conclusively, would wreck efforts to introduce GM crops in the country. Without further evidence, there was still room for doubt if the second finding was valid, however, and the anti-Chapela campaign hammered him on it.

Because of the pressure, Nature took an unprecedented action in its 133 year history. It upheld Chapela’s central finding but retracted the other one. That was all it took, and the major media pounced on it. They denounced Chapela’s incompetence and tried to discredit everything he learned including his verified findings. They weren’t reported, his vilification was highlighted, and Monsanto and the Mexican government scored a big victory.

Ironically, on April 18, 2002, two weeks after Nature’s partial retraction, the Mexican government announced there was massive genetic contamination of traditional corn varieties in Oaxaca and the neighboring state of Puebla. It was horrifying as up to 95% of tested crops were genetically polluted and “at a speed never before predicted.” The news made headlines in Europe and Mexico. It was ignored in the US and Canada.

The fallout for Chapela was UC Berkeley denied him tenure in 2003 because of his article and for criticizing university ties to the biotech industry. He then filed suit in April, 2004 asking remuneration for lost wages, earnings and benefits, compensatory damages for humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress and coverage of attorney fees and costs for his action. He won in May, 2005 but not in court when the university reversed its decision, granted him tenure and agreed to include retroactive pay back to 2003. The damage, however, was done and is an example of what’s at stake when anyone dares challenge a powerful company like Monsanto.

The other man attacked was the world’s leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, UK-based Arpad Pusztai. He was vilified and fired from his research position at Scotland’s Rowett Research Institute for publishing industry-unfriendly data he was commissioned to produce on the safety of GMO foods.

His Rowett Research study was the first ever independent one conducted on them anywhere. He undertook it believing in their promise but became alarmed by his findings. The Clinton and Blair governments were determined to suppress them because Washington was spending billions promoting GMO crops and a future biotech revolution. It wasn’t about to let even the world’s foremost expert in the field derail the effort. His results were startling and consider the implications for humans eating genetically engineered foods.

Rats fed GMO potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming – this all happened after 10 days of testing, and the changes persisted after 110 days that’s the human equivalent of 10 years.

GM foods today saturate our diet. Over 80% of all supermarket processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils; soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream and peanut butter). They’re unrevealed to consumers because labeling is prohibited yet the more of them we eat, the greater the potential threat to our health.

Today, we’re all lab rats in an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. The risks from it are beyond measure, it will take many years to learn them, and when they’re finally revealed it will be too late to reverse the damage if it’s proved GM products harm human health as independent experts strongly believe. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps.

Despite the enormous risks, however, Washington and growing numbers of governments around the world in parts of Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa now allow these products to be grown in their soil or imported. They’re produced and sold to consumers because agribusiness giants like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgriSciences and Cargill have enormous clout to demand it and a potent partner supporting them – the US government and its agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture and State, FDA, EPA and even the defense establishment. World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) patent rules also back them along with industry-friendly WTO rulings like the February 7, 2006 one.

It favored a US challenge against European GMO regulatory policies in spite of strong consumer sentiment against these foods and ingredients on the continent. It also violated the Biosafety Protocol that should let nations regulate these products in the public interest, but it doesn’t because WTO trade rules sabotaged it. Nonetheless, anti-GMO activism persists, consumers still have a say, and there are hundreds of GMO-free zones around the world, including in the US. That and more is needed to take on the agribusiness giants that so far have everything going their way.

In “Seeds of Deception,” Jeffrey Smith did a masterful job explaining the dangers of GM foods and ingredients. Engdahl explains them as well but goes much further brilliantly in his blockbuster book on this topic. It’s the story of a powerful family and a “small socio-political American elite (that) seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival” – future life through the food we eat. The book’s introduction says it “reads (like) a crime story.” It’s also a nightmare but one that’s very real and threatening.

This review covers the book in-depth because of its importance. It’s an extraordinary work that “reveals a diabolical World of profit-driven political intrigue (and) government corruption and coercion” that’s part of a decades-long global scheme for total world dominance. The book deserves vast exposure and must be read in full for the whole disturbing story. It’s hoped the material below will encourage readers to do it in their own self-interest and to marshal mass consumer actions to place food safety above corporate profits.

Engdahl’s book supplies the ammunition to do it and is also a sequel to his earlier one on war, oil politics and The New World Order and follows naturally from it. It covers the roots of the strategy to control “global food security” that goes back to the 1930s and the plans of a handful of American families to preserve their wealth and power. But it centers on one in particular that above the others “came to symbolize the hubris and arrogance of the emerging American century” that blossomed post-WW II. Its patriarch began in oil and then dominated it in his powerful Oil Trust. It was only the beginning as the family expanded into “education of youth, medicine and psychology,” US foreign policy, and “the very science of life itself, biology, and its applications” in plants and agriculture.

The family’s name is Rockefeller. The patriarch was John D., and four powerful later-generation brothers followed him – David, Nelson, Laurance, and John D. III. Engdahl says the GMO story covers “the evolution of power in the hands of an elite (led by this family), determined (above all) to bring the entire world under their sway.” They and other elites already control most of it, including the nation’s energy, the US Federal Reserve, and other key world central banks. Today, three brothers are gone, David alone remains, and he’s still a force at age 92 although he no longer runs the family bank, JP Morgan Chase. He’s active in family enterprises, however, including the Rockefeller Foundation to be discussed in Part II of this review.

F. William Engdahl is the author of Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation just released by Global Research. He is also the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press Ltd.. To contact him by e-mail: info@engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

Special Introductory Online Offer

Click to order William Engdahl’s book:

Seeds of Destruction

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US Central time.

Bush signs the Open Government Act in semi-secrecy

0

George Bush has signed into law S. 2488, a bill that strengthens the Freedom of Information Act. There are a lot of signs that Bush did not much like this Open Government Act, so it’s significant that he didn’t veto it.

What are the signs of Bush’s displeasure? For one thing, the WH published a description of the new law that is terse and, rather glaringly, excludes most of its more important provisions. You’ll find these spelled out in some detail in the CRS summary of the bill.

As a point of comparison, let’s look at which elements the Associated Press chose to include in its summary of the legislation. According to AP, the new law:

  • requires the release of requested documents unless their disclosure would do actual harm
  • brings government contractors under FOIA
  • compels the government to respond to FOIA requests within 20 days of their receipt
  • creates a system by which citizens may track the progress of their requests
  • establishes a hot-line service for all federal agencies to cope with problems
  • establishes an ombudsman to help resolve disputes about non-disclosure

By contrast, the published WH summary mentions only that the law “amends (FOIA) by…”:

(1) establishing a definition of “a representative of the news media;” (2) directing that required attorney fees be paid from an agency’s own appropriation rather than from the Judgment Fund; (3) prohibiting an agency from assessing certain fees if it fails to comply with FOIA deadlines; and (4) establishing an Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives and Records Administration to review agency compliance with FOIA.

You’ll note that there’s barely any overlap between the elements that the AP and the White House highlight. Furthermore the four elements listed by the WH say virtually nothing about the need or the mechanisms for greater openness — the very goal of the legislation.

The “Open Government Act” will “help to reverse the troubling trends of excessive delays and lax FOIA compliance in our government and help to restore the public’s trust in their government,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy

As the AP describes it:

The new law…amounts to a congressional pushback against the Bush administration’s movement to greater secrecy since the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Bush signed the bill without comment in one of his final decisions of the year…

The legislation is aimed at reversing an order by former Attorney General John Ashcroft after the 9/11 attacks in which he instructed agencies to lean against releasing information when there was uncertainty about how doing so would affect national security.

Even if the Open Government Act is not a cure for all of FOIA’s ills, it is a highly symbolic piece of legislation. And it’s hard to ignore the symbolism of the manner in which Bush signed it into law — on New Year’s Eve, without comment. It was almost as if Bush wanted to avoid drawing attention to a victory for government transparency.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/2/9486/36922

Britain tops data breach league

0

Britain has been ranked the worst country in Europe and one of the worst in the world for protecting citizen’s personal information, according to a new survey by an international civil liberties watchdog.

Only Russia, Canada and Malaysia have a worse record. These countries, along with the UK, were placed in the lowest category described as ‘endemic surveillance societies’.

The UK’s vast network of CCTV cameras, the Information Commissioner’s lack of power, and plans for the ‘most intrusive identity card scheme in the world’ all contributed to the country’s poor ranking.

Greece, Romania and Canada came out top in the survey by think tank Privacy International.

For the first time, Scotland has been given its own ranking and scored significantly higher than England and Wales. The report shows that Scotland’s identity policy avoids the mistakes of the English Government. The DNA database is not as open to abuse as that in England and Wales.

Jenny Hoffbrand

The dangers of public-private partnerships

0

Doug Maughan states emotively that ID cards and searches are infringements on civil liberties that are a price worth paying to prevent “hundreds or perhaps thousands” being killed (Letters, January 2). One would be hard pushed to find any disagreement that the core function of a government is the protection of the citizens it represents, but there are limited resources that can be assigned to this task and the question then becomes: what application of what level of resource gives the greatest leverage in attaining our goal of protection?

What must be factored into an analysis is the degree of competence and trustworthiness of the government propounding the case for ID cards – and in this area I am in agreement with Mr Maughan when he states that “other than scaremongering about a police state, we’ve had little debate about them”. This, I’m afraid, is the nub of the matter. There deliberately has been little reasoned debate as an adversarial system leads to emotive declaration instead of forensic examination in parliament.

We now live with a UK Government that has lost credibility in what it says and does. We have lived with a generation of political hegemony from Thatcher through to New Labour that has resulted in the political process becoming adulterated by too much unaccountable influence. It is less than half a century ago that Eisenhower warned that, “in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”. I would contend that public-private partnerships in our society meet Eisenhower’s paradigm as it has now become more difficult to dissect the true motive behind the aims and objectives of a government that has failed in managing and leading public-private partnership projects.

Does the government have the best interest of the population at heart when it develops an argument or is it seeking partners who will donate part of their profit to the political process? Is part of this cycle an understanding that an excessive profit is accepted in advance? Critical analysis of the Skye Bridge Project, ICT in the NHS and the commercial confidentiality in PPP projects would suggest this is the case. If ID cards are to become an essential feature of citizenship why, at a time when social inclusion is a stated aim of the government, are they to cost anything from £5.4bn (government) to £18bn (LSE) or about £90 to £300? How better could billions of pounds be spent in protecting us?

I finish with another quote from Eisenhower, a statesman uniquely placed to recognise the danger of too much unaccountable influence on the political process, when he commented on partnerships: “We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” Vigilance and scrutiny are essential to good decision-making and I’m afraid this government has not won the argument.

Paul Cochrane

VIDEO: Police Taser Man Who Was On His Knees

0

The King County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a scuffle that erupted when Seattle police tried to make an arrest on New Year’s Eve.

Police officers ended up using a Taser on the man who, at that time, was on his hands and knees.

Nearly a dozen police officers and at least one firefighter chased and tackled the man

Police say Richardson, 23, had a simple choice — comply or get arrested, and he chose the latter. But Richardson’s aunt claims the police took it one step too far when they didn’t have to, with her nephew already on the ground.

The scuffle broke out in the packed streets near the Space Needle when a computer glitch suddenly stopped the planned fireworks, sending the excited crowds on the ground over the edge.

The footage shows Richardson being pepper-sprayed, punched then Tased from behind while he was down on his knees.

“He was beat in the back of the head with a baton, he was kicked, he was punched in the face (and) for what?” said Michelle King, his aunt.

King, who works for Seattle’s Municipal Court, says she knows the justice system and is sure the officers went too far.

“To me, the police department is nothing but a licensed gang and I stand by my son. And no matter what happens after today, I’m going to stand by my son and my nephew until the end,” she said.

When KOMO 4 News showed the tape to Seattle police, they shared a different take of the incident.

Police spokesman Mark Jamieson said officers did not use excessive force, noting that Richardson was seen running in the footage instead of complying.

“Why would you run from the police?” Jamieson said. “If he is intoxicated, if he is under the influence of drugs, if he has a weapon on him… clearly if he’s on his hands and knees, his hands are free; he still has access to a weapon.”

Police said they faced a near-riot scene on New Year’s Eve and Richardson, who had been drinking, was making the situation worse.

“You saw how quickly the application of the Taser got him into compliance,” Jamieson said after viewing the video tape of the arrest.

Jamieson said officers may have been giving orders that Richardson wasn’t following.

Richardson’s cousin admitted that Richardson had a verbal argument with an officer before the scuffle.

“Just yelling, arguing,” said Isaiah Cooper. “No one fought no one had weapons.”

Richardson’s family plans to sue the Seattle Police Department.

Richardson could face several charges, including obstructing an officer and criminal trespass.

Richardson has several misdemeanors on his record, including an arrest for disorderly conduct. He bailed out of jail Tuesday evening.

VIDEO: Criminal Probe Of CIA Tapes

0

“New heat on the White House”

US and UK rank poorly as global privacy is being eroded

0

A London-based human rights watchdog group on surveillance and privacy has released its National Privacy Ranking for 2007, ranking the U.S, Russia, China and much of Southeast Asia at the bottom.

Privacy International ranked Greece, Romania and Canada as leaders in protecting their citizens’ privacy.

The group assesses and ranks 14 criteria: Constitutional protection, statutory protection, privacy enforcement, identity cards and biometrics, data sharing, visual surveillance, communication interception, communication data retention, government access to data, workplace monitoring, surveillance of medical, financial and movement, border and trans-border issues, leadership, and democratic safeguards.

This year’s results indicated a general worsening of worldwide privacy standards, with an overall increase in surveillance attributable to border control and immigration issues.

The United States was summarized by the group as being the worst ranking country in the democratic world in terms of statutory protections and privacy enforcement. In short, this means that laws protecting Americans’ medical, workplace, and financial records from government and corporate surveillance are sorely lacking, and a regulatory body governing infractions of these rights is needed.

Privacy International says surveillance initiatives in the country continue to expand despite political shifts in Congress, and the United States has deteriorated into an “Endemic Surveillance Society.” The United Kingdom has also fallen into this category, which includes Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, Russia, China, and Malaysia.

The only country on the list that enjoyed a marked improvement was the Republic of Slovenia, an EU member since 2004. The young country has two different rights to privacy detailed in its 1991 constitution, the Personal Data Protection Act which regulates both data and video surveillance, a data protection authority, regulated biometrics, and laws mandating anonymous location data.

Criminals In The Bush Administration

2

Criminals In The Bush Administration

By- Suzie-Q

TPM´s Great List of Scandalized Administration Officials

Boy, was it time for an update.

Late last year we decided to take stock of all the Bush Administration officials who’d been accused of corruption and/or resigned in the face of scandal. Although we had fun doing it, we altruistically started the project in order to help our friends at Powerline, who professed an inability to think of any Bush officials beset by scandal.

This year´s result, which built on Justin Rood´s original gem, is, like our catalog of the administration´s efforts to disappear information, a staggering monument to the Bush Administration. And it wouldn’t have been possible without TPM’s research hounds, Adrianne Jeffries, Andrew Berger, and Peter Sheehy.A quick note on methodology. Since a complete catalog of administration officials who’ve been accused of some form of corruption or abuse of power would be endless, we tried to maintain a high standard for inclusion. Most of those below were the subjects of criminal probes, but we also included officials who were credibly accused of acts that, if not criminal, were a corruption of office (like the U.S. attorney scandal). And even then, such officials were only included if their accusers had them dead to rights (which is why Karl Rove didn’t make the cut). We also limited ourselves to officials who were either political appointees or whose actions were so political that they were effectively political appointees (like John Tanner).

Enjoy:

Indicted / Convicted/ Pled Guilty

* Eric G. Andell – deputy undersecretary in charge of newly created Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (previously senior adviser to Secretary of Education Rod Paige) – pleaded guilty to one count of conflict of interest for using government travel for personal causes and was sentenced to one year of probation, 100 hours of community service, and fined $5,000.

* Claude Allen – Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

* Lester Crawford – Commissioner, FDA – resigned in late September 2005 after only two months on the job. On October 17th, he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts, making a false writing and conflict of interest. On February 27, 2007, Crawford was sentenced to to three years of probation and was fined $90,000.

* Brian Doyle – Deputy Press Secretary, Department of Homeland Security – Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Doyle was arrested on April 4th, 2006 and pleaded no contest on September 19, 2006 to seven counts of use of a computer to seduce a child and sixteen counts of transmitting harmful material to a minor. On November 17th, 2006 Brian Doyle was sentenced to five years in state prison and ten years of probation. He will also need to register as a sex offender.

* Steven Griles – Deputy Secretary at the Interior Department – is the highest-ranked administration official yet convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. In March 2007, Griles pleaded guilty to lying about his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Sentenced to 10 months incarceration.

* John T. Korsmo — Chairman of the Federal Housing Finance Board from 2002 to 2004 — pleaded guilty in 2005 to lying to the Senate and an inspector general. He swore he had no idea how a list of presidents for FHFB-regulated banks were invited to a fundraiser for his friend’s congressional campaign. On the invites, Korsmo was listed as the “Special Guest.” Got 18 months of probation and a $5,000 fine.

* Scooter Libby – Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff – resigned after being indicted for lying to a grand jury and investigators in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of Valerie Wilson’s covert CIA operative’s identity. Convicted on four of five counts, making him the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-contra scandal. Sentenced to thirty months imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. On July 2nd, after a judge decided that Libby would remain in prison during the appeals process, President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence by removing the thirty months in prison.

* David Safavian – former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget – convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. On October 27, 2006, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He is currently appealing the ruling.

* Robert Stein – former comptroller and funding officer for the now disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority, Southern Central Region in Al-Hillah, Iraq – pleaded guilty to conspiracy, bribery, conspiracy to commit money laundering, possession of a machine gun, and being a felon in possession of a fire arm. On January 30, 2007 Stein was sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to forfeit $3.6 million.

* Roger Stillwell – desk officer, Interior Department – pleaded guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.

Resigned Due to Investigation, Pending Investigation or Allegations of Impropriety

* Philip Cooney – chief of staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality – a former oil industry lawyer with no scientific expertise, Cooney resigned after it was revealed he had watered down reports on global warming.

* George Deutsch – press aide, NASA – resigned amid allegations he prevented the agency’s top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming.

* Michael Elston – chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty – announced his resignation on June 15, 2007. Despite allegations that he’d threatened at least four of the eight fired US Attorneys, McNulty said Elston had served the Justice Department “with distinction for nearly eight years.”

* Kyle Dustin “Dusty” Foggo – appointed executive director of the CIA, the agency’s third-highest post, in October 2004 – resigned and was ultimately indicted on bribery charges related to the Duke Cunningham scandal.

* Alberto Gonzales – former Attorney General – resigned without explanation amidst investigations of the firings of U.S. Attorneys, the politicization of the Justice Department, warrantless surveillance, and the torture and mistreatment of detainees.

* Monica Goodling – former Justice Department liaison to the White House and senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – resigned on April 7, 2007 amidst the investigation of the firings of U.S. Attorneys.

* Michelle Larson Korsmo – deputy chief of staff, Department of Labor – Helped her husband (see John Korsmo, above) with his donor scam. Quietly left her Labor plum job in February 2004, about two weeks before news broke that she and her husband were the targets of a criminal probe.

* Howard “Cookie” Krongard – former State Department inspector general – accused of not properly investigating State Department contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan; of retaliating against whistleblowers in his own office; and of not telling the truth about his knowledge of his brother’s ties with Blackwater, a State Department contractor. Faced with a possible perjury investigation, Howard Krongard resigned on December 7, 2007.

* Julie Macdonald – former deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at the Interior Department – resigned in May 2007 after an “inspector general’s report found she had improperly leaked information to private organizations, bullied staff scientists and broken federal rules.” The Department of the Interior is investigating many of her decisions regarding endangered species; so far seven have been overturned.

* Paul McNulty – Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice — resigned, after questions about his involvement in the U.S. attorney firings and his testimony to Congress about the firings.

* Richard Perle – Chairman, Defense Policy Board – resigned from Pentagon advisory panel amid conflict-of-interest charges.

* Susan Ralston – assistant, White House – resigned amidst revelations that she had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff without compensating him, counter to White House ethics rules.

* Janet Rehnquist – inspector general, Department of Health and Human Services – resigned on June 1, 2003 in the face of an investigation into her alleged efforts to block a politically dangerous probe on behalf of the Bush family.

* James Roche – secretary, U.S. Air Force – resigned in the wake of the Boeing tanker lease scandal, after it was revealed he had rather crudely pushed for Boeing to win a $23 billion contract.

* Kyle Sampson -former chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – resigned amidst the investigation of the firings of U.S. Attorneys.

* Joseph Schmitz – Inspector General, Defense – Resigned amid charges he personally intervened to protect top political appointees.

* Bradley Schlozmanresigned from his third and final post with the Justice Department after accusations of actively politicizing the department. He’s currently under investigation by the Department’s inspector general.

* Thomas Scully – Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services – shortly after Scully resigned in 2003, an investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general found that Scully had pressured the agency’s actuary to underestimate the full cost of the Medicare reform bill by approximately $100 billion until after Congress passed the bill into law. Scully was also hit with conflict of interest charges by the U.S. attorney’s office for billing CMS for expenses incurred during a job search while he still headed the agency. He settled those charges by paying $9,782.

* David Smith – deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks, Interior Department – resigned on July 21, 2006 after shooting a buffalo and accepting its skeletal remains and meat as an illegal gratuity. He eventually paid over $3,000 for the dead buffalo, but only after the internal inquiry had commenced. The Department of Interior inspector general also noted in a May 16, 2006 report that Smith’s involvement in the designation of Houston as a port of entry for imported wildlife in order to benefit a friend was inappropriate.

* John Tanner – Voting Rights Section Chief, Justice Department – resigned in December of 2007 and moved to the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. Already under suspicion for aiding efforts to politicize the voting section, the bumbling proponent of voter identification laws angered lawmakers with his comments that such laws actually discriminate against white voters because “minorities die first”. Even more impressive was his apology for the comment. The DoJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility is currently investigating his travel habits and those of his deputy.

* Sara Taylor – Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House, where she was Karl Rove´s top aide – resigned amidst the U.S. attorneys investigation and other probes of Rove´s alleged politicization of the government.

* Ken Tomlinson – Board Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting; member, Broadcasting Board of Governors – resigned at the release of an inspector general report concluding he had broken laws in spending CPB money to hire politically connected consultants to search for “bias” without consulting the board. At BBG, a separate investigation found he was running a “horse racing operation” out of his office, and continuing to hire politically-wired individuals to do “consulting” work for him. After being nominated and serving another term, he finally stepped down from that spot earlier this year.

* Carl Truscott – Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau – resigned. A report by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that Truscott wasted tens of thousands of dollars on luxuries, wasted millions on whimsical management decisions and violated ethics rules by ordering employees to help his nephew with a high school video project.

* Paul Wolfowitz – World Bank President – resigned in May 2007 after a committee report found that he broke ethics rules by giving his girlfriend a substantial raise.

Nomination Failed Due to Scandal

* Linda Chavez – nominated, Secretary of Labor – withdrew her nomination in January 2001 amidst revelations that an illegal immigrant lived in her home and worked for her in the early 1990s. Chavez blamed what she said were the “search-and-destroy” politics of Washington.

* Timothy Flanigan – nominated, Deputy Attorney General (also Alberto Gonzales’ top deputy at the White House) – withdrew his nomination in October 2005 amidst revelations that he’d worked closely with lobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was General Counsel for Corporate and International Law at Tyco, which was a client of Abramoff’s.

* Bernard Kerik – nominated, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security – withdrew his nomination amidst a host of corruption allegations. Eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor relating to improper gifts totaling tens of thousands of dollars while he was a New York City official in the late 1990’s. Subsequently, on November 8, 2007, Kerik was indicted on sixteen counts for bribery, tax fraud, and false statements with a maximum sentence of 142 years and more than $5 million in fines. Kerik has pleaded not guilty. For a rundown of Kerik’s myriad indiscretions, check out TPM’s Ultimate Kerik Scandal List!.

* William Mercer – the former associate deputy attorney general and US Attorney for Montana – withdrew his nomination to be the permanent number three official at the Department of Justice on June 22, 2007 due to his role in the U.S. attorney firings.

* Hans von Spakovsky – Commissioner, FEC – nomination to another term after his recess appointment failed due to allegations that he’d worked at the Justice Department to suppress minority voter turnout.

Under Investigation But Still in Office

* Stuart Bowen – Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) – was once admired for his successes while investigating allegations of waste and fraud in Iraq, but now employee allegations have prompted four government investigations into the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).

* Lurita Doan – Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration – still in office, despite investigations by both the Office of Special Counsel and the House oversight committee that found that Doan had “crossed the line” by suggesting that the GSA use its resources to help Republicans get elected.

* Alfonso Jackson – Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – following reports that Jackson told a business group in April 2006 that he once canceled a contract after the contractor criticized President Bush, an investigation by the HUD inspector general found that while Jackson told his deputies to favor Bush supporters, there was “no direct proof that a contract was actually awarded or rescinded because of political affiliation.” A second, criminal investigation was triggered in part by Jackson’s claim before Congress in May 2007 that “I don’t touch contracts.” That probe, now before a federal grand jury, has turned up evidence that Jackson may indeed have touched contracts – and steered them towards friends.

Via the fantastic Suzie-Q blog, a must for your bookmarks.

UK Cop: “Ecstasy safer than aspirin”

1

A senior British police chief has come under attack for claiming the illicit drug ecstasy is safer to take than aspirin.

North Wales police chief constable Richard Brunstrom has sparked outrage by making the controversial claim and calling for the legalisation of all drugs, including heroin and cocaine, within a decade.

Brunstrom says he believes ecstasy is a “remarkably safe substance” and that people who raise concerns about the dangers of taking it were “scaremongering”.

“It’s far safer than aspirin,” he told BBC radio.

“It’s far less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol which are freely available.

“There is a lot of scaremongering, rumour-mongering around ecstasy in particular. It isn’t borne out by the evidence.”

Brunstrom’s comments have sparked calls from anti-drugs campaigners for his resignation.

Ecstasy has been blamed for causing more than 200 deaths in Britain since 1996.

AAP

Bogus Neocon Terror War Costs $6,000 Per Second

0

Phil Plait

Whenever the Bush administration balks at spending money on some needed issue, I always mention on my blog that the Iraq war is costing us 11 million dollars per hour.

I am embarrassed to admit that this figure is wrong. I apologize. It has recently come to light that the Iraq war (plus Afghanistan, a trivial amount by comparison) is actually costing us 20 million dollars per hour.

This new amount was revealed by The Washington Post just the other day, but I have seen precious little mention of it, either in the MSM or on the blogs. I posted about it on my own blog, and was met by the usual and expected troops of equivocators. Remember folks, until we attacked Iraq, there was no connection between that country and terrorism (except, of course, for the very conscious and deliberate conflation of the two by the Bush administration).

So what does 20 megabucks an hour really mean? For one thing, it means we are spending nearly $6,000 every second in Iraq (and Afghanistan, but note that it only gets about 1/5 of the total money, while Iraq gets the other 4/5). In the time it takes you to read this paragraph, if you read moderately quickly, we’ll have spent over $50,000. That’s comfortably more than the median income of an individual American last year.

I poked around the web a bit to see what this kind of money would fund, but it’s almost impossible for the mind to grasp the enormity, the numbingly colossal nature of this expenditure.

The money we spend in Iraq in about 40 minutes would feed one million needy American families for a month. The amount we spend on Iraq in two weeks would give NASA enough money to design, build, launch, and use a Hubble-type telescope for a decade (which includes paying the army of engineers and scientists who would run it). One month worth of Iraq would buy – outright – nearly 23,000 homes in San Francisco, the priciest market in the country.

One hour in Iraq – one short hour, the amount of time I spent putting this blog entry together – could buy over one hundred thousand computers for children in third world nations. An hour and a half would fund Human Rights Watch for a year.

I could go on and on, and you can go right ahead and calculate the numbers for your own favorite cause. But before you go, I want to point out the elephant in the room on this issue.

Where did this number come from? Who calculated that the War on Terror is costing us 20 million dollars every hour, of every day, for the foreseeable future?

Why, it was Ted Stevens, Senator Intertubes his own self.

And why did he release this number? Because he wants more funding for the war.

C’mon, folks. This thing is expensive. Pitch in! We only need 20 million of you to throw a buck in every hour. After all, what else do you have to spend it on?

Un-American Lockheed Martin and Treason for Profit

4

As more news about Benazir Bhutto’s assassination comes out, clearly implicating the Musharraff regime in the murder, our tax dollars are going toward paying Lockheed Martin for weapons to Pakistan.

“Washington, Jan 1 – The US Defence Department has awarded a $498.2 million contract to Lockheed Martin Corp to supply 18 F-16 aircraft to Pakistan just ten days after the US Congress slapped restrictions on military aid to Islamabad.

Lockheed will sell 12 F-16C plus six F-16D planes to Pakistan under the contract, the department announced in a list of defence contract awards Monday, but did not say how soon the fighter jets would be delivered.”

Pakistan -under the Musharraf regime – continues to given aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the very people who attacked this nation on 9/11. Prior to the attack on my country, Pakistan’s then-chief of the ISI wired money to one of the 9/11 hijackers and had an American journalist murdered:

“If the 9-11 Commission is really looking for a smoking gun, it should look no further than at Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time.

In early October 2001, Indian intelligence learned that Mahmoud had ordered flamboyant Saeed Sheikh – the convicted mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl – to wire US$100,000 from Dubai to one of hijacker Mohamed Atta’s two bank accounts in Florida.”

Let’s run down some of the facts about Pakistan for a moment:

  • An ISI agent murdered an American journalist.  
  • An ISI chief financed the 9/11 hijackers, who murdered over three thousand Americans.  
  • Musharraf and his regime have created a haven for al Qaeda, who continue to murder American soldiers.
  • The pro-Democracy candidate running against Musharraf was just assassinated

And yet nearly half a billion dollars of OUR money is going toward paying Lockheed Martin to deliver yet more weapons to the ISI-Musharraf regime. It is bad enough that Lockheed is selling weapons to a regime that has such close ties to terrorism, but that we have to pay for this purchase is absolutely astonishing. 

It is even more shocking considering that just 10 days ago, Congress put restrictions on military sales to Pakistan. Someone clearly put some pressure to get this deal passed despite growing concern of Musharraf’s violent actions and Congressional restrictions to aid. Who brokered this deal?

Was it Jack Abramoff from behind his prison cell who was a paid lobbyist (with our money) to Pakistan? After all, he was helping out with the F16 issue before 9/11. Somehow, maybe the prison element, rules Abramoff out.

Was it Lynn Cheney, the Vice President’s strange other half, who helped push this deal through? After all, she was on the Board of Directors for Lockheed Martin right up to 9/11. But she has moved on to penning lesbian soft porn, which likely keeps her rather busy.

Could it be Dick Cheney’s son-in-law, Phillip J. Perry, “who had, while working for a law firm, represented Lockheed with the Department of Homeland Security, had been nominated by Bush to serve as general counsel to the Department of Homeland Security.” That all depends on what his current lobbying slate looks like. Is he still a registered lobbyist for Lockheed Martin? I don’t know. Do you? With so much secrecy, is it possible to know anything about this all Un-American family?

No, I think Dick Cheney likely called up HIS State Department and HIS Defense Department to help US part with OUR money. Because how else are we to account for the billions in aid to Pakistan, pushed through by Dick Cheney during the tenure of the Bush administration?

Lockheed Martin, as well as the other Cheney affiliated companies like Halliburton, have long profited from un-American activities, anti-Democratic activities, all out human rights abuses the world over.

Enough is enough. If the ISI and Musharraf want those jets, then they will have to purchase them on their own dime. Unless al Qaeda is no longer a threat (I may have missed the memo) or Pakistan has given their house guests the boot (another memo I may have missed), then the continued funding of the Musharraf-ISI is treason. I think we, the citizens of America, have a right not to be forced to fund treason. I would even say we have a duty to prosecute traitors. But what do I know? I am just an American citizen, a tax paying citizen. Why should I have a say in what other people do with my money?

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/01/as-more-news-ab.html

Thousands Exposed to Poison by Government Spraying

0

Rami Nagel

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 habits of the light brown apple moth (LBAM). The reason the moth needs to be controlled is due to the possibility of 100 million dollars of damage (Realize that this figure is not a fact, but based on a government guess).

Government’s Pesticide Experiment Program

The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s own doctor acknowledges, in court documents, that 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 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 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 yellow/red colored urine (I am now mostly 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 yellow/red colored urine. Recently I learned that this exposure may not have been from pesticide drift, but 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 is designed out of the concept of miniature plastic sphere-like particles, generally the same size as the width of a human hair. They are called microcapsules. 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 30-70 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 have revealed that they are made of a new technology, and that the large capsules are made up of a cluster of smaller 3-4 micron size capsules – a size of capsule that can be deadly to humans over the long term.

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.” 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 DBPC, a dangerous pesticide known to cause sterility in men. Recently, Dole Food Company lost a lawsuit in which Nicaraguan Banana farmers were exposed to DBPC. In pending lawsuits, thousands of South American Farmers are claiming that they were harmed by exposure to DBPC.

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 entire state of California and its residents are at risk for severe short term reactions to this aerial spraying. 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.” 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. In military technology, 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.

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 continues to spray more communities as I write this.

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, he’s 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.newstarget.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.

VIDEO: Professionals Call for End to Water Fluoridation

1

As detailed in this ABC News Story, over 600 (now over 1,200) professionals are urging Congress to stop water fluoridation untilCongressional hearings are conducted. They cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks.

Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.

Police anger at Commons march ‘ban’

0

Jamie Doward
The Observer

Police last night accused the government of attempting to ban 10,000 officers from marching through Westminster in a mass protest over their pay award. The demonstration would be the force’s biggest since 1919.Relations between the Home Office and the force have fallen to a new low, with the Police Federation of England and Wales, the body that represents 124,000 rank-and-file officers, claiming the government is ‘interfering behind the scenes’ over plans for the march to Parliament on 23 January.

The high-profile demonstration, intended to highlight the force’s anger over its recent below-inflation, 1.9 per cent pay rise, is threatening to become a major political flashpoint in the new year. The police claim their preferred route for their march is set to be banned under archaic ‘sessional orders’, laws drawn up in the early 19th century to combat large-scale radical protests that threatened a disturbance of the peace.

The orders are renewed by Parliament each year and invoked by the Metropolitan Police if the force believes a protest will prevent MPs from going about their daily business. Critics of the orders claim they are a heavy-handed response designed to stifle peaceful protest.

Last night the federation claimed that parliamentary officials were in talks with the Met with a view to banning the march outside Parliament and said the government had no intention of lifting the orders so that the protest could go ahead. ‘There appears to be some behind-the-scenes government interference,’ said Alan Gordon, vice-chairman of the federation. ‘There is pressure being brought on the Metropolitan Police to either postpone the march altogether or to reroute it in such a way that it will disappear into side streets where it will be out of the public gaze.’

The latest skirmish between the thin blue line and the government follows months of bitter wrangling over pay. Earlier this year there was widespread outrage among police officers in England and Wales after they discovered that a 2.5 per cent pay rise was not going to be backdated. It meant their real pay rise was 1.9 per cent.

Rank-and-file officers will shortly be balloted on whether they should have the right to take industrial action, which is currently illegal. Any move to ban or reroute the march would heighten tensions between the two sides in the run-up to the ballot.

‘The government is extremely embarrassed by this whole affair,’ Gordon said. ‘They realise they have made a crass decision by not backdating this pay and I think they were hoping that the whole problem would disappear over the Christmas break.’

The government denied it was attempting to block the protest. A Home Office spokesman said any decision on the march was not up to the government. ‘The decision is a matter for the Metropolitan Police,’ the spokesman said.

The Met confirmed it was in talks with the federation over whether the march would go ahead. ‘We are in discussions with the Police Federation regarding the planned demonstration on 23 January,’ a Met spokeswoman said.

Gordon said using archaic orders to ban or reroute the march on law-and-order grounds would widen the rift between the police and government. ‘To think there is a likelihood of public disorder from 10,000 police officers marching through central London is a nonsense,’ he said. ‘I can only assume they are doing this because they do not want the embarrassment. It will just raise the police’s anger and mistrust of this government.’

VIDEO: Pakistan and 9/11

0

Protected by Bush

CIA = ISI (Pakistani intelligence) = al Queda

On October 1, 2001, did the FBI uncover evidence that Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the Director of the Pakistani Intelligence Service (the ISI) authorize the wiring of $100,000 to Florida to Mohammed Atta (supposed hijack ringleader of the 911 attack) through Omar Saeed Sheikh (an alleged ISI agent)?

 
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/243.html

Why did only a single US press outlet, the Wall Street Journal website, mention this connection in the editorial section (James Taranto writing) on October 10, 2001, saying it was an “internet only” story – when in fact it was a major story reported at great length in the main line Indian press?

Does this mean that Al-Queda was used as a tool by members of the American government in the same way that they used the Mujahdeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Thank You – From RINF

0

Thank you to all who have been sending in your best wishes to me for the holidays, it is greatly appreciated.

Unfortunately I’m unable to answer each of you personally so I hope this short message goes some way to express my thanks to all of you.

Hope you all have a great holiday and thank you for your continued support.

Here’s to a productive 2008!

All the best,
Mick

Activists free battery hens

0

Animal rights activists have freed 15 hens from an Auckland farm in an effort to persuade more people to boycott battery eggs.

New Zealand Open Rescue spokeswoman Deirdre Sims says the group took the hens because of the conditions they were living in. She says farmers in New Zealand cage 2.8 million hens, all of which are unable to nest, bath or move freely.

Sims says hen farmers should be ashamed of making money from caging hens.

The activists say they had to take action because legislation designed to protect hens from cruel treatment is failing. The activists would not reveal which farm they raided and say they only freed 15 of the thousands of chickens there.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/1520106

Activists free battery hens

0

Animal rights activists have freed 15 hens from an Auckland farm in an effort to persuade more people to boycott battery eggs.

New Zealand Open Rescue spokeswoman Deirdre Sims says the group took the hens because of the conditions they were living in. She says farmers in New Zealand cage 2.8 million hens, all of which are unable to nest, bath or move freely.

Sims says hen farmers should be ashamed of making money from caging hens.

The activists say they had to take action because legislation designed to protect hens from cruel treatment is failing. The activists would not reveal which farm they raided and say they only freed 15 of the thousands of chickens there.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/1520106

Lyric censorship heralds swansong for the BBC

0

TELEVISION Quality seems to be the very last thing on BBC execs mind, writes Declan Lynch

THERE was a general air of stupefaction when the BBC bleeped the word “faggot” from Fairytale Of New York. But those of you who were reading this column last week were not surprised at all. No, you’ll have smiled knowingly, remembering that opening line about the the BBC being dead, killed by many things but mainly by the wrong sort of people rising to positions of power within that once-great corporation.

With exquisite timing, on the very next day, we learn that someone in a position of power at the BBC has nothing better to be doing than censoring perfectly good songs for no good reason. And within this sad vignette, we can glimpse the broader calamity which has reduced the BBC to the level of any other channel of the 800,000 currently available.

It reveals the sort of thinking which seems to take almost everything into account, apart forn the one thing which matters — and lest we forget, the one thing that matters, the only thing that should concern any BBC person in relation to any piece of work, is whether it is any good.

Is Fairytale Of New York any good ? Yes, it is very good indeed.

That should be the only issue at stake here, the rest is all form-filling.

Because it’s hard to be good.

It can take a lot out of you, being good. And if you’re spending any time at all worrying about offending people, you probably won’t manage it.

In fact, you’ll end up being offensive anyway, to those of us who like good things. Ronan Keating offended me, for example, when he changed “you cheap lousy faggot”, to “you’re cheap and you’re haggard”, but I didn’t complain about it much. Until now.

You also encounter this fearful mentality in other areas. “What’s in this for women?” they might ask a programme-maker, who should reply that if something is good, then everyone, including women, will feel the benefit. So that’s what is in it for women — its goodness.

Ah, but that’s not what is meant at all. These fearful types would be perfectly happy if the work was a complete load of cobblers, so long as there’s something in it for women. And seemingly, there’s a lot of types like that in the BBC these days, wasting everyone’s time on stuff that doesn’t matter, asking all the wrong questions.

THERE wasn’t much for women in Himself the recent profile on Setanta of the golfer Christy O’Connor (Senior). So why did they make it?

Something to do with the fact that Christy O’Connor seemed for many years to be one of the few Irish people who were any good at anything, in this case the game of golf. He was also very good at drinking and staying up late and generally having a wonderful time, after which he could still be standing on the first tee at first light, starting with a solid par and then going birdie, birdie, birdie on his way to shooting a new course record of 62.

In fact, in these days, when the ancient recreations of men are increasingly reviled, there would probably be some sort of a law against Christy O’Connor, or “Himself”, as he is known to his butties, in stereotypical fashion.

Indeed, if a female equivalent inspired a documentary called Herself, it would be seen as faintly patronising.

Yet, as we searched the film in vain for something that might be offensive to lesbians and gay men, we could only agree with contributor Niall Toibin, who ventured the view that the two greatest Irishmen of all time are the singer John McCormack and the same Christy O’Connor. Were they any good? Yes, they were very good indeed. In fact, they were great. And, while you can see a plaque to my fellow Athlone man McCormack on the front of an excellent Chinese takeaway in the town, you can remember “Himself” on DVD.

THEN again there is such a thing as prejudice, and we must guard against it. Having seen Mr Jacob Zuma, the new head of the ANC on an RTE news report for approximately 45 seconds, I formed the iron conviction that this man would be the scourge of Africa.

Just a few key words like “acquitted on rape charges”, and “massive corruption claims” led me to jump to the conclusion that this man needs to be watched carefully..

I can only hope that I’m wrong about this. For once.

The Book of Poor Ould Fellas, written by Declan Lynch and Arthur Mathews, published by Hodder Headline,€14.32 makes an ideal last-minute Christmas present

– Declan Lynch

CIA rebuts 9/11 suggestion

0

CIA rebuts suggestion it did not cooperate with 9/11 Commission investigation

CIA rebuts suggestion it did not cooperate with 9/11 Commission investigation

David Remes, an attorney for a dozen Yemeni prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, speaks to reporters following a hearing in federal court as costumed protestors stage a demonstration

 The CIA on Saturday rebutted suggestions the spy agency was uncooperative and hid from the Sept. 11 commission the videotaped interrogations of two suspected terrorists, saying it waited until the panel went out of business before destroying the material now in question.

The destruction in late 2005 of the videotapes of two al-Qaida suspects has upset a federal judge and riled the Democratic-controlled Congress, which has promised an investigation. The Justice Department also is trying to find out what happened and whether any laws were broken.

A recent memo by Philip Zelikow, the former executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, suggests the CIA was less than forthcoming when asked for documents and other information from the panel, which investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The CIA disputed that characterization and suggested the panel should have requested interrogation videotapes specifically if it wanted them.

“The notion that the CIA wasn’t cooperative or forthcoming with the 9/11 commission is just plain wrong. It is utterly without foundation,” spokesman Mark Mansfield said Saturday. “The CIA’s cooperation and assistance is what enabled the 9/11 commission to reconstruct the plot in their very comprehensive report.”

In a statement e-mailed separately Saturday, Mansfield suggested the commission should have been specific about wanting videotapes.

“Because it was thought the commission could ask about tapes at some point, they were not destroyed while the commission was active,” he said. Mansfield, citing similar comments this month by CIA Director Michael Hayden, added that “the tapes were destroyed only when it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries.”

Zelikow’s seven-page memo, dated Dec. 13, reviews the commission’s requests for information from the CIA.

It cites a Jan. 26, 2004, meeting of commission members and administration officials, including then-CIA Director George Tenet, at which the government offered to present written questions to the detainees and relay their answers back to the commission.

“None of the government officials in any of these 2004 meetings alluded to the existence of recordings of interrogations or any further information in the government’s possession that was relevant to the commission’s requests,” Zelikow wrote.

Near the end of the commission’s work, and in response to a request by the commission to all agencies, John McLaughlin, then the deputy CIA director, confirmed on June 29, 2004, that the CIA had “taken and completed all reasonable steps necessary to find the documents in its possession, custody or control responsive” to the commission’s formal requests and “has produced or made available for review” all such documents, the memo said.

The existence of Zelikow’s memo was first reported by The New York Times.

Criticism For BUTCHER Blair Over Conversion

1

Tony Blair’s conversion to Catholicism has been criticised by commentators who argue his views as PM were at odds with church teachings.

Tony Blair has met Pope Benedict

Tony Blair has met Pope Benedict

Mr Blair was welcomed into the Roman Catholic church by the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor – leader of the Roman Catholics in England and Wales.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor welcomed the politician’s personal decision, which culminated in the ceremony at the chapel of the Archbishop’s House in Westminster.

He said: “For a long time he has been a regular worshipper at Mass with his family and in recent months he has been following a programme of formation to prepare for his reception into full communion.”

The move comes after years of speculation that Mr Blair, whose wife Cherie and four children are Catholic, would convert from Anglicanism after he resigned from Number 10 in June.

Converting while in office would have caused him problems in connection with issues such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality and faith schools.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) reacted with surprise to the news.

John Smeaton, SPUC’s national director, said: “During his premiership Tony Blair became one of the world’s most significant architects of the culture of death, promoting abortion, experimentation on unborn embryos, including cloned embryos, and euthanasia by neglect.

“SPUC is writing to Tony Blair to ask him whether he has repented of the anti-life positions he has so openly advocated throughout his political career.”

Tory MP Ann Widdecombe, who converted to Catholicism in 1993, told Sky News it was possible in her opinion to be a practising Catholic and prime minister.

She said: “I think the crucial thing to remember is at the point you are received (into the Catholic church) you have to say individually and out loud ‘I believe everything the church teaches to be revealed truth’.

“And that means if you previously had any problems with church teaching, as Tony Blair obviously did over abortion, as he did again over Sunday trading…you would have to say you changed your mind.

“And I think people will want to know that he did go through that process, because otherwise it will seem as if the church did make an exception for somebody just because of who he is.”

VIDEO: Pop Mec Test Drives Electric Car

0

PM hits the streets and gets looked at more than ever before, then heads to the shop for first-look details on a futuristic car so efficient it’ll make your jaw drop. The good news? It’s coming next year.

 

Three hundred miles per gallon and a Jetsons-style look are enough to get anyone excited. But ever since the word got out on it last month, Aptera’s innovative Typ-1 three-wheeler has been the target of relentless theorizing and conjecture across the Web. Is it real? Does it have what it takes to be a practical vehicle for daily transport? Is it stable enough to drive? Does it even actually drive? Well we wondered some of those things, too, so we scouted out if a drivable prototype really exists.

It does.

This week we visited Aptera’s headquarters in Carlsbad, Calif., and became the very first outside of the company to hit the street in the Typ-1 e. And, as you can see from the video of our 20-mile test drive above, we’re impressed.

Aptera has two innovative models that are almost production-ready at $30,000 and below: for next year, the all-electric, 120-mile-range Typ-1 e that we drove; and, by 2009, the range-extended series gasoline Typ-1 h, which Aptera says will hit 300 mpg. A more conventional third model, called “Project X” or perhaps Typ-2, is now in the design phase, with plans for a four-wheeled chassis and seating up for to five passengers.

For now, though, the Typ-1 will certainly do. Check out a full gallery for the inside scoop on all the specs from the shop and the street …



The Typ-1’s exposed chassis shows how the company has taken inspiration from aircraft, boats and high-performance cars. For durability as well as weight and cost savings, the majority of the Typ-1 is constructed from a top and bottom advanced composite structures bonded together along the midsection. With the top and bottom weighing in at a mere 160 and 180 pounds, respectively, the entire vehicle sits at approximately 1480 pounds today.

The chassis has steel reinforcements in key areas: at the roll hoop, along the bottom of the windshield, in the doors (for side impact protection) and, of course, in the front subframe (for the suspension system as well as the engine and battery cradle).

On the all-electric model, the battery pack lives in the center space of the subframe. A tiny gasoline internal combustion engine in the hybrid models shares that space. In fact, this chassis has part of the hybrid’s exhaust, which you can see just below and to the left of the subframe.



The rear-drive wheel is mounted to a steel swing arm similar to that of motorcycle–but with a design optimized to handle the Aptera’s loads. The rear wheel has 3 in. of up travel and 2 in. of droop.

A belt drive system connects to an electric motor that has regenerative braking to help charge the battery pack. The tires on the prototype are the same 165/65R14 tires from the Honda Insight.



The Typ-1 e is expected to have a target range of 120 miles per charge. A ful1 recharge of the pack will take about 4 to 6 hours with a standard 110-volt outlet. Aptera’s team is still evaluating lithium phosphate battery packs from a few suppliers, so the final specs of the 10-kWh batteries remain confidential. (The hybrid model will use a smaller battery pack.)

This wall of equipment is part of the battery test station. Twin super capacitors augment the battery pack for when you neeed quick boosts of power (think passing stupefied fellow drivers on the highway).

Continue..

9/11 Panel Joins Probe of Destroyed CIA Tapes

0

By Diane Smith

According to the U.S. panel investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks, the CIA had deliberately withheld tapes of supposed torture of terrorism suspects to obstruct the panel’s work, the New York Times wrote in its Saturday edition.

Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, the leading chairmen of the panel, were the ones to comment on the issue for the New York Times. The two declared that the CIA had disposed of hundreds of hours of recordings of CIA investigators using “enhanced” investigation techniques such as waterboarding.

The latest revelation on the CIA disposal of the tapes has triggered investigations by the justice department, Congress and from within the CIA, and also provoked members of the September 11 commission to review the top secret documents and communications supplied by the CIA during their probe, the Times said.

Philip Zelikow, the panel’s former executive director, said he prepared a memorandum on the review according to which the panel had sought complete documents, reports and information linked to the interrogation process. Zelikow had been assured by the CIA that it had “produced or made available for review” everything that had been requested.

Panel chairman Lee Hamilton declared to the Times that the CIA had “clearly obstructed” the commission’s investigation. The other top chairman of the panel said he would submit Zelikow’s review to federal prosecutors and congressional investigators responsible with the destruction of the tapes issue.

The lawyers hired by the Guantanamo detainees said on Friday to federal judge Henry H Kennedy Jr. that this issue shows the Bush administration is ready to destroy evidence of possible torture or illegal interrogation methods.

“Until these inquiries are complete, until the oversights’ finished, I will be rendering no opinion from the podium,” Bush said.

“Let’s wait and see what the facts are,” the president added.

The destroyed tapes illustrated the 2002 interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and another top al-Qaeda member. At that point in time, Zubaydah was the most important capture of an al-Qaeda figure following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Girl hit in missile strike fights to stay in Israel

1

By Carolynne Wheeler in Jerusalem

Six-year-old Maria Amin races ahead of her father on the way to school. “Hurry up, papa. The bus will leave without us,” she calls, steering her electric wheelchair with a mouth-stick towards the specially-equipped van.

 
Six-year-old Maria Amin
Symbol of hope: Maria Amin’s case has captured the hearts of the Israeli public

It’s a journey that, 19 months ago, it was impossible to imagine her making. In May last year, the little Palestinian girl and other family members were in her uncle’s car in Gaza when it was torn apart by shrapnel from an Israeli missile.

Travelling just ahead of them had been Mohammad Dahdouh, a senior Islamic Jihad commander responsible for directing rocket attacks against Israeli towns.

The missile hit its target, but destroyed her uncle’s car as well, killing her mother, grandmother and older brother. She was thrown out of the window – alive, but paralysed from the neck down.

The fact that today she is able to pilot herself around, using her chin to steer, is a testament to the skill of Palestinian and Israeli doctors, to the care of the Jerusalem hospital where she now lives, and to her own indomitable spirit.

It also reflects the media attention her case has drawn in Israel, which added to pressure on the Israeli government to help her.

Transferred first to a Tel Aviv hospital and then to Jerusalem’s private Alyn rehabilitation centre, after Gaza’s hospitals were unable to care for her, Maria captured the hearts of the Israeli public.

Last week she was given the good news that she will be allowed to remain where she is for at least another year – providing a flicker of hope for reconciliation in a part of the world that sorely needs it.

Her endless rounds of medical care, tests and physiotherapy are broken up by lessons at Jerusalem’s only bilingual school, where Jewish and Arab students study together in classes taught jointly by Hebrew and Arabic-speaking teachers.

It is a fitting place for a little girl who began learning Hebrew almost from the moment she arrived at the Alyn centre, and who has drawn people from both sides of this conflict to her cause.

“She is very active and has the character of a leader,” said Dalia Peretz, the Jewish Israeli who heads the Max Rayne Hand-in-Hand School with an Arab colleague. “The children like to be around Maria and to play with her, and I know many of the parents care a lot about her.”

It is one of the many ironies that permeate this conflict that Ms Pertetz’s brother is Amir Peretz, who was the Israeli defence minister when the missile struck.

Teachers say they are astonished by Maria’s ability to compensate for her limitations. Her artwork adorns the classroom’s walls, painted with the help of a paintbrush or crayon attached to a wand which she grasps with her teeth. In music lessons, she sings as loudly as her softly whooshing respirator will allow her.

“She’s marvellous,” said her music teacher, Helen Sabella. “She’s really dominant – she proves herself.”

Maria’s father, Hamdi, who survived the air strike along with her younger brother, is now devoted to looking after the two children in a family suite next to the hospital.

Each morning, he combs Maria’s hair into a neat ponytail and polishes her fingernails before accompanying her to school.

“When I saw first Jews, Christians and Muslims together without any discrimination, I was fascinated. Look at the kids playing together,” marvelled the 30-year-old former driver as he watched in the school’s courtyard.

While Maria studies, a network of Israeli volunteers is fighting to keep her here.

In the summer, the Israeli defence ministry issued an order to move her from the Alyn centre, which has a specialist unit for patients with spinal injuries, to a Palestinian hospital in Ramallah, but her doctors opposed the move, saying it was tantamount to a death sentence.

They argued that no Ramallah hospital could provide the same care, and that the Israeli checkpoints through which travellers must pass on the way to Jerusalem would prevent her from getting prompt medical help in an ­emergency.

Last week, the ministry backed down, agreeing to a one-year freeze on the deportation order while another solution was sought. Meanwhile, it is paying Maria’s tuition fees and other expenses.

However, despite the freeze, it also seems unlikely that she will stay where she is.

“She has finished the treatment in Alyn hospital, so every day that she is staying there is a waste of time and money,” said Shlomo Dror, a defence ministry spokesman.

Maria’s Israeli legal team is preparing to pursue her case in the Supreme Court. A hearing is scheduled for February.

“I’m optimistic,” said Adi Lustigman, a Jerusalem lawyer who is leading the team.

“I don’t see how the court can send Maria to Gaza or the West Bank where it’s clear she could not survive. In order to salvage what’s left, Maria needs stability.”

Dollar declines as traders wrangle over Fed rate cuts

0

The US dollar declined against the euro and the pound on Friday as traders continued to hotly debate whether the US Federal Reserve would continue cutting interest rates amid economic uncertainty.

The euro was swapping hands at US$1.4378 in late afternoon trading in New York, up from US$1.4320 late on Thursday.

The British pound was quoted at US$1.9841, up from US$1.9830 a day earlier.

Although the pound gained ground it has dropped below two dollars of late, marking its lowest levels against the US dollar since August.

The US dollar was meanwhile trading at ¥114.09, up from ¥113.09 on Thursday.

The US currency’s value has risen and fallen in the past week as traders have either bet up or discounted the odds of a fresh Fed rate cut.

The Fed has cut borrowing costs three times since September in a bid to underpin US economic momentum in the face of a prolonged housing slump, but analysts say rising inflationary pressures may soon put an end to the rate cuts.

The US Commerce Department reported earlier on Friday that a core US inflation gauge, which excludes volatile food and energy costs, bounced up an annual 2.2 percent last month, above the Fed’s comfort zone of between 1 percent and 2 percent.

In late New York trading, the US dollar stood at 1.1551 Swiss francs from SF1.1581 on Thursday.

AFP

GOP deals Dems some bitter pills

0

By Deirdre Shesgreen

The first session of the 110th Congress started off with a snap and had plenty of crackle. But the end was more fizzle than pop.

“We had 50 weeks of basically polarization and brinksmanship and two weeks of problem-solving,” said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country.

Democrats were catapulted into power after the 2006 elections on big promises: They would clean up Washington, change course in Iraq and devote new attention to domestic needs.

But as lawmakers rushed home for the holidays last week, Republicans were declaring victory for confounding their political foes at almost every turn, with one GOP lawmaker deriding this as the “cave-in Congress.”

Even as Democrats trumpeted some meaty achievements – from ethics reform to a minimum-wage increase to a landmark energy bill – their liberal base was fuming over some of the concessions Democrats made.

After bruising battles with the White House and congressional Republicans, Democrats swallowed three bitter pills in the final days of the year:

– They handed President George W. Bush $70 billion in funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with no strings attached.

– They passed a flat extension of a children’s health insurance program – something the GOP had been calling for, for months – after conceding that their efforts to expand the popular program could not overcome Bush’s vetoes.

– They approved an 11th-hour, $50 billion tax fix that will shield the middle class from a major tax increase, but without raising additional revenue – violating their self-imposed vow to offset any new spending or tax breaks so as not to worsen the deficit.

“Our members probably went home yesterday happier than … in the 11 years I’ve been here,” said House GOP Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Congress’ final weeks were so chaotic that many lawmakers booked multiple flights home because they had no idea when last votes would be cast on a $555 billion omnibus budget loaded with more than 8,000 of lawmakers’ pet projects.

Where Akin saw polarization and brinksmanship, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., saw idealism and pragmatism, and she said the Senate had “a healthy dose of both this year,” making for bitter fights as well as solid, albeit last-minute, agreements.

“At the end of the day it’s not bad what we got done in spite of ourselves,” she said. But the process “sure isn’t pretty.”

Steven Smith, a political science professor at Washington University, said that with Democrats barely in control of the Senate and a Republican in the White House, “there was essentially a stalemate” on all major legislative initiatives. “This was a situation where both parties had the ability to veto the highest priorities of the other.”

He said the 49-member Republican minority in the Senate used threats of a filibuster to protect Bush from embarrassing vetoes on Iraq and other matters. In the process, he said, they were able to make the Democrats look bad “for not governing an institution they seemed to control.”

EARLY VICTORIES

The messy ending to the first half of this Congress stands out all the more because of its sharp beginning.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the first woman to be speaker of the House, swept into office with a 100-hour legislative blitz. With the help of moderate Republicans, Democrats racked up a raft of early victories: cutting interest rates on student loans, enacting long-stalled recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, and raising the minimum wage, among other things.

“Those are issues that the American people wanted to see us address, and we did,” said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis. “And we became more fiscally responsible than previous Congresses and this administration.”

Indeed, some Republicans found themselves cheering the Democrats’ final spending package as one that was much better than any they ever produced. Bush forced Democrats to stick to his bottom line, something he never did when the GOP was in control, rather than allow them to add $22 billion in new spending.

“We’re leaving with Bush’s numbers plus some emergency spending for things we can support,” such as veterans care, said Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville. With that new financial restraint, he said, “we’re going back to our base in a Democratic majority. … That’s a pretty good Christmas present.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the budget deal was “really a heartbreak” because Democrats wanted desperately to boost spending for health care, education and other programs they felt have been ignored. Democrats did shift money to fill some of their priorities but failed to force Bush to agree to a higher overall budget number.

WHITE HOUSE POWER

Durbin said Democrats had no options in the budget showdown because they simply did not have the votes to override Bush’s threatened veto.

“In the end there was only one card that could be played: the Newt Gingrich government shut-down card,” Durbin said, referring to the standoff between the former GOP House speaker and President Bill Clinton that led to government offices being shuttered and a political fallout for the GOP. “We were never going to let that happen, and the president knew it,” Durbin said.

Democrats also saw the collapse of a sweeping and controversial immigration reform package. They failed to override Bush’s veto of a bill to lift restrictions on government funding for stem cell research. And most irksome to their liberal supporters, they failed to win a raft of Iraq votes that would have imposed withdrawal timetables for U.S. troops or restricted war funding.

Pelosi said Congress had “put a lot of pressure on the administration” over the war through “very intense oversight.” But, she conceded, “No one is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn’t change that (the course of the war) than I am.”

Pelosi said she and other Democrats made one miscalculation on that front: They underestimated the GOP’s willingness to rally behind an unpopular president on an unpopular issue.

Republicans said they were unified against the Democrats’ “slow-bleed” strategy for Iraq.

Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Mo., said Democrats spent “an awful lot of time redoing” varying Iraq votes to send “a message to their extreme left-wing base.” Now that the United States is seeing some military progress in Iraq, he said, “I think we’ll see them temper their political efforts” on the war.

SETTING UP FOR ’08

But that’s unlikely when Congress reconvenes next month.

“We will keep pushing the president to come up with withdrawal dates, with benchmarks, with time lines, and he will resist all of it,” Clay said. “So it’ll be a test of wills again.”

At the same time, Democrats said they hoped to shine a brighter spotlight on some new domestic issues. Pelosi said health care would be front and center, along with legislation to address global warming.

Durbin said he expected a major push on economic issues and the mortgage crisis in particular.

But others said the main issue on the agenda would be politics. With next year’s presidential race and congressional elections at full throttle, there will be “more of the same” gridlock, said Smith, the Washington University professor.

“Legislative accomplishments will not be their chief goal,” he said. “Setting themselves up for 2008 will be.”

Megan Boehnke of the Post-Dispatch Washington bureau contributed to this story.

Syrian MP threatens Dimona

0

As Bush and Sarkozy lose patience with Assad, Syrian MP threatens Dimona

A Syrian member of parliament thought to be familiar with the thinking of President Bashar al-Assad is quoted in the London-based pan-Arab daily newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi on Saturday as saying that Syria could strike Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona as retaliation for any future forays into Syrian airspace and violation of Syrian “sovereignty”, Haaretz reports.

MP Mohammad Habash noted that Dimona is well within range of Syrian missiles, and that Damascus does not rule out the possibility of additional Israeli attacks against Syria. Though Habash said that Syria has no interest in escalating tensions between the two countries, he also said that no such contacts are currently being held between them.

An attempt to exchange messages between Israel and Syria in recent months has failed, Haaretz reports, citing European diplomatic sources as saying that the reason for the impasse was an inability to reach an agenda for talks and that “the bottom line was a negative one.” But in off-the-record conversations, several sources close to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are quoted as saying that “the Syrian track still has higher chances of success when compared to the Palestinian track” and needed to be given a chance.

“It is a lot simpler and it is possible to achieve an agreement in a short time,” one of Olmert’s confidants said. “The only problem is that the Syrians are not sending positive signals.”

“The Syrians wanted the talks to revolve only on the Golan [Heights],” the European diplomats are quoted as saying. “But Israel wanted to first talk about other issues that trouble it, such as [Syrian] ties with Iran and the support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and Syria did not agree.”

The U.S., however, appears strongly opposed to any gestures or concessions toward Damascus. President George W. Bush told a White House press conference last week that he was fed up with Syrian President Bashar Assad. “Syria needs to stay out of Lebanon,” Bush said when asked whether he would be willing to talk to Assad about stabilizing Lebanon, which is caught up in a political crisis over the election of a new president. “My patience ran out on President Assad a long time ago,” he said. “The reason why is because he houses Hamas, he facilitates Hezbollah, suiciders go from his country into Iraq and he destabilizes Lebanon,” the president said.

During last week’s foreign ministers’ meeting in Paris to donate to the Palestinian Authority, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice attacked Syria for what she said was a missed opportunity at Annapolis. “Annapolis was a chance we gave Syria and its test were the [presidential] elections in Lebanon. So far, the Syrians have failed completely.” European diplomatic sources also said that “Syria is undermining any chance for an accord [in Lebanon] and is pushing Hezbollah and the rest of its allies in Lebanon to raise the bar on their demands.”

The same sources said that Assad is interested in giving the impression, whatever the cost may be, “that without him nothing will move in Lebanon,” and therefore the assessment is that the crisis there will continue.

In an interview published on Wednesday, 19 December 2007, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he told Assad that “Lebanon has a right to have an autonomous president who will have a national unity government,” adding bluntly: “You (Assad) must use all the means and abilities at your disposal to influence the attainment of this goal!'” He accused Damascus of using its influence over Lebanese opposition groups to perpetuate the crisis in Beirut.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/12498.htm

Congressman reaching out to Iran

0

While Washington debates whether it should talk to Iran, one Maryland congressman has already struck up a conversation.

For the past year, Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest has been meeting with Iranian officials and business leaders to talk about ways to improve relations between the United States and the Islamic republic that President Bush put in his Axis of Evil.

With the recent release of a U.S. intelligence report concluding that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program four years ago, he now sees an opportunity.

“You get this kind of momentum, we will begin a dialogue with Iran,” the Eastern Shore Republican said. “If it’s not in this administration – although I think it’s possible – you will see a change in policy so that the next administration will have a better opportunity to openly discuss issues with the Iranians.”

That’s been Gilchrest’s goal since a private meeting last autumn with Iran’s envoy to the United Nations. The three-hour session with Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif was the start of a continuing effort by Gilchrest, a former Marine who had come to regret his 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, to develop relations with the country that some believed the White House planned to attack next.

He has followed up with other Iranians, exchanged letters with the speaker of the Iranian parliament and organized a group of Republicans and Democrats focused on improving relations.

Called the Dialogue Caucus, the group is looking to spark broader communication between U.S. and Iranian lawmakers. To the 61-year-old Gilchrest, wounded as a platoon leader in Vietnam, it’s a matter of “sending old men to talk before we send young men to die.”

“What I’ve seen in Congress,” he said, “is when you have two people talking, exchanging information, the potential for solutions is infinite. When they don’t talk, there’s no potential at all.”

Still, he says, he has no illusions about the difficulty of finding common ground.

“These guys are not sprouting halos,” he said. “We’re not talking about a poor, misunderstood country. But, you know, this is politics. I’d rather have them talking than shooting at us.”

Gilchrest says Iran has legitimate interests in the security of neighboring Iraq, where it has strong ties to the Shiite majority. He says that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not speak for the whole country, any more than Bush speaks for all Americans.

The largely behind-the-scenes effort is not without political risk. Bush says the recent release of the National Intelligence Estimate will not change the administration policy of mostly shunning Iran, which the United States accuses of arming Shiite insurgents in Iraq.

The moderate Gilchrest, who has split with his party over Iraq, is facing a strong primary challenge from the right from state Sen. Andrew P. Harris in the conservative 1st Congressional District, which voted twice for Bush. State Sen. E.J. Pipkin and three other Republicans are also vying for the nomination.

“He joined [Democratic House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi in wanting to try to run the war, and now I guess it seems that he wants to make an end run around the State Department in handling these foreign affairs as well,” Harris said. “Freelancing on the part of Foreign Service wannabes … is probably not the best thing for this country.”

Efforts by lawmakers to reach out to nations with whom the United States has troubled relations have a long and not very productive history.

But former Democratic Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, whose Iraq Study Group urged the administration to open talks with Iran, says that outreach of the sort that Gilchrest is attempting is “exactly what is needed.”

Gilchrest says he has told Bush of the effort and has kept the administration apprised of his contacts. A State Department spokeswoman said members of Congress are free to speak with whomever they choose – but added that “we would hope that if they did engage in discussions with members of the Iranian government, they would reiterate our policy and explain to them the clearly outlined steps that they need to take in order to come to the negotiating table with the United States.”

The United States and Iran recently agreed to a fourth round of talks between their ambassadors in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq. But U.S. officials say they will not hold higher-level meetings or broaden the discussion to other topics unless Iran stops processing the uranium that they say still could be used for nuclear weapons.

The focus on foreign affairs is something of a departure for Gilchrest. The former high school social studies teacher has been better known for his interest in the environment as a member of the House Natural Resources and Transportation committees.

Then came the Iraq war, on which he says he was “sold a bill of goods,” and what he sees as an increasingly and unnecessarily confrontational approach to the world by both the White House and Congress. He has visited Iraq three times since the 2003 invasion, and has also traveled to Syria, Israel, Jordan and other countries in the region.

“I just couldn’t sit on the side any longer and watch all this stuff unfold,” he said. “I hear my colleagues. I see resolution after resolution coming to the floor condemning this one and condemning that one. Isolating the Palestinians, not talking to the Iranians, calling people evil empires. They’re trying to put out fires by throwing on more dry logs.”

The Diana inquiry cop who was on £1,000 a day

0

Britain’s former top policeman Lord Stevens was paid £1,000 a day for taking charge of the inquiry into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Documents released exclusively to The Mail on Sunday under the Freedom of Information Act reveal he was being paid double what he would have earned in his former role as Met Police Commissioner.

The payments, for his part-time role in charge of Operation Paget, are among a number of lucrative deals that Porsche-driving Lord Stevens has secured since he retired two years ago.

Critics have asked why a senior detective, already employed by the force, could not have overseen the inquiry.

While he was at the Yard from 2000 to 2005, Lord Stevens was paid £150,000 a year, the daily equivalent of approximately £420 — less than half the fees for his two-and-a-half years’ work on the Diana probe.

The FOI reply from the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards — which took almost a year to be answered — discloses that between February 28, 2005, and September 30, 2007, his company Stevens Consultancy raked in £276,125 for Operation Paget.

He was also reimbursed £26,550 for accommodation costs away from home — mainly in London hotels. And he received £13,599 for travel costs plus £97.51 for meals, making a total of £316,000.

Fears: Diana suggested in a letter that the Prince was plotting ‘an accident’

Lord Stevens — known by former Yard colleagues as “Captain Beaujolais” because of his love of fine wines — insisted last night that the payments were “justified”.

He said: “If you look at my commitment over two-and-a-half years, it’s been a continuous commitment since I left as Commissioner.

“I don’t get all of that money, because it goes into the consultancy to help run that.”

Lord Stevens confirmed his daily rate was £1,000. Asked about his other business interests, the peer said: “These figures are not the vast sums that people think.”

Lord Stevens receives £30,000 a year as non-executive chairman of Quest, the security consultancy for whom he has led the Football Association probe into soccer transfer “bungs”.

He gets a further £25,000 annual fee as a non-executive director of the Mercer Street business consultancy and is a non-executive director of airport operators BAA, currency exchanger Travelex and analytical services provider LGC.

Scroll down for more…

Happy times: Diana relaxing on holiday with Dodi shortly before their deaths

The former police chief refused to divulge how much he is paid for his other directorships, but said they were “similar figures”.

He also receives fees for speeches on leadership and policing.

Richard Barnes, a Tory member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, last night described the Operation Paget fee as “ludicrous”.

Scotland Yard would not add to its FOI statement and was unable to say why it took almost a year to provide a reply.

Source

CIA ‘kept’ tapes from 9/11 probe

0

A leaked memorandum from the former 9/11 commission says it made repeated requests to the CIA for information on the interrogation of al-Qaeda suspects. But ex-commission executive director Philip Zelikow says the CIA did not hand over tapes that have since come to light, the New York Times reported.

The CIA later erased the footage, which allegedly contains images of abuse.

The memo urges a further investigation into whether the agency acted illegally by withholding the recordings.

The CIA says there was no specific request for the tapes, which reportedly contained images of interrogation techniques including water-boarding, which simulates drowning. The CIA denies torture.

‘Clearly obstructed’

The agency filmed the footage in 2002 and erased it in 2005, a year after the commission ended its work.

The commission conducted an internal review earlier this month after the deleted CIA tapes came to light.

A copy of Mr Zelikow’s findings, dated 13 December, was obtained by The New York Times.

His memorandum notes the commission asked the CIA in 2003 and 2004 for “documents”, “reports” and “information” relating to interrogations.

But, the report says, a CIA director replied in 2004 that it had already “produced or made available for review” all relevant material.

Mr Zelikow’s seven-page findings conclude “further investigation is needed” to determine if the CIA’s withholding of the tapes violated federal law.

It notes that it is illegal to “knowingly and wilfully” withhold or “cover up” a “material fact” from a federal inquiry.

The CIA insisted on Saturday it had gone to great lengths to help the commission, which was set up to investigate al-Qaeda’s 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

The agency’s spokesman Mark Mansfield said: “Because it was thought the commission could ask about tapes at some point, they were not destroyed while the commission was active.”

But one of the commission chairmen, former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton, told the New York Times the CIA had “clearly obstructed” the commission’s work.

The CIA and the Department of Justice have already launched an inquiry into the erasing of the tapes.

The agency said the footage was deleted to protect the identities of agents and because it was no longer of intelligence value.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7157993.stm

FBI aims to amass huge database

0

FBI aims to amass huge database of people’s physical characteristics

By Ellen Nakashima

The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world’s largest computer database of people’s physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.

Digital images of faces, fingerprints and palm patterns are flowing into FBI systems in a climate-controlled, secure basement in Clarksburg. Next month, the FBI intends to award a 10-year contract that would significantly expand the amount and kinds of biometric information it receives.

In coming years, law-enforcement authorities around the world may be able to use iris patterns, face-shape data, scars and perhaps the unique ways people walk and talk to solve crimes and identify criminals and terrorists.

The FBI also will retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law.

“Bigger. Faster. Better. That’s the bottom line,” said Thomas Bush III, assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), which operates the growing database from its headquarters in the Appalachian foothills.

The increasing use of biometrics for identification is raising questions about the ability of Americans to avoid unwanted scrutiny. It also is drawing criticism from those who worry that people’s bodies will become de facto national-identification cards. Critics said such government initiatives should not proceed without proof the technology can pick a criminal out of a crowd.

The use of biometric data is increasing throughout the government. For the past two years, the Defense Department has been storing in a database images of fingerprints, irises and faces of more than 1.5 million Iraqi and Afghan detainees, Iraqi citizens and foreigners who need access to U.S. military bases. The Pentagon also collects DNA samples from some Iraqi detainees that are stored separately.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been using iris scans at some airports to verify the identity of travelers who have passed background checks and who want to move through lines quickly. The department also is looking to apply iris- and face-recognition techniques to other programs.

The DHS has a database of millions of sets of fingerprints that include records collected from U.S. and foreign travelers stopped at borders for criminal violations, from U.S. citizens adopting children overseas and from visa applicants abroad.

“It’s going to be an essential component of tracking,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s enabling the always-on-surveillance society.”

If successful, the FBI system, Next Generation Identification, will collect a wide variety of biometric information in one place for identification and forensic purposes.

In an underground facility the size of two football fields, a request reaches an FBI server every second from somewhere in the United States or Canada, comparing a set of digital fingerprints against the FBI’s database of 55 million sets of electronic fingerprints. A possible match is made – or ruled out – up to 100,000 times a day.

Soon, the server at CJIS headquarters also will compare palm prints and, eventually, iris images and face-shape data, such as the shape of an earlobe.

If all goes as planned, a police officer making a traffic stop or a border agent at the airport could run a 10-fingerprint check on a suspect and within seconds know if the person is on a database of the most-wanted criminals and terrorists. An analyst could take palm prints lifted from a crime scene and run them against the expanded database. Intelligence agents could exchange biometric information worldwide.

More than 55 percent of the search requests now are made for background checks on civilians in sensitive positions in the federal government and jobs that involve children and the elderly, Bush said. Those prints are destroyed or returned when the checks are completed.

But the FBI is planning a “rap-back” service, under which employers could ask the FBI to keep employees’ fingerprints in the database, subject to state privacy laws, so that if employees are arrested or charged with a crime, the employers would be notified.

Advocates said bringing together information from a wide variety of sources and making it available to multiple agencies increases the chances of catching criminals. The Pentagon has matched several Iraqi suspects against the FBI’s criminal-fingerprint database. The FBI intends to make criminal and civilian data available to authorized users, officials said. There are 900,000 federal, state and local law-enforcement officers who can query the fingerprint database today, they said.

The FBI’s biometric database, which includes criminal-history records, communicates with the Terrorist Screening Center’s database of suspects and the National Crime Information Center database, which is the FBI’s master criminal database of felons, fugitives and terrorism suspects.

The FBI is building its system according to standards shared by Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

At the West Virginia University Center for Identification Technology Research, 45 minutes north of the FBI’s biometric facility in Clarksburg, researchers are working on capturing images of people’s irises at distances of up to 15 feet, and of faces from as far away as 200 yards. Soon, those researchers will do biometric research for the FBI.

Covert iris- and face-image capture is several years away, but it is of great interest to government agencies.

Skeptics said such projects are proceeding before there is evidence they reliably match suspects against a huge database.

In the world’s first large-scale study on how well face recognition works in a crowd, the German government this year found that the technology, while promising, was not effective enough to allow its use by police.

The study was conducted from October 2006 through January at a train station in Mainz, Germany, which draws 23,000 passengers daily. The study found that the technology was able to match travelers’ faces against a database of volunteers more than 60 percent of the time during the day, when the lighting was best. But the rate fell to 10 to 20 percent at night.

To achieve those rates, the German police agency said it would tolerate a false positive rate of 0.1 percent, or the erroneous identification of 23 people a day. In real life, those 23 people would be subjected to further screening, the report said.

Accuracy improves as techniques are combined, said Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI’s biometric-services section chief. The Next Generation database is intended to “fuse” fingerprint-, face-, iris- and palm-matching capabilities by 2013, she said.

To safeguard privacy, audit trails are kept on everyone who has access to a record in the fingerprint database, Del Greco said. People may request copies of their records, and the FBI audits all agencies that have access to the database every three years, she said.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), said the ability to share data across systems is problematic. “You’re giving the federal government access to an extraordinary amount of information linked to biometric identifiers that is becoming increasingly inaccurate,” he said.

In 2004, EPIC objected to the FBI’s exemption of the National Crime Information Center database from the Privacy Act requirement that records be accurate. The group noted that the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2001 found that information in the system was “not fully reliable” and that files “may be incomplete or inaccurate.”

FBI officials justified that exemption by claiming that in law-enforcement data collection, “it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete.”

Privacy advocates worry about the ability of people to correct false information.

“Unlike say, a credit-card number, biometric data is forever,” said Paul Saffo, a Silicon Valley technology forecaster. He said he feared the FBI, whose computer-technology record has been marred by expensive failures, could not guarantee the data’s security.

“If someone steals and spoofs your iris image, you can’t just get a new eyeball,” Saffo said.

In the future, said Center for Identification Technology Research Director Lawrence Hornak, devices will be able to “recognize us and adapt to us.”

“The long-term goal is ubiquitous use of biometrics,” Hornak said. A traveler may walk down an airport corridor and allow his face and iris images to be captured without stepping up to a kiosk and looking into a camera, he said.

“That’s the key,” he said. “You’ve chosen it. You have chosen to say, ‘Yeah, I want this place to recognize me.’ ”

Washington Post staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.

Patient data loss affects 168,000

0

The loss of patient records by the NHS affects 168,000 people, including at least 160,000 children, the Department of Health has said. Nine English NHS trusts have admitted losing confidential patient details in the latest public sector data lapse.

The DoH says patients have been informed and there is no evidence data has fallen into the wrong hands.

The Tories condemned the government for its “failure to protect the personal information which we provide”.

It follows losses of millions of child benefit claimant and driver details.

‘High security encryption’

The DoH confirmed that one of the breaches involved the loss of names and addresses of 160,000 children by City and Hackney Primary Care Trust, after a disc failed to arrive at its destination at St Leonards Hospital in east London.

But it said the data had been encrypted to an “extremely high level of security”.

A DoH spokesperson said: “We believe that an additional 8,000 patients in total may have been affected but even amongst these only a small proportion involves some clinical data, and there is no evidence that this has fallen into the wrong hands.”

It said investigations were under way and action would be taken against anyone who had failed to fulfil their responsibilities under data protection laws.

The other data trusts involved are Bolton Royal Hospital, Sutton and Merton PCT, Sefton Merseyside PCT, Mid-Essex Care Trust, and Norfolk and Norwich.

The East and North Hertfordshire Trust reported a loss but has since found its missing data.

A further disc, lost by Gloucester Partnership Foundation Trust, consisted of archive records relating to patients treated 40 years ago – none of whom is still alive.

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust has reported two breaches – meaning that 10 cases have occurred in total.

The losses involved data stored on laptop computers and data sticks.

Losses ‘unacceptable’

Roy Lilley, a former NHS trust chairman, said the losses were unacceptable: “The NHS has a very good encrypted secure system for sending data around the system and I can’t see why sub-sets of data are being carted round on a memory stick.”

Mr Lansley said: “You have to wonder why on earth it took the Revenue and Customs to lose their discs and for government to institute an inquiry across government for these losses of data to come to light.

“It does feel like there’s a sense in government, all parts of government, that we’re required to provide data and we are constantly told that it will be protected but in reality that level of protection simply isn’t there.”

Central database plans

Health minister Dawn Primarolo said: “What it is really important to stress is how important patient security and confidentiality is and how each of these trusts is moving to deal with this.

“And given we have hundreds and hundreds of trusts I think that patients should be confident that their information is being held appropriately.”

The DoH indicated the episode would not prevent the NHS’s central computer database going ahead.

A spokesperson said: “These breaches are in no way related to the National Programme for IT (NPfIT); indeed the NPfIT will help avoid such incidents, as it has particularly strong data protection rules and the highest standards of security control.”

Police are still searching for two computer discs containing the names, addresses, dates of birth and bank account details of every child benefit claimant after it emerged they had been lost in the post by HM Revenue and Customs in November.

Then on Monday it was revealed the details of three million learner drivers had also been lost after being sent to Iowa in America’s mid-west.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7158688.stm

White House Can Keep Its Secrets – For Now

0

Bush Admin. May Keep Visitor Records Private While Appealing Court Decision To Open Files

AP 

A federal judge agreed Friday to let the Bush administration keep secret the lists of visitors to the White House until an appeals court decides whether the documents are public records.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted the White House request five days after ordering the Secret Service to turn over the records to a liberal watchdog group that sought them under the Freedom of Information Act.

The logs being sought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington relate to White House visits regarding nine conservative religious commentators, including James Dobson, Gary Bauer and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Visitor records are created by the Secret Service, which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The Bush administration ordered the data be turned over to the White House, where it is treated as presidential records outside the scope of the public records law.

Lamberth ruled logs from the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney’s residence remain Secret Service documents and are subject to public records requests.

US urges others to help shut Gitmo

0

US Secretary of State has urged countries that have nationals in Guantanamo Bay to help Washington close the detention center.

“We need some help in closing Guantanamo,” said Condoleezza Rice.

Rice added that since the freed inmates could go on to jeopardize international security, the countries should guarantee the “bad people” in custody would not be a danger when released.

She said the camp contained dangerous men who had been plotting against capitals in the US, Europe and South East Asia and had been caught during the US invasion of Afghanistan.

Hundreds of people are currently being held in US prisons at Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba after the invasion of Afghanistan in early 2002.

UN officials have strongly criticized the human rights violations at the US prison and have expressed concern at US treatment of the detainees, US military courts, and its interrogation techniques.

SBB/RA

CIA ‘impeded 9/11 panel’s inquiry’

0

The CIA has purposely impeded the Sep. 11 Commission’s inquiry by withholding interrogation videos, say the two chairmen of the panel.

The CIA ‘clearly obstructed’ the Commission’s investigation, said Lee H. Hamilton.

“I don’t know whether that’s illegal or not, but it’s certainly wrong,” said Thomas H. Kean, other Chairman of the Commission.

A CIA spokesman has claimed that the commission staff members never specifically asked for the videos.

A seven-page memorandum prepared by Philip D. Zelicow, the panel’s former executive director, recounts a meeting on December 2003 between Hamilton and George Tenet, then the director of the agency.

In the meeting, Hamilton told Tenet that the CIA should provide all relevant documents even if the Commission had not specifically asked for them.

According to the memorandum, Tenet in response to Hamilton made no mention of the videotapes of interrogations.

The memorandum reiterates that federal law penalizes anyone who knowingly and willfully withholds or covers up a material fact from a federal inquiry or makes any false statement to investigators.

MHE/RE

New High-Tech Cameras Are Watching You

0

In the era of computer-controlled surveillance, your every move could be captured by cameras, whether you’re shopping in the grocery store or driving on the freeway. Proponents say it will keep us safe, but at what cost?

A dome camera in Lyon, France. Intelligent surveillance networks are commonplace in European cities. Now, many American municipalities are building similar systems. (Photograph by Getty Images)

The ferry arrived, the gangway went down and 7-year-old Emma Powell rushed toward the Statue of Liberty. She climbed onto the grass around the star-shaped foundation. She put on a green foam crown with seven protruding rays. Turning so that her body was oriented just like Lady Liberty’s, Emma extended her right arm skyward with an imaginary torch. I snapped a picture. Then I took my niece’s hand, and we went off to buy some pretzels.

Other people were taking pictures, too, and not just the other tourists–Liberty Island, name notwithstanding, is one of the most heavily surveilled places in America. Dozens of cameras record hundreds of hours of video daily, a volume that strains the monitoring capability of guards. The National Park Service has enlisted extra help, and as Emma and I strolled around, we weren’t just being watched by people. We were being watched by machines.

Liberty Island’s video cameras all feed into a computer system. The park doesn’t disclose details, but fully equipped, the system is capable of running software that analyzes the imagery and automatically alerts human overseers to any suspicious events. The software can spot when somebody abandons a bag or backpack. It has the ability to discern between ferryboats, which are allowed to approach the island, and private vessels, which are not. And it can count bodies, detecting if somebody is trying to stay on the island after closing, or assessing when people are grouped too tightly together, which might indicate a fight or gang activity. “A camera with artificial intelligence can be there 24/7, doesn’t need a bathroom break, doesn’t need a lunch break and doesn’t go on vacation,” says Ian Ehrenberg, former vice president of Nice Systems, the program’s developer.

Most Americans would probably welcome such technology at what clearly is a marquee terrorist target. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in July 2007 found that 71 percent of Americans favor increased video surveillance. What people may not realize, however, is that advanced monitoring systems such as the one at the Statue of Liberty are proliferating around the country. High-profile national security efforts make the news–wiretapping phone conversations, Internet moni­toring–but state-of-the-art surveillance is increasingly being used in more every-day settings. By local police and businesses. In banks, schools and stores. There are an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras now deployed in the United States shooting 4 billion hours of footage a week. Americans are being watched, all of us, almost everywhere.

We have arrived at a unique moment in the history of surveillance. The price of both megapixels and gigabytes has plummeted, making it possible to collect a previously unimaginable quantity and quality of data. Advances in processing power and software, meanwhile, are beginning to allow computers to surmount the greatest limitation of traditional surveillance–the ability of eyeballs to effectively observe the activity on dozens of video screens simultaneously. Computers can’t do all the work by themselves, but they can expand the capabilities of humans exponentially.

Security expert Bruce Schneier says that it is naive to think that we can stop these technological advances, especially as they become more affordable and are hard-wired into everyday businesses. (I know of a local pizzeria that warns customers with a posted sign: “Stop stealing the spice shakers! We know who you are, we have 24-hour surveillance!”) But it is also reckless to let the advances proceed without a discussion of safeguards against privacy abuses. “Society is fundamentally changing and we aren’t having a conversation about it,” Schneier says. “We are entering the era of wholesale surveillance.”

3VR searchable surveillance

A Face in the Crowd Used by banks, hotels and retail stores, 3VR’s “searchable surveillance” systems automatically create a template of every face that passes in front of security cameras (it caught our author here at a Chicago hotel check-in counter). The system creates a mathematical model based on the geometry of each person’s face that can be compared to a central list of known suspects for instant alerts. The technology can also automatically log events based on an automated object recognition analysis of an entire scene–for example, Frank Jones met with Doris Meeker at 12:45 pm; Meeker arrived in a blue sedan. Because all events are cataloged, several months’ worth of data can be analyzed in minutes.

Earlier this year, on a hot summer afternoon, I left my Brooklyn apartment to do some shoplifting.

I cruised the aisles of the neighborhood grocery store, a Pathmark, tossing items into my cart like a normal shopper would–Frosted Mini-Wheats, Pledge Wipes, a bag of carrots. Then I put them on the belt at checkout. My secret was on the lower level of the cart: a 12-pack of beer, concealed and undetectable. Or so I thought. Midway through checkout the cashier addressed me, no malice in her voice, but no doubt either. “Do you want to ring up that beer?”

My heist had been condoned by Pedro Ramos, Pathmark’s vice president of loss prevention, though he didn’t know precisely when or where I was going to attempt it. The beer was identified by an object-recognition scanner at ankle level–a LaneHawk, manufactured by Evolution Robotics–which prompted the cashier’s question. Overhead, a camera recorded the incident and an alert was triggered in Ramos’s office miles away on Staten Island. He immediately pulled up digital video and later relayed what he saw. “You concealed a 12-pack of Coronas on the bottom of the cart by strategically placing newspaper circulars so as to obstruct the view of the cashier.”

Busted.

Pathmark uses StoreVision, a powerful video analytic and data-mining system. There are as many as 120 cameras in some stores, and employees with high-level security clearances can log on via the Web and see what any one of them is recording in real time. An executive on vacation in Brussels could spy on the frozen-food aisle in Brooklyn.

In 2006 theft and fraud cost American stores $41.6 billion, an all-time high. Employee theft accounted for nearly half of the total (shoplifting was only a third), so much of the surveillance aims to catch in-house crooks. If the cashier had given me the beer for free–employees often work with an outside accomplice–the system would know by automatically comparing what the video recorded with what the register logged. The technol­ogies employed by Pathmark don’t stop crime but they make a dent; weekly losses are reduced by an average of 15 percent.

Pathmark archives every transaction of every customer, and the grocery chain is hardly alone. Amazon knows what you read; Netflix, your taste in movies. Search engines such as Google and Yahoo retain your queries for months, and can identify searches by IP address–sometimes by individual computer. Many corporations log your every transaction with a stated goal of reducing fraud and improving marketing efforts. Until fairly recently it was impractical to retain all this data. But now the low cost of digital storage–you can get a terabyte hard drive for less than $350–makes nearly limitless archiving possible.

So what’s the problem? “The concern is that information collected for one purpose is used for something entirely different down the road,” says Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

This may sound like a privacy wonk’s paranoia. But examples abound. Take E-ZPass. Drivers signed up for the system to speed up toll collection. But 11 states now supply E-ZPass records–when and where a toll was paid, and by whom–in response to court orders in criminal cases. Seven of those states provide information in civil cases such as divorce, proving, for instance, that a husband who claimed he was at a meeting in Pennsylvania was actually heading to his lover’s house in New Jersey. (New York divorce lawyer Jacalyn Barnett has called E-ZPass the “easy way to show you took the offramp to adultery.”)

On a case-by-case basis, the collection of surveillance footage and customer data is usually justifiable and benign. But the totality of information being amassed combined with the relatively fluid flow of that data can be troubling. Corporations often share what they know about customers with government agencies and vice versa. AT&T, for example, is being sued by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties group, for allowing the National Security Agency almost unlimited access to monitor customers’ e-mails, phone calls and Internet browsing activity.

“We are heading toward a total surveillance society in which your every move, your every transaction, is duly registered and recorded by some computer,” says Jay Stanley, a privacy expert with the American Civil Liberties Union.

License Plate Readers

Clean Plate Club License-plate readers from companies such as Remington-Elsag use high-intensity infrared cameras that are mounted on the outside of police patrol cars (or even helicopters) or set up in static locations. On patrol cars, the system operates independ-ently while the officer drives, automatically checking plates from up to four lanes of traffic against an on-board “hot list” of wanted vehicles. It uses optical character recognition to differentiate letters and digits from background noise such as images and grime. It reads up to 900 plates per minute from up to 50 ft. away with greater than 95 percent accuracy.

In the late 18th century, English philosopher Jeremy Bentham dreamed up a new type of prison: the panopticon. It would be built so that guards could see all of the prisoners at all times without their knowing they were being watched, creating “the sentiment of an invisible omniscience,” Bentham wrote. America is starting to resemble a giant panopticon, according to surveillance critics like Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia. “Were Bentham alive today, he probably would be the most sought-after consultant on the planet,” he recently wrote in a Washington Times op-ed.

One of the most popular new technologies in law enforcement is the license-plate reader, or LPR. The leading manufacturer is Remington-Elsag, based in Madison, N.C. Its Mobile Plate Hunter 900 consists of cameras mounted on the outside of a squad car and connected to a computer database in the vehicle. The plate hunter employs optical-character-recognition technology originally developed for high-speed mail sorting. LPRs automate the process of “running a plate” to check if a vehicle is stolen or if the driver has any outstanding warrants. The sensors work whether the police car is parked or doing 75 mph. An officer working the old-fashioned way might check a couple dozen plates a shift. The LPR can check 10,000.

New York’s Long Beach Police Department is one of more than 200 agencies around the country that use LPRs, and I rode in a squad car with Sgt. Bill Dodge to see the technology at work. A computer screen mounted in front of the glovebox flashed black-and-white images of every photographed plate; low alarms, like the sounds of your character dying in an ’80s video game, droned for the problem cars. Over the course of a couple of hours we didn’t net any car thieves or kidnappers, but Dodge’s LPR identified dozens of cars with suspended or revoked registrations. He said that the system doesn’t violate anyone’s privacy–”there’s no magic technology that lets it see inside a garage”–and praised its fairness. “It doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, old, young, a man or a woman, the system cannot discriminate. It looks at everyone and everything.”

Continue…

Privacy Fast Becoming Obsolete

0

Almost every move you make is being watched – and privacy is fast becoming obsolete, writes Gerard Wright.

If Hollywood and its movies are America thinking aloud, then a very interesting thought bubble has just appeared over the map of the United States.

The bubble appears, naturally, in the form of a film, Look, which opened in US cinemas this month. It weaves a range of stories with entwining themes of sex, blackmail, crime and alienation, with a twist: every scene of the film is shot from the perspective of a surveillance camera, from the bubble lens above an ATM, to the elevated perspective of the security cameras that are ubiquitous and sometimes invisible, across the US.

As entertainment, the jury will return a verdict by the end of the year. As a statement of the American and world zeitgeist, Look is impeccable in its timing.

The US, like Australia and Britain, has taken fear as a guiding principle, and used it to introduce or justify wide-ranging security and surveillance programs as a means of preventing terrorist attacks such as those in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, in Bali in October 2002, and London in July 2005.

In the US the focus has been on preventing another attack, and protecting the “homeland”. It was the justification for the invasion of Iraq, and for the process known as “data-mining” where tens of millions of phone call records are scoured, and billions of calls and emails are monitored.

On a localised level, there is what Yvonne Cager, a video surveillance marketing manager at Texas Instruments, called the “drive to have more eyes everywhere”. An IBM report last year estimated there were 26 million surveillance cameras in the US, while the iSuppli research company forecasts that international sales of surveillance systems will more than double to 66 million units by 2011.

One of these cameras caught Look’s director, Adam Rifkin, singing along to a song in his car as he passed through an intersection, triggering a red light camera. The image Rifkin saw with the fine that arrived in the mail a week or so later was astonishingly sharp and unflattering.

“I felt violated,” he says, but also inspired. Rifkin began looking for surveillance cameras, and the laws that govern their use. The cameras were everywhere and saw everyone. By Rifkin’s assessment, the average American could expect to be filmed 200 times a day. The laws governing that coverage were surprisingly lax.

“In 37 states it’s legal for hidden cameras to be in dressing rooms and bathrooms,” Rifkin says. “I wanted to throw a bucket of cold water onto the public’s obliviousness about these cameras.”

Continue…

IPCC Menezes decision a ‘scandal’

0

No-one is to be punished for police failings that led to an innocent man being shot dead on a Tube train.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said four senior officers, including Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, should not face disciplinary action over the shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.

But the 27-year-old electrician’s family branded the decision – which brings a series of police watchdog reviews into the tragedy to a close – a “scandal”.

Campaigners criticised the IPCC’s decision to conclude the case before an inquest – expected to take place next year – and accused the watchdog of trying to bury bad news. But Scotland Yard said the decision was a “move forward” which would finally end uncertainty hanging over the four officers and their families.

Eleven other Metropolitan Police officers originally questioned under caution over the killing had already been told they would not face disciplinary action. That left Ms Dick and three other senior officers – known only by the codenames Silver, Trojan 84 and Trojan 80 – still facing possible action.

No individual faced criminal charges but the force itself was convicted on a general health and safety count at the Old Bailey last month.

Mr Menezes was gunned down at close range in a Tube carriage at Stockwell station in south London on July 22 2005. Police had mistaken him for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman, part of the gang which tried and failed to blow up passengers on Tube trains across the capital the previous day.

The Metropolitan Police was eventually fined £175,000 and ordered to pay £385,000 costs after being convicted of exposing the public to risk at the Old Bailey trial. But the jury took the unusual step of adding a rider to its verdict saying that “no personal culpability” should be attached to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner.

They concluded that Ms Dick, who was the gold commander in charge of the operation that day, had been fed “inaccurate information”. That proved crucial in determining the IPCC decision. The commission became convinced that no disciplinary panel would be likely to come to a different conclusion from that of the jurors who sat through weeks of evidence.

“The IPCC cannot foresee any circumstances in which new evidence might emerge which would cause any disciplinary tribunal to disregard the jury’s rider,” the commission said in a statement announcing the decision.

Media Wales Ltd. icWalesâ„¢

Intel: Israel to attack Iran ultimately

1

A former senior US intelligence official says Israel will ultimately attack Iran in order ‘to defend its nuclear monopoly’ in the region.

“I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel would attack Iran,” said Bruce Riedel, the former CIA official and senior adviser to three US presidents, including George W. Bush, on Thursday.

Riedel said his conversations with Israeli officials and Mossad proved to him that Tel Aviv is planning to strike Iran’s nuclear sites.

“And that was before the NIE [US National Intelligence Estimate]. This makes it even more likely,” Newsweek quoted Riedel as saying.

Political pundits believe the Israelis consider the recent US intelligence assessment as a signal of Washington’s reluctance to follow the Zionist regime’s hawkish policies towards Iran.

Riedel added that the Bush administration’s failure to discuss the NIE report with Israeli intelligence agencies before its release on Dec. 3 only complicated the problem for Israel.

The prevailing view among Israeli intelligence officials is that the NIE has isolated the Zionist regime in its attempts to portray Tehran’s nuclear program as a threat.

MD/HGH/RE

VIDEO: How many times can you vote?

0

TV news investigation about public officials illegally voting multiple times in the Senate.

Police officers cleared in De Menezes case

0

Fred Attewill and agencies

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes have bitterly criticised the decision of the police watchdog that no disciplinary action will be taken against four Metropolitan police officers for their roles in events leading to his fatal shooting.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) decision closes the last of the watchdog’s reviews into the shooting of the innocent Brazilian electrician in July 2005 at Stockwell underground station in south London. An inquest is expected to take place next year.

The Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, Cressida Dick (pictured) who was in charge of the control room, has been cleared, along with three officers on the ground identified only as Silver, Trojan 84 and Trojan 80.

The IPCC ruling means the guilty verdict in the healthy and safety trial at the Old Bailey last month, which saw the Met fined £175,000 for “catastrophic” errors, did not amount to personal misconduct.

In May, the watchdog cleared 11 other officers involved in the shooting.

De Menezes’ cousin, Vivian Figuierdo, called the decision a “scandal” and said it was “entirely premature” to have made the announcement before the inquest.

She said: “If the jury at the health and safety trial found the police guilty of catastrophic errors – why is it that no police officer is being held individually accountable?”

The Menezes family solicitor, Harriet Wistrich, said: “We fear that if new evidence emerges at the inquest, it may be harder to bring disciplinary decisions in the future as officers could argue abuse of process.”

The victim’s family are already taking their case against the decision not to prosecute individuals to the European court of human rights.

Delivering their guilty verdict in the health and safety trial, the jury made clear that Dick bore “no personal culpability” even though she led the operation.

The IPCC said it had considered whether Dick was responsible for planning or management failures that led to the force’s conviction, but found the jury’s rider “unequivocal”.

A spokesman said: “The IPCC cannot foresee any circumstances in which new evidence might emerge which would cause any disciplinary tribunal to disregard the jury’s rider.

“The responsibilities of DAC Dick and Silver, Trojan 84 and Trojan 80 were intertwined. The IPCC cannot see how any disciplinary tribunal could conclude that although no personal blame is attached to DAC Dick, it could attach to the other three officers.”

The Met welcomed the decision as a “move forward”. A spokesman said: “The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes is a matter of deep regret to the Metropolitan police service and our continued thoughts are with his family.

“We acknowledge and welcome today’s recommendation by the IPCC that the remaining four officers should not face disciplinary proceedings for their part in the events of July 22 2005.

“We are pleased by this move forward and for these officers and their families who have faced much uncertainty.”

In a report released after the trial, the IPCC said a string of failings led to the innocent man being shot dead after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.

The report criticised Dick for failing to make it clear that her instruction to “stop” De Menezes did not mean that she wanted him shot. It was revealed that she missed part of a briefing because she was sent to the wrong room and she had been unaware how far out of position a firearms team vital to the operation had been.

De Menezes was followed from a south London address police believed was used by a terrorist suspect. He was supposed to be stopped by elite armed officers, but despite being ordered to get to the scene at 5am, they took more than four hours and were out of position and unable to stop De Menezes until he entered the underground station.

Last week, the IPCC concluded that Andy Hayman, the former Met chief counter-terrorism officer, should be reprimanded for breaking “code five of the police code of conduct that says officers should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties” because of his actions following the shooting.

The Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, was criticised for delaying the IPCC’s investigation into the shooting but has refused to resign and retains the support of the Metropolitan police authority and the government.

VIDEO: Thousands surrendered but still killed by US

A Genocide. Thousands of Taliban that had surrendered were killed by US forces.

VIDEO: Police use of ‘Stun Gun’ for non compliance

0

Police use ‘Stun Gun’ on suspect while booking in at police station

CCTV footage with clear audio…. of a man going through booking procedure in a police station on a felony four charge but he gets stunned, not tasered, for what essentially boils down to non compliance of emptying his pockets.

The U.S. dollar is bouncing off of 30 year lows

0

The U.S. dollar index goes all the way back to March of 1973. However this 30 year chart of the index shows how the U.S. dollar is holding up against a basket of currencies. It’s weighted against 6 currencies (Euro, Japanese yen, Great British pound, Canadian dollar, Swedish krona and Swiss franc).

Click on the chart below to see an enlarged version of it. You’ll find that the index has bounced off of 30 year lows and is heading higher for once in a very long time. Should the bounce continue, it could go some 1600-2000 pips upward before reaching any multi year resistance. That would be huge. This typically happens within 6-12 months historically. So if history repeats itself, we could be in for quite a surprise.

Usd_index_30_yr_low_2
In the short term, the index has already broken some near term downtrend lines as it has rallied over 200 pips. While it still has some ways to go for sure..it’s the first signs of life the buck has had in quite some time.

In the GBP/USD pairing, it has brought the British pound down by over 1,100 pips. This is huge! It’s also brought the EUR/USD pair down by 600 pips. The buck has also rallied against the Canadian dollar (USD/CAD) by 1,000 pips. Yet no one is mentioning this stuff. It’s like it’s flying under the radar or something!

Now that everyone and their mama is on the short side of the dollar, the smart money (big interbanks and hedge funds) are covering their shorts quietly. They realize that the potential upside may very well outweigh the future downside potential in the index.

It’s much like the emotion at Nasdaq 5000. I couldn’t talk the friends or even fellow stock brokers out of selling their shares then. So I cashed out all of my stocks, stock options and 401k and watched it all fall.

I was able to talk some sense into a few people, but not many. When it’s a mania, you know you’re at or near a turning point.

Well history repeats itself….and we’re at another one of those emotional moments where people get adamant about being short the dollar. It’s at these times when it turns and it is a while before anyone notices.

This doesn’t mean the buck can’t have a pull back here and there or even trade in a wide range for a while…but it does likely mean the downtrend is over.

I’m sure this is one of the few places you’ll hear this from. I don’t try to be popular. For if I did the popular thing, I’d be broke. No, the professional has to think on their own unlike the masses that lose tons in the financial markets.

This bottom will take some time to complete more than likely but look for more upside potential in the buck than the downside potential.

So as Canada’s “Time Magazine” names the Canadian dollar as the “Person of the Year”…and the Economist puts the “falling dollar” on its magazine cover…it’s time for a change. The fall of the dollar has gotten too mainstream and now finally everyone is on board the short. That’s when it turns.

http://crooksblog.sovereignsociety.com/2007/12/the-us-dollar-i.html

VIDEO: New Orleans Police Attack Protesters

0

Protesters are pepper sprayed by police as they protest the demolition of several public housing developments in New Orleans

Torture, interrogation and intelligence

0

Lecture on torture techniques by Dr. Larry Forness of the American Military University (Dec 2005). The document explains the rationale behind torturing prisoners, torture methods, and a justification for ignoring international law. Forness advocates the injection of truth serums, threatening to inject Muslim prisoners with pigs’ blood, and torturing detainees’ friends and family.The American Military University teaches courses primarily to US military and associated personnel. Forness, in his faculty biography states “Dr. Larry Forness is a former United States Marine, with expertise in intelligence and unconventional warfare. He provides consulting services to various units of the U.S. Military. He has also worked with special units of our allies, particularly Israel and South Korea.”.

Although the document was likely intended for Forness’ students, it was subsequently circulated within the US military, where it came to the attention of the Wikileaks whistleblower Peryton, who also disclosed Guantanamo Bay’s main manual Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedure (2004), which was authenticated publicly by Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

What I want you to keep in mind as you read this is that we are to assume the following situation: We have somebody in our custody, who we believe has knowledge of an impending terrorist attack, and we think that attack could be VERY serious, but we have less than five days to find out what this person knows about the impending attack.

In this piece, I’m going to specifically address using drugs known as “truth serums” as the means by which we get the intelligence that we need. Some would call this a form of torture.

I want you to know that I don’t glory torture for its own sake. I accept it as a means to survival.

To digress for a moment, and to add a little humor to it, I don’t get any pleasure inflicting pain on anybody, unless you’re a quarterback. I hate quarterbacks. I was a linebacker. Quarterbacks live a charmed life. Think about it. A quarterback never had zits as a kid. He never sweat. He always got the best looking cheerleader. He or his parents always had the best car. The teachers and coaches would let him get away with murder, and yet call him a saint. He always had his picture on the front cover of the football guide and the game-day program. He was the class valedictorian. He never had to dig ditches in 100-degree heat in the summer to make money. Even during practice, he got to wear a different color jersey from anybody else. He could sit down, kneel down, slide down, fall down, lie down, down the damn ball or throw it away, and if you even breathed on him you got penalized 15 yards for roughing the quarterback. I ask you, when was the last time you ever saw any official at any football game — peewee through the pros — ever throw flag on anybody for roughing the linebacker? I rest my case.

When Israel suffers a terrorist attack, almost invariably they retaliate within 24 hours. The reason that they can do this is that they have the world’s best human intelligence (humint), and they know how to interrogate people. Their intelligence is so good and they keep it so current that they know who has attacked them, and they already have plans in existence for retaliation. Their humint sources are not just Israelis, but actual members of the society on which they are spying. They use humint and supplement it by signal intelligence (sigint). We do it just ass-backwards, because we CAN’T do it the way the Israeli’s do it — we simply do not have enough people on the ground. It takes $500,000-1,000,000 and 3-5 years to train and put in place a good humint source (assume this is an American hired by, say, the CIA, to try and infiltrate some terrorist group). NOTHING that is going on at present can quickly change this equation or situation. Forget the hearings, the posturing, the proposals, the realignments, the debate. It’s all based on the INCORRECT assumption that we already have the tools, they just need to be rearranged. We do NOT have all the tools and no flow chart or organization chart can change that.

The Geneva Convention was not signed by any terrorist group. No terrorist should be provided any protection whatsoever under the Geneva Convention.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If you are not a United States citizen, don’t expect protection of our laws.

Therefore, no terrorist — whether running free or in custody — is entitled to any protection under any international law to which we are a signatory or law of the United States.

Most of what follows is what I have learned from Israelis, South Koreans, Russians, as well as Americans.

I want to address several fallacies of interrogation.

Fallacy #1. Torture never works, because a prisoner will tell the interrogators whatever they want to hear just to stop the torture.

That’s based on a faulty assumption. That faulty assumption is that, if you act on the fabricated intelligence provided by the prisoner, and then you find out that it is not correct, that the prisoner does not have to pay a price for lying. Before you ask the prisoner for information, you tell that prisoner that if he or she lies, you will torture the prisoner, the family, the friends, the parakeet, whomever. And then do it.

Fallacy #2. Any prisoner can outwit his or her interrogators.

This doesn’t work with interrogators who are members of a free society, and have very good to excellent intelligence sources to confirm and verify what a prisoner says.

Part of this fallacy was created as a result of what our American POWs told their North Vietnamese interrogators, when those POWs were held in and around Hanoi during the Vietnam War.

North Vietnam was a closed society. That society only heard and saw what their leaders wanted them to hear and see. Our prisoners’ Code of Conduct was changed in response to the brutal torture that our POW’s endured.

Our POWs held out under that torture as long as they could. When they could hold out no longer, they made up something to stop the torture. Incredibly, and to show you how stupid and uninformed the North Vietnamese were, our POWs made up names of superior officers. These names included General Mills (the cereal company), Major Domo, Captain Video, etc. The North Vietnamese interrogators dutifully wrote down this information, smiled smugly, and assumed that they had extracted critical information from their prisoners.

In this sense, yes, the prisoners did outwit the interrogators. In contrast, when our POWs were interrogated by Russians, Cubans, East Germans, and Bulgarians, when they tried to pull the same stunt as they did with the North Vietnamese, our guys were beaten, starved, and tortured unmercifully. Our guys said that you could fool North Vietnamese, but don’t even think about trying it with those other guys.

Fallacy #3. Torture as a means of interrogation is generally not accepted throughout the world.

In point of fact, within the last three years, more than three-quarters of all countries in the world have practiced torture as a means of interrogation. This applies to their own citizens, as well as foreigners, whether combatants or not.

Bleeding hearts just don’t get it. On the one hand, they kept telling us to allow the weapons inspectors in Iraq more and more and more time and more and more and more time to uncover weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, once the President declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, the bleeding hearts started screeching that the rebuilding and democratization of Iraq wasn’t happening fast enough. On the third hand, they run their hands at how quickly we had placed prisoners into detention facilities. This herky-jerky, stop-and-go, inconsistency is nothing more than political opportunism.

Even the ACLU got involved, not on behalf of Americans, but on behalf of our enemies. If you didn’t know this, read this and burn it in your memory: The ACLU was founded by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. You should never again wonder why the ACLU is trying to tear apart the moral and legal fiber of this country.

Fallacy #4. These things called “truths serums” don’t really work.

They do work to varying degrees of success.

There are three primary truth serums.

Here they are.

Scopolamine (scopolamine hydrobromide; first word pronounced: skoh-PAW-lah-mean), also known by another name — hyoscine (hyoscine hydrobromide). It is colorless, odorless and tasteless. Its clinical uses are primarily as a sedative, and applied locally (directly) as a mydriatic, which causes the pupil of the eye to dilate. When used as a sedative, the primary uses are to combat vertigo and motion sickness. When used with morphine and pentobarbital, to a woman in labor, it produces a “twilight sleep.” It is also used as a premedication preliminary to surgery anesthesia.

Since scopolamine completely blocks the formation of memories, unlike most date-rape drugs used in the United States and elsewhere, it is usually impossible for victims to ever identify their aggressors (or interrogators, if you were a prisoner).

To use scopolamine most effectively to get a prisoner to tell you what he or she knows, the key is where you inject it, and in what amounts. Normally it is introduced into the body by a transdermal patch or intravenously in the arm. However, if you inject it into the spine (amount classified), it causes absolutely incredible pain, accompanied by violent convulsions and seizures. If injected into the spine in the appropriate amount, more than 95% of all prisoners will tell the truth — not something fabricated to stop the pain — within 24 hours (Source: classified).

A far milder form of psychological abuse involves exposing prisoners (intravenously or orally) to sodium pentathol–commonly known as “truth serum.” Sodium pentathol is an ultra-short-acting barbiturate that depresses the central nervous system, slows heart rate, and lowers blood pressure. In the relaxed state produced by the drug, subjects are more susceptible to suggestion and are therefore easier to interrogate. The drug does not actually guarantee that prisoners will tell the truth, however. Often, it makes subjects “gabby” without revealing any important information.

Sodium amythal, also known as a type of “truth serum,” with its clinical application in psychoanalysis, is used primarily to help in memory recovery and dealing with “false” memories. If you can confuse the prisoner as to what is a real memory and what is a false memory, you might be able to crack their resistance to telling the truth. However, if the prisoner is smart, he or she will simply shut up and you’ll get nothing from them.

What is interesting is that a prisoner could have been subjected to a truth serum singularly, or two or three over enough time given the appropriate washout of the prisoner’s system, and flatly state that he or she did not tell his or her interrogators anything. From his or her perspective, he or she is telling the truth — because he or she has no memory of telling interrogators anything. That’s the truth in his or her own mind, but it is not the fact of the situation.

In terms of training individuals to resist the three aforementioned truth serums, it is easiest to train someone to resist the sodium amythal, followed by sodium pentathol. There is no known training that will allow anyone to resist scopolamine, when injected into the spine in the correct amount.

What you don’t want to do is “stack” scopolamine with sodium pentathol and sodium amythal. “Stacking” means adding one drug on top of another before the previous drug(s) has/have washed out of the system. You stack on somebody, you’ll kill them.

When time is not a consideration, and when used in conjunction with skilled interrogators on a prisoner who has not been trained to resist the effects, sodium pentathol and sodium amythal will get you the truth in approximately 10% to one third of the cases. When the truth absolutely positively has to be there within five days, forget them — use scopolamine injected into the spine.
I don’t honestly know if we have used any of these truth serums on Saddam Hussein. Too bad if we didn’t. My clearance doesn’t extend that high. For those of you who don’t know — and to oversimplify it — there are four different levels of security clearances. They are: secret; top-secret; top-secret/code word; beyond top-secret/code word. The words “code word” could be something like UMBRA. So if I had that level, I would be cleared top-secret/UMBRA, which means I would be allowed to see or hear anything that is secret, top-secret, and — separately — anything that a classified under the code word UMBRA.

In 1909, before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the island of Mindanao in the Philippines, by Muslim extremists. General “Black Jack” Pershing was the appointed military governor of the Moro Province. He captured 50 terrorists and ordered them to be tied to posts for execution. Since all the prisoners were Muslim, he asked his men to bring two pigs and slaughter them in front of the prisoners. He then proceeded by dipping bullets into the pig’s blood.

In the process he executed 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. Then, the soldiers dug a big hole in the ground and dumped in the terrorists’ bodies and covered them in pig’s blood and viscera. The last man was set free. For 42 years there was not a single Muslim attack anywhere in the world.

His rationale was quite simple and effective. Since a radical Muslim is willing to give his life for his religion in a Jihad war, killing him would not make much difference. He would be seen as a martyr (shahada).

But the General knew that all Muslims believe in eternal life after death with 72 virgins waiting for them in paradise. He also knew that those that embrace Jihad usually prepare themselves physically and spiritually in case they die in combat.

Since the pig is considered forbidden food (haram) in Islam, Pershing introduced this variable to thwart their hopes to enter Allah’s kingdom. The pig’s blood automatically nullified any prior purification by contaminating their bodies.

My interrogation technique is quite simple. I follow General Pershing’s example and order a pig to be slaughtered near the prisoner. The blood of the animal run’s freely toward the prisoner’s feet. He will immediately lift his knees to avoid making contact with it. I fill a syringe with the pig’s blood and threaten to inject him in the arm. The prisoner will talk — and quickly.

Fair? Depends on your perspective. Effective? Extremely.

A century ago, General Pershing’s quick thinking installed a great fear in a large sector of the Muslim population in Mindanao putting an end to any type of subversion in an Island that resents the presence of non-Muslims.

Last, here are a few tips in terms of determining if who you have in custody really is a Muslim: Since most of the concentration is on Islamic terrorism, these are a few signs that very few people know about.

A serious Muslim that prays 5 times a day has a small dark discoloration on his forehead.

If he wears jewelry, it has to be silver and not gold — usually a silver ring with a space inside where there is a passage from the Koran.

Another important pointer comes from physical anthropology, and deals with faces and body structures. A real Muslim keeps his left hand away from his food, usually under the table.

Bottom line: there are effective ways to get the truth from a prisoner under interrogation. Some work better than others. When drugs are used, both the person administering the drug, as well as the interrogator, must be expert at their profession. When time is the most important consideration, you’re left with very few options. Whatever the situation, KNOW YOUR ENEMY.

What I say here are my own opinions, based upon fact. They are not to be construed as the policy or official position of APUS. As always, you are free to accept or reject anything I say, and verify it by any means you wish.

Thank you.

Doc

Retrieved from “https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Torture%2C_interrogation_and_intelligence

Holiday Season Hypocrisy

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

Christmas is observed December 25 by Christians and others celebrating the spirit of the season while for those of the Eastern Orthodox faith the holiday falls on January 7. It’s to honor the birth of Jesus Christ even though it’s widely acknowledged not to be his birthday. Along with its religious significance, the season is also for other celebratory events like winter festivals, parties, family get-togethers and Kwanzaa from December 26 – January 1 for Africans Americans to reconnect to their cultural and historical heritage. Jews as well celebrate the season with the Hanukkah Festival of Lights. It’s to commemorate their struggle for survival, but for Jewish children it’s their Christmas with gifts from parents like their Christian friends get.

Christmas is also the time when the national obsession to shop and consume reaches its zenith. It traditionally begins the day after Thanksgiving, runs through Christmas eve, and after the holiday continues into January with plenty of extra buying power from holiday gift cards, year-end bonuses and other resources gotten or borrowed. It’s for everything people never knew they wanted until creative advertising wizardry made their lives incomplete without them.

Perhaps this single dominant trait characterizes American culture more than any other. It’s a variant of the kind of consumerism economist/sociologist Thorstein Veblen called “conspicuous” in his 1899 book “The Theory of the Leisure Class.” F. Scott Fitzgerald explained that “the very rich….are different from you and me.” Veblen wrote about their spending habits and coined the phrase “conspicuous consumption.” Today, it’s called “keeping up with the Joneses” or consumerism, and it’s practiced by status-seeking people obsessed with personal gratification. But not just by the rich. Most people, except the poor, do it and to excess.

The term “consumption” originated hundreds of years ago. Then, it referred to infectious tuberculosis or TB. But its original meaning is relevant in today’s acquisitive society where consuming for essentials is worlds apart from gluttonous consumerism. This variant refers to overindulgent shopping and spending for things people buy irrespective of need but not without consequences for themselves and society.

Untreated TB, or consumption, consumes its victims in a slow, painful death. Consumerism mimics it with it’s similarly harmful fallout: ecological destruction; unhealthy and unsafe consumer products; corporate empowerment; profits pursued over people; militarism and foreign wars; health, education and other essential needs neglected; and democratic decay in a corporatist state disdaining the public interest.

People take pride saying “when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping” – but not without consequences. The personal fallout is over-indebtedness millions can’t handle in the wake of unexpected medical emergencies or loss of employment. The toll: since the early 1980s one in seven families forced into bankruptcy, over 2 million in 2005 alone (30% above 2004), and millions more ahead from unchecked borrow and binge-spending made worse by the subprime crisis.

Overindulgent spending is what clinicians call an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). At its worst, it’s pathologically characterized by obsessive, repetitive thoughts that need compulsive tasks and rituals to relieve. For addicted consumers, it’s an obsession to shop and spend and a compulsion to buy and accumulate. In excess, it’s clinically pathological and destructive when it causes bankruptcy.

In America and the West, tens of millions of otherwise normal people shop excessively for what they never knew they wanted until Madison Avenue mind manipulators convinced them. Economist Paul Baran described the process as making us “want what we don’t need (all unessential consumer goods and services) and not….what we do (good health care, education, clean air and water, safe food, and good government providing essential services).”

Future insolvency is risked, but few consider the possibility until it’s too late. It’s worst at Christmas when it becomes a pathological orgy of frenzied spending dismissively called getting into the holiday spirit. Maybe for merchants, but not when bills come due with growing millions unable to pay them or needing more debt to delay for later what they can’t handle now.

Institutionalized consumerism also plays into social control. It’s empowered when people are focused on bread and circus distractions that include the sights and sounds of the season. Media theorist Neil Postman once called Americans the most over-entertained and under-informed people in the world and wrote about it in books like “Amusing Ourselves to Death.” Attracted to self-gratification and its reinforcing images, they’re diverted from what matters most – challenging wars of aggression, loss of civil liberties and human rights, violations of law, gutted social services, environmental harm, and policies benefitting the privileged at the expense of beneficial social change.

Consumerism also lets corporate power prosper and grow. It feeds unfettered capitalism and out-of-control greed. It helps direct our tax dollars to a militarized state instead of going for essential social needs. It diverts the national wealth to an imperial juggernaut that consumers finance through overindulgence. The more we shop, the stronger it gets and is better able to exploit new markets, resources and cheap labor at the expense of the more expensive kind at home whose future consumption is endangered by today’s self-gratifying excesses.

Adam Smith was capitalism’s ideological godfather who was also concerned about concentrated wealth and wrote about it in “The Wealth of Nations.” He explained an “invisible hand” of unseen forces worked best in a free market with many small businesses competing locally against each other. He contrasted them with concentrated mercantilism and wrote about the “merchants and manufacturers” who used their power to wreak “dreadful misfortunes” and grave injustices on the vast majority of people using the British East India Company as a case study example.

Today’s monopoly capitalism would have been unimaginable in his day, but he’d recognize it. He wrote that throughout history we find the wreckage of the “vile maxim of the masters of mankind….All for ourselves and nothing for other people….unless government takes pains to prevent” this outcome. No invisible hand works in manipulated markets where governments sanction Smith’s “vile maxim,” and the greater good is nowhere in sight. Under neoliberal rules, capital wins, people lose, and consumerism makes things worse. It’s most extreme at Christmas when shopping trumps the holiday’s meaning and seasonal sights and sounds drown out everything else.

The toll is tragic. Whatever Christmas was, it no longer is, and our behavior corrupts it and the spirit of the man it honors. He spread it in deeds and teachings from his Sermon on the Mount and message to “turn the other cheek,” love thy neighbor, not kill, and do unto others as you’d want them doing to you. The consumerist ethic glorifies receiving, not giving; condoning predatory capitalism and ignoring its harm; neglecting the greater good; sanctifying overindulgence while forgetting those most in need throughout the year. In the spirit of the season, thoughts should be on helping others and giving thanks. In an unfettered marketplace, it’s impossible.

It’s a sad testimony to a society obsessed with greed and gratification at the expense of beneficial social change. At Christmas, it defiles the holiday spirit and forgets the needy. For them, Christmas is “Bah Humbug,” and Santa Scrooge – all take and no give.

New Year’s Day

New Year’s day is one week after Christmas and concludes the long holiday season. It starts after Thanksgiving, reaches a climax around Christmas, ebbs for a day and builds again for a final celebratory new year’s welcome with more overindulgent eating, drinking, partying, and binge-shopping for nonessentials.

The new year is also a traditional time for resolutions that include some with merit like losing weight, quitting smoking and getting fit. Most are forgotten, and those most important never made: working for peace, good will toward others, loving they neighbor, respecting everyone, and treating people as we want to be treated in a society of caring and sharing with equity and justice for all. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful resolution for the new year. Long ago in simpler times before the old world became America, it was that way. It can be again, but wishing won’t make it so.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sj.lendman.blogspot.com and listen each Saturday to the Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.

History of Presidential Drug & Alcohol Abuse

5

Sobercircle.com

George W. Bush

There has been no shortage of controversy when it comes to the younger years of our current president. Described as irresponsible and a risk-taker, Bush has admitted to an excess of alcohol consumption for much of his early life. He was well known for drinking in excess throughout college, and for being the type of drunk who acted out and lost all inhibitions. From his early twenties until the time he was 30, Bush was arrested for disorderly conduct, was seen acting inappropriately in a number of high class social situations, and was arrested for driving drunk near his family’s home in Maine. He subsequently had his license suspended for two years. Bush claims to have quit drinking after waking up with a hangover on his 40th birthday. While Bush maintains claims of his sobriety, there has been recent press accounting for his drinking, and in June of 2007, a photo was taken showing bush drinking a beer at the G8 Summit in Germany.

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#partied
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

Bush Drunk Footage

Illegal Drugs:

Bush claims he has not used any illegal drugs since 1974. There have been reports that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession, with the records later being expunged. It has been speculated that Bush’s cessation of flying in 1972, as the result of his refusal to take a physical exam, was the result of his fear of a subsequent drug test which may have found him in violation of drug use policies.
The following is a parody of Bush’s sometimes impaired-sounding cadence of speech.

Bill Clinton

During the Clinton years, there was certain controversy over his possible use of Marijuana. While younger, Clinton admitted to using marijuana, although he famously claimed that he “did not inhale.” This type of double-talk revisited him again during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and Clinton is believed by many to have experimented with not only marijuana but with a number of other illicit substances.
There are unsubstantiated rumors that arose about an incident that took place in the 1980’s while Clinton was still governor of Arkansas. According to Dr. Sam Houston, a well respected doctor in Little Rock (and one-time doctor to Hillary’s father), has made claims regarding an alleged cocaine overdose by Clinton. Apparently the incident is well known in Little Rock medical circles and the incident is well chronicled.
According to Dr. Houston, then Governor Clinton arrived at the hospital with the help a state trooper, followed closely behind by his wife, Hillary. While Bill was being treated, it has been claimed that Hillary made numerous threats to on-call doctors, warning that if word leaked about Clinton’s drug use, she would have their medical licenses revoked. Later on, Dr. Houston was quoted by the “Clinton Chronicles” as saying “Dr. Suen, S-U-E-N, a doctor at the medical center here in Little Rock that’s taken care of Bill Clinton for his sinus problems, which may indeed be drug related to cocaine use, as they destroy the sinus passages (there is a word missing here or something). Governor Bill Clinton was taken into the hospital, I believe it was the medical center, on at least one or two occasions, for cocaine abuse and overdosage, in which he actually had to be cared for at the hospital.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37edb5185038.htm

Richard Nixon

According to a little-publicized report in a recent book chronicling the “secret life” of Richard Nixon, claims were made regarding not only his latent violence and teetering psychosis, but also regarding his use and possible abuse of the drug Dilantin. Dilantin, the brand name of a common antiepileptic known as Phenytoin, slows brain activity. It controls conductivity between brain cells and has been said to have anxiety-controlling and mood-stabilizing effects. Reports from users also claim it produces a strong alcohol-like buzz that can last for days.
Jack Dreyfus, the founder of the Dreyfus Fund, was a major proponent of the use of phenytoin, and was known to have originally prescribed the drug to Nixon himself. Further accounts state that Dreyfus supplied “remarkable amounts” of Phenytoin to Nixon throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Nixon apologetics don’t dispute Nixon’s acceptance of the Dilatin pills, but claim only that he did so as a courtesy to his friend Dreyfus, who had developed a strange obsession with the drug.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/28/nixon.book/index.html

John F. Kennedy

Although it is not widely discussed, Kennedy was not a healthy man for much of his life. In fact, he was read his last rites two times before his assassination, and was known for having spent much of his life and presidency covering up his significant illnesses. The most severe of which was Addison’s disease, which required him to take constant doses of testosterone. This dosing is well accounted for, and while it was never at the status of abuse, it was believed by some to be the catalyst behind some of his more infamous infidelities and his significant and difficult-to-control libido.
One of Kennedy’s supposed mistresses (in fact, his supposed favorite mistress), Mary Pinchot Meyer, was known to have described a number of Kennedy’s illegal misgivings, including his use of marijuana and LSD. According to Meyer, as described by James Truitt, she was having a prolonged affair with Kennedy, and had admitted to smoking marijuana with the president. Furthermore, she was later quoted as telling Timothy Leary (LSD advocate), about her experiences on LSD with Kennedy, and a small circle of some of the most powerful men in Washington. The day after the Kennedy assassination, Meyer called Leary desperately sobbing, claiming that “they” could no longer “control him.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Pinchot_Meyer

Presidential Hopefuls:

Al Gore

While he may currently have achieved a sparkly and glowing aura in the eyes of the nation, Al Gore is rumored by many to have had a somewhat shady past. Including in this haze is his supposed use of drugs during and after his stint in Vietnam and for a period of time after his return from the war. While Gore has publically admitted to smoking pot, he has made claims it was only a “few times.” Former college friends and acquaintances, have a different story to tell, however. According to them, Gore was a significant user of marijuana, and spent a great deal of his time in college smoking pot in his dorm room and watching TV. Friends of Gore, such as John Warnecke, say that Gore got high upwards of three to four times per week. He claimed that Gore liked to get high while listening to the Grateful Dead, and talked about grandiose things like what he would do if he were president. Gore was described by his friends as the sort of stoner who was a mix of melancholy, paranoia and expansiveness.

http://www.realchange.org/gore.htm#drugs

Dan Quayle

Dan Quayle was known to have experimented with a number of illicit drugs during his college years. In his college yearbook at DePauw University, there is one image with a caption “The Trip’ is a colorful psychedelic journey into the wild sights and sounds produced by LSD.” Later on in his career, a convicted drug dealer by the name of Brett Kimberlin told a New York radio station that he had been Quayle’s pot dealer through college. Apparently Quayle bought small quantities of marijuana from the man every month for a period of nearly two years. When he and his wife got married, his dealer gave him a present of some Afghanistan hashish known as “Acapulco Gold.”

http://www.realchange.org/quayle.htm#pot

John Kerry

John Kerry has, in the past, voiced some support for the decriminalization of marijuana and has been quoted as saying “I’ve met plenty of people in my lifetime who’ve used marijuana and who I would not qualify as serious addicts — who use about the same amount as some people drink beer or wine or have a cocktail. I don’t get too excited by any of that.” When asked during a live debate in November 2003 on CNN, Kerry was asked if he had ever smoked marijuana. Honestly, Kerry responded that he had.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5900

Barack Obama

Recently there has been some controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s admission regarding his drug use during his youth. While he maintains that he has not touched any illegal drugs in at least 20 years, his own biography reveals that he tried a number of illicit substances as a young man. He wrote “I had learned not to care; I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.” Obama wrote additionally “Junkie, Pothead, That’s where I’d been headed; the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.” Eventually, Obama claims, drug use came to hold no appeal, and seemed only a roadblock to his eventual happiness. He writes that he prefers to keep his life as a literal open book, and explains that his drug use, by the time he was 20, was no more than a memory.

http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v03/n1786/a06.html

Alcoholic Presidents:

http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez – Based on the book “The Health of the Presidents.”

Ulysses Grant
While some may argue that Ulysses Grant was not by classical terms an “alcoholic,” there is certainly evidence to suggest that he had a problem with drinking. During his military career, he was known for his heavy drinking, but it typically did not interfere with his performance. At one point, however, after his distinguished service during the Mexican war, Grant was stationed in an isolated outpost in Oregon. His loneliness drove him to excessive drinking, which eventually led to his resignation and relief of duties. During his presidency, Grant continued to drink, and was known to have been drunk at his inauguration. Additionally, the President died of throat cancer, which can certainly be attributed at least partially to his heavy alcohol consumption.

Grover Cleveland
Alcohol use has been somewhat of a constant for a number of U.S. presidents. One of the less offending, though still arguably alcoholic presidents, was Grover Cleveland. He was well known to “enjoy beer,” but according to many, he had some trouble controlling his appetite for it. According to one friend, Lyman K. Bass, he drank as many as four to eight beers daily and was well known for his prodigious beer belly.

Martin Van Buren
While not widely considered an alcoholic, Martin Van Buren was certainly a man known for his ability to drink. Like a number of other presidents, Van Buren was able to drink large quantities of alcohol from a young age without seeming drunk. He eventually gained the nickname “Blue Whiskey Van” and it was believed that his heavy drinking lasted well into his time in the White House.

James Buchanan
James Buchanan was known by many as a man with sophisticated taste, who was celebrated by some for his serious drinking abilities. He was known to have complained about the size of champagne bottles in the white house, and was amused when guests mistook his ten-gallon cask of Jacob Baer Whiskey to be his own special blend. He was known to have consumed as many as two or three bottles of cognac and old rye a week, and was known by the press for his ability to resist the effects of alcohol in high doses- an obvious hallmark of alcoholic tolerance.

Franklin Pierce
Franklin Pierce was perhaps the presidency’s greatest drunk, consuming great quantities of alcohol while in office, and appearing drunk in a number of instances. Shortly before he was inaugurated, the president and his wife were involved in a train accident where their only son was nearly decapitated before their eyes. As a result of the traumatic incident (which his wife attributed to God’s intervention in an attempt to remove distractions from his presidential bid), Pierce became significantly depressed and saw the accident as punishment for his sins. Pierce was described as “an alcoholic” by everyone who was close to him. At the end of his presidential term, when asked what was next for him, Pierce was known to have responded by saying “There is nothing left…but to get drunk.”

While not widely considered alcoholics, a number of other presidents were known for their fondness of drink. The following are thought to be some of their favorite cocktails.

Gin and tonic (Gerald Ford)
Martini (Herbert Hoover)
Rum and coke; dry martini (Richard Nixon)
Scotch or brandy (Franklin Roosevelt)
Bourbon (Harry Truman)
Scotch and soda (Lyndon Johnson)

Use of Cannabis in Early Presidencies

While it is certainly debated, there seems to be significant evidence for the use of cannabis by many of our founding fathers. It is unclear just how prevalent smoking of cannabis was during the colonial era, but it is fact that a number of men, including George Washington, were aware of the effects of the drug and likely used it themselves. President George Washington was known to have written a letter with a veiled reference to hashish. He said, “The artificial preparation of hemp, from Silesia, is a real curiosity.” He went on to discuss the dissemination of hemp seeds and the separation of male and female hemp plants in an effort to increase the potency of smoked cannabis. He, along with Thomas Jefferson farmed hemp at one point in their life. Jefferson and Ben Franklin, additionally, were ambassadors to France during the period of time that hashish was in vogue, and they likely partook in these new experiences. According to a researcher at the American Historical Reference Society and consultant for the Smithsonian, Dr. Burke, there is plenty of evidence to suggest a number of our presidents smoked cannabis. According to him, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor and Pierce all took pleasure from smoking hemp during their presidency. Pierce was even quoted as saying that smoking cannabis was the only positive thing about the Mexican War.

Congress begins reversing secrecy

0

Although the current Democratic-led session of Congress began its end-of-year recess with only a mediocre list of accomplishments, it did start to reverse the slide of the Bush administration into greater government secrecy.Both the House and Senate handily approved legislation this week that strengthens the federal Freedom of Information Act and reaffirms that citizens have the right to know what their government is up to.

It’s the first major revamping of the FOIA in 10 years and, most important, begins to reestablish the fact that open government is intrinsic to the operations of a successful democracy, an ideal that President Bush and his cohorts dampened in the past seven years.

Foremost in the reforms is an indirect reversal of former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s order in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, in which he instructed federal agencies to lean against releasing information if they were uncertain about how its being made public would impact national security.

We’ve seen too often since then how the Ashcroft order was abused to essentially block citizens and the media from gaining requested information.

The new legislation sets up more responsive guidelines for agencies responding to FOI requests. Most important, it restores the presumption that government information to be released unless there is a specific finding that disclosure would cause harm. Penalties on federal agencies that do not comply with the new rules have been substantially increased.

In addition, the legislation brings nonproprietary information held by government contractors under the FOIA.

Majority Democrats had planned a more expansive rolling back of the Bush secrecy initiatives. However, the party’s slim majorities in both chambers required more compromise with minority Republicans. Still, this strengthening of the FOIA provides a good start to letting the sunshine in which can be built upon in 2008.

http://www.connpost.com/opinion/ci_7774070

Giuliani Secrecy

0

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has long described his City Hall as an open book. But at least one First Amendment authority is finding reason to disagree.

Attorney Floyd Abrams says Giuliani “ran a government as closed as he could make it.”

An Associated Press review of public record suggests Giuliani’s City Hall had a reputation of resistance toward open government.

In his time in office, advocacy and oversight groups were required to file freedom of information requests for documents — a process that could take months and rack up legal costs. A judge in one such case wrote, “The law provides for maximum access, not maximum withholding.”

More than two dozen lawsuits were filed during Giuliani’s reign accusing his administration of stifling free speech or blocking access to public records.

A former deputy mayor disagrees with the characterization, saying Giuliani “ran an open and transparent administration.”

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=7527938&nav=menu45_2_6

Watchdog to report on Menezes killing

0

PA News

The police watchdog is expected to announce that no officers will face disciplinary action over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) will reveal its decision despite demands from the innocent Brazilian’s family for a delay until after the coroner’s inquest.

Eleven of the 15 officers scrutinised by the IPCC have already been told they are in the clear.

Bush stonewalls on CIA interrogation tapes

0

U.S. President George W. Bush insisted on Thursday he did not learn until recently that the CIA destroyed videotapes of harsh interrogations, and said he would not speak any more in public about the issue currently under investigation by the administration and Congress.At a White House news conference, Mr. Bush expressed confidence in congressional investigations, which his Justice Department had balked at last week, saying he thought all the various inquiries underway would eventually get to the truth.

“Until these inquiries are complete, until the oversights’ finished, I will be rendering no opinion from the podium,” Mr. Bush said. Defending his administration’s aggressive pursuit of terrorism suspects, the president said his critics were ignoring reality.

“There’s isolationist tendencies in this world. People would rather stay at home, people would rather not aggressively pursue people overseas, and aggressively pursue freedom,” he said.

The CIA earlier this month disclosed that it had destroyed in 2005 hundreds of hours of tapes from the interrogations of two al Qaeda suspects, prompting an outcry from Democrats, human rights activists and some legal experts.

The interrogations, which took place in 2002, were believed to have included a form of simulated drowning known as waterboarding, condemned internationally as torture.

A federal judge is to hold a hearing on Friday into whether the CIA violated a court order by destroying the tapes.

Mr. Bush has said he did not recall being told of the tapes until CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden briefed him this month. Asked at the news conference why he could not make a more definitive statement, he said, “It sounds pretty clear to me when I say the first recollection is when Mike came and briefed me. That’s pretty clear.”

The New York Times reported this week that senior White House officials knew the tapes existed and took part in discussions on whether they should be destroyed.

In a sign that an impasse with Congress over the pace of lawmakers’ investigations of the videotapes had eased, a senior intelligence official said the House of Representatives Intelligence committee on Thursday was to begin reviewing CIA documents it had requested.

The official said the agency also intended to cooperate with the committee’s request for witnesses to testify.

Last week, the Justice Department warned that the committee’s probe could undermine its own joint investigation with the CIA, and the House committee threatened on Wednesday to issue subpoenas to force cooperation.

“I am confident that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the (administration) coupled with oversight provided by the Congress will end up enabling us all to find out what exactly happened,” Mr. Bush said.

However, the Justice Department declined to send a representative to a separate House committee hearing on the issue on Thursday, drawing a denunciation from the commitee’s chairman.

A department official said the decision was in keeping with a policy it had reiterated to Congress last week of not sending Justice Department officials to Congress to testify on pending investigations, and of avoiding political influence on law enforcement matters.

Reuters © 2007

Bush administration faces court hearing Friday

0

Bush administration faces court hearing Friday in CIA tape-destruction dispute

The Bush administration has made its position clear in legal filings and now gets a chance to say it to a judge in open court: hold off on inquiring about the destruction of CIA videotapes that showed suspected terrorists being interrogated.

U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy ordered the hearing Friday over the objection of the Justice Department after lawyers raised questions about the possibility that other evidence also might have been destroyed.

Kennedy is considering whether to delve into the matter and, if so, how deeply.

The hearing marks the first time administration lawyers were to speak in public and under oath about the matter since the CIA disclosed this month it destroyed the tapes of officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two al-Qaida suspects.

Kennedy is presiding over a lawsuit by Guantanamo Bay prisoners who are challenging their detention. The judge had ordered the government not to destroy any evidence of mistreatment or abuse at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.

Because the suspects – Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri – were being held overseas in secret CIA prisons, however, the government contends they are not covered by the order.

The tapes could be covered by a more general rule that prohibits the destruction of any evidence that could be relevant to a case. For example, if the tapes showed Zubaydah discussing any of the detainees in Kennedy’s case, their destruction could have been prohibited.

Lawyers for both sides have filed classified documents regarding the tapes. That means there is a good chance Kennedy already knows whether the videos are relevant to his case.

If the judge believes the CIA destroyed the tapes to keep them from being used in court, he could side with the detainees’ lawyers and order the government to disclose all the evidence it has collected, including any other evidence in addition to the tapes that has been destroyed.

He could order government officials to testify in court about the tapes, which were created in 2002 and destroyed in 2005.

The government has strongly urged against this move on the ground that it would disrupt a joint Justice Department-CIA investigation into the tapes. In court documents, acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey S. Bucholtz worried that Kennedy might order testimony that “could potentially complicate the ongoing efforts to arrive at a full factual understanding of the matter.”

A congressional investigation is under way, too. The CIA invited investigators from the House of Representatives intelligence committee to the agency’s headquarters just outside Washington on Thursday to begin reviewing documents and records relating to the videotapes.

Kennedy could side with the Justice Department and agree that no usable evidence exists the government acted improperly and, therefore, no reason to order anything else. He could say he lacks the authority to act because the videotapes were not related to his case.

Kennedy was a federal prosecutor in the early 1970s during the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, both Republicans, until he was named a federal magistrate judge in 1976. Democratic President Jimmy Carter appointed him to be a judge in the District of Columbia’s courts, and former President Bill Clinton, another Democrat, named him to the federal bench.

The Associated Press

Nine-year-old boy gets shotgun licence

4

British police have granted a nine-year-old boy a shotgun licence in a decision that has horrified anti-gun campaigners.

The boy can legally shoot live game after Norfolk Police deemed him “responsible enough” to own the deadly weapon.

The licence was issued in 2006, but has only just been reported after a journalist sought the information under freedom of information laws.

The child, who lives in Walsingham, has been legally using the powerful weapon for 16 months.

Anti-gun campaigner Marshall Andrews expressed her horror to The Daily Mail.

“We have long been campaigning for guns to be available only to those over 18.

“It is totally absurd … No one that young could possibly be responsible for a gun,” she said.

“We should be trying to make guns less available to the young not more.”

Richard Dennison, Norfolk Police firearms manager, stood by the licensing.

“This boy is the youngest we have granted a licence to in at least five years,” he told The Daily Mail.

“A firearms officer interviews every person applying for a licence in their own home to check they are responsible enough to hold a gun.

“In cases of young people we sometimes also speak to their school to check their good character.

“I stress to the community that we are here to keep them safe.”

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=339282

Check your privacy

0
If your organisation is using CCTV, substance-abuse testing, or checking staff email chat, maybe you should do a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA). So the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) suggests.
The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) handbook is described as a new tool for use in the UK. PIAs are ‘a process of ensuring that privacy concerns are identified at the early stage of an initiative so that these can be addressed and safeguards built in rather than bolted on as an expensive after-thought’. Such an assessment could be, the authors suggest, for a major public policy developments like national identity cards, or if you are bringing in a new product or service, which could lead to fraud or theft of information, or (say) someone in the public eye having their personal details leaked to the media, harming your business. “PIAs go wider than simply a data protection compliance check and are aimed at looking at all aspects affecting privacy.”

As the handbook starts, issues around privacy include surveillance of the activities of staff, consumers and citizens, monitoring and recording of individual’s electronic communications and their electronic access to information, and the acquisition of biometrics, body fluids and body tissue. Hence, as the handbook carries on, the law: the Data Protection Act (DPA). But the ICO makes the case for a PIA as a way to anticipate risk – including ‘competitive manoeuvres by other corporations, natural disasters, environmental contamination, cyber-attacks, and the risk of embarrassment’. Certainly the Government has been embarrassed by loss of data. Commenting in late December on the loss of 6,500 people’s data by HM Revenue and Customs in Cardiff after a data cartridge from a pension firm went missing, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Philip Hammond, said: “Another day, another data disaster. First we had the lost child benefit CDs, then three million learner drivers’ details go missing in America, and now this.”

What to keep in mind during such an assessment is, by the ICO’s definition, sweeping, including CCTV, the Human Rights Act, and the The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and the British Standard for information security management, BS 7799, besides the DPA. The ICO does have a history of gunning for the likes of private investigators for seeking personal data, in a couple of reports titled What Price Privacy in the last couple of years, although as investigators point out, their clients are for example chasing debtors or checking dubious insurance claims. The handbook claims that such assessment are mainstream in Canada, the USA and Australia. In any case it is questionable what good more assessing will do for the 11 banks and the Immigration Advisory Service that, as the ICO reported last year after a media outcry, discarded personal information in waste bins outside their premises.

The handbook decribes privacy of personal behaviour as the observation of what individuals do, and includes such issues and optical surveillance and ‘media privacy’. Much data may be sensitive, such as sexual preferences and habits, political activities and religious practices. But, the handbook goes on, the notion of ‘private space’ is vital to all aspects of behaviour, is relevant in ‘private places’ such as the home and toilet cubicle, and is also relevant in ‘public places’, where casual observation by the few people in the vicinity is very different from systematic observation, the recording or transmission of images and sounds.

Threats to privacy of personal communications include mail ‘covers’, the use of directional microphones and ‘bugs’ with or without recording apparatus and telephonic interception and recording. In recent years, concerns have arisen about third-party access to email-messages. Individuals generally desire the freedom to communicate among themselves, using various media, without routine monitoring of their communications by other persons or organisations.

And not least there is privacy of the person, which according to the handbook relates to personal safety – implying the scenario of an employer letting a worker’s former partner have personal info which makes possible an attack.

The document points the finger at CCTV and other security measures as privacy-invasive technologies (PITs): “Many technology applications gather data, collate data, apply data, or otherwise assist in the surveillance of people and their behaviour (the “PITs”). Among the host of examples are surveillance technologies (such as CCTV), data-trail generation (such as keystroke monitoring) and identification through the denial of anonymity (e.g., telephone caller ID, loyalty cards and intelligent transport systems), data warehousing and data mining, and the use of biometric information. In an internet context, there is considerable concern about the various types of malware, including viruses, worms, trojans, keystroke-loggers, ‘spyware’ and ‘phishing’.” Here the handbook suggests privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) such as computer firewalls, and advice against malware.

What would a PIA look like? According to the handbook, the ‘benefits to an organisation of conducting a PIA arise more from the process than the product’. Or, putting it more wordily: “The important thing about PIAs is the process of undertaking the assessment where the organisation considers the impact on privacy and whether there are more privacy friendly alternatives.”

The ICO does say it’s not the law to do a PIA, but adds that it’s ‘eager to encourage use’.

The ICO quotes also a report last year from civil liberties body Liberty. Briefly, the report called for an overhaul of privacy protection. Liberty’s Policy Director and principal author of the report, Gareth Crossman, said: “In times of heightened insecurity we quite rightly compromise some of our privacy for public protection, but if we don’t pause for thought right now, our children will grow up without any sense of the value of privacy.” Among other things the report was critical of CCTV describing it as ‘not a proven crime deterrent’ and ‘poorly regulated’. The report claimed that ‘the DPA fails to provide an effective enforcement tool’ and called for new regulation. Liberty quotes a YouGov poll that found a majority of people agreed that the UK has become a surveillance society. In the detail of the report, however, the authors were not able to point to any public distrust of public space CCTV, falling back on the claim that the public are not informed.

You can download a copy of the PIA at the ICO website; and you can download a copy of the 137-page Liberty report at www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk:

Source: http://www.ico.gov.uk

The Impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney?

0

By J A Blacker MSc IMI
RINF Alternative News

The truth shall set you free, but not for Crook, Liar & War Criminal Dick Cheney.

At last the Democrats are showing some backbone: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), one of the more honest of the Democratic presidential candidates in the primary field, filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich has made ending the war in Iraq the central theme of his campaign as he no doubt knows 911 was an Inside Job and that Cheney rather than Bush was the 911 mastermind, the evidence being Bush is too stupid to have figured out the Treasonous plot against the American people all by himself and was told to stay in the classroom so as to have an iron clad alibi.

See the historic Video here:

No doubt Kucinich’s real motives are selfish, he has just realized it is his Democrat voters who are being butchered and massacred by Afghan & Iraqi freedom fighters, and if he does not step in to stop the slaughter of his constituents soon – he may not have any Democrat voters left.

But don’t be fooled by this slither of honesty, integrity and “Public service” – the rest of the Member of Congress can be bought for a few glasses of wine and two pieces of silver, and no doubt Dick (VICE PREZ) Cheney, and his band of Nation Hijackers, will buy, silence, and yet again slip the net of justice, just as surely and as slippery as toxic “Aspartame Man” “War crook” “Treasonous Liar” Donald Rumsfeld, did in France – claiming Executive Immunity from Prosecution.

Supporting Documents & Articles of Impeachment:

http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

Bush to make first trip to Israel, West Bank

0

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President George W. Bush will make his first trip to Israel and the West Bank in January, hoping to help forge a peace deal before he leaves office one year later, his spokeswoman said Tuesday.

The January 8-16 voyage will also take him to Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt to promote talks launched at a peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, late last month, said Dana Perino.

The 44-country gathering culminated with an Israeli-Palestinian commitment to restart stalled talks with an eye on creating an independent Palestinian state by late 2008 — roughly one month before Bush’s successor takes over.

The trip comes as the US president, weighed down by the unpopular Iraq war, has sought to confront charges that he has kept the six-decade Middle East conflict at arm’s length during his nearly seven years in office.

Bush visited Israel as governor of Texas but has not been there since taking the oath of office in January 2001. It will be the first visit there by a sitting US president since Bill Clinton went in December 1998.

Bush will look to “facilitate” the new talks, discuss recent events in Iraq as well as “the challenges presented by Iran,” and economic and security ties between Washington and its Arab allies, said Perino.

In Jerusalem, the president will meet with Israel’s President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and will hold talks in the West Bank with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas and prime minister Salam Fayyad, she said.

Bush, often seen as backing Israel’s interests to the hilt, was not scheduled to call leaders from both sides together or to seek a specific “concession on one side or the other,” said Perino.

She also flatly ruled out any talks between Bush and leaders of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which won a majority in 2006 parliamentary elections and is pledged to Israel’s destruction, and has ruled the Gaza Strip for the past six months.

“Hamas is a terrorist organization, he is not going to be talking with them,” the spokeswoman told reporters.

The June takeover by Hamas effectively split the Palestinian territories in half, with Hamas ruling Gaza and Abbas’s Western-backed Palestinian Authority confined to the West Bank.

Bush’s only trip to the region with the express purpose of Middle East peace-making was in 2003, when he met with Arab allies in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh and attended a summit in Aqaba, Jordan, with then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon and Abbas, who was then Palestinian prime minister.

In an interview after the Annapolis conference, Bush played down the importance of the US president traveling to the region, saying “going to a region in itself is not going to unstuck negotiations.

“This idea that somehow you are supposed to travel and therefore good things are going to happen is just not realistic,” he told CNN.

Major differences remain over core issues like the status of Jerusalem, the borders of a future Palestinian state and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

And Israel has said it would not implement any future peace deal before the Palestinians put an end to attacks, including nearly daily rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip.

Bush hoped “to keep the discussions going, to show the commitment and to remind the world that this is a moment that has presented itself, and it’s time for everyone to seize the opportunity to make sure that the Palestinians and the Israelis are supported,” said Perino.

She noted the just-completed donors conference in Paris that netted 7.4 billion dollars (5.15 billion euros) in aid pledges for the Palestinians — money Washington says will go to Abbas and Fayyad, not Hamas.

Perino’s announcement came after US General James Jones, overseeing security issues in the revived Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, met senior Israeli officials on Tuesday on his first visit since being appointed to the post after the Annapolis conference.

Morgan Stanley Bank secures $5bn China bailout

0

Belly Up Banks, ready to go under?

Only 40 Billion of the 150 – 300 Billions Sub prime debts has thus far been written off, what will happen when the other 110 – 260 Billion is written off?

NOTE: Sub prime debt – The BUSH crooks say the figure is 150 Billion, the bank of England says it is 200 Billion and we have conservative punters saying it is more likely 300 Billion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/12/19/bcnmorgan119.xml

Our Advice: Sell All of your Dollar stocks fast, buy YEN, Swiss Dollar & Euro, but even these have the Dollar as a reserve, so you can expect a rough ride any way you turn – perhaps gold would be better.

Anyway here is a little vid to keep them Sub prime spirits up eh?


http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3668199541251076260

9/11 Truth Manifesto

Joel S. Hirschhorn

For evidence that America�s political system is a criminal conspiracy, open your mind to piles of new analyses that prove beyond doubt that the official 9/11 story is a lie. Years of a bipartisan cover-up of 9/11 lies make it much more than one horrendous past event. It endures in infamy as a symptom of a corrupt and dishonest government.

Every day we pay for what 9/11 and its cover-up have burdened us with, including the costly Iraq war and the erosion of the rule of law and constitutional rights. Power elites have suppressed the truth because they fear what will happen when the public understands that 9/11 was not accomplished solely by foreign terrorists.

Technically sound analyses of what happened at the World Trade Center have unequivocally shown that the official 9/11 story is not credible (www.ae911truth.org). Truth seekers have met their burden of proof; the government has not met theirs. Simply put, controlled demolition brought down three buildings, not fires from the impact of planes on two of them. Not only was the US government involved, it has also conspired to hide the truth from the public. Why? Republican and Democratic politicians and power elites fear that 9/11 truth will remove what little public trust remains in government. The truth will produce political instability, perhaps breaking the two-party stranglehold on our political system. And it should. And it must, if we are to finally obtain the deep political reforms our nation desperately needs.

The decline started before George W. Bush and his criminal co-conspirators accelerated it with their blatant disregard for the rule of law and our Constitution. It will continue, even with a Democratic administration, unless we reform our political system. We must remind Americans that our nation was born in an insurrectionist, populist rebellion against political tyranny � and that 9/11 teaches us that we need a Second American Revolution. We must destroy the domestic Axis of Arrogance of our plutocracy more than fear a foreign Axis of Evil. How?

A vast nationwide grassroots 9/11 truth movement is ignored by the mainstream news media. Its success will be the catalyst for renewing American democracy. It will produce a shock wave that rattles the brains of all Americans: Shock therapy from a truth so powerful and unsettling that Americans finally see the decline of American democracy that allowed 9/11 and its cover-up.

Make no mistake, the 9/11 truth movement holds the future of the United States. We are not subversive �conspiracy theorists� or enablers of foreign terrorism. We are patriotic warriors working to nullify group delusion produced by government propaganda. Dozens of books and websites reveal countless technical contradictions and inconsistencies with the official government 9/11 story and the laws of physics. The weight of the evidence supports one painful verdict: Our federal government played a role, probably through a large �black op.� The �why� is obvious: To justify an unjust war to serve corporate interests and greed.

Here is our opportunity: To make 9/11 the tipping point for American democracy renewal. Our enemies fear that if this movement succeeds, their plutocratic, elitist cabal � the Axis of Arrogance � run by the two-party duopoly will collapse. Corruption keeps our political system stable � truth must clean it up. Instability is the necessary price for restoring democracy.

A Paradigm Shift

9/11 lies have sustained the ruling terrorism-threat paradigm. 9/11 truth must energize a new political-reform paradigm. Patriotism framed as defending the nation against terrorism must be replaced by patriotism focused on repairing American democracy.

Already, status quo protectionists lie about us to defeat our movement. Things will get worse as our movement draws closer to bringing down the corrupt political system. And we are getting closer. Only 16 percent of Americans believe that members of the Bush administration are telling the truth about what they knew about terrorist attacks on the US prior to 9/11, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. But what people say in polls is not the same as coming out publicly and vociferously for 9/11 truth, or seeing the roots of 9/11 in the decay of American democracy, not merely the actions of a few evil people.

The deceived public must be re-educated to see the arrogant power elites running our national plutocracy as worse than radical Islamic terrorists. Paul Craig Roberts captured the essence of the problem: �Americans think their danger is terrorists. They don’t understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. … The terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans just aren’t able to perceive that.�

9/11 is a history lesson to inform the nation about democracy decline. As John McMurtry asked, �So which goes – the faith in America�s greatness and goodness in the world, or the facts which disclose the opposite at the very top?� We must always remember that Americans are better than their government. They do not get the government they deserve. They get the government that the rich and powerful impose. That must end.

We confront more than power elites. There is psychological resistance of millions of Americans to painful 9/11 truth � a shameful, �unthinkable� truth about their elected government. Even if they have doubts about the official story, they instinctively recoil and erect mental barriers to block out the full truth. They want to keep believing that they live in a great democracy. They want to believe that when the Bush administration is replaced our democracy will be in good shape again. Hard to accept that 9/11 truth could not have been suppressed this long without the tacit or explicit approval of Democratic politicians and power brokers.

It is as if we are telling children that their parents are mass murderers. Distracted, time-poor, depressed, political disengaged, cynical and insecure Americans do not want to hear that their government had a hand in 9/11. That for years their two-party-controlled government has blatantly lied to them. That thousands of good Americans have died and been terribly injured in a war propped up by the false-flag 9/11 fiction. In sum, that despite elections a vast criminal conspiracy has been so successful for so long. Such thoughts hurt.

Also, political instability is scary to ordinary Americans. But stability based on corruption and lies is destructive. Only when Americans see 9/11 as a political attack (by Americans on Americans) � not solely a terrorist attack (by foreigners on Americans) � will they understand that revealing 9/11 truth must lead to major political reforms. Instability is the cost of democracy renewal.

Here are powerful messages: The collapse of the rule of law is more important than the collapse of buildings. Countless more have died because of 9/11 than on 9/11. The events of 9/11 ultimately are less important than the reasons for and consequences of 9/11.

As John McMurtry said, �[9/11] allowed an illegitimate administration to transmute into America�s patriotic champion at war – above accountability and the rule of law. �Defending America from another terrorist attack� became a political blank check for corporate corruption of government expenditures with impunity, war criminal acts and threats across the Islamic and alternative third world, and attacks on civil rights and commons at home.� All this persists as 9/11 lies persist.

Despite record-low levels of public trust in Congress and the president, too many Americans still believe that elections are the path to major political reforms. Despite a solid history of campaign lies from politicians, and overwhelming belief that the nation is on the wrong track, Americans keep hoping that they can vote their way into a better future. Most Americans do not have a Boston Tea Party mentality. They are unready to revolt despite revolting conditions. Our truth movement must help Americans accept painful truth and its political fallout. We must put all the technical truth discovered by reputable scientists and engineers to work for systemic reforms.

We must do more than oust the official story and obtain a new 9/11 investigation that now has wide support by hundreds of respected Americans (www.patriotsquestion911.com). We must guide Americans into a more patriotic and courageous mental state. We must help Americans become outraged and rebellious, yet also optimistic about major political reforms.

Political Strategy

Success against the power elites running and ruining our nation requires building an army of Americans openly revolting against the two-party corporatist state now in control. The 9/11 truth movement must use political strategies to defeat the status quo political establishment. Here are three actions.

First, with detailed technical analyses unequivocally proving that the official story is false, the movement can draft a bill that might be titled The 9/11 Truth Act of 2008. This proposed federal legislation should be delivered to every member of the House and Senate early next year. It would clarify the investigation: What its scope and objectives must be. What reliable entity, public or private or a combination, must be used. How the public must be given opportunities to present information. What resources must be provided and what time frame must be adhered to.

We must take the initiative and specify exactly what kind of new official 9/11 investigation is necessary, recognizing that professionals in the truth movement have limited resources and cannot address all questions. The 9/11 truth movement itself must define exactly what the first real credible and comprehensive government sponsored investigation must consist of. We can have no confidence in anything that the political establishment might devise to silence our movement. We must tell the public, the media and the political world what is required to reveal the total truth as to what caused, for example, the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, especially building 7 not even hit by a plane.

Developing and submitting this legislation must then be followed up by all 9/11 groups urging their supporters to bombard Congress with demands for hearings and passage of the bill. This is the way to engage more Americans politically to obtain full 9/11 truth.

However, few politicians� comments support the truth movement. A rare statement came from presidential candidate Ron Paul. In a radio interview in January, 2007 he said that the 9/11 investigations to date are �more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.� However, later in the year when he became more visible he was asked about the possibility of the official story being orchestrated by the government. He said emphatically �absolutely not.� In another interview, when asked whether he thought 9/11 was an inside job that our government made happen, he responded forcefully �No.� So apparently Paul sees a cover-up but not about the involvement of our government. Would he support legislation for a new investigation?

Thus the second critical political action is this: Proclaim that only politicians that actively support passage of our legislation will earn support in the 2008 elections from the millions of Americans doubting the official 9/11 story. This threat is an absolute necessity. If the legislation is not passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, then we must aggressively support a boycott on voting for all Democrats and Republicans in the 2008 federal elections.

Third, all those committed to 9/11 truth should honor what the Founders gave us in our Constitution in case some day Americans lost confidence in the federal government, especially in Congress. That day has arrived. 9/11 was that day. They gave us the option in Article V for a convention of state delegates to propose constitutional amendments. We must see SYSTEM reforms as only achievable through constitutional amendments that Congress will never propose nor achieve through normal legislation.

Congress and the entire elitist political establishment have intentionally denied us a convention for over 200 years. The one and only requirement in Article V has more than been satisfied by over 500 state applications from all 50 states. Enough is enough. Our truth movement should join the effort of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org by urging truth group members to join FOAVC. The political establishment fears both 9/11 truth and an Article V convention. We must grasp that 9/11 truth can bring us to the brink of political reforms and the convention is the process to obtain them.

Conclusion

The 9/11 truth movement must also be a political movement � but not in any partisan sense. 9/11 truth can help Americans take back their country. 9/11 truth can end the criminal, corrupt and conniving plutocracy that stole our government and mutilated our democracy.

We must transform 9/11 from a catalyzing event for imperialistic war-mongering to one for democracy renewal. We must convert terrorist-transfixed fear into political reform enthusiasm.

The pursuit of truth is not always the pursuit of happiness � not when the truth hurts. The 9/11 truth movement is not about finding immediate happiness. It is about rebooting American democracy and, after accomplishing that, earning happiness.

[A former full professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and then senior official with the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, Joel S. Hirschhorn is now an activist writer and can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com. This article is based on presentations given at a recent conference sponsored by Boston 9/11 Truth.]

Police brutality cases on rise since 9/11

By Kevin Johnson

WASHINGTON – Federal prosecutors are targeting a rising number of law enforcement officers for alleged brutality, Justice Department statistics show. The heightened prosecutions come as the nation’s largest police union fears that agencies are dropping standards to fill thousands of vacancies and “scrimping” on training.

Cases in which police, prison guards and other law enforcement authorities have used excessive force or other tactics to violate victims’ civil rights have increased 25% (281 vs. 224) from fiscal years 2001 to 2007 over the previous seven years, the department says.

During the same period, the department says it won 53% more convictions (391 vs. 256). Some cases result in multiple convictions.

Federal records show the vast majority of police brutality cases referred by investigators are not prosecuted.

‘CODE OF SILENCE’: Milwaukee beating case collars ‘bad cops’

University of Toledo law professor David Harris, who analyzes police conduct issues, says it will take time to determine whether the cases represent a sustained period of more aggressive prosecutions or the beginnings of a surge in misconduct.

The cases involve only a fraction of the estimated 800,000 police in the USA, says James Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the nation’s largest police union.

Even so, he says, the FOP is concerned that reduced standards, training and promotion of less experienced officers into the higher police ranks could undermine more rigid supervision.

“These are things we are worried about,” Pasco says.

For the past few years, dozens of police departments across the country have scrambled to fill vacancies. The recruiting effort, which often features cash bonuses, has intensified since 9/11, because many police recruits have been drawn to military service.

In its post-Sept. 11 reorganization, the FBI listed police misconduct as one of its highest civil rights priorities to keep pace with an anticipated increase in police hiring through 2009.

The increasing Justice numbers generally correspond to a USA TODAY analysis of federal law enforcement prosecutions using data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Those data show 42 law enforcement prosecutions during the first 10 months of fiscal year 2007, a 66% increase from all of fiscal 2002 and a 61% rise from a decade ago.

David Burnham, the co-founder of the TRAC database, says prosecutions appear to be increasing, but “more important” are the numbers of cases prosecutors decline.

Last year, 96% of cases referred for prosecution by investigative agencies were declined.

In 2005, 98% were declined, a rate that has remained “extremely high” under every administration dating to President Carter, according to a TRAC report.

The high refusal rates, say Burnham and law enforcement analysts, result in part from the extraordinary difficulty in prosecuting abuse cases. Juries are conditioned to believe cops, and victims’ credibility is often challenged.

“When police are accused of wrongdoing, the world is turned upside down,” Harris says. “In some cases, it may be impossible for (juries) to make the adjustment.”

Tasers don’t reduce shootings

3

Tasers don’t reduce shootings, despite police and politicians’ claims

Despite claims by politicians and some police officers that Tasers would save lives by preventing shootings, the devices that are being used by a growing number of police forces were never meant as an alternative to guns, experts say.

Statistics obtained by the Canadian Press bear out that idea, showing that in some of the cities that have recently adopted Tasers, the number of police shootings has remained fairly consistent and low, while Tasers are being used exponentially more often.

Police are ideally supposed to try oral warnings and force by hand before resorting to the Taser, or other means such as pepper spray or the baton.Police are ideally supposed to try oral warnings and force by hand before resorting to the Taser, or other means such as pepper spray or the baton.
(CBC)

In Winnipeg, for example, police shootings of suspects are rare. There was one in 2003, and none in 2004. In 2006, the Winnipeg Police Service fired guns on suspects twice. They also started using Tasers in September of that year, firing them at individuals 37 times before the year was out.

“Tasers are not meant to replace firearms,” Cst. Adam Cheadle, the service’s use of force co-ordinator, said in a recent interview.

“The Taser is on the same playing field as a baton or [pepper] spray.”

In Calgary, there was only one officer-involved shooting in 2003 – two years before Tasers were introduced – and none in 2007. So far this year, Calgary police have “deployed” (a term that includes any incident where the machine is unholstered and its laser is activated, even if it ends up not being fired) their Tasers 133 times.

In Montreal, police were involved in three shooting incidents in 2003, before they had Tasers. They also used their firearms three times last year, while firing Tasers 28 times.

Numbers in many other jurisdictions are hard to come by. The RCMP, whose members have fired Tasers more than 3,000 times since 2001, said it doesn’t keep track of how often firearms are used across the country. Police spokespersons in Toronto, Vancouver and Halifax were unable to provide comparable statistics on Taser and gun usage.

‘Another use-of-force tool’

The numbers that have been released counter the idea promoted by some politicians and police officials in the early 2000s, when the stun guns were being introduced, that officers would be able to use Tasers instead of their guns and that could save lives.

When the RCMP unveiled plans to equip its Alberta detachments with Tasers in 2002, Sgt. Steve Gleboff told reporters “what we’re trying to do is eliminate the necessity to shoot somebody.”

Two years later, when controversy erupted over Taser usage in Ontario, then Community Safety Minister Monte Kwinter said the devices were a better alternative to firearms.

Even the man currently probing the RCMP’s use of Tasers, Paul Kennedy, head of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, told a police oversight convention last year that being hit by a Taser was better than being hit by a bullet.

That expectation was wrong, according to the man who trains Calgary police officers to use Tasers.

“Use of force experts across Canada right now, we’re kind of shaking our heads going, ‘How did we give the impression to the lay public or the media that Tasers were ever supposed to be a replacement for lethal force?'” said Staff Sgt. Chris Butler.

“They were another use-of-force tool in the same regard as the baton, the O.C. spray. Just another tool.”

Reduce injuries, compared to batons or spray

While Tasers may not reduce the number of police shootings, Butler said they have succeeded in reducing the number of injuries that can result from an officer having to use a baton or pepper spray on a suspect, or wrestle with him.

“In 99.7 per cent of Taser uses, there are no injuries. When you compare that to a baton use, the statistical likelihood of injuries from a Taser deployment are much less.”

The growing use of Tasers was highlighted in an interim report by the RCMP complaints commissioner last week, which said Taser use “has expanded to include subduing resistant subjects who do not pose a threat of grievous bodily harm or death and on whom the use of lethal force would not be an option.”

In response, the Mounties issued new guidelines limiting Taser use to situations where “a subject is displaying combative behaviours or is being actively resistant.”

Eighteen people in Canada have died in recent years after being hit by a Taser, although the company that manufactures the weapons stresses they have never been directly blamed for a death.

© The Canadian Press, 2007

UK Gitmo detainee near suicide after years of torture

0

By Robert Verkaik

A British resident being held in Guantanamo Bay may be close to suicide after five years of captivity and torture at the hands of the Americans, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been warned in a medical report sent to the Government this week.

The report concludes that Binyam Mohamed, from Kensington, west London, is at the end of his “psychological tether” after guards at the US naval base in Cuba switched off the water supply to his cell when he began spreading his own faeces over the walls. Mr Mohamed is one of at least seven detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay who claim British residency. Three of the men are expected to be reunited with their families before Christmas after the Government successfully negotiated their release. But the Americans have made it clear that Mr Mohamed must remain in detention to face a military tribunal on charges of terrorism.

In his letter to Mr Miliband, Clive Stafford Smith, the legal director of the UK-based Reprieve representing Mr Mohamed, now 29, calls for an “urgent humanitarian intervention” in his case.

Mr Stafford Smith said: “The urgency is underlined today because Mr Mohamed has been repeatedly smearing his cell walls with faeces. This is not because Mr Mohamed is trying to violate the rules (as the US military apparently believes), but because of his mental instability. The military’s response is to cut the water to his cell off, compounding an obvious health hazard.”

A preliminary medical opinion, commissioned by Reprieve, has found Mr Mohamed to be suffering from severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Dr Daniel Creson, a respected psychiatrist from Texas who has extensive experience in the treatment of the victims of torture, warns that the deterioration in Mr Mohamed’s health suggests that he “is reaching the end of his psychological tether”.

Mr Stafford Smith told Mr Miliband: “Your Government’s intervention on behalf of the British residents in Guantanamo has been welcome. Perhaps my other three clients will spend this festive season at home with their families, after many years of incarceration without trial. Mr Mohamed will spend it in a cell smeared with faeces. There is no prisoner in Guantanamo who has suffered more than Mr Mohamed, and I am very concerned that, without rapid intervention, he will only leave that terrible place in a casket.”

Mr Mohamed was born in Ethiopia and came to Britain in 1994, where he lived for seven years, sought political asylum and was given leave to remain while his case was resolved. But while travelling he was arrested in Pakistan on a visa violation and turned over to the US authorities. On 21 July 2002 Mr Mohamed was rendered to Morocco on a CIA plane. His lawyers claim he has endured years of torture in which has been physically abused, including having his genitals cut with a razor blade.

Mr Stafford Smith said: “Once he got to Guantanamo Bay, far from receiving the palliative care that this history of torture would call for, he has faced on-going mistreatment —held in solitary confinement in a Supermax prison, physically abused, and deprived of any meaningful treatment. Please do not let the US military public relations delude anybody, as the prison he is in is harsher than any of the many Death Row prisons I have visited in the past 25 years.”

Dr Creson’s medical evaluation was based on interviews with Mr Mohamed and a mental health questionnaire completed with the help of Reprieve

A Foreign Office spokesman declined to comment on the case.

A letter to David Miliband

Dear Mr Miliband,

There is an urgent need for humanitarian intervention on behalf of Binyam Mohamed, the British resident from Kensington who the US apparently plans to continue holding in Guantanamo Bay, and who I am representing in his habeas corpus proceedings.

As we hope to see three British residents home in the next few days, Mr Mohamed’s plight becomes ever more stark. I am sure that you are aware that Mr Mohamed has suffered torture and abuse by US foederati in Pakistan and Morocco, and by US personnel themselves in the Dark Prison of Kabul and in Guantánamo Bay itself. That the Bush Administration continues to deny its role in the torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners such as Mr Mohamed is, sad to say, simply dishonest.

…I doubt either you or I ever thought we would be dealing with the consequences of torture committed by the US on someone from Britain. It is sad that this is the case, but our horror must motivate us into vigorous action.

Yours sincerely,

Clive Stafford-Smith

Ex-CIA: War with Iran in the offing

0

A former senior CIA analyst says the United States and Israel are planning war against Iran before the next presidential election.

Ray McGovern said Monday despite a recent National Intelligence Estimate conceding that Iran is not conducting a nuclear weapons program, a joint US and Israeli war on the Islamic Republic is likely to happen.

The former analyst expounded that the close American relationship with Israel, which alleges Iran is a threat to its existence and to the international community, is the driving force behind a potential strike.

McGovern called on those wishing to prevent a military conflict with Iran to voice their opposition to President Bush’s headstrong approach towards Tehran and its nuclear program.

Although the report by US intelligence services has meant another embarrassment for the White House over its accusation against Tehran, the US president seems to be indifferent to the assessment.

President Bush, who is scheduled to visit Jerusalem in January, bald-facedly continues his rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, claiming Tehran poses a threat to the international community.

MD/MG

VIDEO: CIA trying to undermine the White House?

0

Phyllis Bennis is a Senior Analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. She is the author of Before and After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis and Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the U.N. Defy U.S. Power.

Trust in the Mainstream Media at an all time low

Trust in the Media at an all time low…. 6 Bogus stories in 6 weeks

On Monday October 29, 2007… The Multi-National Force Iraq turned over Karbala Province to the Iraqis.
This was supposed to be good news, right?
It wasn’t.

The good news was drowned out by media reports that 20 headless bodies were found in Diyala Province.

On Tuesday, after there were already questions about this Diyala slaughter, TIME Magazine based their report on this horrible massacre:

The horrible discovery in Diyala Province Monday was disturbing even by the standards of Iraq’s running sectarian violence. Iraqi police said they found 20 decapitated bodies dumped near a police station west of Baquba, the capital of Diyala province.

It was a lie.
The 20 headless bodies story was a hoax.
It never happened.

** There was never any evidence of this event.
** There was no official report on this event.
** There were no photos of this event.
** The Iraqi media denied this event.
** The MNF-I officials denied the event.
** The Diala Security Operations Chief denied the event.

TIME Magazine has never corrected their bogus report.

* * * * * * * * * *

On November 29, 2007… It happened again.
The Western media including the Reporters Without Borders organization reported:

11 close family members of Jordanian-based Baathist reporter Dia al-Kawwaz, who runs the online anti-Iraq newspaper Shabeqat Akhbar al-Iraq, were slaughtered in Baghdad. The attack occurred in the Al-Shaab neighborhood shortly after 7 a.m. Shia militia men shot dead two of Kawwaz’s sisters, their husbands and their seven children, aged 5 to 10. They then exploded the house on their way out.

This made headlines around the world.
This was a lie, too.

Two days later, the “dead family members” of Dia Al-Kawwaz appeared on Iraqi television smiling and waving to the cameras.

They managed to convince the Iraqi audience that they were in fact quite alive.

** Not one Western Media Organization showed this photo or film of the waving family members.
Not one.

* * * * * * * * * *

On Thursday November 29, 2007… The mainstream media reported that 12-25 “construction workers” were killed in a Bombing by NATO forces in Afghanistan this time.
The so-called construction workers ended up being Taliban fighters after all.

* * * * * * * * * *

On December 2, 2007… The Dwelah Massacre made major headlines.
In the reports 13 people were slaughtered by Al-Qaeda in their sleep and their homes were torched in the village of Dwelah, Iraq… including a young child.

This was also a lie.
MAJ Peggy Kageleiry from Task Force Iron PAO responded to the reports:

“The story you are reading in the news is NOT true… CF assessment: Wildly inflated, irresponsibly exaggerated claims-no 600 families displaced, no 200 terrorists, no evidence of civilian KIA.”

It was just another bogus media report from Iraq.

* * * * * * * * * *

On December 10, 2007… There was an explosion at a refinery in Baghdad.
The media immediately reported it as a rocket attack:

A plume of smoke rises from Doura refinery after a rocket attack in Baghdad December 10, 2007. A rocket attack sparked a big fire at a domestic oil refinery in southern Baghdad on Monday but the plant was still operating, Iraqi police and officials said.
(REUTERS/Mahmoud Raouf Mahmoud)


Flames and smoke rises from al Dora oil refinery in South Baghdad, Iraq, on Monday, Dec. 10, 2007. A rocket or a mortar shell hit the oil refinery, early Monday, police and an Oil Ministry spokesman said. The U.S. military confirmed an attack in the area. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)

However, the fires were not set off by a a rocket attack.
The MNF-Iraq Press Desk confirmed:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20071210-03
December 10, 2007

Baghdad refinery fire deemed accidental
Multi-National Division — Baghdad PAO

BAGHDAD — Multinational Division — Baghdad forces determined that the cause of a fire at the Doura Oil Refinery today was the result of an industrial accident.

The fire, which began around 9 a.m., was initially believed to have been started by indirect fire, but when units of the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Inf. Div. arrived on the scene, its cause was determined to be the result of a pipe explosion.

(The MNF-I forces have not been able to conduct a definitive crater analysis to resolve what caused the explosion.)

* * * * * * * * * *

On December 13, 2007… The media reported that 12 mutilated bodies were found in Muqdadiya.
CNN reported:

Iraqi soldiers have found a mass grave of mutilated bodies in a restive region north of Baghdad, a local security official told CNN Thursday.

It was another bogus report.
Task Force Iron’s PAO- “This appears to be false reporting.”

* * * * * * * * * *

In roughly six and a half weeks the mainstream media reported 6 bogus stories from Iraq and Afghanistan.
There certainly could be more.
They all reflected poorly on the US and US military.

Isn’t it past time that the media be held accountable for their horrible record?

And… Is it really surprising that only 29% of Americans, Germans and Brits trust their media?

Gateway Pundit

VIDEO: I’ll go to court rather than have an ID card

0

Newly elected Liberal Democrat party leader makes a few comments about the proposed ID scheme

Nick Clegg MP has vowed to face court proceedings rather than register for an ID card if the government presses ahead with plans to make them compulsory.

If he were elected leader of the party he would urge his fellow MPs not to co-operate and ask Liberal Democrat controlled councils to ensure no local public services require an identity card.


Video was recorded before he was elected leader

Nick renewed his passport in May 2006 to avoid being included on the National Identity Register for another ten years.

Nick Clegg said:

“If the government seeks to make ID cards compulsory on every British citizen I will lead a people’s campaign to thwart the programme. I, and I expect thousands of people like me, will refuse to be forced to register.

“This is an issue that is so contrary to the spirit of British liberty and privacy that I would not be able to stand by. I am willing to do everything in my power to stop this intrusive, expensive and unnecessary imposition on the liberty of the British people.”

What are they hiding?

0

A federal judge has taken a significant step in dismantling the wall of secrecy the Bush administration has needlessly built around the White House.

Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that White House visitors logs were public records and that the public had a right to see them.

The logs, maintained by the Secret Service, had been public until 2006, when the Bush administration, which adheres to the principle that its business is nobody’s but its own, declared that the logs were presidential records and thus exempt from the Freedom of Information Act under the doctrine of executive privilege.

Executive privilege is intended to protect the confidentiality and candor of the advice the president receives. The logs say only who visited the White House, when and for how long; they contain nothing about the substance of the visits.

It might shed light, however, on White House political machinations.

The White House says it will appeal, using that as an excuse not to comment on the legal setback. One day, it is to be hoped, Congress and the courts will throw open the doors and windows of the Bush administration and the sun will shine in. Unfortunately, it is likely to be long after it has left office.

Scripps Howard News Service

UN expresses “grave concern” over CIA torture

0

UN representative expresses “grave concern” over CIA torture, Guantánamo hearings

By Naomi Spencer

Following a visit earlier this month to the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay, a United Nations human rights representative reported ongoing abuse, drumhead judicial proceedings, and other violations of international law. The report by the UN official, charging the US government with widespread criminality, has been almost entirely ignored by the US media.

In a report to the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva December 13, Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism Martin Scheinin said he believed the CIA continues to engage in so-called “extraordinary rendition,” secret detentions and torture. Scheinin suggested that hundreds of detainees held at Guantánamo were not being prosecuted to keep revelations of abuse from emerging. During his visit, he was not allowed to have unmonitored interaction with detainees.

Of the 305 Guantánamo detainees, about 80 have already been put through combatant status review tribunals (CSRT) and declared not to be “enemy combatants,” although they have not been released. The military has announced that it plans to hold these hearings for another 80 detainees, after which they could ostensibly be convicted by military trial. But for 150 so-called “high value” prisoners, Scheinin said, “There is not enough evidence that could be presented, even to a military commission chaired by a military judge. Partly there may not be evidence and partly the risk of issues of torture being raised is too high.”

“Bringing them to court would bring to the court’s attention the method through which the evidence, including the confessions, were obtained,” Scheinin told the press following his report.

In addition to the recent revelations that the CIA had destroyed interrogation tapes, he said the indefinite detention without trial “is one further affirmation of the conclusion that the CIA or others have been involved in methods of interrogation that are incompatible with international law.” The CIA, Scheinin stated, “has been involved and continues to be involved in the use of interrogation techniques that violate the absolute prohibition against torture.”

The destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes showing the torture of at least two prisoners underscores the basic fact that egregious human rights violations by the US are not isolated events. On the contrary, torture and illegal detentions have been the standard operating procedure for the CIA, with the cooperation of military brass and the support of the entire political establishment.

Scheinin said that in a meeting with representatives of the CIA during his visit to the United States, “the CIA refused to engage in any meaningful interaction aimed at clarifying the means of compliance with international standards of methods of interrogation and accountability in respect of possible abuses.” He also said the CIA refused to meet with him a second time. This stonewalling is yet further evidence of the lawlessness of the US government.

Significantly, Scheinin noted that behavior by CIA officials “supports the suspicion that the CIA has been involved and continues to be involved in the extraordinary rendition of terrorism suspects and possibly other persons.”

Moreover, the report concluded, “It is unlikely that the CIA would be able to run a global programme of rendition and detention of terrorist suspects without at least logistical support by the United States military authorities.”

Although the Bush administration declared that it held no other “high value” detainees in secret detention after transferring 14 to Guantánamo Bay from around the world in 2006, it reserved the possibility of resuming the practice whenever it wished, and has rendered at least one other detainee since then. Other suspected detainees remain missing.

It should not be forgotten that, in addition to those detainees being held at Guantánamo, the US continues to hold some 700 detainees in Afghanistan and approximately 18,000 detainees in Iraq. Many of these are classified by the US as “unlawful enemy combatants” in order to deny them fundamental legal rights.

While at the Guantánamo Bay prison, Scheinin observed the pre-trial military proceedings against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the alleged former driver of Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, captured in Afghanistan in 2001, has been held at Guantánamo since 2002.

The drumhead character Hamdan’s CSRT was evident. “The hearings provided graphic illustrations of the practical difficulties in providing fair trials at a distant military base, and confirmed the difficulties or even impossibility of the defense to provide evidence,” Scheinin told the press. “Neither witnesses from abroad or high-value detainees from the Guantánamo detention facility next door could be heard, at least on this particular occasion.”

The written report is more specific: “These are administrative processes rather than judicial ones. Detainees are not provided with a lawyer during the course of hearings.” Even if all charges are dropped, “the most that a reviewing court may do is to order reconsideration of a decision, not release.” This violates international prohibitions on arbitrary detention, habeas corpus rights, the right to a timely trial, and other fundamental legal protections.

As could be expected, US media coverage of the report and the Hamdan CSRT has been nonexistent. Neither the New York Times, Washington Post, nor Los Angeles Times published an article on the topic, with the main coverage in the US coming from brief wire reports from the AP and Reuters.

Also typical, the response of the US government to the report has consisted largely of the attempt to dismiss and discredit it. Melanie Khanna, a US legal adviser, was quoted in both the AP and Reuters articles at some length. Khanna said that sections of Scheinin’s report dealing with legal violations by the US “simply catalogue well-known criticisms and fail even to acknowledge that there are multiple ways of approaching the difficult issues discussed…”

“We hope that in future the work of the Special Rapporteur proceeds differently,” Khanna said, claiming Scheinin’s description of the combatant status reviews was “in part misleading about the facts of the process, and revisits well-worn, ill-informed criticisms of military commissions hearings. The unfortunate fact is that a large part of the report again repeats unfair and oversimplified criticisms of the United States.”

However, the “well-worn” arguments against the military tribunals have also been made by the US Supreme Court–specifically in regard to the case of Hamdan–before this decision was scuttled by Congress in the 2006 Military Commissions Act. In that case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court ruled that President Bush did not have the authority to establish military commissions, and found them to be illegal under military law and the Geneva Conventions.

When Hamdan was subject to another military commission in June 2007, charges of conspiracy and supporting terrorism were thrown out by the military judge, who ruled that the commission lacked jurisdiction because Hamdan had not been officially classified as an “unlawful enemy combatant.”

The government appealed this decision, asking a military court to declare Hamdan an “unlawful enemy combatant” so he can be tried once again. A ruling has not been issued as of this writing. During the hearing, the defense was denied the request to call three “high value” detainees held at Guantánamo for testimony on the spurious grounds that the request was not timely because of the clearance required to access such prisoners. The detainees, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shib and Abu Faraj al-Libi, have all been subjected to CIA interrogations and torture.

Hearing into destroyed CIA tapes

0

A US judge last night ordered the Bush administration to explain whether the CIA violated a court order by destroying videotapes of the harsh interrogations of two terrorism suspects.

US District Court Judge Henry Kennedy, who in 2005 had ordered the government to preserve information on prisoner mistreatment at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, scheduled a court hearing on the tapes for Friday, overriding government objections.

Lawyers for a group of Guantanamo Bay inmates contesting their detention had requested the hearing to learn whether the government had complied with the preservation order. They cited reports that information obtained from the interrogations implicated five unnamed Guantanamo detainees.

“We hope to establish a procedure to review the government’s handling of evidence in our case … and generally to require an accounting from a government that has admitted that it destroyed evidence,” said David Remes, an attorney for the group of inmates.

He declined to comment on whether he believed any of his clients were implicated during the interrogations.

The CIA on December 6th disclosed that it had destroyed hundreds of hours of interrogation tapes, prompting an outcry from congressional Democrats and human rights activists. The sessions recorded on the tapes were believed to have included a form of simulated drowning known as waterboarding, which has been condemned internationally as torture.

The CIA said it destroyed the tapes lawfully and did so out of concern for the safety of agents involved if the recordings were ever made public. The White House has repeatedly denied the United States tortures terrorism suspects.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the judge’s hearing order but the department last week urged Kennedy not to investigate the videotapes.

Motion Picture Association censors out US torture

Motion Picture Association censors out US torture

Denial of US torture is everywhere, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) had decided that the US public will not be allowed to see posters for the documentary Taxi to the Dark Side because a hooded prionser suggests torture, which isn’t suitable for children. Perhaps they should have told that to the administration before the US started torturing children in Iraq and Guantanamo.

From Variety:

MPAA rejects Gibney’s ‘Dark’ poster
Org objects to hood on torture docu’s one-sheet

By Anne Thompson

The MPAA has rejected the one-sheet for Alex Gibney’s documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side,” which traces the pattern of torture practice from Afghanistan’s Bagram prison to Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay.

ThinkFilm opens the pic, which is on the Oscar shortlist of 15 docs, on Jan. 11.

The image in question is a news photo of two U.S. soldiers walking away from the camera with a hooded detainee between them.

An MPAA spokesman said: “We treat all films the same. Ads will be seen by all audiences, including children. If the advertising is not suitable for all audiences it will not be approved by the advertising administration.”

According to ThinkFilm distribution prexy Mark Urman, the reason given by the Motion Picture Assn. of America for rejecting the poster is the image of the hood, which the MPAA deemed unacceptable in the context of such horror films as “Saw” and “Hostel.” “To think that this is not apples and oranges is outrageous,” he said. “The change renders the art illogical, without any power or meaning.”

The MPAA also rejected the one-sheet for Roadside Attractions’ 2006 film “The Road to Guantanamo,” which featured a hooded prisoner hanging from his handcuffed wrists. At the time, according to Howard Cohen, co-president of Roadside Attractions, the reason given was that the burlap bag over the prisoner’s head depicted torture, which was not appropriate for children to see.

“Not permitting us to use an image of a hooded man that comes from a documentary photograph is censorship, pure and simple,” said producer, writer and director Gibney. “Intentional or not, the MPAA’s disapproval of the poster is a political act, undermining legitimate criticism of the Bush administration. I agree that the image is offensive; it’s also real.”

ThinkFilm plans to appeal the ruling, although Urman admitted that he “doesn’t know what that entails. I’ve only appealed ratings before.”

If ThinkFilm ignores the MPAA and uses materials that have not been approved, it runs the risk of having the rating revoked, which is what happened earlier this year to “Captivity.”

The “Taxi” ad art is actually an amalgam of two pictures. The first, taken by Corbis photographer Shaun Schwarz, features the hooded prisoner and one soldier. Another military figure was added on the left. Ironically, the original Schwarz photo was censored by the military, which erased his camera’s memory. The photographer eventually retrieved the image from his hard drive.

“It’s the photo that would not die,” Gibney said. “This movie is not a horror film like ‘Hostel.’ This is a documentary and that image is a documentary image.”

NSA Controls SSL Email Hosting Services

0

Just learned following within the past few days:

Certain privacy/full session SSL email hosting services have been purchased/changed operational control by NSA and affiliates within the past few months, through private intermediary entities.

Hushmail: now fully owned by private entity NSA affiliate; has had informal relationship with NSA for a number of years that effectively provided NSA with real time access to Hushmail’s hosting servers.

Safe-mail.net: Israeli-based, ironically privately lauded by NSA and US military several years ago for its sound implementation of SendMail with SSL webmail GUI frontend. Now provides mail server info to NSA in real time.

Guardster.com (SSH/SSL proxy): NSA contractors have “bought” full access rights to Guardster servers a few days ago. Separate but related: faciliated port sniffing of hosting servers at Everyones Internet, on NSA affiliates’ behalf, has been ongoing for a number of months now.

More info on industry Windows security software:

Zone Alarm, Symantec, MacAfee: All facilitate Microsoft’s NSA-controlled remote admin access via IP/TCP ports 1024 through 1030; ie will allow access without security flag. Unknown whether or not software port forward routing by these same programs will defeat NSA access.

I will continue to provide more info on the above and related topics upon discovery.

http://cryptome.org/nsa-ssl-email.htm

Freaked Out About FaceBook

0

 thought the creepiest things to happen to social networking was when old guys, claiming to be eighteen-years-old started roaming social networks like MySpace and FaceBook looking to hook up with fifteen-year-olds.But now there’s a whole different kind of creepiness. And this one includes old guys in white lab coats roaming through FaceBook profiles. A bunch of scholars at Harvard University and University of California have decided to turn the vastly popular FaceBook into a giant mouse maze.

If you’re a constant visitor of the site then you’ve probably added those quirky applications that let you throw your friend out window, bake them a cake, head butt — or make up your own little creative action.

Researchers have begun studying one class of students at a particular college, where applications like ‘Hot or Not’, ‘Pirates vs. Ninjas’, and cute little digital pets have become tools in determining certain aspects of social interactions online.

The story in the New York Times didn’t specify if the class being studied knew that these creeps — I mean — scholars had informed them that they were looking at every little program they added, picture they posted, and whether or not they liked the movie Fight Club or not.

Now, I understand that if you want to get a juicy perspective on youth culture — Facebook would be a good place to start. But there’s something about social science freaks digging through my profile and trying to find meaning in the fact that I just dropkicked my friend that makes me a little uncomfortable.

Most of the time, I think social networking profiles are just a plastic exterior that doesn’t necessarily represent us as an individual. It’s more like an external attachment, like a external hard drive. It isn’t really apart of us but it can be — but it’s temporary and changes without us having to change along with it. Trying to draw together some conclusion and hidden meaning in stuff like this can only end with misinterpretations.
–Eming Piansay

Chancellor should withdraw funding for ID cards

1

Alistair Darling’s promise to increase penalties for wilful misuse of data is a wholly inappropriate response to recent data losses. If the police are unable now to apprehend fraudsters operating from beyond British jurisdiction, such legislation will be no deterrent to further criminal activity.

Instead of diversionary legislative theatrics, the correct response is to prevent sensitive data from being exposed in the first place. That requires that HM Government stop collecting and centralising so much personal information and that Whitehall curbs its promiscuous data-sharing habits.

In stark contrast to the incompetence now routinely on display in Westminster, the Scottish Government and Parliament are to be applauded for the resolution on data protection that was passed last Thursday.

The Liberal Democrat motion – amended by the Greens and supported by the SNP and independent MSPs – will greatly improve confidence in the handling of personal information in Scotland.

The cross-party consensus resolves to seek additional powers for the Assistant Information Commissioner for Scotland; calls for government data audits to be independent and accountable to Parliament; calls for a review of Citizens Accounts; and demands that all data-handling procedures be fully compliant with data-protection principles.

Significantly, the Scottish Parliament also resolved that the Scottish Government, local authorities and public bodies should deny the Home Office access to personal information for the UK ID database.

UK ministers must accept that any case for the national ID scheme and Transformational Government agenda has been undermined entirely by the blizzard of revelations in recent weeks.

While the Chancellor’s mind is focused on data protection, he should take a firm lead. In his next statement to the Commons, Mr Darling should announce that all funding for the ID scheme will be withdrawn.

Geraint Bevan, 3e Grovepark Gardens, Glasgow.

Has the UK Data Protection Act been breached by the loss of the hard drive containing information on learner drivers in the US?

Who in the UK is responsible for the records while they are in the US ?

Why were the records moved to a hard disk and taken off Pearson’s secure site in Iowa?

How many copies of the data have been made in the US?

Who has them?

What are they being used for?

The Secretary of State’s reassurances that the data could be found in the telephone directories and the voters’ roll do not hold water. Large numbers of people deliberately keep their particulars off both of these publications.

Maggie Jamieson, 37 Echline Place, South Queensferry.

Each week the government loses data. Could it possibly make next week’s loss the income tax files?

John Ashworth, Woodside, Helensburgh.

Newsquest

Keystone cops: CIA should explain destroyed tapes

1

The CIA and the public should already know who ordered interrogation tapes destroyed, and why

Since the news broke that the CIA had destroyed hundreds of hours of videotapes of the interrogation of two suspected terrorists, at least four investigations have begun or been threatened. However, few of the investigators seem in a hurry to learn the truth.

Within 24 hours of being asked to testify before Congress, CIA Director Mike Hayden should have been able to learn who destroyed the tapes, who ordered them destroyed and for what reason. After all, he’s the director of a vast and elaborate intelligence gathering agency. If the CIA can’t know what its personnel in Washington are doing, how can it expect to learn the world’s secrets?

Hayden’s reluctance to be candid with the people’s representatives suggests that the truth is scandalous or embarrassing to the agency. He told members of the House Intelligence Committee that the tapes, documenting hundreds of hours of harsh interrogation methods, had been made to protect the interrogators from being prosecuted for torture. But if the tapes had to be destroyed, the protection vanished. What was the point?

Hayden said the tapes were destroyed to protect the interrogators’ identities. If that were true, the tapes would not have been made in the first place. The interrogators’ identities would never have been exposed to risk.

A more likely reason for the tapes’ destruction is that they show interrogation methods that on a TV screen look remarkably like torture. If the interrogations were in fact torture, illegal in this country, the destruction of the tapes would constitute tampering with evidence of a crime.

The Justice Department and CIA are conducting, at a glacial pace, a joint investigation. Last week Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein and CIA Inspector General John Helgerson asked members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees not to interfere with the investigation by conducting parallel probes. Wainstein and Helgerson could not predict how long Congress must wait for answers.

In a world in which the administration yearned for the truth, government investigators would already have interviewed the interrogators who were taped and the officials who ordered the tapes destroyed. Any CIA official who didn’t cooperate would be subject to dismissal.

The government’s official investigation seems designed to make the case seem complicated and prolonged. It shouldn’t have to be. No wonder a federal judge is threatening in frustration to mount his own investigation.

The tapes, which recorded the use of waterboarding, or simulated drowning, were not destroyed to protect agents’ identities. They were almost certainly destroyed because they recorded behavior most Americans find abhorrent.

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

‘Innocent man Tasered eight times’

0

Police are investigating a complaint that a man who later proved to be unarmed and innocent was repeatedly shocked with a Taser gun.

Daniel Sylvester, the 45-year-old owner of an east London security firm, was driving home on October 20 when he was stopped by armed police.

Mr Sylvester told The Guardian he got out of his car and was surrounded by officers, at least two of whom carried automatic weapons.

Without warning one officer fired a 50,000 volt Taser into the back of his head, he claimed.

He was shocked again, causing him to fall on his face and break a front tooth, and a further six shocks made him wet himself and left him lying in the road while his car was searched by officers and sniffer dogs, eventually finding nothing.

The incident was part of Operation Neon, which aims to crack down on guns in London’s streets by using number plate recognition and armed reponse teams to stop and search vehicles.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) confirmed they are supervising an investigation that is being carried out by the Met Standards Directorate.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said: “Just after midnight on the 20th, officers on an intelligence-led operation stopped a car in Bounces Road, N9. The driver got out of the vehicle and was subsequently Tasered. Our information is the Taser was deployed once.

“A complaint has been made to police regarding the incident and the DPS (Director of Professional Standards) are investigating.”

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) say in their guidelines Tasers should be deployed where officers “may have to protect the public, themselves and/or the subject(s) at incidents of violence or threats of violence of such severity that they will need to use force.”

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.

Government’s ‘Cavalier attitude to personal data’

0

Commenting on yesterday’s statement by the Department for Transport Ruth Kelly on the loss of details of three million driving test candidates, Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, Susan Kramer MP said:

“This is yet another appalling example of the Government’s cavalier attitude to personal data. If my bank behaved like this I would change it – if only the general public were so fortunate.

“How can a Government with such a dismal record on this issue have the nerve to demand that we trust it to look after sensitive personal information on an ID card database?

“The Government knew about this in May. If it hadn’t been for the child benefits fiasco, how much longer would they have sat on the news? Is there anything else that they’re keeping from us?

“Perhaps it would save time if any departments that have not had major security breaches could let us know now.”

Copyright Publictechnology.net

Millions more ID records go missing

0

The records of more than three million British learner drivers have gone missing from a “secure facility” in the US, an embarrassed Government admitted last night.

Labour’s dismal autumn hit another low as, minutes after ministers admitted that they still did not know the whereabouts of two discs holding sensitive information on 25 million people, they were forced to confess they had lost the details of all candidates for the driving theory test between 2004 and 2007.

Opposition politicians raised questions last night over whether the Government could safely go ahead with plans to place the records of 50 million health service patients on an electronic database, its “spy-in-the-sky” scheme to monitor every journey by 33 million vehicles, and national ID cards.

The latest security breach came as The Times has learnt that ministers are toughening sanctions against the wilful abuse of data – making it an offence punishable by a two-year prison sentence rather than a fine.

The driving test records from September 2004 to April 2007 have gone missing from a facility in Iowa City, Iowa.

Names, addresses and phone numbers – but not financial data – were among the details on a computer hard disc that was found to have disappeared in May.

They were at the site of Pearson Driving Assessments, a private contractor to the Driving Standards Agency that designs the software for the theory test, administers the test, books people in for it, and then keeps their records. The company performed this task from Minnesota, then sent the disc containing all the records by secure courier to its facility in Iowa.

It was booked as having arrived but when staff looked for it in May they could not find it and alerted the agency.

Government officials insisted last night that the breach was of a minor order compared with recent ones and said that most of the information would be available in the telephone book.

Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, who told the Commons about the breach on its penultimate day before the recess, was told only on November 28 after a data audit she had requested in her department.

The Times has been told that the agency informed Stephen Ladyman, a former junior transport minister, last June and Pearson was asked to carry out a full review of its security arrangements. Ms Kelly reported it to the Information Commissioner and he had judged the risks presented by the loss were not “substantial” as the details did not include bank account details, national insurance numbers, driving licence numbers, dates of birth, a copy of the signature or the result of the test.

The Transport Secretary also said that the disc was “formatted specifically to fit Pearson configuration” and was not easily read by third parties.

Because banking details were not included in the lost data, individuals are not being informed, she said.

But Ms Kelly apologised for anyone for any “uncertainty or concern” caused. An advice line has been set up by the agency.

Theresa Villiers, the Shadow Transport Secretary, said that the Government was failing in its duty to obey its own laws on data security and called it further evidence of a “systemic failure” in handling private data.

Ms Kelly’s surprise statement came after Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, told MPs that there was little progress in the inquiry into the loss of the two child benefit discs, despite widespread police searches and the offer of a £20,000 reward for their return.

Mr Darling said that the police had no intelligence of data falling into “the wrong hands” and banks had “no evidence of any activities suggesting evidence of fraud”.

Mr Darling said that Kieran Poynter, the PricewaterhouseCoopers chairman appointed to lead the investigation into the incident, “says his work is far from complete and his conclusions will develop as his work progresses”.

Philip Hammond, for the Conservatives, said that it had been “the most catastrophic data security breach in British history” and criticised Mr Darling’s early explanation that a junior official who had not followed the rules was responsible.

“Responsibility for systemic failure does not lie with junior staff – it lies at the very top,” he said.

“In the face of the overwhelming scale of systemic failure, this statement can only be described as a wholly inadequate response from a wholly inadequate chancellor.” Meanwhile, an efficiency review of Revenue & Customs found that “the senior leadership has not been successful in injecting pace, confidence and dynamism throughout the department”.

The top team “has more to do to demonstrate that it can take the tough decisions required to set priorities and to bring about organisational clarity”. It also needed “a robust plan” to resolve staff “uncertainty” and be clear about what Revenue & Customs would look like in the future.

On another inauspicious day for No 10 and No 11, a similar review of the Treasury found that the department commanded by Mr Darling and for ten years by Mr Brown could improve its “outcomes” if it acted with “greater humility” and in a more open and inclusive way.

Sealed Off by Israel, Gaza Reduced to Beggary

1

Scott Wilson

GAZA CITY — The batteries are the size of a button on a man’s shirt, small silvery dots that power hearing aids for several hundred Palestinian students taught by the Atfaluna Society for Deaf Children in Gaza City.

Now the batteries, marketed by Radio Shack, are all but used up. The few that are left are losing power, turning voices into unintelligible echoes in the ears of Hala Abu Saif’s 20 first-grade students.

The Israeli government is increasingly restricting the import into the Gaza Strip of batteries, anesthesia drugs, antibiotics, tobacco, coffee, gasoline, diesel fuel and other basic items, including chocolate and compressed air to make soft drinks.

This punishing seal has reduced Gaza, a territory of almost 1.5 million people, to beggar status, unable to maintain an effective public health system, administer public schools or preserve the traditional pleasures of everyday life by the sea.

“Essentially, it’s the ordinary people, caught up in the conflict, paying the price for this political failure,” said John Ging, director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency in Gaza, which serves the majority refugee population. “The humanitarian situation is atrocious, and it is easy to understand why — 1.2 million Gazans now relying on U.N. food aid, 80,000 people who have lost jobs and the dignity of work. And the list goes on.”

Israeli military and political leaders say the restrictions are prompted by near-constant rocket and small-arms attacks and concerns over what uses Palestinian gunmen might have for some materials entering Gaza, particularly fuel and batteries.

The Israeli cordon tightened in June, when Hamas, a radical Islamic movement at war with Israel, seized control of Gaza. Israeli officials have insisted to the Bush administration that no humanitarian crisis would result from the sanctions imposed on the territory.

But for Gazans, caught between Israel’s concrete gun towers and the Mediterranean, the sense of crisis is pervasive as they struggle to keep their homes intact, buy essential food from a shrinking and increasingly expensive stock, and educate their children.

“I hold every man, woman and child in Israel responsible for this,” said Geraldine Shawa, 64, the Chicago-born director of the Atfaluna Society. A tall, imposing woman who has lived in Gaza for 36 years, Shawa has watched the fortunes of her pupils squeezed in recent months by what she calls Israel’s practice of collective punishment.

Israeli military officials said last week that 2,000 rockets had been launched from Gaza toward Israel this year, killing two Israelis, wounding many others and instilling fear across the southern region. Since the U.S.-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, Md., last month, Israeli airstrikes and ground forces have killed 26 Hamas gunmen, the Islamic organization says, as well as at least four Palestinian civilians.

Hamas’s military wing is not behind most of the rocket attacks, for which smaller armed groups generally assert responsibility. But Hamas leaders do little to stop the firing of the rockets and rarely, if ever, condemn them.

On Tuesday, Israeli tanks rolled into the central Gaza city of Khan Younis. Six armed Palestinians from the Popular Resistance Committees, a militant splinter group, and the radical Islamic Jihad organization were killed in fighting. Israeli officials labeled the operation “routine.”

“I hold each of them responsible, just as they obviously seem to hold all of us responsible,” Shawa said of the Israelis. “If the Israeli government really has the power and the desire to change, well, this is pushing me in exactly the opposite way — over the edge.”
An Isolated Collective

Moamen Ayash, a frail, 6-year-old Palestinian boy in navy blue slacks and a pressed dress shirt, walked to the whiteboard at the front of his tidy classroom to work through some simple sign phrases.

Moamen has not had a working hearing aid for three months. Israeli military officials said they had no idea the batteries were not being delivered.

The inability to hear even the faintest sounds, which hearing aids sometimes make possible for the deaf, hinders children such as Moamen from acquiring spoken language.

Because few of the estimated 20,000 Gazans suffering from hearing loss know even rudimentary sign language, the deaf here represent an isolated collective, dependent for funding largely on the kindness of strangers and the proceeds of their own crafts shop.

Their condition resembles in some ways the larger estrangement of Gaza, a fenced-in, chaotic jumble of squalid refugee camps set amid rubble-strewn dunes that might someday be perches for resort hotels overlooking the turquoise sea.

Work is rare. Food is scarce. Gasoline is so hard to come by that Mahmoud al-Khozendar, 49, has hung an effigy of a man in a suit above the empty gas pumps at his station. The sign pinned to the hanging man’s chest reads: “The Man in Charge.”

Israel delivers electricity to Gaza that provides roughly 60 percent of the territory’s energy. An Israeli Supreme Court decision is expected any day on whether the supply can be reduced as punishment for the rocket fire from Gaza, which Israel evacuated in the fall of 2005 after nearly four decades of military occupation.

In the rank, crowded wards of Gaza City’s Shifa Hospital, the dispensary is out of 85 essential medicines and close to using up almost 150 others.

Dialysis treatment has been cut back from three to two times a week for even the most critically ill kidney patients, roughly 900 in all. A stack of nearly two dozen blood-cleaning machines gathers dust in a corner, awaiting spare parts that Palestinian doctors say have not been allowed through the border crossings between Gaza and Israel.

The minister of health, Bassem Naim, said in an interview last week that he is husbanding a two-week stock of anesthetic at a time when Israel is threatening to mount a broad military offensive into Gaza to end the rocket fire.

“They have turned Gaza into an animal farm — we only are allowed to get what keeps us alive,” he said.

Since June, Naim said, more than three dozen Palestinians seeking treatment for cancer and other critical illnesses at Israel’s more advanced hospitals were rejected for passage by Israeli security agencies. The Israeli nonprofit group Physicians for Human Rights estimates the number of rejections “in the tens.”

According to Naim, at least 29 patients have died since June, including 12-year-old Tamer al-Yazji, who Palestinian health officials said was denied entry into Israel after developing acute complications from encephalitis. Of the patients who approached Physicians for Human Rights for help, seven died before being granted passage to Israel, according to the organization.

“What do you call sending dozens of Gaza patients to a slow death because they are refused treatment?” Naim said. “That’s not a humanitarian crisis. That’s a war crime.”

Maj. Peter Lerner, Israel’s military liaison for international organizations working in Gaza, said 8,000 Gazans have been permitted to enter Israel for medical care since June.

It is not a risk-free venture for Israel. In 2004, a Palestinian woman detonated an explosives vest near the main Erez Crossing, killing four Israelis and herself. A year and a half later, a 21-year-old Palestinian woman passing through Erez for medical care at Soroka hospital in southern Israel was discovered smuggling a 20-pound bomb, which she unsuccessfully attempted to detonate.

“Hamas should be held accountable to the Palestinian people in Gaza,” Lerner said. “They can’t fire rockets in the morning and expect the crossings to be open for the sick in the afternoon.”
Blackouts and Shortages

When Israel withdrew 8,500 Jewish settlers from Gaza along with the soldiers protecting them, Israeli leaders said the strip could become a prosperous proving ground for a future Palestinian state.

But since the rocket attacks from Gaza began — killing a total of 13 Israeli citizens since the start of the most recent Palestinian uprising in September 2000 — the frequent closure of crossings to Israel has choked the export-reliant Palestinian economy.

Hamas, which won parliamentary elections in January 2006, trounced the U.S.-backed Fatah movement in Gaza in June. The violent takeover, which Hamas swiftly consolidated politically and culturally, cemented the strip’s isolation.

The political divide is widening between the West Bank, where the U.S.-backed administration of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah is in control, and Hamas-run Gaza. The two regions were once envisioned as the twin territories of a Palestinian state.

Now rolling blackouts have begun across the strip, partly because the Palestinian Authority refused for days last week to pay the Israeli company that supplies fuel to Gaza. The strip was receiving only about 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel a day, the lifeblood of the private-sector economy. Before June, the strip received nearly 80,000 gallons of diesel a day.

The Authority has paid its bills, but Israel has limited daily diesel deliveries to Gaza to about 50,000 gallons, some of which is used by the Hamas government and security forces. In addition, Israel sends 80,000 gallons a month directly to the U.N. agency for refugees to ensure that its operation continues.

Lerner, the Israeli military liaison, said this week that he would contact the International Committee of the Red Cross to make sure hearing-aid batteries would be allowed through the crossings.

A spokeswoman for the Atfaluna Society said none had been received so far.

The restrictions have also hampered the society’s vocational programs, which use well-equipped wood shops, weaving looms and pottery studios. Thread for traditional Palestinian embroidery, wood for painted boxes and pottery glazes mostly remain on the far side of the backlogged Israeli border crossings.

“We may have enough for another month,” said Mohamed al-Sharif, 36, who supervises the classes. “Then we will run out again.”

Trucks carrying tobacco and coffee usually have low priority in the lines backed up at the crossings. Israeli military officials say they try to push 60 to 70 trucks through a day, despite frequent rocket and small-arms attacks.

In the meantime, Gazans improvise. “We’ve bought 20 tons of coffee from every store here we could find,” said Riyadh Haigar, owner of the popular Delice Coffee Shop. “Maybe it’ll last a month. Then we close the doors.”

VIDEO: Rare Footage – Flight 93 crashes

0

Rare Footage – Flight 93 – September 11 2001

investigate911.se/

“Ultra-rare news footage from the crash site of United Flight 93 which has never been seen again since 9/11”

Do you see any airplane?

Excerpts

 “The debris is spread over a 3 or 4 mile area, 

“Pictures tell the story, pictures really tell the story, the most horrifying aspect of this crash is how little debris is visible…” 

“There is a large crater in the ground and tiny tiny bits of debris, the investigators have found nothing larger than a phone book.”

“There seems there is nothing there except a hole in the ground”

“Any large pieces of debris? No. There was nothing , nothing that you could have distinguished that a plane had crashed there. You could not see anything. No smoke, no fire…. You could see dirt ash and people walking around.”

Footage from NBC and Fox News. Source of video: Youtube

VIDEO: The brutal reality of Americas police

0

A shocking look at american justice . in 3 years there were 2002 people killed in police custudy.

VIDEO: Example of the 1 Minute Voting Machine Hack

12

It only takes a minute to steal a U.S. Election!

BBC should not decide how society develops

0

By Janet Daley

What is the BBC for? You might think that there was a pretty straightforward answer to that question, or at least that the answer provided by Lord Reith (“to inform, educate and entertain”) could scarcely be bettered for simplicity and felicitousness. But, oh dear, no – this is a more complex world than the one into which the BBC was born.

So the great Sphinx-like question hangs over the corporation like a threat of death. In fact, that apparently philosophical inquiry, to which the BBC has devoted endless internal meditation and debate, is designed to address a logically intractable dilemma summed up in two rather more specific questions.

Quite apart from the extraordinary (when you think of it) capacity to have people imprisoned for refusing to pay to support their activities, why should the BBC have the crushing advantage over its competitors, not only in television and radio, but on the internet as well, that is provided by a huge public subsidy?

And, given that it has that £3.2 billion subsidy, why should it then seek to compete ruthlessly with commercial rivals, for all the world as if it were as dependent on advertising revenue to survive as they were?

Once uttered, those questions answer themselves – or rather, it becomes clear that they have no answer. There is no good reason why the BBC should have exclusive access to an ever-increasing subsidy when it behaves just like one more crassly competitive broadcasting company, especially as its public funding allows it to distort the markets in which it competes by, for example, offering humungous fees to celebrity presenters or running a news website whose vast resources no newspaper site could possibly match.

That, apparently, is the sound conclusion of the Conservative Party, which plans to endorse an idea that has been going the rounds for some time: that the money provided by the licence fee for public service broadcasting should cease to be monopolised by the BBC. A share of it should be available to any broadcasting outfit that proposes to make programmes deemed to be in the public interest. Not only would this be more just, but it would be a stimulus to all the channels to raise their game.

British television broadcasting is plunging downmarket in a desperate race for the “mass audience”. Serious documentaries and grown-up political discussion have been the biggest losers.

ITV has axed its last remaining political programme, Channel 4 clings desperately to the prestige of its single evening news broadcast, and BBC News 24 (which should have been the last redoubt of proper current affairs programming) is killing off Dateline London and Head to Head.

Ironically, in the supposedly cut-throat commercial environment of American television, no major network or cable news channel would dream of ditching the great flagship political discussion programmes – Meet the Press, Face the Nation, Late Edition, Fox on Sunday – which appeal to small, specialised audiences but are hugely influential.

Being able to bid for public funding to make serious, high-quality programmes, whether factual documentaries, political debates or original drama, would provide a counter-balancing influence for broadcasting organisations which now have to rely on crude market share to attract advertising revenue.

It would also put an end to the existential musings of the great BBC monolith (What are we for? Why are we here? Can we go on?) which, in the great tradition of metaphysical system building, have produced sinister, self-serving results. For, in fact, the BBC – with the help of some credulous parliamentarians – has answered its own question with a huge leap into the social policy business.

The new BBC Charter resolves the insoluble dilemma of why the corporation should be treated differently from all other broadcasting companies by elevating it on to another plane entirely. You may not have been aware of this (even though you pay for it) but the BBC – rather like M&S food in those memorable TV adverts – is not just a broadcaster. In the words of its new chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, it must be much more than a mere “commissioner, producer and transmitter of wonderful programmes”.

In order to justify its unique role (and its unique form of income) it should engage with licence payers as “citizens” as well as audiences. There is a new Charter commitment to “sustain citizenship and civil society”, which is elaborated as “reflecting and strengthening cultural identities”, as well as “promoting awareness of different cultures and alternative viewpoints”.

As Sir Michael put it in a speech last month, the BBC is being “challenged to play its part in reinforcing social cohesion in an increasingly diverse society”. He went on to give his personal commitment to that objective in these terms: “All of my previous work has convinced me that diversity both within and between local communities is a source of strength rather than weakness – and that the UK will become stronger the more it recognises and builds on that diversity. The BBC can and should help with this.”

Whether you agree with those sentiments is neither here nor there. Who precisely is Sir Michael, not to say all those hundreds of faceless programme producers, writers and editors, to decide that the UK will become stronger if it embraces diversity? Who elected them?

Sir Michael’s account of the BBC’s mission is explicitly, tendentiously and presumptuously political. Whether licence fee payers believe that their country will become stronger “the more it recognises and builds on” diversity is a matter between them and their mandated government. It is entirely inappropriate for the BBC to enforce a particular systematic view of how society should develop and how, as Sir Michael himself notes, its rapidly changing structure should be addressed.

Engaging in a clash of overtly political objectives is properly the business of political parties or opposing lobby groups, not a supposedly neutral, publicly subsidised broadcaster.

If there is a case for diversity, it must be among the viewpoints of broadcasters themselves. But I doubt that was what Sir Michael had in mind.

British Investigator Is Subject of Probe

0

By Joby Warrick

He has criticized British officials in nuclear smuggling case.

    A British customs agent who investigated the nuclear smuggling network of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan has himself become the target of a British criminal probe after being prominently featured in a book by American researchers.

    Atif Amin’s house and car were searched last week by British authorities with warrants alleging violations of the country’s Official Secrets Act, according to legal documents obtained by The Washington Post. The action came less than two months after the publication of “America and the Islamic Bomb,” which chronicles Amin’s efforts to uncover the Khan network in 2000, more than three years before U.S. and British intelligence officials broke up the smuggling ring.

    The book’s authors, David Armstrong and Joseph Trento, contend that Western intelligence agencies knowingly allowed the smuggling ring to operate for years before moving to shut it down. During this interlude, Khan passed nuclear parts and know-how to Iran, North Korea and Libya, the authors contend. U.S. officials familiar with the case have acknowledged that the Bush administration confronted Pakistan about Khan’s activities in 2003.

    “It’s a story Washington and London do not want out,” said Armstrong, who, with Trento, works for the National Security News Service, a Washington-based nonprofit that hires investigative journalists to research security and intelligence topics. “If Amin can be discredited, it would distract the public from the fact that the U.S. and Britain prevented the most dangerous nuclear smuggling operation in history from being shut down when the opportunity existed.”

    Amin, who formerly led a counterproliferation unit of the British customs service’s commercial fraud division, could not be reached for comment.

    In the book, Amin is described as the director of Operation Akin, a customs investigation that in 2000 began targeting Persian Gulf-based companies allegedly involved in the trafficking of militarily sensitive technology. While working on the investigation in Dubai, Amin began tracing the flow of nuclear-related equipment through companies with ties to Khan, a Pakistani engineer and a key player in his country’s decades-long effort to build nuclear weapons.

    In the spring of 2000, as Amin closed in on Khan at the center of the smuggling operation, he was ordered to quit the case and return to Britain, the authors state. The reason given to Amin for the abrupt change was that British and U.S. spies who were monitoring the network were worried that his questioning would disrupt their operation and expose informants.

    Amin complied with his orders, but in the book he is depicted as complaining bitterly about what he says was a missed opportunity to crush the smuggling ring early.

    “They knew exactly what was going on all the time,” Amin is quoted as saying. “If they’d wanted to, they could have blown the whistle on this long ago.”

    Other independent researchers, including Ron Suskind, a journalist and author of “The One Percent Doctrine,” have alleged that Western governments were aware of Khan’s nuclear trading years before President Bush announced the takedown of the ring.

    Khan acknowledged his role in a February 2004 speech televised in Pakistan, but he insisted that Pakistan’s military and government leaders had no knowledge of his activities at the time.

Top Republican defies Bush

0

Top Republican defies Bush, pledges investigation into destroyed CIA tapes

WASHINGTON – The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee defied the Bush administration Sunday and pledged to investigate the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes.

“We want to hold the community accountable for what’s happened with these tapes. I think we will issue subpoenas,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.

The Justice Department has urged Congress not to investigate and advised intelligence officials not to cooperate with a legislative inquiry.

“You’ve got a community that’s incompetent. They are arrogant. And they are political,” Hoekstra said. “And I think that we’re going to hold (CIA Director) Mike Hayden accountable.”

Earlier this month, the CIA acknowledged destroying videos showing the harsh interrogation of top al-Qaida suspects. Hayden said the videos, which were made in 2002, were destroyed in 2005 out of fear the tapes would leak and reveal the identifies of interrogators. Hayden said the sessions were videotaped to provide an added layer of legal protection for officers using tough interrogation methods authorized by President Bush to help break down recalcitrant prisoners.

The House panel subsequently vowed to investigate, requesting documents and making plans to call several witnesses.

But on Friday, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein and CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, who are heading a separate Justice-CIA preliminary inquiry into the videotape destruction, asked Hoekstra and House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, to postpone the review until it’s clear where the government’s preliminary inquiry will lead. They said they could not predict how long that would take.

Wainstein and Helgerson explained their inquiry would need the same documents and witnesses the committee has requested.

“Our ability to obtain the most reliable and complete information would likely be jeopardized if the CIA undertakes the steps necessary to respond to your requests in a comprehensive fashion at this time,” they wrote in a letter to the committee. In particular, they cited the committee’s request to interview CIA inspector general personnel “because they are potential witnesses in the matter under our inquiry.”

On Sunday, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said a congressional review was necessary because it was an “independent branch of government.” She noted that Congress and the Justice Department have conducted many parallel inquiries in the past.

Harman said that when she was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee in 2003, she sent a letter to the CIA warning the agency not to destroy the videotapes and “they did it anyway and they didn’t tell us.”

“So I am worried. It smells like the cover-up of the cover-up,” Harman said.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., reiterated his call for Attorney General Michael Mukasey to appoint a special counsel to investigate, citing Mukasey’s refusal during confirmation hearings in October to describe waterboarding as torture. Mukasey has said there is no need right now to appoint a special prosecutor.

“I don’t have confidence in the president. I don’t have confidence in the vice president. And I don’t have confidence in the Justice Department. That’s as simple as I can put it,” said Biden, a 2008 presidential contender.

Hoekstra and Harman spoke on “Fox News Sunday,” and Biden appeared on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Associated Press

Griffiths urged to oppose plan for national ID cards

0

EDINBURGH South MP Nigel Griffiths has been urged to withdraw his support for the Government’s ID cards scheme by his Lib Dem rivals.

Former councillor Fred Mackintosh, the Liberal Democrat’s Edinburgh South parliamentary spokesman, has written to the Labour MP asking him to stop supporting the National Identity Register in which the Government wants to store the personal information of everyone in the country.

He said: “The recent fiasco at HMRC has shown the dangers of the Government holding huge amounts of information about each one of us whilst being slipshod in the way that same information is kept.

“This is a clear illustration of the real dangers of a Big Brother centralised state,” he said. ”

The Government should now abandon its ID card scheme.”

Britain bows out of a war it could never have won

0

By Patrick Cockburn

Britain handed over security in Basra province yesterday, bringing a formal end to its ill-starred attempt over almost five years to control southern Iraq.

The transfer of power was marked by a parade of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police beside the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which runs past Basra. As helicopters roared overhead it was the biggest show of strength by the Iraqi army forces since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The great majority of people in Basra were glad to see the British go. “You can see the happiness on the faces of everyone,” said Adel Jassam, a teacher. “It feels like a heavy burden has been lifted off our chests.”

The unpopularity of the British presence is underlined by the results of an opinion poll commissioned by the BBC showing that just 2 per cent of people in Basra believed that the British presence had had a positive effect on their province since 2003. Some 86 per cent said they saw British troops as having a negative impact.

Britain did not suffer a military defeat in southern Iraq, though it lost 134 soldiers and never really established control of the city, the second largest in Iraq.

By the time of yesterday’s handover ceremony it had 4,500 troops in Iraq, confined to Basra airport, whose numbers will be reduced to 2,500 by mid-2008.

The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who was at the ceremony in Basra, said that Britain was not handing over “a land of milk and honey”. This is an understatement, since the Basra that Britain leaves behind will be controlled by semi-criminal Shia militias and political movements whose differences are often over carving up local resources.

“This remains a violent society whose tensions need to be redressed,” said Mr Miliband, “but they need to be addressed by Iraqi political leaders, and it is politics that is going to come to the fore in the months and years ahead.”

The British Army some time ago concluded that its patrols simply provided targets for militiamen without doing any good.

The steady retreat of the British has not so far been followed by a battle for Basra between the three main contenders for power. These are the Fadhila movement, which controls much of the government, the Mehdi Army militia, loyal to the nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr Organisation of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).

All these groups control in part or in full different units of the security forces, as well as valuable economic concessions, such as Basra port, through which flows much of Iraq’s imports. Iran also retains a pervasive though often invisible influence over the militias.

Britain is officially handing over control, nominal though it may have been, of Basra to government security forces. This has supposedly long been the aim of the US and Britain in southern Iraq, but in practice both countries have increasingly favoured one only of the Shia parties, ISCI, as its favoured ally. This may eventually lead to a backlash by the Mehdi Army and Fadhila.

Violence in Basra was never as bad as it was in Baghdad or Mosul, because the city was overwhelmingly Shia. The Sunni and other minority groups have been progressively driven out. The British Army also never tried to impose its authority on the four southern provinces of Iraq to the degree that the US forces tried to win control of central Iraq.

The area where they were meant to be bringing a better life is one of the most devastated in Iraq. Because it was Shia it was never favoured by the over-whelmingly Sunni regime of Saddam. It was also in the frontline in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, when the city was shelled.

The date palms for which southern Iraq was famous were burned or cut down. In the marshes where the Tigris and Euphrates meet, a distinct civilisation had survived for 5,000 years until Saddam drained them so they could no longer provide a sanctuary for his opponents.

There seems to be no end to the miseries that Basra has suffered since the war with Iran started in 1980. The Iran-Iraq war was followed by the first Gulf War, and this in turn by the great Shia uprising of 1991, which began in a square in Basra when a tank gunner fired a shell into one of the omnipresent pictures of Saddam. In the fighting which followed, thousands of Shia were killed and more fled to Iran.

The fall of Saddam was highly popular in Basra, as it was in the rest of Shia Iraq, but while liberation was popular, occupation was not.

British forces had an early lesson about this when they entered the notoriously violent town of al-Majir al-Kabir north of Basra. An attempt to search for weapons led to friction, and during a second patrol this escalated into fighting, and the slaughter on 24 June 2003 of six members of the Royal Military Police who were trapped in the local police station.

Rivalries between different Shia militias remain intense and could explode at any moment. The Mehdi Army is currently obeying a truce called by Mr Sadr. His declared purpose is to root out criminals, and he wants to avoid a military confrontation with ISCI when it is backed by the Americans.

Mr Miliband may be right that Iraqi politicians are better able to handle Iraqi problems than the British, but this does not mean they are effective. The ruling elite in Basra is heavily criminalised, and although the three southernmost Iraqi provinces stand on a reservoir of oil, they remain miserably poor. For this the local leadership is partly to blame, but the leadership of the Shia community in Iraq comes primarily from Baghdad and the shrine cities of Kerbala and Najaf. Basra has always felt exploited and neglected.

Britain stumbled into a small war in southern Iraq which it did not expect to fight and where its aims were always unclear. It is now stumbling out with very little achieved and its military reputation dented, after a conflict in which a victory could never have been won.

Congress vows to probe CIA tapes

0

US Congress has vowed to investigate the CIA’s destruction of videotapes despite Justice Department advice that the agency not cooperate.

Republican US Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan said on Sunday that “we want to hold the community accountable for what’s happened to these tapes,” adding that “our investigation should move forward”.

Hoekstra said CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden should be held accountable for what he called misleading statements by the agency during his term, which began in 2006 after the tapes had been destroyed.

The Justice Department last week urged the CIA not to cooperate, saying it could interfere with the department’s investigation, however, under new Attorney General Michael Mukasey, it said it would investigate the destruction.

The CIA said it destroyed the tapes lawfully and did so out of concern for the safety of agents involved in the negotiations if the recordings were ever made public.

SB/RA

Bush ‘twisting NIE to support Iran war’

0

US intelligence agencies would not have published the NIE with ‘high confidence’ unless they were quite sure, a US analyst has said.

Bush is now trying his best to twist and warp the published report so that it complements rather than contradicts his dire warnings about Iran, Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, says.

“Still, even by historical standards, President Bush has been unusually averse to admitting error. But Bush’s reaction to the considered view of his own intelligence agencies sets a new standard. He and his aides quite obviously wish the intelligence community had kept its views to itself,” he added in an article published by the San Francisco Chronicle.

“By some accounts, the administration was building a case to attack Iran. At the very least, it was trying to convince China and Russia to accept a more stringent United Nations Security Council resolution. Now, of course, the odds of passing that resolution are slim,” Brinkley said.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in his speech, with obvious displeasure, that the intelligence agencies decide on their own what to report and when to make it public, he added.

“That wasn’t always so. During the buildup to the Iraq invasion, the White House pressured the agencies to produce ‘intelligence’ to support his case for war. The agencies complied. Quite obviously Bush and his aides remain wistful for those days,” the article concluded.

BGA/RE

Ohio voting machines have critical flaws

0

Report: Ohio voting machines have critical flaws, could undermine ’08 election

 CINCINNATI– All five voting systems used in Ohio, a state whose electoral votes narrowly swung two elections toward President Bush, have critical flaws that could undermine the integrity of the 2008 general election, a report commissioned by the state’s top elections official has found.

“It was worse than I anticipated,” the official, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, said of the report. “I had hoped that perhaps one system would test superior to the others.”

At polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers.

Ms. Brunner proposed replacing all of the state’s voting machines, including the touch-screen ones used in more than 50 of Ohio’s 88 counties. She wants all counties to use optical scan machines that read and electronically record paper ballots that are filled in manually by voters.

She called for legislation and financing to be in place by April so the new machines can be used in the presidential election next November. She said she could not estimate the cost of the changes.

Florida, another swing state with a history of voting problems, is also scrapping touch-screen machines and switching to optical scan ones for the election. Such systems have gained favor because experts say they are more reliable than others and, unlike most touch screens, they provide a paper trail for recounts.

Ms. Brunner, a Democrat, succeeded J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican who came under fire for simultaneously overseeing the 2004 election and serving as co-chairman of President Bush’s re-election campaign in Ohio.

She ordered the study as part of a pledge to overhaul voting after problems made headlines for hours-long lines in the 2000 and 2004 elections and a scandal in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, that led to the convictions of two elections workers on charges of rigging recounts. Ms. Brunner’s office temporarily seized control of that county’s board of elections.

The study released Friday found that voting machines and central servers made by Elections Systems and Software; Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold; and Hart InterCivic; were easily corrupted.

Chris Riggall, a Premier spokesman, said hardware and software problems had been corrected in his company’s new products, which will be available for installation in 2008.

“It is important to note,” he said, “that there has not been a single documented case of a successful attack against an electronic voting system, in Ohio or anywhere in the United States.”

Ken Fields, a spokesman for Election Systems and Software, said his company strongly disagreed with some of the report’s findings. “We can also tell you that our 35 years in the field of elections has demonstrated that Election Systems and Software voting technology is accurate, reliable and secure,” he said.

The $1.9 million federally financed study assembled corporate and academic teams to conduct parallel assessments. A bipartisan group of 12 election board directors and deputy directors acted as advisers.

The academic team, made up of faculty members and students from Cleveland State University, Pennsylvania State, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Pennsylvania, said systemic change was needed. “All of the studied systems possess critical security failures that render their technical controls insufficient to guarantee a trustworthy election,” the team wrote.

In addition to switching machines, Ms. Brunner recommended eliminating polling stations that are used for fewer than five precincts as a cost-cutting measure, and introducing early voting 15 days before Election Day.

NY Times News Article

VIDEO: Faked 9/11 evidence

0

Mind boggling

No matter how often I look at this, it remains shocking.

There’s only one conclusion to draw from all this:

There is no real news reporting in the United States. There is no real law enforcement either.

It could not be clearer – or more ominous.

 
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/238.html
Excerpt from “Loose Change

Brown suffers further poll slump

0

By David Clarke

LONDON (Reuters) – Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s Labour Party trails the Conservatives by the largest margin in more than 15 years, an opinion poll for the Sunday Times showed.

The poll by YouGov put Labour on 32 points, 13 percentage points behind the Conservatives on 45. Brown’s personal rating has also slumped since he took over from Tony Blair in June.

“At Westminster the sense of doom is growing, and no single analysis of Labour’s troubles seems entirely satisfactory,” Martin Bright, political editor of the left-wing weekly New Statesman, wrote in commentary published on Sunday.

Brown does not have to call an election until May 2010 and his advisers hope recent crises will pass, the economy will rebound and confidence in Brown and his policies will be restored before voters judge him at the ballot box.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was the government’s job to take the difficult decisions needed to move the country forward, even if they aroused opposition.

“It doesn’t feel like meltdown at all,” he told the BBC. “In the end, what counts are not headlines but ideas. And it’s the ideas that this government in the end will live or die by.”

Brown was riding high in the polls after taking office. But the first run on a bank in more than a century, the loss of half of the country’s personal data in the post, allegations of sleaze and a downturn in house prices have all hit Labour.

Perceptions that Brown dithered over whether to call an early election or attend the signing of a new EU treaty, coupled with growing fears among voters of an economic recession have also undermined the former finance minister’s showing. 

Brown’s personal rating — the gap between those saying he was doing a good job and those saying he was doing badly — has plummeted from plus 48 in August to minus 26 four months later.

With an election some years off, the only risk to the prime minister is if his Labour Party begins to have serious doubts about whether he can defeat the Conservatives next time round.

However Brown is now coming under fire from the left of the political spectrum, a natural ally in the past.

The New Statesman has run a series of hostile articles in recent weeks and columnists such as The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee have criticised Brown for a lack of vision and a “catastrophic” attitude towards Europe.

There are few signs Brown’s woes will end soon. The Bank lowered interest rates this month in the face of softer growth but its concerns about inflation picking up may prevent a series of cuts to boost the economy.

In the YouGov poll, 53 percent of voters said they were worried Britain might face a recession next year and a third said Brown’s government would carry most of the blame. YouGov surveyed 1,481 electors in an online poll on December 13-14.

Inside the CIA’s notorious ”black sites”

0

A Yemeni man never charged by the U.S. details 19 months of brutality and psychological torture – the first in-depth, first-person account from inside the secret U.S. prisons.

by Mark Benjamin

WASHINGTON — The CIA held Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah in several different cells when he was incarcerated its network of secret prisons known as “black sites.” But the small cells were all pretty similar, maybe 7 feet wide and 10 feet long. He was sometimes naked, and sometimes handcuffed for weeks at a time. In one cell his ankle was chained to a bolt in the floor. There was a small toilet. In another cell there was just a bucket. Video cameras recorded his every move. The lights always stayed on — there was no day or night. A speaker blasted him with continuous white noise, or rap music, 24 hours a day.

The guards wore black masks and black clothes. They would not utter a word as they extracted Bashmilah from his cell for interrogation — one of his few interactions with other human beings during his entire 19 months of imprisonment. Nobody told him where he was, or if he would ever be freed.

It was enough to drive anyone crazy. Bashmilah finally tried to slash his wrists with a small piece of metal, smearing the words “I am innocent” in blood on the walls of his cell. But the CIA patched him up.

So Bashmilah stopped eating. But after his weight dropped to 90 pounds, he was dragged into an interrogation room, where they rammed a tube down his nose and into his stomach. Liquid was pumped in. The CIA would not let him die.

On several occasions, when Bashmilah’s state of mind deteriorated dangerously, the CIA also did something else: They placed him in the care of mental health professionals. Bashmilah believes these were trained psychologists or psychiatrists. “What they were trying to do was to give me a sort of uplifting and to assure me,” Bashmilah said in a telephone interview, through an interpreter, speaking from his home country of Yemen. “One of the things they told me to do was to allow myself to cry, and to breathe.”

Last June, Salon reported on the CIA’s use of psychologists to aid with the interrogation of terrorist suspects. But the role of mental health professionals working at CIA black sites is a previously unknown twist in the chilling, Kafkaesque story of the agency’s secret overseas prisons.

Little about the conditions of Bashmilah’s incarceration has been made public until now. His detailed descriptions in an interview with Salon, and in newly filed court documents, provide the first in-depth, first-person account of captivity inside a CIA black site. Human rights advocates and lawyers have painstakingly pieced together his case, using Bashmilah’s descriptions of his cells and his captors, and documents from the governments of Jordan, Yemen and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to verify his testimony. Flight records detailing the movement of CIA aircraft also confirm Bashmilah’s account, tracing his path from the Middle East to Afghanistan and back again while in U.S. custody.

Bashmilah’s story also appears to show in clear terms that he was an innocent man. After 19 months of imprisonment and torment at the hands of the CIA, the agency released him with no explanation, just as he had been imprisoned in the first place. He faced no terrorism charges. He was given no lawyer. He saw no judge. He was simply released, his life shattered.

“This really shows the human impact of this program and that lives are ruined by the CIA rendition program,” said Margaret Satterthwaite, an attorney for Bashmilah and a professor at the New York University School of Law. “It is about psychological torture and the experience of being disappeared.”

Bashmilah, who at age 39 is now physically a free man, still suffers the mental consequences of prolonged detention and abuse. He is undergoing treatment for the damage done to him at the hands of the U.S. government. On Friday, Bashmilah laid out his story in a declaration to a U.S. district court as part of a civil suit brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing accused of facilitating secret CIA rendition flights.

Bashmilah said in the phone interview that the psychological anguish inside a CIA black site is exacerbated by the unfathomable unknowns for the prisoners. While he figured out that he was being held by Americans, Bashmilah did not know for sure why, where he was, or whether he would ever see his family again. He said, “Every time I realize that there may be others who are still there where I suffered, I feel the same thing for those innocent people who just fell in a crack.”

It may seem bizarre for the agency to provide counseling to a prisoner while simultaneously cracking him mentally — as if revealing a humanitarian aspect to a program otherwise calibrated to exploit systematic psychological abuse. But it could also be that mental healthcare professionals were enlisted to help bring back from the edge prisoners who seemed precariously damaged, whose frayed minds were no longer as pliable for interrogation. “My understanding is that the purpose of having psychiatrists there is that if the prisoner feels better, then he would be able to talk more to the interrogators,” said Bashmilah.

Realistically, psychiatrists in such a setting could do little about the prisoners’ deeper suffering at the hands of the CIA. “They really had no authority to address these issues,” Bashmilah said about his mental anguish. He said the doctors told him to “hope that one day you will prove your innocence or that you will one day return to your family.” The psychiatrists also gave him some pills, likely tranquilizers. They analyzed his dreams. But there wasn’t much else they could do. “They also gave me a Rubik’s Cube so I could pass the time, and some jigsaw puzzles,” Bashmilah recalled.

The nightmare started for him back in fall 2003. Bashmilah had traveled to Jordan from Indonesia, where he was living with his wife and working in the clothing business. He and his wife went to Jordan to meet Bashmilah’s mother, who had also traveled there. The family hoped to arrange for heart surgery for Bashmilah’s mother at a hospital in Amman. But before leaving Indonesia, Bashmilah had lost his passport and had received a replacement. Upon arrival in Jordan, Jordanian officials questioned his lack of stamps in the new one, and they grew suspicious when Bashmilah admitted he had visited Afghanistan in 2000. Bashmilah was taken into custody by Jordanian authorities on Oct. 21, 2003. He would not reappear again until he stepped out of a CIA plane in Yemen on May 5, 2005.

Bashmilah’s apparent innocence was clearly lost on officials with Jordan’s General Intelligence Department. After his arrest, the Jordanians brutally beat him, peppering him with questions about al-Qaida. He was forced to jog around in a yard until he collapsed. Officers hung him upside down with a leather strap and his hands tied. They beat the soles of his feet and his sides. They threatened to electrocute him with wires. The told him they would rape his wife and mother.

It was too much. Bashmilah signed a confession multiple pages long, but he was disoriented and afraid even to read it. “I felt sure it included things I did not say,” he wrote in his declaration to the court delivered Friday. “I was willing to sign a hundred sheets so long as they would end the interrogation.”

Bashmilah was turned over to the CIA in the early morning hours of Oct. 26, 2003. Jordanian officials delivered him to a “tall, heavy-set, balding white man wearing civilian clothes and dark sunglasses with small round lenses,” he wrote in his declaration. He had no idea who his new captors were, or that he was about to begin 19 months of hell, in the custody of the U.S. government. And while he was seldom beaten physically while in U.S. custody, he describes a regime of imprisonment designed to inflict extreme psychological anguish.

I asked Bashmilah which was worse; the physical beatings at the hands of the Jordanians, or the psychological abuse he faced from the CIA. “I consider that psychological torture I endured was worse than the physical torture,” he responded. He called his imprisonment by the CIA “almost like being inside a tomb.”

“Whenever I saw a fly in my cell, I was filled with joy,” he said. “Although I would wish for it to slip from under the door so it would not be imprisoned itself.”

After a short car ride to a building at the airport, Bashmilah’s clothes were cut off by black-clad, masked guards wearing surgical gloves. He was beaten. One guard stuck his finger in Bashmilah’s anus. He was dressed in a diaper, blue shirt and pants. Blindfolded and wearing earmuffs, he was then chained and hooded and strapped to a gurney in an airplane.

Flight records show Bashmilah was flown to Kabul. (Records show the plane originally departed from Washington, before first stopping in Prague and Bucharest.) After landing, he was forced to lie down in a bumpy jeep for 15 minutes and led into a building. The blindfold was removed, and Bashmilah was examined by an American doctor.

He was then placed in a windowless, freezing-cold cell, roughly 6.5 feet by 10 feet. There was a foam mattress, one blanket, and a bucket for a toilet that was emptied once a day. A bare light bulb stayed on constantly. A camera was mounted above a solid metal door. For the first month, loud rap and Arabic music was piped into his cell, 24 hours a day, through a hole opposite the door. His leg shackles were chained to the wall. The guards would not let him sleep, forcing Bashmilah to raise his hand every half hour to prove he was still awake.

Cells were lined up next to each other with spaces in between. Higher above the low ceilings of the cells appeared to be another ceiling, as if the prison were inside an airplane hanger.

After three months the routine became unbearable. Bashmilah unsuccessfully tried to hang himself with his blanket and slashed his wrists. He slammed his head against the wall in an effort to lose consciousness. He was held in three separate but similar cells during his detention in Kabul. At one point, the cell across from him was being used for interrogations. “While I myself was not beaten in the torture and interrogation room, after a while I began to hear the screams of detainees being tortured there,” he wrote.

While he was not beaten, Bashmilah was frequently interrogated. “During the entire period of my detention there, I was held in solitary confinement and saw no one other than my guards, interrogators and other prison personnel,” he wrote in his declaration. One interrogator accused him of being involved in sending letters to a contact in England, though Bashmilah says he doesn’t know anybody in that country. At other times he was shown pictures of people he also says he did not know.

“This is a form of torture,” he told me. “Especially when the person subjected to this has not done anything.”

In his declaration, Bashmilah made it clear that most of the prison officials spoke English with American accents. “The interrogators also frequently referred to reports coming from Washington,” he wrote.

After six months he was transferred, with no warning or explanation. On or around April 24, 2004, Bashmilah was pulled from his cell and placed in an interrogation room, where he was stripped naked. An American doctor with a disfigured hand examined him, jotting down distinctive marks on a paper diagram of the human body. Black-masked guards again put him in a diaper, cotton pants and shirt. He was blindfolded, shackled, hooded, forced to wear headphones, and stacked, lying down, in a jeep with other detainees. Then he remembers being forced up steps into a waiting airplane for a flight that lasted several hours, followed by several hours on the floor of a helicopter.

Upon landing, he was forced into a vehicle for a short ride. Then, Bashmilah took several steps into another secret prison — location unknown.

He was forced into a room and stripped naked again. Photos were taken of all sides of his body. He was surrounded by about 15 people. “All of them except for the person taking photographs were dressed in the kind of black masks that robbers wear to hide their faces,” Bashmilah wrote in the declaration.

He was again examined by a doctor, who took notations on the diagram of the human body. (It was the same form from Afghanistan. Bashmilah saw his vaccination scar marked on the diagram.) The doctor looked in his eyes, ears, nose and throat.

He was then thrown into a cold cell, left naked.

It was another tiny cell, new or refurbished with a stainless steel sink and toilet. Until clothes arrived several days later, Bashmilah huddled in a blanket. In this cell there were two video cameras, one mounted above the door and the other in a wall. Also above the door was a speaker. White noise, like static, was pumped in constantly, day and night. He spent the first month in handcuffs. In this cell his ankle was attached to a 110-link chain attached to a bolt on the floor.

The door had a small opening in the bottom through which food would appear: boiled rice, sliced meat and bread, triangles of cheese, boiled potato, slices of tomato and olives, served on a plastic plate.

Guards wore black pants with pockets, long-sleeved black shirts, rubber gloves or black gloves, and masks that covered the head and neck. The masks had tinted yellow plastic over the eyes. “I never heard the guards speak to each other and they never spoke to me,” Bashmilah wrote in his declaration.

He was interrogated more. Bashmilah recalls an interrogator showing him a lecture by an Islamic scholar playing on a laptop. The interrogator wanted to know if Bashmilah knew who the man was, but he did not. It was in this facility that Bashmilah slashed his wrists, then went on his hunger strike, only to be force-fed through a tube forced down his nose.

The CIA seems to have figured out that Bashmilah was not an al-Qaida operative sometime around September 2004, when he was moved to another, similar cell. But there was no more white noise. And while his ankles were shackled, he wasn’t bolted to the floor with a chain. He was allowed to shower once a week. He was no longer interrogated and was mostly left alone.

Bashmilah was given a list of books he could read. About a month before he was released, he was given access to an exercise hall for 15 minutes a week. And he saw mental healthcare professionals. “The psychiatrists asked me to talk about why I was so despairing, interpreted my dreams, asked me how I was sleeping and whether I had an appetite, and offered medications such as tranquilizers.”

On May 5, 2005, Bashmilah was cuffed, hooded and put on a plane to Yemen. Yemeni government documents say the flight lasted six or seven hours and confirm that he was transferred from the control of the U.S. government. He soon learned that his father had died in the fall of 2004, not knowing where his son had disappeared to, or even if he was alive.

At the end of my interview with Bashmilah, I asked him if there was anything in particular he wanted people to know. “I would like for the American people to know that Islam is not an enemy to other nations,” he said. “The American people should have a voice for holding accountable people who have hurt innocent people,” he added. “And when there is a transgression against the American people, it should not be addressed by another transgression.”

Prison interrogation techniques in Israel

3

Gideon Levy

“We have to make you do a little sports,” the Shin Bet interrogator said, launching four successive days of questioning accompanied by brutal physical torture. The result: Luwaii Ashqar can no longer stand on his feet. He sits in his wheelchair, dressed in a fashionable quasi-military suit, super-elegant, new Caterpillar-brand shoes on his paralyzed feet.

“I love this color,” he says about his uniform. “It’s the color of the soldiers who came to arrest me for the interrogation that did all this to me.”

His smile is captivating, his Hebrew rich and incisive. He is a young man whose world fell apart. He entered prison sound of body and mind and emerged a broken man. For four days and four nights nonstop, he says, he was interrogated and subjected to torture of the most brutal kind. The result is the person we see before us in the wheelchair , in the elegant home high in the village of Saida, north of Tul Karm, which was placed at his disposal by a friend after he was released from Israeli prison a month ago.

Was there a judgment by the High Court of Justice? There was. It banned precisely the types of torture he underwent: the “banana posture,” the “shabah” (body stretching with hands tied to a chair), “invisible” blows and the “frog posture” (being forced to stand for hours on the toes in a crouching position) – all the way to a vicious kick to his chest that bent his body backward while he was tied to a chair with his arms and legs, and which was the probable cause of the partial paralysis of his legs.

Throwing up with the vomit entering his nostrils, losing consciousness and being given only saltwater to drink, relieving himself in his pants, not sleeping or resting – all of that for four consecutive days and nights.

What does the interrogator Maimon tell his children when he goes home? What do Eldad and Sagiv tell their wives about their daily labors before they turn in? That they tortured another helpless prisoner until they turned him into a cripple? That they beat this charming young man brutally and that at the end of the interrogation he was tried for only marginal offenses? And where is the Supreme Court, which in 1999 prohibited precisely the chain of torture that Luwaii Sati Ashqar, 30, who was married three years ago, underwent in the Kishon detention facility?

Ashqar is not alone. The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel has just issued a new report containing the testimonies of nine torture victims (English version: www.stoptorture.org.il//eng ). As the authors of the shocking report say, the testimonies “paint a dismal picture in which can be discerned various categories of secret-keeping collaborators, who, in keeping silent, protect the [Shin Bet] system of torture.” …

On the wall is a picture, a fine drawing of a kneeling prisoner, his head between his knees. The caption: “I am in the darkness of the prison, living on your memory. I am far from you, lying in my bed, my spirit cruising your land all night. God will release all the prisoners, the strong will triumph.”

Ashqar is sitting in his wheelchair, his left leg completely enclosed in a cast, his right leg shaking nonstop. When he tries to get up and lean on his crutches, he threatens to topple over. “I was married in 2004, and I started to work in aluminum in the village to provide for my new household. On April 22, 2005, at 2:30 A.M., the soldiers came and started to throw grenades and to shout for everyone in the house to go outside. They blindfolded me with whatever they use and handcuffed me. I was taken in a jeep to prison and I was examined by an army doctor. He looked over my body – no operations, doesn’t take medication, no illnesses. Again I was taken in a military jeep, this time to Kishon. ‘Yehuda, incoming,’ the warder said and transferred me to the interrogation office. They opened my eyes: Good morning. An excellent morning. One of the interrogators, Maimon, told me: I am responsible for your file. What file? The one you were arrested for. This is the major, and this tall guy is the colonel, this is Sagiv and this is Eldad. Eight interrogators.

“They said: We have no time, it will soon be our Passover and you have to finish everything in a short time. Finish what? You have to tell us what you have. I don’t have anything to tell you. I begged. They said: We know all that nonsense. We are talking about security. Plans for terrorist attacks at Passover. I said: I don’t understand what you are talking about. They said: The suicide bomber was at your place. What suicide bomber?

“After two hours of talking they said to me: If you don’t give everything you have, we will have to take it by a different way. What is the different way? Did you hear of a military interrogation? You might leave here with your body battered or crippled. I was taken to a military interrogation. Here you pray to God that you will die, they said, but we won’t give you that. We will let you die only after you spill out what we are looking for. He gave me a prison uniform and I told him that if I was going to die, I preferred my own clothes.

“They sat me down on a square chair without a back, which was attached to the floor and had sharp metal ends [sticking up]. My legs were tied to the legs of the chair with metal cuffs and my hands were tied behind my back with metal cuffs. One interrogator sat behind me and the other in front of me. The interrogator opposite me said: We have to give you a little sports, so you will be able to hold out in the military interrogation. The sports was that they pushed me backward by the chest, a backward somersault, and I would hold myself so my bones would not break. After a minute or two I would automatically fall on the floor, but the interrogator behind me would put his foot on my chest and press, and the interrogator in front would grab my hands and pull and pull behind the chair. They kept on like that until I don’t know what happened to me, heat in every part of my body, puking everything I had in my stomach and it would go into my nostrils. I would wake up when they poured water on my face. When I woke up, we went back to the same situation. It went on like this 15-20 times an hour.

“After that they made me crouch on my toes, not letting me lean on the back of my foot. I was in that position for 40-50 minutes, maybe an hour – that was my estimate – until I felt my soles swelling and they turned blue and there was tremendous pain. After that, stand up, and they tied my hands and pressed as hard as they could on the metal handcuffs until the metal dug into my hand. Here are the signs, you can still see them. Because of the pressure, the key of the handcuffs didn’t always work and they would bring huge metal scissors, like they use in construction, and tear off the handcuffs and then bring new ones, to go on. The color of my hands changed to blue, and when they opened [the handcuffs] my hands shook. The interrogator stood on the table and pulled me with a chain of handcuffs. When I fell, they pulled me by the hair.

“I would cry, beg, shout, and they came back to me with words, that it was impossible to stop, only after you start talking about what we want. I said to them: Tell me what you want. Tell me I am responsible for the attack on the Pentagon, I am ready to confess to everything, just tell me what. I want to end this death.”

“There were always four interrogators and two rotated every four hours, day and night. The new ones would tell me they were stronger than the ones before, that the ones before were a joke, we are the strong ones. And that was true. The new ones tied me and started to beat me all over my body. One interrogator pressed hard on my testicles and on my feet with his shoes. When they slapped me and I tried to pull back, the major would say: What are you doing? If you move back, I will break your nose, and if you move forward I will rip off your ear. Be strong and take it sportingly, because you are a soldier and a fighter. They broke this tooth.”

Ashqar suddenly stops talking. He turns pale and his face is covered with beads of perspiration. His father, Sati, quickly wipes his face with a damp cloth. “Every time I try to remember I get dizzy, even when I am alone.” Quiet descends in the room. It will take Ashqar another few minutes to pull himself together.

“I was taken into detention on Friday morning, and that was the last light of day I saw before the interrogation. I came out for the first time on Monday night or before dawn on Tuesday morning. On those long days I sat in a chair and did not even go to the toilet. So you won’t kill yourself, they said. I urinated in my clothes, and a terrible stench started. For four days I didn’t eat anything. They told me: If we give you something to eat, something will happen to your stomach and your intestines. Maybe they will explode under the pressure of the food when we push you backward. You will drink only half a cup of saltwater. That is what they gave me every time after they bent me and I vomited. Why with salt? I asked. Give me without salt. No, so nothing will happen in your stomach and intestines. I would drink it and vomit.

“On Monday evening, they told me that five witnesses had testified that Luwaii had transported a wanted man. I told them that there was a famous wanted man named Luwaii Sadi, but my name is Luwaii Sati, and maybe they had mixed us up. He said to me: Are you saying the Shin Bet is that stupid? We know exactly what we’re doing, and it is all correct. I said: Put me on trial for whatever you want. He said: Ya’allah, sports again. He pushes me backward in the chair. I will help you become a story in Palestinian history. He is talking to me and my head is down below. He pushes strongly with his leg and presses on my chest. I felt something like an explosion in my body. Like something broke. After that I don’t know what happened. I woke up and they were pouring water on my face. Again they pushed me backward and again I fainted.

“He said to me: Stand on your feet. I felt that my legs were cold, like pins and needles in the legs. I said: I can’t. He said: Now you are paralyzed. I said: I guess I am. He said: That is what we promised you and that is what you want.”

“I discovered I had a wound in the back and it was bleeding – because of the sharp chair – and one of my bones was protruding. Because of the blood and because of the urine of four days there was such a stench that the interrogator could not come close to me. He said: Why do you stink like that? I told him: That is your perfume. A warder took me to the shower and threw me on the floor and said to me: Ya’allah, you have two minutes to shower. I looked at the faucet up above and I could not reach it. I pulled down my pants and the underpants stayed in place. I tried to pull them down – I could do it in front but behind it was stuck to my back. The two minutes went by and the warder started to pound on the door. Time’s up. I told him: Give me another two minutes, I can’t reach the faucet. He came in and asked: What do you have on your back? I said: I don’t know.

“He called the interrogator and said: Come and see the prisoner. The interrogator came and asked: What do you have, Luwaii? I said: I don’t know what I have on my back, I can’t pull the underpants down and I can’t reach the faucet. He said: Ya’allah, we will go up and finish the story and take you to the doctor.

“Two warders took me in a Prisons Service vehicle to Rambam [Medical Center in Haifa]. In emergency, my hands and feet were tied and a Russian doctor asked me: What hurts you? I told him: My whole body hurts from the interrogation. The Druze warder said: Shut up. The doctor turned me on the side and stuck a finger into my ass. I asked him: What are you doing? He said: I am checking whether you have hemorrhoids. Why didn’t you ask me first? I am a professional, he said. I said: What about the wound on the back? He put ointment there and dressed it. After 10 minutes I was taken back to interrogation. Again I was tied to the square chair. The bandage fell off and the wound started to bleed again. After that, they stopped the military interrogation.”

He was interrogated for another two months, but without physical torture. He was told that his wife had been arrested because of him – a complete fabrication – and he was given a lie detector test (“the falsehoods machine,” in his Hebrew). For two weeks he was placed in a cell with stool pigeons. In the end, he was indicted on only two counts, in Prosecution File 2157/05: assisting a wanted person to hide and using a forged document. No ticking and no bomb. Ashqar was sentenced to 26 months in prison and was released a month ago. In the meantime, his younger brother, Osaimar, disappeared. Soldiers came to the house looking for him, but he was not there. His family has not seen him since: He told them that he was not willing to undergo what Luwaii did.

Luwaii is now looking for a way to get medical treatment in Israel or abroad, after his physician told him that he would not be able to get rehabilitation in the West Bank. His lawyer told him that the Shin Bet will almost certainly prevent him from going anywhere.

The Dollar Fallback

0

Until late January this year, the hosiery town of Tirupur had been in a state of euphoria. Within days, its glee turned into a grimace.

Until late January this year, the hosiery town of Tirupur had been in a state of euphoria. Within days, its glee turned into a grimace. In February, the US dollar depreciated against the Indian rupee. The rupee value of the dollar slipped south from Rs 46 to Rs 44 and then to Rs 42 in June and the Tamil Nadu town’s euphoria evaporated. Ten months down the line, it is grappling with losses.

The performance of the 1,000-odd exporters in Tirupur, supported by 6,000 auxiliary units, including knitting units, dyeing and bleaching, fabric painting, garment-making and embroidery, had been impressive. From Rs 54 crore in 1984, exports had leapfrogged to Rs 11,200 crore in 2007. The Tirupur Exporters’ Association (TEA) gleefully set itself a target of Rs 25,000 crore by 2012, another five years hence–until its complacency was rudely shaken up by the dollar plunge.

Today, the dollar value hovers around Rs 39.50. With exports taking a big hit, and with jobs at risk, state Governments have already started writing to the Centre. They are a worried lot since the rupee’s hardening has begun having implications beyond textiles and handicrafts to aam aadmi sectors such as fisheries, plantations, cotton, jute, leather, plastic and linoleum.

While informing the Centre about the extent of job losses that have already taken place in their regions, Tamil Nadu, Jammu and Kashmir and West Bengal have sought the Union Government’s intervention. Apart from the states, field reports have begun pouring in from other Central ministries and departments dealing with these sectors.

The misery will surely be felt by the 2 to 5 crore people who the Commerce Ministry expects will lose jobs by March 2008. ‘‘We have got letters from a large number of people about shutdowns and job losses. We had asked departments concerned to seek field reports,’’ a senior Ministry official said.

‘‘This is a crisis situation. Exporters never anticipated this. We have to prepare ourselves for it,’’ said A. Sakthivel, President of TEA, which has 600 members. Like him, all exporters are hunkering down for a tough time, devising means to staunch the bleeding.

Saktivel’s Poppys Knit Wear, a Rs 190-crore company that mostly exports its product, is now trying to reduce production cost and minimise the use of raw materials. ‘‘We are also trying to increase production by using skilled engineers and by using computer-aided designs,’’ said Sakthivel. Companies are now hectically negotiating with raw material suppliers and processing units to bring down the costs and make up the profit margins somewhat.

‘‘Industry has to improve its productivity and bring down costs, but the rupee’s appreciation has happened so fast that there’s been little time for adjustment. Contracts can’t be renegotiated overnight, neither can prices be increased unless you have big bargaining power,’’ the Commerce Ministry official pointed out.

The implications of the dollar fall are serious. ‘‘The biggest casualty has been capacity expansion,” said Rajeev Gupta, director of Ludhiana-based Venus Garments. Gupta’s group, owner of brands like Duke and Neva, exports garments worth Rs 180 crore, primarily to the US. “Companies that have a strong domestic presence can still cope with the losses. But the worst hit are standalone garment units executing bulk orders to buyers based in different parts of the world. When I say that capacity expansion has taken a hit, it means that a lot of jobs that could have been created have been lost.”

The loss hasn’t been restricted only in terms of new jobs. In fact, as the orders have dwindled, the companies haven’t been averse to laying off workers. The most-well known Ludhiana company, Oswal Woollen Mills, with annual exports of Rs 600 crore, has laid off around 500 workers in the past year. Executive Director Sandeep Jain says while software firms are better able to absorb the shock as they have margins of 30 per cent, even the most powerful textile firm cannot boast of margins beyond 10 per cent. This is serious because, unlike in the other sectors, competition is intense in textiles and a slight hike in prices leads the foreign buyer to turn to countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Taiwan, China, even Sri Lanka.

In a bid to cut his losses, Tirupur’s R. Sivaram, executive director of Royal Classic Mills, a Rs 225 crore company with exports worth Rs 125 crore, turned to “doubling” his company’s presence in the domestic market. It launched a premier trouser brand for men and increased the number of its showrooms across the country from 30 to 100 this year. A number of other companies, too, are looking at the domestic option and at new markets. Blue Mount Garments of Ludhiana, for instance, is planning outlets in the Middle East, which has a sizeable Indian population.

Living with diminishing margins is a prospect that exporters have to bravely face. ‘‘This is the new reality and we have to face it,” said A. Loganathan, who owns Victus Dyeings, a Tirupur-based Rs 85 crore company. ‘‘We are trying to reduce the turnaround time. My company achieved a delivery time of 45 days instead of the usual 75 days. This way, the cost of holding inventories is reduced. In fact, we are trying to reduce cost in all aspects…reducing stock holding periods and getting it right the first time with no quality issues and keeping to the delivery time.”

Devising his own strategy to bring down costs, Raja Shanmugam of the Rs 60 crore Warsaw International in Tirupur decided there would be no wastage henceforth. ‘‘Earlier, we would provide 5 per cent more fabric to provide for wastage and embellishments,” he said, adding that his company was “slowly stepping into hedging”.

Hedging, which many exporters are now using to cover losses, involves forward contracts and option dealing. The TEA has proposed to the Finance Minister that the hedging cost be compensated or that dual exchange rate be considered. The export body has pleaded that for exporters, the value of rupee should be frozen at Rs 42.

The Centre has announced two rounds of incentives, including additional subvention of 2 per cent in pre-shipment and post-shipment credit over and above the 2 per cent extended earlier. This is apart from the extension of the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) which provides for 4-5 per cent interest reimbursement on investment by textile companies.

The Centre also hiked the duty drawback scheme from 7 per cent to 10 per cent with effect from April 1 to provide some succour. Exporters agree this has helped. ‘‘However, we would like it to go up to 15 per cent,” said Oswal’s Sandeep Jain.

‘‘We can export to countries like Italy and Germany, but there is a lot of competition and they are aware of our desperate situation. Hence they are negotiating very closely from a position of advantage,” says Sanjay Jain, whose company Blue Mount Garments exports shirts and womenwear to US-based retail giant Walmart and fashion major GAP. “In my 17 years in the business, I have never known such insecurity,” he added.

Tirupur’s exports are equally divided between the US and European markets. Unfortunately, however, many of the European companies continue to do their invoicing in dollars. While the US dollar lost 11 per cent value against the rupee in 2007, the euro and pound sterling lost only about 1.45 per cent and 6.9 per cent respectively but with no benefit to the exporters. ‘‘In fact, more European companies now want to do their invoicing in US dollars,” said Sakthivel.

But wouldn’t a decline in dollar also make imports cheaper? Also, isn’t it the right time, therefore, to modernise plants and increase capacity because getting machinery from outside is cheaper than ever before? Sandeep Jain replied, ‘‘Theoretically, these arguments are correct. But you need to get down to brasstacks to know the real situation. Who is interested in getting new machinery when capacity expansion itself is unviable? Why do we need to produce more when our existing goods are struggling to find markets?”

And if export margins have come down, import costs in certain sectors have escalated. Wool from Australia, for example. As Sandeep Jain pointed out, ‘‘The Australian dollar has appreciated. In the past year or so, it has gone up from Rs 32 to Rs 35. So here too our costs have gone up.”

With the dollar drop and the consequent escalation in production costs, the fear has been of losing clients to competitors like Bangladesh, the world’s largest exporter, and others like Indonesia and Turkey. ‘‘The biggest fight for exporters is to retain their clients. If they are not able to keep to time schedules and commitments, the buyers could well turn to our competitors and we will never get them back,” warns D.K. Nair, secretary general of the Delhi-based Confederation of Indian Textile Industry (CITI).

Amid all this chaos, there is a silver lining. ‘‘These are jolts that will make the hitherto somnolent industry into thinking fast on its feet,” said Rajeev Gupta. And for good measure, added, ‘‘You can whine perpetually. The Government is doing its bit. But these are the concomitants of global economy. If on the one hand you are asking for full capital account convertibility, then on the other hand you can’t complaint about declining currencies.”

Perhaps between these realities, exporters will learn to be leaner and meaner earners. That could be the lesson from the dwindling dollar.

http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/250675.html

Remains of toxic DU bullets

0

— At a roadside produce stand on the outskirts of Baghdad, business is brisk for Latifa Khalaf Hamid. Iraqi drivers pull up and snap up fresh bunches of parsley, mint leaves, dill, and onion stalks.

But Ms. Hamid’s stand is just four paces away from a burnt-out Iraqi tank, destroyed by – and contaminated with – controversial American depleted-uranium (DU) bullets. Local children play “throughout the day” on the tank, Hamid says, and on another one across the road.

No one has warned the vendor in the faded, threadbare black gown to keep the toxic and radioactive dust off her produce. The children haven’t been told not to play with the radioactive debris. They gather around as a Geiger counter carried by a visiting reporter starts singing when it nears a DU bullet fragment no bigger than a pencil eraser. It registers nearly 1,000 times normal background radiation levels on the digital readout.

The Monitor visited four sites in the city – including two randomly chosen destroyed Iraqi armored vehicles, a clutch of burned American ammunition trucks, and the downtown planning ministry – and found significant levels of radioactive contamination from the US battle for Baghdad.

In the first partial Pentagon disclosure of the amount of DU used in Iraq, a US Central Command spokesman told the Monitor that A-10 Warthog aircraft – the same planes that shot at the Iraqi planning ministry – fired 300,000 bullets. The normal combat mix for these 30-mm rounds is five DU bullets to 1 – a mix that would have left about 75 tons of DU in Iraq.

The Monitor saw only one site where US troops had put up handwritten warnings in Arabic for Iraqis to stay away. There, a 3-foot-long DU dart from a 120 mm tank shell, was found producing radiation at more than 1,300 times background levels. It made the instrument’s staccato bursts turn into a steady whine.

“If you have pieces or even whole [DU] penetrators around, this is not an acute health hazard, but it is for sure above radiation protection dose levels,” says Werner Burkart, the German deputy director general for Nuclear Sciences and Applications at the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. “The important thing in any battlefield – especially in populated urban areas – is somebody has to clean up these sites.”

Minimizing the risk

Fresh-from-the-factory DU tank shells are normally handled with gloves, to minimize the health risk, and shielded with a thin coating. The alpha particle radiation emitted by DU travels less than an inch and can be stopped by cloth or even tissue paper. But when the DUmaterial burns (usually on impact; or as a dust, it can spontaneously ignite) protective shields disappear, and dangerous radioactive oxides are created that can be inhaled or ingested.

“[The risk] depends so very much on how you handle it,” says Jan Olof Snihs, of Sweden’s Radiation Protection Authority in Stockholm. In most cases dangers are low, he says, unless children eat toxic and radioactive soil, or get DU oxides on their hands.

Radioactive particles are a “special risk associated with a war,” Mr. Snihs says. “The authorities should be aware of this, and try to decontaminate places like this, just to avoid unnecessary risk.”

Pentagon officials say that DU is relatively harmless and a necessary part of modern warfare. They say that pre-Gulf War studies that indicated a risk of cancer and of causing harm to local populations through permanent contamination have been superseded by newer reports.

“There is not really any danger, at least that we know about, for the people of Iraq,” said Lt. Col. Michael Sigmon, deputy surgeon for the US Army’s V Corps, told journalists in Baghdad last week. He asserted that children playing with expended tank shells would have to eat and then practically suffocate on DU residue to cause harm.

But there is a growing chorus of concern among United Nations and relief officials, along with some Western scientific experts, who are calling for sites contaminated with DU be marked off and made safe.

“The soil around the impact sites of [DU] penetrators may be heavily contaminated, and could be harmful if swallowed by children,” says Brian Spratt, chair of the working group on DU at The Royal Society, Britain’s premier scientific institution.

Heavy metal toys?

Fragments and penetrators should be removed, since “children find them fascinating objects, and can pocket them,” says Professor Spratt. “The science says there is some danger – not perhaps a huge danger – of these objects. … We certainly do not say that these things are safe; we say that cleanup is important.”

The British Ministry of Defense says it will offer screening to soldiers suspected of DU exposure, and will publish details about locations and quantities of DU that British troops used in Iraq – a tiny fraction of that fired by US forces.

The Pentagon has traditionally been tight-lipped about DU: Official figures on the amount used were not released for years after the 1991 Gulf War and Bosnia conflicts, and nearly a year after the 1999 Kosovo campaign. No US official contacted could provide DU use estimates from the latest war in Iraq.

“The first thing we should ask [the US military] is to remove that immediately,” says Carel de Rooy, head of the UN Children’s Fund in Baghdad, adding that senior UN officials need urgent advice on avoiding exposure.

The UN Environment Program last month called for field tests. DU “is still an issue of great concern for the general public,” said UNEP chief Klaus Töpfer. “An early study in Iraq could either lay these fears to rest or confirm that there are indeed potential risks.”

US troops avoid wreckage

During the latest Iraq conflict Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and A-10 Warthog aircraft, among other military platforms, all fired the DU bullets from desert war zones to the heart of Baghdad. No other armor-piercing round is as effective against enemy tanks. While the Pentagon says there’s no risk to Baghdad residents, US soldiers are taking their own precautions in Iraq, and in some cases have handed out warning leaflets and put up signs.

“After we shoot something with DU, we’re not supposed to go around it, due to the fact that it could cause cancer,” says a sergeant in Baghdad from New York, assigned to a Bradley, who asked not to be further identified.

“We don’t know the effects of what it could do,” says the sergeant. “If one of our vehicles burnt with a DU round inside, or an ammo truck, we wouldn’t go near it, even if it had important documents inside. We play it safe.”

Six American vehicles struck with DU “friendly fire” in 1991 were deemed to be too contaminated to take home, and were buried in Saudi Arabia. Of 16 more brought back to a purpose-built facility in South Carolina, six had to be buried in a low-level radioactive waste dump.

Television footage of the war last month showed Iraqi armored vehicles burning as US columns drove by, a common sign of a strike by DU, which burns through armor on impact, and often ignites the ammunition carried by the targeted vehicle.

“We were buttoned up when we drove by that – all our hatches were closed,” the US sergeant says. “If we saw anything on fire, we wouldn’t stop anywhere near it. We would just keep on driving.”

That’s an option that produce seller Hamid doesn’t have.

She says the US broke its promise not to bomb civilians. She has found US cluster bomblets in her garden; the DU is just another dangerous burden, in a war about which she remains skeptical.

“We were told it was going to be paradise [when Saddam Hussein was toppled], and now they are killing our children,” she says voicing a common Iraqi perception about the risk of DU. “The Americans did not bother to warn us that this is a contaminated area.”

There is a warning now at the Doura intersection on the southern outskirts of Baghdad. In the days before the capital fell, four US supply trucks clustered near an array of highway off-ramps caught fire, cooking off a number of DU tank rounds.

American troops wearing facemasks for protection arrived a few days later and bulldozed the topsoil around the site to limit the contamination.

The troops taped handwritten warning signs in Arabic to the burned vehicles, which read: “Danger – Get away from this area.” These were the only warnings seen by this reporter among dozens of destroyed Iraqi armored vehicles littering the city.

“All of them were wearing masks,” says Abbas Mohsin, a teenage cousin of a drink seller 50 yards away, said referring to the US military cleanup crew. “They told the people there were toxic materials … and advised my cousin not to sell Pepsi and soft drinks in this area. They said they were concerned for our safety.”

Despite the troops’ bulldozing of contaminated earth away from the burnt vehicles, black piles of pure DU ash and particles are still present at the site. The toxic residue, if inhaled or ingested, is considered by scientists to be the most dangerous form of DU.

One pile of jet-black dust yielded a digital readout of 9,839 radioactive emissions in one minute, more than 300 times average background levels registered by the Geiger counter. Another pile of dust reached 11,585 emissions in a minute.

Western journalists who spent a night nearby on April 10, the day after Baghdad fell, were warned by US soldiers not to cross the road to this site, because bodies and unexploded ordnance remained, along with DU contamination. It was here that the Monitor found the “hot” DU tank round.

This burned dart pushed the radiation meter to the far edge of the “red zone” limit.

A similar DU tank round recovered in Saudi Arabia in 1991, that was found by a US Army radiological team to be emitting 260 to 270 millirads of radiation per hour. Their safety memo noted that the “current [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission] limit for non-radiation workers is 100 millirads per year.”

The normal public dose limit in the US, and recognized around much of the world, is 100 millirems per year. Nuclear workers have guidelines 20 to 30 times as high as that.

The depleted-uranium bullets are made of low-level radioactive nuclear-waste material, left over from the making of nuclear fuel and weapons. It is 1.7 times as dense as lead, and burns its way easily through armor. But it is controversial because it leaves a trail of contamination that has half-life of 4.5 billion years – the age of our solar system.

Less DU in this war?

In the first Gulf War, US forces used 320 tons of DU, 80 percent of it fired by A-10 aircraft. Some estimates suggest 1,000 tons or more of DU was used in the current war. But the Pentagon disclosure Wednesday that about 75 tons of A-10 DU bullets were used points to a smaller overall DU tonnage in Iraq this time.

US military guidelines developed after the first Gulf War – which have since been considerably eased – required any soldier coming within 50 yards of a tank struck with DU to wear a gas mask and full protective suit. Today, soldiers say they have been told to steer clear of any DU.

“If a [tank] was taken out by depleted uranium, there may be oxide that you don’t want to inhale. We want to minimize any exposure, at least to the lowest level possible,” Dr. Michael Kilpatrick, a top Pentagon health official told journalists on March 14, just days before the war began. “If somebody needs to go into a tank that’s been hit with depleted uranium, a dust mask, a handkerchief is adequate to protect them – washing their hands afterwards.”

Not everyone on the battlefield may be as well versed in handling DU, Dr. Kilpatrick said, noting that his greater concern is DU’s chemical toxicity, not its radioactivity: “What we worry about like lead in paint in housing areas – children picking it up and eating it or licking it – getting it on their hands and ingesting it.”

In the US, stringent NRC rules govern any handling of DU, which can legally only be disposed of in low-level radioactive waste dumps. The US military holds more than a dozen NRC licenses to work with it.

In Iraq, DU was not just fired at armored targets.

Video footage from the last days of the war shows an A-10 aircraft – a plane purpose-built around a 30-mm Gatling gun – strafing the Iraqi Ministry of Planning in downtown Baghdad.

A visit to site yields dozens of spent radioactive DU rounds, and distinctive aluminum casings with two white bands, that drilled into the tile and concrete rear of the building. DU residue at impact clicked on the Geiger counter at a relatively low level, just 12 times background radiation levels.

Hot bullets

But the finger-sized bullets themselves – littering the ground where looters and former staff are often walking – were the “hottest” items the Monitor measured in Iraq, at nearly 1,900 times background levels.

The site is just 300 yards from where American troops guard the main entrance of the Republican Palace, home to the US and British officials tasked with rebuilding Iraq.

“Radioactive? Oh, really?” asks a former director general of the ministry, when he returned in a jacket and tie for a visit last week, and heard the contamination levels register in bursts on the Geiger counter.

“Yesterday more than 1,000 employees came here, and they didn’t know anything about it,” the former official says. “We have started to not believe what the American government says. What I know is that the occupiers should clean up and take care of the country they invaded.”

US military officials often say that most people are exposed to natural or “background” radiation n daily life. For example, a round-trip flight across the US can yield a 5 millirem dose from increased cosmic radiation; a chest X-ray can yield a 10 millirem dose in a few seconds.

The Pentagon says that, since DU is “depleted” and 40 percent less radioactive than normal uranium, it presents even less of a hazard.

But DU experts say they are most concerned at how DU is transformed on the battlefield, after burning, into a toxic oxide dust that emits alpha particles. While those can be easily stopped by the skin, once inside the body, studies have shown that they can destroy cells in soft tissue. While one study on rats linked DU fragments in muscle tissue to increased cancer risk, health effects on humans remain inconclusive.

As late as five days before the Iraq war began, Pentagon officials said that 90 of those troops most heavily exposed to DU during the 1991 Gulf War have shown no health problems whatsoever, and remain under close medical scrutiny.

Released documents and past admissions from military officials, however, estimate that around 900 Americans were exposed to DU. Only a fraction have been watched, and among those has been one diagnosed case of lymphatic cancer, and one arm tumor. As reported in previous articles, the Monitor has spoken to American veterans who blame their DU exposure for serious health problems.

The politics of DU

But DU health concerns are very often wrapped up in politics. Saddam Hussein’s regime blamed DU used in 1991 for causing a spike in the cancer rate and birth defects in southern Iraq.

And the Pentagon often overstates its case – in terms of DU effectiveness on the battlefield, or declaring the absence of health problems, according to Dan Fahey, an American veterans advocate who has monitored the shrill arguments from both sides since the mid-1990s.

“DU munitions are neither the benign wonder weapons promoted by Pentagon propagandists nor the instruments of genocide decried by hyperbolic anti-DU activists,” Mr. Fahey writes in a March report, called “Science or Science Fiction: Facts, Myth and Propaganda in the Debate Over DU Weapons.”

Nonetheless, Rep. Jim McDermott (D) of Washington, a doctor who visited Baghdad before the war, introduced legislation in Congress last month requiring studies on health and environment studies, and clean up of DU contamination in the US. He says DU may well be associated with increased birth defects.

“While the political effects of using DU munitions are perhaps more apparent than their health and environmental effects,” Fahey writes, “science and common sense dictate it is unwise to use a weapon that distributes large quantities of a toxic waste in areas where people live, work, grow food, or draw water.”

Because of the publicity the Iraqi government has given to the issue, Iraqis worry about DU.

“It is an important concern…. We know nothing about it. How can I protect my family?” asks Faiz Askar, an Iraqi doctor. “We say the war is finished, but what will the future bring?”

Hacking the Mind

0

Intrusive Brain Reading Surveillance Technology

“We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated.The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain. ~~Dr José Delgado. Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118 February 24, 1974.

The Guardian newspaper, that defender of truth in the United Kingdom, published an article by the Science Correspondent, Ian Sample, on 9 February 2007 entitled:

‘The Brain Scan that can read people’s intentions’, with the sub-heading: ‘Call for ethical debate over possible use of new technology in interrogation”.

“Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there’s no way you could possibly tell is in there. It’s like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall”, the scientists were reported as saying.

At the same time, London’s Science Museum was holding an exhibition entitled ‘Neurobotics: The Future of Thinking’. This venue had been chosen for the launch in October 2006 of the news that human thoughts could be read using a scanner. Dr Geraint Rees’ smiling face could be seen in a photograph at the Neurobotics website, under the heading “The Mind Reader”. Dr Rees is one of the scientists who have apparently cracked the problem which has preoccupied philosophers and scientists since before Plato: they had made entry into the conscious mind. Such a reversal of human historical evolution, announced in such a pedestrian fashion, makes one wonder what factors have been in play, and what omissions made, in getting together this show, at once banal and extraordinary. The announcement arrives as if out of a vacuum. The neuroscientist – modern-style hunter-gatherer of information and darling of the “Need to Know” policies of modern government – does little to explain how he achieved this goal of entering the conscious mind, nor does he put his work into any historical context. Instead, we are asked in the Science Museum’s programme notes:

How would you feel if someone could read your innermost thoughts? Geraint Rees of UCL says he can. By using brain-imaging technology he’s beginning to decode thought and explore the difference between the conscious and unconscious mind. But how far will it go? And shouldn’t your thoughts remain your personal business?

If Dr Rees has decoded the mind sufficiently for such an announcement to be made in an exhibition devoted to it, presumably somewhere is the mind which has been, and is continuing to be, decoded. He is not merely continuing his experiments using functional magnetic resolution scanning (fMRI) in the way neuroscientists have been observing their subjects under scanning devices for years, asking them to explain what they feel or think while the scientists watch to see which area lights up, and what the cerebral flow in the brain indicates for various brain areas. Dr Rees is decoding the mind in terms of conscious and unconscious processes. For that, one must have accessed consciousness itself. Whose consciousness? Where is the owner of that consciousness — and unconsciousness? How did he/she feel? Why not ask them to tell us how it feels, instead of asking us.

The Neurobotics Exhibition was clearly set up to make these exciting new discoveries an occasion for family fun, and there were lots of games for visitors to play. One gets the distinct impression that we are being softened up for the introduction of radical new technology which will, perhaps, make the mind a communal pool rather than an individual possession. Information technology seeks to connect us all to each other in as many ways as possible, but also, presumably, to those vast data banks which allow government control not only to access all information about our lives, but now also to our thoughts, even to our unconscious processing. Does anyone care?

One of the most popular exhibits was the ‘Mindball’ game, which required two players to go literally head-to-head in a battle for brainpower, and used ‘brainpower’ alone. Strapped up with headbands which pick up brain waves, the game uses neurofeedback, but the person who is calm and relaxed wins the game. One received the impression that this calmness was the spirit that the organisers wished to reinforce, to deflect any undue public panic that might arise from the news that private thoughts could now be read with a scanner. The ingress into the mind as a private place was primarily an event to be enjoyed with the family on an afternoon out:

Imagine being able to control a computer with only the power of your mind. Or read people’s thoughts and know if they’re lying. And what if a magnetic shock to the brain could make you more creative…but should we be able to engineer our minds?Think your thoughts are private? Ever told a lie and been caught red-handed? Using brain-scanning technology, scientists are beginning to probe our minds and tell if we’re lying. Other scientists are decoding our desires and exploring the difference between our conscious and unconscious mind. But can you really trust the technology?

Other searching questions are raised in the program notes, and more games:

Find out if you’ve got what it takes to be a modern-day spy in this new interactive family exhibition. After being recruited as a trainee spy, explore the skills and abilities required by real agents and use some of the latest technologies that help spies gather and analyse information. Later go on and discover what it’s like to be spied upon. Uncover a secret store of prototype gadgets that give you a glimpse into the future of spy technologies and finally use everything you’ve learnt to escape before qualifying as a fully-fledged agent!

There were also demonstrations of grateful paraplegics and quadriplegics showing how the gods of science have so unselfishly liberated them from their prisons: this was the serious Nobel Prize side of the show. But there was no-one representing Her Majesty’s government to demonstrate how these very same devices can be used quite freely, and with relative ease, in our wireless age, to conduct experiments on free-ranging civilians tracked anywhere in the world, and using an infinitely extendable form of electrode which doesn’t require visible contact with the scalp at all. Electrodes, like electricity, can also take an invisible form — an electrode is a terminal of an electric source through which electrical energy or current may flow in or out. The brain itself is an electrical circuit. Every brain has its own unique resonating frequency. The brain is an infinitely more sensitive receiver and transmitter than the computer, and even in the wireless age, the comprehension of how wireless networks operate appears not to extend to the workings of the brain. The monotonous demonstration of scalps with electrodes attached to them, in order to demonstrate the contained conduction of electrical charges, is a scientific fatuity, in so far as it is intended to demonstrate comprehensively the capability of conveying charges to the brain, or for that matter, to any nerve in the body, as a form of invisible torture.

As Neurobotics claims: ‘Your brain is amazing’, but the power and control over brains and nervous systems achieved by targeting brain frequencies with radiowaves must have been secretly amazing government scientists for many years. The problem that now arises, at the point of readiness when so much has been achieved, is how to put the technology into action in such a way, as it will be acceptable in the public domain. This requires getting it through wider government and legal bodies, and for that, it must be seen to spring from the unbiased scientific investigations into the workings of the brain, in the best tradition of the leading universities. It is given over to Dr Rees and his colleague, Professor Haynes, endowed with the disclosure for weightier Guardian readers, to carry the torch for the government. Those involved may also have noted the need to show the neuroscientist in a more responsible light, following US neuroengineer for government sponsored Lockheed Martin, John Norseen’s, ingenuous comment, in 2000, about his belief about the consequences of his work in fMRI:

‘If this research pans out’, said Norseen, ‘you can begin to manipulate what someone is thinking even before they know it.’ And added: “The ethics don’t concern me, but they should concern someone else.”

While the neuroscientists report their discovery (without even so much as the specific frequency of the light employed by this scanner/torch), issuing ethical warnings while incongruously continuing with their mind-blowing work, the government which sponsors them, remains absolutely mute. The present probing of people’s intentions, minds, background thoughts, hopes and emotions is being expanded into the more complex and subtle aspects of thinking and feeling. We have, however, next to no technical information about their methods. The description of ‘shining a torch around the brain’ is as absurd a report as one could read of a scientific endeavour, especially one that carries such enormous implications for the future of mankind. What is this announcement, with its technical obfuscation, preparing us for?

Writing in Wired contributing editor Steve Silberman points out that the lie-detection capability of fMRI is ‘poised to transform the security system, the judicial system, and our fundamental notions of privacy’. He quotes Cephos founder, Steven Laken, whose company plans to market the new technology for lie detection. Laken cites detainees held without charge at Guantanamo Bay as a potential example. ‘If these detainees have information we haven’t been able to extract that could prevent another 9/11, I think most Americans would agree that we should be doing whatever it takes to extract it’. Silberman also quotes Paul Root Wolpe, a senior fellow at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, who describes the accelerated advances in fMRI as ‘ a textbook example of how something can be pushed forward by the convergence of basic science, the government directing research through funding, and special interests who desire a particular technology’. Are we to believe that with the implied capability to scan jurors’ brains, the judiciary, the accused and the defendant alike, influencing one at the expense of the other, that the legal implications alone of mind-accessing scanners on university campuses, would not rouse the Minister for Justice from his bench to say a few words about these potential mind weapons?

So what of the ethical debate called for by the busy scientists and the Guardian’s science reporter? Can this technology- more powerful in subverting thought itself than anything in prior history — really be confined to deciding whether the ubiquitously invoked terrorist has had the serious intention of blowing up the train, or whether it was perhaps a foolish prank to make a bomb out of chapatti flour? We can assume that the government would certainly not give the go-ahead to the Science Museum Exhibition, linked to Imperial College, a major government-sponsored institution in laser-physics, if it was detrimental to surveillance programs. It is salutary to bear in mind that government intelligence research is at least ten years ahead of any public disclosure. It is implicit from history that whatever affords the undetectable entry by the gatekeepers of society into the brain and mind, will not only be sanctioned, but funded and employed by the State, more specifically by trained operatives in the security forces, given powers over defenceless citizens, and unaccountable to them.

The actual technology which is now said to be honing the technique ‘to distinguish between passing thoughts and genuine intentions’ is described by Professor John-Dylan Haynes in the Guardian in the most disarmingly untechnical language which must surely not have been intended to enlighten.

The Guardian piece ran as follows:

A team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allows them to look deep inside a person’s brain and read their intentions before they act.The research breaks controversial new ground in scientists’ ability to probe people’s minds and eavesdrop on their thoughts, and raises serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future.

‘Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there’s no way you could possibly tell is in there. It’s like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall,’ said John-Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany, who led the study with colleagues at University College London and Oxford University.

We know therefore that they are using light, but fMRI has been used for many years to attempt the unravelling of neuronal activity, and while there have been many efforts to record conscious and unconscious processes, with particular emphasis on the visual cortex, there has been no progress into consciousness itself. We can be sure that we are not being told the real story.

Just as rats and chimpanzees have been used to demonstrate findings from remote experiments on humans, electrode implants used on cockroaches to remotely control them, lasers used to steer fruit-flies , and worms engineered so that their nerves and muscles can be controlled with pinpricks of light, the information and techniques that have been ruthlessly forged using opportunistic onslaughts on defenceless humans as guinea pigs – used for myriad purposes from creating 3D haptic gloves in computer games to creating artificial intelligence to send visual processing into outer space – require appropriate replication for peer group approval and to meet ethical demands for scientific and public probity.

The use of light to peer into the brain is almost certainly that of terahertz, which occurs in the wavelengths which lie between 30mm and 1mm of the electromagnetic spectrum. Terahertz has the ability to penetrate deep into organic materials, without (it is said) the damage associated with ionising radiation such as x-rays. It can distinguish between materials with varying water content — for example fat versus lean meat. These properties lend themselves to applications in process and quality control as well as biomedical imaging. Terahertz can penetrate bricks, and also human skulls. Other applications can be learnt from the major developer of terahertz in the UK, Teraview, which is in Cambridge, and partially owned by Toshiba.

Efforts to alert human rights’ groups about the loss of the mind as a place to call your own, have met with little discernible reaction, in spite of reports about over decades of the dangers of remote manipulation using technology to access the mind, Dr Nick Begich’s book, Controlling the human mind, being an important recent contribution. A different approach did in fact, elicit a response. When informed of the use of terahertz at Heathrow and Luton airports in the UK to scan passengers, the news that passengers would be revealed naked by a machine which looked directly through their clothes produced a small, but highly indignant, article in the spring 2007 edition of the leading human rights organisation, Liberty. If the reading of the mind met with no protest, seeing through one’s clothes certainly did. It seems humans’ assumption of the mind as a private place has been so secured by evolution that it will take a sustained battle to convince the public that, through events of which we are not yet fully informed, such former innocence has been lost.

Trained light, targeted atomic spectroscopy, the use of powerful magnets to absorb moisture from human tissues, the transfer of radiative energy — these have replaced the microwave harassment which was used to transmit auditory messages directly into the hearing. With the discovery of light to disentangle thousands of neurons and encode signals from the complex circuitry of the brain, present programs will not even present the symptoms which simulated schizoid states. Medically, even if terahertz does not ionise, we do not yet know how the sustained application of intense light will affect the delicate workings of the brain and how cells might be damaged, dehydrated, stretched, obliterated.

This year, 2007, has also brought the news that terahertz lasers small enough to incorporate into portable devices had been developed.

Sandia National Laboratories in the US in collaboration with MIT have produced a transmitter-receiver (transceiver) that enables a number of applications. In addition to scanning for explosives, we may also assume their integration into hand-held communication systems. ‘These semiconductor devices have output powers which previously could only be obtained by molecular gas lasers occupying cubic meters and weighing more than 100kg, or free electron lasers weighing tons and occupying buildings.’ As far back as 1996 the US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board predicted that the development of electromagnetic energy sources would ‘open the door for the development of some novel capabilities that can be used in armed conflict, in terrorist/hostage situations, and in training’ and ‘new weapons that offer the opportunity of control of an adversary … can be developed around this concept’.

The surveillance technology of today is the surveillance of the human mind and, through access to the brain and nervous system, the control of behaviour and the body’s functions. The messaging of auditory hallucinations has given way to silent techniques of influencing and implanting thoughts. The development of the terahertz technologies has illuminated the workings of the brain, facilitated the capture of emitted photons which are derived from the visual cortex which processes picture formation in the brain, and enabled the microelectronic receiver which has, in turn, been developed by growing unique semi-conductor crystals. In this way, the technology is now in place for the detection and reading of spectral ‘signatures’ of gases. All humans emit gases. Humans, like explosives, emit their own spectral signature in the form of a gas. With the reading of the brain’s electrical frequency, and of the spectral gas signature, the systems have been established for the control of populations — and with the necessary technology integrated into a cell-phone.

‘We are very optimistic about working in the terahertz electromagnetic spectrum,’ says the principal investigator of the Terahertz Microelectronics Transceiver at Sandia: ‘This is an unexplored area, and a lot of science can come out of it. We are just beginning to scratch the surface of what THz can do to improve national security’.

~~~~~~

Carole Smith was born and educated in Australia, where she gained a Bachelor of Arts degree at Sydney University. She trained as a psychoanalyst in London where she has had a private practice. In recent years she has been a researcher into the invasive methods of accessing minds using technological means, and has published papers on the subject.

She has written the first draft of a book entitled: “The Controlled Society”.The ethical implications of building machines to read people’s minds, DISSENT, Issue 25, http://www.dissent.com.au/index.htm

From Carole Smith newcriteria@blueyonder.co.uk Dec 12/07. The Canberra-based magazine DISSENT is sold at selected bookshops and by subscription.

Rules of War as Outlined in Geneva Conventions

0

1. Attacks may be made solely against military targets. Parties to a conflict must distinguish between civilians and combatants, and civilians may not be attacked.

2. Persons who do not or can no longer take part in the hostilities are entitled to respect for their life and for their physical and mental integrity.

3. It is forbidden to kill or wound an adversary who has surrendered or who can no longer take part in the fighting.

4. The wounded and sick must be cared for by the party that holds them. Medical personnel and facilities, identified by the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol, must not be attacked.

5. Prisoners are entitled to respect for their life, their dignity, their personal rights, and their beliefs.

6. Torture, cruel or degrading corporal and other punishment is forbidden.

7. Weapons and methods of warfare likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering, or severe or long-term damage to the environment, may not be used.

BRASSCHECK

Guantanamo “Living like an animal living in a cage”

0
By Mohamed Vall in Khartoum, Sudan

Adil Hassan Hamad can scarcely believe he is back with his family in Sudan, because only days ago he was still in the US’s Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

“I am very, very happy and not believing this,” Adil tells Al Jazeera, “That I am here with my family – even now I feel this could all be taken away at any moment.”

In 2002, Adil and another man, Salim Mahmoud Adam, were picked up from their homes in Peshawar, Pakistan, by Pakistani troops and were later handed over to the US.

Most of his children were babies when their father, who was then working as the director of a hospital in Afghanistan, was taken to Guantanamo.

His daughter, Rahma, now six, was only a few months old when he was taken and now her father seems like a stranger.

“She knows I am her father,” says Adil, balancing Rahma on his knee and holding her close. “But she’s not used to me.”

“Like a cage”

Since his release from Guantanamo, family, friends and neighbours have come to Adil’s home in Khartoum to greet a man many thought they might never see again.

Adil recounts stories of torture, interrogation and solitary confinement when speaks of his time in the prison.

“The cell was all made of iron on iron. You don’t see anyone or hear anything,” he says.

“It was a boring and miserable life… psychologically very tiresome. It was like a cage … like an animal living in a cage.”

Among those present to celebrate Adil’s return is Assim al-Haj, brother of Sami al-Haj, the Al Jazeera cameraman imprisoned in Guantanamo six years ago.

He listens to Adil’s story of his release from the prison, but knows that his brother’s health is deteriorating in captivity.

“Injustice and abuse”

More than 750 people have been held in Guantanamo since January 2002 and only three have been formally charged.

Despite international criticism, there are few
signs the US will close the prison [GALLO/GETTY]

Even with the recent releases, over 270 detainees remain in Guantanamo Bay.

The US supreme court has reviewed the legal status of Guantanamo prisoners on several occasions and found in favour of the inmates – that they should be allowed to have the legality of their detention examined by US courts.

The US administration, which argues that since the base is outside the country rights under the US constitution do not apply, has avoided following this judgment.

Amnesty International, the UK-based human rights group, has called Guantanamo “a symbol of injustice and abuse” and called on the US government to close the down the prison “in a transparent manner which fully respects the human rights of those detained and brings to fair trial all those who are accused of recognisable crimes”.

But though the US has drawn international criticism for holding foreign nationals captive in Guantanamo, there are few signs that the US has any plans to close the prison.

Adil and Salim were two of 15 people, the rest Afghan, recently released by the US. Neither have ever been told why they were imprisoned.

Congressmen urge impeachment

0

US Vice President Dick Cheney (L)

Three senior US Democrats in Congress urge the immediate commencement of hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin have declared the issues of concern regarding the vice president to be ‘too serious to ignore’.

The three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee said the charges include “credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under the constitution”.

“The charges against vice president relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens,” the congressmen explained.

The House members added that the recent revelations regarding Iran’s nuclear program have shown that the Administration “may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence’ in a bid to push the United States to yet another war”.

MD/AA/HAR

Ron Paul: Bush no authority to rule world

0

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul says President Bush has started empire-building by invading Iraq and Afghanistan and beating the drums of war with Iran.

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul

The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 without a declaration of war by Congress was the most egregious violation of the Constitution in the last 20 years, Paul told Lahontan Valley News (LVN) prior to a campaign speech in Fallon.

He also rejected that there is any military threat to the US and said “to try to propose that the Iraqis were trying to attack us was ridiculous. Now they are doing it with the Iranians and they have proven wrong again.”

During his campaign speech the Republican presidential candidate affirmed that no country has the power to control the world.

“There’s no constitutional authority to rule the world,” he said.

Regarding the threats the US is facing the Texas congressman said that the Chinese could bring the US to their knees with or without any other nation by just rejecting our dollar.

Paul believes financial problems, Washington’s invasion of the US citizens’ privacy and taxation are the major threats to the US.

MT/AA/MG

Troops investigated over smuggling stolen guns

0

By Jonathan Owen and Andrew Johnson

British soldiers are under investigation over the theft of a weapons cache in Iraq. The Ministry of Defence launched an inquiry after troops attempted to smuggle the weapons back to Britain.

The discovery of the weapons, stolen from an Iraqi police station and believed to be one of the largest hauls uncovered, has fuelled growing concerns that weapons confiscated by British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are being brought back illegally to the UK and could get into the hands of criminals.

Fears that weapons from war zones could inflame Britain’s growing gun crime problems have prompted high-level talks between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. Customs and MoD police have stepped up inspections of military bases and convoys, with RAF bases and military ports being targeted as part of a fresh attempt by the Government to restrict the supply of guns.

Troops are permitted to bring back deactivated weapons as trophies for regimental museums and messes but not as individual mementoes.

Despite this, searches at UK bases have already uncovered live weapons hidden in the petrol tanks of military vehicles and even in the gun barrels of tanks and artillery pieces. Live ammunition including shells and mortar rounds has also been confiscated.

The new security measures are part of a package of policies implemented by a ministerial task force to tackle the problem of gangs and gun crime set up after the murder of 11-year-old Rhys Jones in Liverpool in August. The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, are being personally briefed on a weekly basis by Deputy Chief Constable Jon Murphy, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ serious and organised crime co-ordinator, who heads the task force.

“There have been recent incidents where weapons have been stolen by military personnel in Iraq that have left Iraq, and we know that for a fact… unfortunately some of those weapons do leak back into the criminal market,” said Mr Murphy.

The number of guns involved in the latest investigation is understood to run into double figures, with several soldiers suspected of involvement. Mr Murphy admitted that it is a “live investigation with the MoD” which could result in courts martial.

He warns that while one shipment of guns has been stopped, others may have got through. “It is generally accepted that some military weapons are being brought back to Britain and ending up in the hands of criminals,” he said. “We are not really clear what the scale of that problem is and we are trying to get to the bottom of that by working with the Ministry of Defence. We’ve had meetings with them to try to get a handle on how big a problem it is.”

There has long been a culture of soldiers wanting to bring back personal souvenirs from war zones, which the MoD allows. But a worrying trend has developed in recent years with some military personnel seeking to profit from the thousands of pounds that a smuggled military weapon can fetch on the black market. Soldiers are even resorting to hiding weapons in the barrels of tanks, oil drums, or underneath vehicles, according to senior customs officials.

“You have to remember that these guys have lived with their guns for six months in theatre, and these things are bound to happen,” a MoD spokesman said. The RAF carried out routine searches of equipment and personnel as they come in, he added. “Everyone’s equipment at the port of embarkation is searched in the same way security at normal airports would take place. There is no evidence of illegal weapons being brought out through RAF air bases. We have no evidence that illegal weapons have been imported and none has been found during searches… but I have to accept that we have had a number of cases where soldiers have been caught in possession of firearms.”

Two soldiers who had smuggled stolen guns out of Iraq were jailed at a court martial last month. Prosecution evidence said the soldiers, from The Yorkshire Regiment, were part of a nine-man smuggling ring that served in Basra between October 2004 and April 2005. The weapons were discovered after some were sold on to fellow soldiers.

In September, Private Christopher Trussler, of the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, was jailed for three years after he admitted stealing and possessing British Army 9mm ammunition which he attempted to sell to an undercover police officer. The court heard that Trussler also told the officer he could obtain an AK-47 but there was a wait for the weapon to be obtained and reactivated. The trial judge criticised military accounting procedures after hearing the ammunition came from a live firing exercise in Northern Ireland and was not returned.

In 2005 a Royal Marine from Lanarkshire, Scotland, was jailed for two years in December 2005 after bringing a captured Kalashnikov AK47 assault rifle back from Iraq. A rocket-propelled grenade launcher, rifles and even a 60mm mortar are among the weaponry that has been brought back to Britain since the start of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US: Wider Spying Fuels Aid Plan for Telecom Industry

0

Eric Lichtblau, James Risen and Scott Shane

For months, the Bush administration has waged a high-profile campaign, including personal lobbying by President Bush and closed-door briefings by top officials, to persuade Congress to pass legislation protecting companies from lawsuits for aiding the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program.

But the battle is really about something much bigger. At stake is the federal government’s extensive but uneasy partnership with industry to conduct a wide range of secret surveillance operations in fighting terrorism and crime. The N.S.A.’s reliance on telecommunications companies is broader and deeper than ever before, according to government and industry officials, yet that alliance is strained by legal worries and the fear of public exposure.

To detect narcotics trafficking, for example, the government has been collecting the phone records of thousands of Americans and others inside the United States who call people in Latin America, according to several government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. But in 2004, one major phone carrier balked at turning over its customers’ records. Worried about possible privacy violations or public relations problems, company executives declined to help the operation, which has not been previously disclosed.

In a separate N.S.A. project, executives at a Denver phone carrier, Qwest, refused in early 2001 to give the agency access to their most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls, according to people aware of the request, which has not been previously reported. They say the arrangement could have permitted neighborhood-by-neighborhood surveillance of phone traffic without a court order, which alarmed them.

The federal government’s reliance on private industry has been driven by changes in technology. Two decades ago, telephone calls and other communications traveled mostly through the air, relayed along microwave towers or bounced off satellites. The N.S.A. could vacuum up phone, fax and data traffic merely by erecting its own satellite dishes. But the fiber optics revolution has sent more and more international communications by land and undersea cable, forcing the agency to seek company cooperation to get access.

After the disclosure two years ago that the N.S.A. was eavesdropping on the international communications of terrorism suspects inside the United States without warrants, more than 40 lawsuits were filed against the government and phone carriers. As a result, skittish companies and their lawyers have been demanding stricter safeguards before they provide access to the government and, in some cases, are refusing outright to cooperate, officials said.

“It’s a very frayed and strained relationship right now, and that’s not a good thing for the country in terms of keeping all of us safe,” said an industry official who believes that immunity is critical for the phone carriers. “This episode has caused companies to change their conduct in a variety of ways.”

With a vote in the Senate on the issue expected as early as Monday, the Bush administration has intensified its efforts to win retroactive immunity for companies cooperating with counterterrorism operations.

“The intelligence community cannot go it alone,” Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed article Monday urging Congress to pass the immunity provision. “Those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits.”

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey echoed that theme in an op-ed article of his own in The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, saying private companies would be reluctant to provide their “full-hearted help” if they were not given legal protections.

The government’s dependence on the phone industry, driven by the changes in technology and the Bush administration’s desire to expand surveillance capabilities inside the United States, has grown significantly since the Sept. 11 attacks. The N.S.A., though, wanted to extend its reach even earlier. In December 2000, agency officials wrote a transition report to the incoming Bush administration, saying the agency must become a “powerful, permanent presence” on the commercial communications network, a goal that they acknowledged would raise legal and privacy issues.

While the N.S.A. operates under restrictions on domestic spying, the companies have broader concerns – customers’ demands for privacy and shareholders’ worries about bad publicity.

In the drug-trafficking operation, the N.S.A. has been helping the Drug Enforcement Administration in collecting the phone records showing patterns of calls between the United States, Latin America and other drug-producing regions. The program dates to the 1990s, according to several government officials, but it appears to have expanded in recent years.

Officials say the government has not listened to the communications, but has instead used phone numbers and e-mail addresses to analyze links between people in the United States and overseas. Senior Justice Department officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations signed off on the operation, which uses broad administrative subpoenas but does not require court approval to demand the records.

At least one major phone carrier – whose identity could not be confirmed – refused to cooperate, citing concerns in 2004 that the subpoenas were overly broad, government and industry officials said. The executives also worried that if the program were exposed, the company would face a public-relations backlash.

The D.E.A. declined to comment on the call-tracing program, except to say that it “exercises its legal authority” to issue administrative subpoenas. The N.S.A. also declined to comment on it.

In a separate program, N.S.A. officials met with the Qwest executives in February 2001 and asked for more access to their phone system for surveillance operations, according to people familiar with the episode. The company declined, expressing concerns that the request was illegal without a court order.

While Qwest’s refusal was disclosed two months ago in court papers, the details of the N.S.A.’s request were not. The agency, those knowledgeable about the incident said, wanted to install monitoring equipment on Qwest’s “Class 5” switching facilities, which transmit the most localized calls. Limited international traffic also passes through the switches.

A government official said the N.S.A. intended to single out only foreigners on Qwest’s network, and added that the agency believed Joseph Nacchio, then the chief executive of Qwest, and other company officials misunderstood the agency’s proposal. Bob Toevs, a Qwest spokesman, said the company did not comment on matters of national security.

Other N.S.A. initiatives have stirred concerns among phone company workers. A lawsuit was filed in federal court in New Jersey challenging the agency’s wiretapping operations. It claims that in February 2001, just days before agency officials met with Qwest officials, the N.S.A. met with AT&T officials to discuss replicating a network center in Bedminster, N.J., to give the agency access to all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through it.

The accusations rely in large part on the assertions of a former engineer on the project. The engineer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said in an interview that he participated in numerous discussions with N.S.A. officials about the proposal. The officials, he said, discussed ways to duplicate the Bedminster system in Maryland so the agency “could listen in” with unfettered access to communications that it believed had intelligence value and store them for later review. There was no discussion of limiting the monitoring to international communications, he said.

“At some point,” he said, “I started feeling something isn’t right.”

Two other AT&T employees who worked on the proposal discounted his claims, saying in interviews that the project had simply sought to improve the N.S.A.’s internal communications systems and was never designed to allow the agency access to outside communications. Michael Coe, a company spokesman, said: “AT&T is fully committed to protecting our customers’ privacy. We do not comment on matters of national security.”

But lawyers for the plaintiffs say that if the suit were allowed to proceed, internal AT&T documents would verify the engineer’s account.

“What he saw,” said Bruce Afran, a New Jersey lawyer representing the plaintiffs along with Carl Mayer, “was decisive evidence that within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”

The same lawsuit accuses Verizon of setting up a dedicated fiber optic line from New Jersey to Quantico, Va., home to a large military base, allowing government officials to gain access to all communications flowing through the carrier’s operations center. In an interview, a former consultant who worked on internal security said he had tried numerous times to install safeguards on the line to prevent hacking on the system, as he was doing for other lines at the operations center, but his ideas were rejected by a senior security official.

The facts behind a class-action lawsuit in San Francisco are also shrouded in government secrecy. The case relies on disclosures by a former AT&T employee, Mark Klein, who says he stumbled upon a secret room at an company facility in San Francisco that was reserved for the N.S.A. Company documents he obtained and other former AT&T employees have lent some support to his claim that the facility gave the agency access to a range of domestic and international Internet traffic.

The telecommunications companies that gave the government access are pushing hard for legal protection from Congress. As part of a broader plan to restructure the N.S.A.’s wiretapping authority, the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to give immunity to the telecommunications companies, but the Judiciary Committee refused to do so. The White House has threatened to veto any plan that left out immunity, as the House bill does.

“Congress shouldn’t grant amnesty to companies that broke the law by conspiring to illegally spy on Americans” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.

But Bobby R. Inman, a retired admiral and former N.S.A. director who has publicly criticized the agency’s domestic eavesdropping program, says he still supports immunity for the companies that cooperated. “The responsibility ought to be on the government, not on the companies that are trying to help with national security requirements,” Admiral Inman said. If the companies decided to stop cooperating, he added, “it would have a huge impact on both the timeliness and availability of critical intelligence.”

Congress, Bush in clash over CIA interrogation tapes

0

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Congress and President George W. Bush were headed for confrontation Saturday as US lawmakers accused the Justice Department of blocking their probe into whether the CIA tried to cover up torture by destroying interrogation tapes.

Lawmakers from both parties expressed outrage after Bush’s Attorney General Michael Mukasey asked a congressional panel to postpone its investigation of the destroyed videotapes on grounds it could jeopardize the Justice Department’s own inquiry into the affair.

“Earlier today, our staff was notified that the Department of Justice has advised CIA not cooperate with our investigation,” said a statement Friday from the Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee, Silvestre Reyes, and the ranking Republican, Pete Hoekstra.

“We are stunned that the Justice Department would move to block our investigation. Parallel investigations occur all the time, and there is no basis upon which the attorney general can stand in the way of our work,” the statement said.

“It is clear that there’s more to this story than we have been told, and it is unfortunate that we are being prevented from learning the facts,” it added.

The two lawmakers threatened to issue subpoenas to obtain relevant information and to force Central Intelligence Agency officials to testify if the Justice Department refused to back down.

Democrats and human rights groups have charged the spy agency of disposing of the videotapes showing harsh interrogations of two Al-Qaeda operatives to hide evidence of torture — a charge the CIA denies.

The tapes reportedly show the operatives undergoing waterboarding, a technique widely regarded as torture. But Mukasey himself refused to brand the technique torture in Congressional hearings in October on his nomination to become attorney general.

Lawmakers in the Senate and House of Representatives have demanded all cables, memorandums and e-mails related to the tapes from top CIA officials, but in his letter Friday Mukasey asked the House intelligence committee to put off any probe to allow the Justice Department and an internal CIA watchdog to complete a preliminary inquiry.

Mukasey, who became the country’s top law enforcement official in November, said in his letter that responding to lawmakers’ requests for key documents and testimony “would present significant risks to our preliminary inquiry.”

“Consequently, we respectfully request that the committee defer its investigation of this matter at this time,” Mukasey wrote.

“Our ability to obtain the most reliable and complete information would likely be jeopardized if the CIA undertakes the steps necessary to respond to your requests in a comprehensive fashion at this time,” he added.

The revelation that the CIA taped harsh interrogations of at least two Al-Qaeda suspects after the September 11 attacks in 2001 has renewed allegations the Bush administration has allowed abuse and torture of detainees.

Hayden revealed last week that the tapes were made in 2002 and destroyed in 2005, just as Congress was investigating allegations of US abuse of “war on terror” detainees.

Hayden has denied the use of torture and said the tapes, intended as an internal check on how interrogations were carried out, were destroyed to prevent any leak that could identify and endanger CIA agents.

Meanwhile, Congressional attempts to force the CIA to adhere to military prohibitions on severe interrogation methods hit a barrier Friday when Senate Republicans blocked a bill late Friday, according to the New York Times.

While the House of Representatives had already passed the addition to the 2008 intelligence budget applying the military’s rules on interrogation to civilians, including the CIA, the Senate stripped the provision, on the grounds that its addition to the bill broke Senate rules.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said earlier he would fight the measure.

“It would be a colossal mistake for us to apply the Army Field Manual to the operations of the CIA,” Graham said in a statement Friday. “I believe in flexibility for the CIA program within the boundaries of current law,” he said.

VIDEO: Ron Paul Being Censored In Telephone Polls

0

How Phone Polls REALLY Work

I received a fascinating call from a member of the local grassroots community. Just today, he received an automated telephone poll call for Republican primary candidates. And despite Rep. Ron Paul’s obvious stature as a leading candidate, Rep. Paul was nowhere to be found on the list of choices.

Liveleak

So my friend pressed “6? to choose “Other”. However, even though he pressed “6? to choose “Other”, the system responded as if he had pressed “7? and announced that he had been removed from the list. Keep in mind that “6? is about as far as you can get from “7? on a telephone keypad. He’s sure he pressed “6?.

Thanks to the miracles of digital answering services, the whole call was recorded. Listen to it yourself here. I wonder who IMC Polling is? Don’t think I’ll be using them in my campaign.

Next time you hear of Ron Paul “polling in the single digits”, remember the phone poll that didn’t count “Other” votes.

Addendum: Others have commented, and I’ve confirmed to my own ear’s satisfaction, that the touch tone in the clip is, in fact, a “6?. It’s nowhere near a “7?. I don’t have perfect pitch, but certainly close enough.

Bush Admin Does Not Want CIA Tape Inquiry

0

Bush administration urges judge not to inquire about destruction of CIA tapes

The Bush administration has told a federal judge it was not obligated to preserve videotapes of CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists and urged the court not to look into the tapes’ destruction.

In court documents filed Friday night, government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about the tapes would interfere with current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department.

It is the first time the government has addressed the issue of the videotapes in court.

Kennedy ordered the Bush administration in June 2005 to safeguard “all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.”

Five months later, the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos.

Government lawyers told Kennedy the tapes were not covered by his court order because Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri – the suspected terrorists whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed – were not at the Guantanamo military prison in Cuba.

The men were being held overseas in a network of secret CIA prisons. By the time President Bush acknowledged the existence of those prisons and the prisoners were transferred to Guantanamo, the tapes had been destroyed.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Friday refused to give Congress details of the government’s investigation into the matter, saying that doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry was vulnerable to political pressure.

The Associated Press

US increases Iraq war funds

0

The US Senate has approved $696 billion (£345 billion) in increased military spending, including boosted funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill has passed through both houses of Congress and is expected to be signed by US president George Bush soon.

Increased funding for the Iraq war was put into doubt after Democrats, who favour a pull-out from the country, took control of both legislative houses in midterm elections last year. The party had attempted to tie increased funding for the war to a date for a full withdrawal from operations.

Previous attempts by the party to pass laws containing the condition have failed and the only bill which contained the clause was vetoed by Mr Bush earlier this year.

In addition to $189 billion (£94 billion) in funds for operations in the Middle East, the present bill will increase the pay of servicemen by 3.5 per cent and also sets aside funds for the medical care of veterans.

However, the bill places obstacles in the way of the Bush administration’s plan for setting up a missile defence shield in Europe. The White House hopes to set up interceptor systems in the Czech Republic and Poland to protect the US from missiles launched by rogue states.

The legislation requires the parliaments of the two European countries to give the go-ahead for the proposal and for the defence department to brief Congress about the programme before the release of funds.

Under the US political system, the president must ask Congress to appropriate funds to programmes it wishes to implement.

© Adfero Ltd

First-person account of CIA torture survivor

0

Cory Doctorow

Today’s Salon features a long first-person account of Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah, who was kidnapped to a CIA “black site” torture camp. It’s strong and scary stuff, and the people responsible deserve to be hauled into court, shown up for the criminals they are, and stuck in a cell for the rest of their lives. The traitors in government who sanctioned this program should join them. Torture is a cancer. Extrajudicial imprisonment is a cancer. These things rot democracy. They rot nations.


The CIA held Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah in several different cells when he was incarcerated its network of secret prisons known as “black sites.” But the small cells were all pretty similar, maybe 7 feet wide and 10 feet long. He was sometimes naked, and sometimes handcuffed for weeks at a time. In one cell his ankle was chained to a bolt in the floor. There was a small toilet. In another cell there was just a bucket. Video cameras recorded his every move. The lights always stayed on — there was no day or night. A speaker blasted him with continuous white noise, or rap music, 24 hours a day.The guards wore black masks and black clothes. They would not utter a word as they extracted Bashmilah from his cell for interrogation — one of his few interactions with other human beings during his entire 19 months of imprisonment. Nobody told him where he was, or if he would ever be freed.

It was enough to drive anyone crazy. Bashmilah finally tried to slash his wrists with a small piece of metal, smearing the words “I am innocent” in blood on the walls of his cell. But the CIA patched him up.

So Bashmilah stopped eating. But after his weight dropped to 90 pounds, he was dragged into an interrogation room, where they rammed a tube down his nose and into his stomach. Liquid was pumped in. The CIA would not let him die.

Link

UN expert: Guantanamo hearings unfair

0

By FRANK JORDANS

A U.N. human rights expert said Wednesday he found on a recent visit to Guantanamo Bay that the prison camp is not meeting international justice standards.

Martin Scheinin, the U.N.’s independent investigator on human rights in the fight against terrorism, has been campaigning against the Bush administration’s detention practices, military courts and interrogation techniques.

He said his visit to Guantanamo last week raised more questions about the legal framework used to prosecute detainees there.

“The hearings provided graphic illustrations of the practical difficulties in providing fair trials at a distant military base,” said Scheinin, a Finnish law professor.

About 305 detainees are held at Guantanamo, almost all of them without charges. The men suspected of links to terrorism are held as “enemy combatants” without the same rights as traditional prisoners of war.

U.S. officials said Wednesday they were disappointed by the report.

Scheinin’s finding on the legal process at Guantanamo was “in part misleading about the facts of the process, and revisits well-worn, ill-informed criticisms of military commissions hearings,” said Melanie J. Khanna, a U.S. legal adviser. “The unfortunate fact is that a large part of the report again repeats unfair and oversimplified criticisms of the United States.”

Scheinin was presenting his observations on Guantanamo to the 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council as part of a wider review of U.S. practices in the fight against terrorism.

He recalled attending hearings for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden who is charged under the 2006 Military Commissions Act with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism.

He said it seemed impossible for defense lawyers to provide evidence because they were unable to call witnesses from abroad or the detention facility.

Scheinin told The Associated Press that the recent visit confirmed his findings.

In particular, he expressed concern that the Military Commissions Act – which addresses the legal rights of detainees held outside U.S. territory – was being applied to people who had been seized before the law was created.

“Doing this many years after they have originally been detained on other grounds unavoidably results in something which international law categorizes as arbitrary detention,” Scheinin said.

He also described as “very problematic” the question of the independence of the military tribunals and the use of evidence obtained by coercion.

Of the hearing he observed, Scheinin said “the military judge really did his best in difficult circumstances to strive for a fair trial, but within impossible conditions.”

In addition to observing the legal hearings, U.S. officials had invited Scheinin to visit the actual detention facilities. Scheinin said he declined that offer because he was not guaranteed unmonitored access to the detainees.

“They wanted me also to go to the detention facility but unfortunately their policy of not allowing for full access did not make it possible for me this time,” he told the AP. “I hope there will be another chance.”

Worker says Boeing knew about CIA renditions

0

The Monterey County Herald

A Boeing subsidiary accused of helping the CIA secretly fly terrorism suspects to be tortured in overseas prisons openly acknowledged its role in the “extraordinary rendition” program, a former employee of the smaller company said in court papers Friday.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal suit claiming Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. enabled the clandestine transportation of five terrorism suspects to overseas locations where they were subjected to “forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

The U.S. government has asked a federal judge to throw out the lawsuit on the basis that trying the case would result in the release of sensitive state secrets.

The ACLU countered in its filing Friday that the clandestine transfer of terrorism suspects to U.S.-run overseas prisons or foreign intelligence agencies, known as extraordinary rendition, is already a matter of public record “confirmed by documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony,” along with Federal Aviation Administration records.

The ACLU provided testimony of a former Jeppesen employee who said the company openly spoke of its role in extraordinary rendition.

According to the declaration of Sean Belcher, who worked briefly for Jeppesen as a technical writer in San Jose in 2006, the director of Jeppesen’s International Trip Planning Service, Bob Overby, told new employees during an introductory breakfast that “we do all the extraordinary rendition flights.”

When some employees looked puzzled at the statement, Overby added that he was referring to “torture flights,” according to Belcher’s declaration.

According to Belcher, Overby then said he understood some employees were not comfortable with that aspect of Jeppesen’s business but added “that’s just the way it is, we’re doing them,” and that the rendition flights paid very well.

The five detainees have claimed through their family and lawyers that they have been tortured and abused against universally accepted legal standards.

The cases were filed based on the alleged renditions of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen, in July 2002 and January 2004; Elkassim Britel, an Italian citizen, in May 2002; and Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian citizen, in December 2001; Bisher Al-Rawi, an Iraqi citizen in December 2002 and Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah, a Yemeni citizen, in October 2003 and April 2004.

A phone call by The Associated Press seeking comment from Jeppesen was not immediately returned late Friday.

Gitmo detainee asks court to declare he was tortured

0

(HAS TRIM)

McClatchy Newspapers

(MCT)

In a filing made public Friday, lawyers for a Guantanamo detainees have asked a federal court to examine the way he was questioned while in secret CIA custody for three years and decide whether he was tortured.

If the court takes up the request, it would shift from Congress to the courts the ongoing debate over whether so-called enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by President Bush against al-Qaida suspects included illegal torture. Among those techniques was waterboarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning.

Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said Friday the Bush administration had no immediate comment, and would respond in a brief on Thursday.

Lawyers for Majid Khan, 27, filed the motion Dec. 6 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit, the only civilian court authorized under the Military Commissions Act to hear matters involving detainees at Guantanamo.

The filing was made public on Friday after an intelligence review. Two full pages of the 15-page filing were blacked out as were large sections of six other pages, apparently because they contained descriptions of Khan’s treatment, which the Bush administration considers classified.

Khan, who was raised and educated in suburban Baltimore, says Pakistani security forces handed him over to the CIA in March 2003 and subjected him to a U.S. program of ”state-sanctioned torture.”

President Bush announced Khan had been sent to Guantanamo in September 2006, along with 13 other ”high-value detainees.” The Pentagon, which has yet to charge him with a war crime, alleges that alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed assigned Khan to research how to poison U.S. water reservoirs and blow up U.S. gas stations.

There’s no way to verify either Khan’s or the Pentagon’s assertions.

The allegations of torture first arose at Guantanamo on April 15 when a panel of military officers met to determine whether Khan should be declared an enemy combatant. News reporters were not allowed to attend the hearing, but a censored transcript released later deleted sections where Khan’s treatment was discussed.

Khan remains the only high-value detainee to have met with his lawyers.

The filing made public Friday refers to declarations written by Khan’s lawyers, Gitanjali Gutierrez and Wells Dixon, in which Gutierrez describes alleged CIA interrogation techniques used on Khan and Dixon describes those allegedly used on other individuals. Those declarations have not been made public.

Earlier this week, the appeals court ordered the government to preserve any evidence of how Khan was treated while in CIA custody.

The CIA recently disclosed that it had destroyed tapes of interrogations of another suspected al-Qaida member, Zayn Abidin Abu Zubaydah, who was subjected to waterboarding.

But the court said the order was only preliminary, until it had time to consider both Khan’s and the government’s arguments.

A decision to hear the case would be a major turn in the ongoing debate on what constitutes torture.

”We don’t have any case law since 9/11 to give us guidance as to what techniques fall above or below the line of what constitutes torture or ill treatment or cruel or unusual or degrading treatment,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey F. Addicott, a law professor and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Texas.

Addicott, who retired in 2000, was senior legal counsel to the U.S. Army’s Special Forces or Green Berets and argues that waterboarding is not torture because it is essentially trickery that takes seconds and ”does not constitute severe physical or mental suffering.”

But others disagree. The Army’s field manual specifically prohibits the procedure, and the House of Representatives this week approved a bill that would outlaw its use by the CIA as well. Republicans blocked the bill in the Senate Friday; President Bush had threatened to veto it.

(c) 2007, The Miami Herald.

MI6 asks for gagging order in murder trial

0

David Leigh and Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian

The Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, is behind a virtually unprecedented attempt to hold a British murder trial in secret, the Guardian can disclose. The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, has been asked to sign a public interest immunity certificate – a gagging order – at the request of the agency, which is responsible for spying and recruiting agents abroad. It is also involved in money laundering investigations.Wang Lam, 45, a financial trader from Hampstead, north-west London, who was arrested in Switzerland, is accused of murdering an 86-year-old recluse, Allan Chappelow, who lived in the Hampstead area. The body was discovered after £10,000 reportedly went missing from the victim’s bank account.

A secret hearing at the high court last week was adjourned until the new year. The Crown Prosecution Service will then apply for the entire trial, or large parts of it, to be held with press and public excluded. The CPS refused yesterday to confirm the reason for its rare application, and the Home Office refused to comment on reports that the defendant had acted as an informant.

The CPS said the move was “in the interests of justice” and the Home Office said it would not talk about PII certificates. Although MI6 is answerable to the foreign secretary, Smith was asked to sign the PII certificate because the Home Office is responsible for the conduct of criminal trials in the UK. Lam is defended by Kirsty Brimelow and Geoffrey Robertson QC, who came to prominence in the 1992 Matrix Churchill case, in which PII certificates were involved. In that case defendants were cleared of charges of arms dealing with Iraq, after disclosure of their links with British intelligence.

PII certificates are generally used to conceal evidence involving national security, intelligence methods, or undercover informants. It is extremely unusual to attempt to keep secret an entire trial, especially when it is not a spy case.

The trial judge can refuse to accept the reasons for a PII certificate, if the defence asks for the trial to take place in public in the normal way. It is also open to the media to challenge such a secrecy order.

Lawyers involved in the case said yesterday that they were forbidden by the court to discuss any aspect of the secrecy application. Lam has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder, burglary and deception. He was arrested near Zug, Switzerland, by Swiss police, on an international warrant.

Chappelow was known in the Hampstead area as a reclusive figure, whose house in a wealthy area was neglected, with an overgrown garden. It was reported earlier that bank officials had alerted police after apparently unusual transactions on his account. Ten thousand pounds was reported to have been transferred by someone claiming to be him. Cheques, mail and a mobile phone were also allegedly missing from his house.

Scepticism and 9/11

0

By Kevin Ryan

  Thom Hartmann
 

Thom Hartmann.

In early November 2007, I had a chance to debate the issue of 9/11 Truth on the Thom Hartmann radio show, with an avowed supporter of the official story, Skeptic magazine’s Michael Shermer. It was an interesting experience, and some good information was communicated, although the format did not allow for a detailed discussion.[1] One thing this debate did reveal was the need for true scepticism in our society.

I was aware that it took months for Hartmann’s producer to find a legitimate defender of the official version of 9/11. Apparently those who knew something of the official story would not publicly support it, and those who would publicly support that official story didn’t know anything about it. That fact in itself is a testament to the progress made by the 9/11 Truth Movement over the last few years.

But in September, after receiving an unsolicited email from Shermer, I invited him to join me for the Hartmann debate. From Skeptic magazine’s “9/11 Conspiracies” issue last year, it was clear that Shermer was not aware of many of the facts about 9/11 either. But he was well known for his stance on the issue, and I felt this was a chance to follow-up on Hartmann’s offer. With that in mind, I approached the debate carefully, with respect for my opponent, the audience and the host.

It didn’t take long during to understand Shermer’s position on 9/11. He did not bother with facts about the events themselves, and appeared to be motivated only through a “monster under the bed” perception of “conspiracy theories”. Even after admitting that the official version of events is itself a conspiracy theory, he maintained that conspiracy among oil company executives and politicians is somehow unbelievable, while conspiracy solely among people who just happen to live on the last remaining oil-rich land is to be expected.

Additionally, Shermer’s performance showed that he is not what most people would call a sceptic, at least not in matters that are important to people. I had suspected this myself, and had to check the definition of scepticism to be sure. What I found was that scepticism is about questioning claims that are generally accepted, or are given by supposedly authoritative sources. Skeptics are not people who simply take contradictory positions without regard for evidence, however, and after rational discussion sceptics usually agree with the case that best fits the evidence.

On several issues, Shermer has taken a decidedly non-sceptical approach. The events of 9/11 are one example, and global warming is another. It took him years to come around on the issue of global warming, even after the IPCC had satisfied nearly all scientists with their assessment of the situation in 2001. Shermer continued as a leading sceptic of global warming, telling us not to worry about it, until his well-publicized “flipping point” in 2006.[2] It seems his scepticism might have more to do with business interests than it has to do with reason.

At the start of our debate, Shermer responded to my scepticism about the history of al Qaeda by suggesting that our government gets in bed with bad people all the time. At that point, I wasn’t sure whose side of the debate he was on. But it soon became clear that Shermer was only ready to talk about the demolition hypothesis, and then only in the sense that he wanted me to prove that hypothesis. Although I could have given more detailed evidence, it was gratifying to know that this last remaining, relatively legitimate defender of the official story had only a few points of unsubstantiated speculation to support his supposedly reasoned scepticism.

Shermer was clearly not sceptical of any of the claims made by the only authoritative source on the topic, the current U.S. government. He had no response when I asked how each and every member of the U.S. chain of command could have been indisposed for just those two hours on September 11th, or how al Qaeda could have been behind the effective stand-down of the nation’s air defences during that time. He could not say why the 9/11 Commission left so many of the most important facts out of their report, or what it meant for U.S. government scientists to finally admit that they could not explain the “collapse” of the Twin Towers. His final plea was that we just accept that al Qaeda did it because they said they did it, and we should take them at their word.

This strange approach to scepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms and, paradoxically, anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist”.

Within that kind of framework, some people might really believe that Michael Shermer is a sceptic. But what we find is that Sceptic magazine is not skeptical of things that matter to people today, like electronic voting machines or media consolidation. Instead, this publication aims to protect us from “bad ideas” like the possibility of UFOs, or the belief in God. Shermer must know that if people are really going to be skeptical, they will be so about authoritative claims that affect their lives in serious ways, like the rationale behind the “War on Terror”. And as I said during the debate, the absurd attempts to keep people from questioning 9/11 have so far amounted to just so much speculative distraction.

The truth is that there is no aspect of the official story that cannot be severely criticized, or shown to be completely false. Two reports, one from the 9/11 Commission and one from a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce, known as NIST, constitute the official version of events for 9/11. And both of these reports are riddled with inconsistencies and outright falsehoods.[3, 4] Additionally, we know that many involved in producing those reports had serious conflicts of interest.[5, 6, 7]

In the end Shermer and I did agree on one thing, and that is that the truth is likely to be simple. His version of simple, however, is that terrorism is about astoundingly lucky acts of random vengeance, with the Gods of Science turning a few blind eyes here and there. On the other hand, to me the simple truth is more likely to be that terrorism is a co-opted tool, used by a powerful few to help secure their strategic interests. In any case, when such truth becomes not only simple, but also obvious, we need to start being truly sceptical.

Endnotes:

[1] Air America/Thom Hartman 9/11 Truth Debate: Kevin Ryan vs. Michael Shermer, MP3 found at Portland Independent Media Center, LINK

[2] Michael Shermer, The Flipping Point, Scientific American, June 2006, LINK

[3] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2005). Griffin summarizes the omissions and distortions in “The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie,” 911 Visibility Project, May 22, 2005 LINK.

[4] Kevin Ryan, What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps, Journal of 911 Studies, August 2006, PDF LINK.

[5] 911Research.com, The Kean Commission: The Official Commission Avoids the Core Issues, LINK

[6] 911Truth.org, 9/11 Commission: The official coverup guide, LINK

[7] Kevin Ryan, Looking for Truth in Credentials, GlobalResearch.ca, March 13, 2007, LINK

About the writer:

Kevin Ryan is co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, LINK and the former Site Manager for Underwriters Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana.

Civil Liberties – Safe or Sorry?

0

Ministers think good intentions are enough when it comes to civil liberties – but they’re wrong

Jenni Russell

A couple of weeks ago I was discussing the government’s plans to increase detention without trial with a former Labour minister. He had supported Blair’s attempt to take the limit to 90 days. Politely, I suggested that if he had been so convinced of the case, without any strong arguments being made to support it, that that must have been because he had access to security information that we, the public, hadn’t seen. “No, not really,” he said, breezily. But, he asserted, it was just logical to suppose that there would eventually be a case where the police would need more time for their investigations, and it would be better to have the powers on the statute book before such time rather than after.

This just-in-case, better-safe-than-sorry approach of those in power is now commonplace. This ex-minister, like many of those now in government, was genuinely baffled by the idea that there were powerful arguments to be made against this blunderbuss approach. His intellectual position was simple, and rested on three suppositions. Governments are there to protect people, whether from terrorists or paedophiles. If some increases in state power might make people safer – ID cards, e-borders, detention without trial, control orders, national databases – then they should be introduced, because the need for security trumped every other consideration. And lastly, there was no need to fear the use of these powers, because the intentions behind them were benevolent, and they were being introduced by a benign government of decent people.

All three of those assumptions were evident in Jack Straw’s disgracefully evasive piece on Labour’s contribution to liberty this week. Straw addressed none of the key and current issues about the balance between state intrusion and security, or the question of whether any of Labour’s laws and proposals would actually make anyone safer. The counter-terrorist measures brought in by Labour were blithely dismissed, in a single sentence, as inevitable under any government. His essential message was: We’re good! So anything we do is either good or necessary! The stunning vacuity of his piece – one can scarcely call it an argument – was enshrined in his conclusion, where he asserted that Labour’s contribution to greater civil liberty was as unarguable as the fact that the sun rose in the east.

It is easy to mock Straw’s stance, and Comment is free readers have done so mercilessly. But the fact that he can take this position without embarrassment demonstrates the mutual incomprehension of the two sides in the civil liberties debate.

Fewer than half a dozen of more than 400 respondents to Straw’s piece had any sympathy with his stance. They can see what ministers consistently refuse to – that when it comes to shifting the balance of power between individuals and the state, motivation is irrelevant. It is the effect that matters. And what we see over and over again is that once power is transferred, it starts being used in ways that were never anticipated, and that could never have been justified when the measures were originally passed. Look at the hundreds of stops made under the Terrorism Act outside party conferences in the past few years, or Maya Evans’ conviction for reading the names of the war dead outside parliament, or this week’s news that hundreds of passengers were subject to illegal stop and searches at Gatwick by Sussex police. Remember the man in a diabetic coma who was tasered by armed police for failing to respond to their commands. Look at the way that 28-day detention, already far longer than any other state’s, is being pushed towards 56 or 42.

Once ID cards and e-borders are introduced, the situation will only get worse. New authority over us will be invested in petty functionaries at every level. We will have to produce the card every time we ask for services from the state, whether at hospitals or benefit offices; we will need it at banks and, if Brown has his way, it will be demanded by shops and businesses too. When the cards malfunction – and they will – it is we who will be the object of suspicion. In future the onus will be on us to prove that we have the right to function normally. Our freedom to travel will no longer be a matter of course. Under the plans for e-borders, travel agents, empowered to ask us for “any (other) biographical information” will be able to decide that we look suspicious when we book a day trip to France. We can be turned back at train stations or airports without explanation if an official agrees with them.

Those of us who object to all these changes do so because we think they degrade the quality of our lives and our freedom without being effective ways of preventing terrorism or crime. But there is no doubt that this is an argument that we have yet to win. Ministers are right to think that the public, wanting to be protected from risk, responds instinctively to the safety-first approach. Incidents like the loss of the data discs may be sowing doubts, but those doubts are not yet widespread. Intellectually we may feel that ministers should be coming up with much better cases than they have for the radical changes they are bringing about. Practically, and politically, it is up to us to make the powerful arguments against it. Otherwise fear and inertia will deliver a society we don’t want.

And as for Straw’s sunrise? Of the many witty responses, perhaps the best was from the commenter who pointed out that the sun doesn’t rise in the east. Since the earth revolves, and the sun stays fixed, that’s just another of our – and his – mistaken perceptions.

Say ‘”no” to ID cards…

0

LOCAL Lib Dems are calling on Wirral Council to oppose the Government’s plan for ID Cards.

In the wake of the Government’s record of losing the records of 25 million people and rejecting proposals to improve the security of personal data, they are calling for a vote of “no confidence” in the plan.

Instead they say that the costs, which are estimated at between £5.5 billion and £18 billion, would be better spent on more police.

Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Wirral West Councillor Peter Reisdorf is seconding the Lib Dems Notice of Motion at the full council meeting on Monday December 17.

Councillor Reisdorf, who has recently been out on a Friday night patrol with Police Community Support Officers, said: “Having seen their work at first hand, I have no doubt that our local Police do an excellent job, but more resources would help.

“Labour’s ID card scheme will cost billions of pounds. Law abiding citizens could have to pay over £100 each to carry an ID card. Liberal Democrats would cancel the scheme and divert the money to pay for more police.

“The Government’s record on IT projects is woeful and industry insiders are already warning that it will not be possible to guarantee the security of personal information.

“Under the ID Card plans everyone will have to inform the Government of any change to their personal details.

“Failure to do this could mean a fine of £1000.”

Source

AG Denies Details in CIA Tapes Inquiry

0

By LARA JAKES JORDAN

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to give Congress details of the government’s investigation into interrogations of terror suspects that were videotaped and destroyed by the CIA. He said doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry is vulnerable to political pressure.

In letters to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees that oversee the Justice Department, Mukasey also said there is no need right now to appoint a special prosecutor to lead the investigation. The preliminary inquiry currently is being handled by the Justice Department and the CIA’s inspector general.

“I am aware of no facts at present to suggest that department attorneys cannot conduct this inquiry in an impartial manner,” Mukasey wrote to Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat and Republican, respectively, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If I become aware of information that leads me to a different conclusion, I will act on it.”

Meantime, Senate Republicans blocked a bill Friday that would restrict the CIA’s interrogation methods. Already passed by the House, the bill would require the CIA to adhere to the Army’s field manual on interrogation, which bans waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh methods.

Senate opponents discovered a parliamentary flaw: The ban on harsh tactics had not been in the original intelligence bills passed by the House and Senate. Instead, it was added during negotiations between the two chambers to write a compromise bill. That move could violate a Senate rule intended to protect legislation from last-minute amendments that neither house of Congress has had time to fully consider.

Although it’s not unheard of for new language to be added in House-Senate negotiations, the rules allow such a move to be challenged and the language stripped from the bill. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., placed a hold on the bill while the GOP procedural challenge goes forward.

Addressing congressional demands for facts in the CIA tapes inquiry, Mukasey noted that the Justice Department generally does not give out information about pending cases.

“This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence,” Mukasey wrote. “Accordingly, I will not at this time provide further information in response to your letter, but appreciate the committee’s interests in this matter.”

An almost-identical letter was sent Thursday to Democratic leaders of the House Judiciary Committee.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike angrily denounced Mukasey’s refusal, which they said blocks congressional oversight of the Justice Department.

Additionally, lawmakers from both parties accused the Justice Department of obstructing a House Intelligence Committee inquiry by advising the CIA against cooperating.

“Earlier today, our staff was notified that the Department of Justice has advised CIA not cooperate with our investigation,” House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, and the panel’s top Republican, Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, said in a joint statement Friday.

“We are stunned that the Justice Department would move to block our investigation,” Reyes and Hoekstra said. “Parallel investigations occur all of the time, and there is no basis upon which the Attorney General can stand in the way of our work. … It’s clear that there’s more to this story than we have been told, and it is unfortunate that we are being prevented from learning the facts. The executive branch can’t be trusted to oversee itself.”

Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein and CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, who are heading a joint Justice-CIA preliminary inquiry into the videotape destruction, asked Reyes and Hoekstra by letter on Friday to postpone the Intelligence Committee investigation until it’s clear where the preliminary inquiry will lead. They said they could not predict how long that would take.

Wainstein and Helgerson said their inquiry would need the same documents and witnesses the committee has requested. “Our ability to obtain the most reliable and complete information would likely be jeopardized if the CIA undertakes the steps necessary to respond to your requests in a comprehensive fashion at this time,” they wrote. They cited particularly the committee’s request to interview CIA inspector general personnel “because they are potential witnesses in the matter under our inquiry.”

In a letter Thursday to CIA Director Michael Hayden, the House panel had asked the CIA to hand over by Friday all documents and cables regarding the interrogation tapes and their destruction. Based on the Bush administration’s response Friday, it appeared likely the administration also would block testimony by acting CIA General Counsel John Rizzo and Jose Rodriguez, the former head of the National Clandestine Service. Both have been summoned to testify to the committee on Dec. 18. Rodriguez ordered the tapes destroyed.

Leahy said he was disappointed that Mukasey denied the details to his committee – even in a classified setting.

“Oversight fosters accountability,” Leahy said. “This committee needs to fully understand whether the government used cruel interrogation techniques and torture, contrary to our basic values.”

Leahy said the tapes would be a top topic at his committee’s hearing next week to consider the nomination of U.S. District Judge Mark Filip for deputy attorney general, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official. It also will come up at oversight hearings of the Justice Department that Leahy said he would schedule for early next year.

The videotapes, made in 2002, showed the CIA’s interrogations of two terror suspects. They were made to document how CIA officers used new, harsh questioning techniques approved by the White House to force recalcitrant prisoners to talk. The CIA destroyed the tapes in 2005 but acknowledged doing so only last week.

The disclosure brought immediate condemnation from Capitol Hill and from a human rights group which charged the spy agency’s action amounted to criminal destruction of evidence.

Intelligence officials have said the methods that were shown on the videotapes included waterboarding, an interrogation tactic that causes the sensation of drowning and is banned by the Pentagon. The issue of waterboarding threatened to derail Senate approval of Mukasey last month.

During his confirmation hearings in October, Mukasey promised senators he would review Justice Department memos after becoming attorney general to determine whether waterboarding amounts to torture – which would deem it illegal. Earlier this week, however, Mukasey said he has not yet finished that review, and rebuffed calls from Congress to make a speedy decision.

Gitmo troops vandalize Wikipedia

0

US military personnel at Guantanamo Bay called Fidel Castro a transsexual and defended the prison for terrorism suspects in anonymous web postings, an internet group that publishes government documents said on Dec. 13.

The group, Wikileaks, tracked web activity by service members with Guantanamo email addresses and also found they deleted prisoner identification numbers from three detainee profiles on Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia that allows anyone to change articles.

Julian Assange, who led the research effort, said the postings amount to propaganda and deception.

“This is the American government speaking to the American people and to the world through Wikipedia, not identifying itself and often speaking about itself in the third person,” Assange said in a telephone interview from Paris.

Army Lt Col Ed Bush, a Guantanamo spokesman, said there is no official attempt to alter information posted elsewhere but said the military seeks to correct what it believes is incorrect or outdated information about the prison.

Assange said that in January 2006, someone at Guantanamo wrote in a Wikipedia profile of the Cuban president: “Fidel Castro is an admitted transexual,” the unknown writer said, misspelling the word transsexual.

Comments on news stories were posted by people using apparently fictitious names to news sites — and were prepared by the Guantanamo public affairs office, according to Wikileaks.

A comment on a Wired magazine story about a leaked Guantanamo operations manual that was recently posted on the Wikileaks website urged readers to learn about Guantanamo by going to the public affairs website, adding that the base is “a very professional place full of true American patriots.”

Assange’s group could not specifically identify who from Guantanamo made about 60 edits to Wikipedia entries on topics that included not only the prison but also subjects such as football, cars and television programs.

The Age (Australia)

VIDEO: Giuliani Making Millions From Data Mining

Olbermann discusses with Arianna Huffington the millions Rudy Giuliani has made by more unsavory business tactics. His connections with terrorist countries, indicted aides and now his willingness to violate American’s privacy rights lobbying (possibly illegal) for a data mining company come to light.


Liveleak

VIDEO: CIA Torture Jet crashed with 4 Tons of Coke

0

A Gulfstream II jet that crash landed in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula in late September bearing a load of nearly four tons of cocaine. This particular Gulfstream II (tail number N987SA), was used between 2003 and 2005 by the CIA for at least three trips between the U.S. east coast and Guantanamo Bay – home to the infamous “terrorist” prison camp – according to a number of press reports.

Light + Sound = New Weapon

0

By Sharon Weinberger

Military funded researchers are preparing to test a nonlethal weapon that combines light and sound. Nicholas C. Nicholas, chief scientist of Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory, told an audience yesterday at a nonlethal weapons conference that in the first half of next year, the lab plans to test DSLAD, the Distributed Sound and Light Array Debilitator. It’ll use essentially off the shelf technology to see if combining aversive noises with light produce some special debiliating effects. Anecdotal effects include dizziness and loss of balance, and of course, nausea. In other words, DSLAD could be another potential “puke ray.”

As I wrote yesterday, the Applied Research Lab, which receives funding from the Pentagon’s Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate, is also hoping to test the behavioral effects of sound at higher decibels, which could lead to a sonic blaster.

Last year, there was a lot of excitement about the Sheriff, a system that would combine a number of nonlethal technologies, such as a dazzling laser, sound beam and the pain ray. But what makes this new work significant is that there isn’t a lot of hard data on sound weapons, let alone weapons that combine sound and light.

Korean troops out of Afghanistan

1

South Korean troops have returned home from Afghanistan, ending the country’s five-year contribution to US-led forces there.

 

The pullout of 195 troops — mostly medics and engineers – was part of a pledge South Korea gave to the Taliban to ensure the freedom of 23 hostages taken captive earlier this year.

South Korea had already announced its decision to withdraw the troops before the hostage crisis.

 

The Taliban killed two male South Korean captives before freeing all 21 others in August.

Despite the withdrawal, Seoul plans to send up to 30 people, including five soldiers, to Afghanistan in January to run a hospital that had been managed by South Korean troops at the US military base in Bagram, north of Kabul.

 

Separately, South Korea has said it is preparing to pull out about 350 troops from Iraq, out of nearly 1,000 it has deployed there, at the beginning of next week.

 

Roh Moo-hyun, the South Korean president, has said recently he intends to extend the Iraq deployment to boost his country’s alliance with the US, but the deployment had been widely criticised.  

An extension to the mission is subject to parliamentary approval. 

A military official said that a plan to submit a motion to the legislature to extend the deployment was in the works, but was unclear whether lawmakers would endorse it.

Agencies

Micro turbines to generate electricity for households

9

It is now possible to generate electricity using small rivers and even shallow brooks thanks to the brand new micro turbines developed and produced by Turkish Electromechanics Industry (TEMSAN).

TEMSAN, committed to manufacturing turbine and generator equipment for hydroelectric power plants and designing and producing micro turbines and transformer substations under the supervision of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, has recently completed its four-year long studies and managed to design 12 different turbine prototypes. The prices of these turbines vary from YTL 3,000 to YTL 40,000 depending on their capacity and strength.

A micro turbine, able to produce 3 kilowatt/hour (kWh) of power, meets all the electricity needs of four houses — from illumination to temperature control. Turbines with a capacity of 100 to 200 kWh, on the other hand, are enough to supply electricity for moderate-sized villages and even small-sized towns.

It is not necessary to get a license or to establish a company to install micro turbines on rivers or brooks. Anyone is able to get one of these turbines and install it under the guidance of local ministry representative. They will also be able to sell the electricity to the local electricity network.

Hamit Akdere, a fish farm operator in Sivas, was the first to acquire and run one of these micro turbines. He notes that this system is “extremely profitable” as long as there is water to spin the turbine. “The electricity generated by these turbines will contribute significantly to meeting the country’s energy hunger,” Turkey’s Energy Minister Hilmi Güler has said on several occasions since the project began in 2003. “In the past, people used to say ‘water flows in vain and Turks just watch’. This will no longer be the case,” Güler stressed frequently. If micro turbines start being widely used across the country, they will supply at least 10 percent of Turkey’s total annual electricity usage — in other words they will produce around 3,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity.

TEMSAN General Manager Osman Kadakal pointed out that conventional hydroelectric plants could only be constructed on large rivers with high flow potential, whereas micro turbines can get electricity from even small streams. Kadakal also notes that it is possible to install numerous micro turbines on rivers as long as the depth and strength of the river’s water flow allow it.

Although this technology is new for Turkey, it is already in use in many countries. This method is especially useful in countries with an abundance of small rivers. Electricity-hungry workshops, like foundry works, are usually established around such small rivers in these countries. The turbines are designed to also cover some major risks. For example, they utilize high-capacity batteries that immediately step in if the turbines are broken or temporarily out of service.

Kadakal said the micro turbines are 100 percent Turkish products and no foreign technology was used in manufacturing them. A separate research and development body is employed to develop micro turbines for this.

A single micro turbine of the smallest capacity can produce enough electricity to cover all electricity needs of two ordinary houses and costs around YTL 3,000, excluding batteries and other supplements. Assuming that the cost of electricity for homes is roughly Ykr 10 per kilowatt-hour — which comes out to around YTL 880 in one year, taking into consideration the annual average consumption amounts in Turkey, these machines will pay for themselves in just two years. They also work with no operational costs.

The Energy Productivity Law, passed by Parliament in May 2007, allows the generation of electricity from small rivers provided that a person or institution establishes a plant with a maximum capacity of 200-kilowatt (KW). The law also exempts them from having a production license or owning a company for generation so long they use the electricity only for their own needs.

İSMAİL ALTUNSOY  ANKARA

Diana’s confidante reveals link to MI6

0

Rosa Monckton, a confidante of Diana, Princess of Wales, said yesterday that someone close to her was involved in the Secret Intelligence Service. Ms Monckton, who was with the Princess ten days before she was killed in a car crash in a Paris underpass, told the inquest into the Princess’s death that she had “no connection with the security services” but that “someone close to me is connected with the SIS”.

The SIS, also known as MI6, is responsible for protecting British interests overseas. Mohamed Al Fayed has alleged that British Intelligence was involved in a conspiracy to kill the Princess and his son Dodi, who died with her in the car crash in Paris in 1997.

Ms Monckton said that the Princess was unaware of her indirect connection with the security services.

She also disagreed with the testimony given on Wednesday by Raine Spencer, the Princess’s stepmother, that the Princess was serious about her relationship with Dodi Fayed. “I think that Lady Spencer was merely expressing an ill-informed opinion,” she said. “There is no way that Diana would have cohabited with [Mr Fayed]”.

She said that the Princess was still recovering from the end of her relationship with Hasnat Khan, a heart surgeon. She added: “She was very much in love with Hasnat. What was great for her, I think, about that relationship is that he accepted her as Diana, not the Princess.

“She wanted to marry [Mr Khan]. She was deeply, deeply upset and felt that she got rejected by people when she became close to them. She felt that that had happened in her marriage and with [Mr Khan]. Ms Monckton said that the Princess was hurt by the idea that people on the street who did not know her professed to love her but people who got to know her intimately did not.

The Princess had told her that she expected Mr Fayed to give her a ring, Ms Monckton said. “She said: ‘I know he is going to give me a ring, but that is going to go firmly on a finger on my right hand’.” She was asked by Ian Burnett QC, counsel for the inquest, what her assessment was of the Princess’s relationship with Mr Fayed. She replied: “It is a very difficult thing to gauge . . . [I] think Dodi was a distraction for the hurt that she felt from the break-up [of her relationship with Mr Khan].”

Ms Monckton also told the inquest that the Princess could not have been pregnant at the time of her death. She said that she and the Princess had been together, as guests of Dodi Fayed, on board a boat moored in the South of France. “She could not possibly have been pregnant while we were on this boat . . . She had her period and that was ten days before she died,” she said.

She added that the Princess did not intend to become engaged to Mr Fayed. “She would have called me if she was going to do that,” she said.

Ms Monckton had originally told the Princess that she should “not even consider” accepting Mr Fayed’s invitation for her and Princes William and Harry to join him on holiday in St Tropez in the summer of 1997 — where her relationship with Dodi had begun — because “Mr Fayed is a man who puts lots of cash in brown envelopes and bribed MPs”. The inquest continues.

In London, the world gathers against war

0

In the end, New Labour ended up returning to the old discredited territory of the British Empire by occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

Derrick O’Keefe

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to attend a remarkable gathering of the global peace movement in London. The World Against War conference, held December 1-2 in the British capital, brought together over 1200 delegates from almost 30 countries to discuss Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, the threat of an attack against Iran, and much more.

Tony Benn, the octogenarian who served 51 years as a Member of Parliament and remains a stalwart opponent of war and privatization, opened the conference by noting that the venue, the Methodist Central Hall, had been the site of the first meeting of the UN General Assembly more than 60 years ago.

Benn reminded delegates of the stated aims of the original UN gathering, “It pledged to end the scourge of war, to reaffirm commitment to human rights, to establish conditions under which justice could be maintained, and to promote social progress. And that was after 105 million people had died in two world wars.”

“With the invasion of Iraq,” Benn argued, “that Charter was torn up and thrown into the wastepaper basket by Bush and Blair and others, and we are here to reaffirm those demands on behalf of the human race.”

The achievement of that ambitious goal, in the UK as in Canada and elsewhere, faces two related obstacles: the glaring lack of adequate anti-war representation in the arena of electoral politics, and the relative weakness of peace and other social movements in the face of government, media, and military PR juggernauts.

Superficially, Prime Minister Gordon Brown finds himself in a spot similar to that faced by Paul Martin during his short term at the helm in Ottawa. Tony Blair, like Jean Chrétien, clung to power for a decade, leaving his successor to deal with low poll numbers and gathering scandals.

But while the Liberals in Canada steered away at least from official involvement in the Iraq War, Blair and Brown’s Labour Party went shoulder-to-shoulder with the Bush administration into the most disastrous imperial war in a generation.

Ten years ago, “New Labour” swept into power, shiny and triumphant. The much-hyped “Third Way” cast aside the remnants within the Labour Party of so-called dogmas like income redistribution and class struggle, and cast itself as modern and forward-looking. In the end, New Labour ended up returning to the old discredited territory — literally and in terms of policy — of the British Empire by occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

And so it is that many thousands of members have deserted the Labour Party, and many millions of voters have stayed home and now threaten to take their support elsewhere. Brown, with hands bloodied by war (and without the acting skills of Blair), may now well lose the next election to his Conservative challenger, David Cameron.

This is the grim reality of parliamentary politics in the UK, which does not reflect at all the anti-war majority of British public opinion. (There are notable exceptions, of course. Two sitting MPs, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway, the only Respect Party member in Westminster, made powerful presentations to the conference.)

Facing this situation, activists have to think hard about how the movement against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be effective. Demoralization undoubtedly hit people in the UK as it did elsewhere after unprecedented coordinated protests failed to stop the invasion of Iraq in 2003. February 15 of that year in London saw the largest protest in the country’s history, with over 1.5 million people on the streets.

Today, there is certainly a feeling of helplessness with the looming threat of an attack on Iran by the U.S. and Israel, with all the catastrophic results and human suffering that would entail. There is obviously a serious divide amongst the U.S. elite about the advisability of such an attack. Anti-war activists, however, have to find ways to mobilize against such a strike, as depending on the sanity of the U.S. administration would be, well, insane.

The World Against War conference was a unique opportunity to compare notes with other activists, many of whom struggle under extremely adverse conditions. Some of the most inspiring speakers were from the Middle East. Hassan Juma’a Awad, a leader of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, was warmly received as he told of their effort to resist the oil privatization law.

Hamdeen Sabahy, an independent MP and opponent of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, was a revelation. In a special meeting of international delegates, he left his interpreter idle and gave a moving speech in English. Outlining the obstacles facing the pro-democracy movement in Egypt, Sabahy made it clear he felt optimistic at least about the company he was keeping on that weekend in London:

“It is a very ugly world, in many ways, with so much injustice. But here, with all of you, struggling for peace and for justice, it is a beautiful world.”

Derrick O’Keefe is the editor of rabble.ca. He attended the London conference as a representative of the Vancouver StopWar Coalition.

Most of the speeches from the World Against War conference can be viewed at the UK Stop the War Coalition’s website.

UK government blamed for foot and mouth outbreak

0

Foot and mouth outbreak scientists blame Defra

James Sturcke
Guardian Unlimited

 Police stand outside the Institute for Animal Health laboratory in Pirbright, Guildford, a suspected source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the area. Photograph: Lewis Whyld/Press Association
The Institute for Animal Health laboratory in Pirbright, Guildford. Photograph: Lewis Whyld/Press Association
 

The government failed in its attempts to stop the spread of foot and mouth during the summer, leading to a second outbreak a month later, a report found today.Scientists at the Institute for Animal Health in Pirbright, Surrey, said that culling and biosecurity measures following the discovery of the disease at a farm in nearby Normandy in August did not stamp out the virus.

The government department in charge of farming, Defra, was wrong to declare the UK disease-free, the scientists found, according to the BBC.

Official reports following the outbreak, which led to the culling of hundreds of healthy animals and an export ban on British livestock, found that the disease probably leaked from laboratories on the site in Pirbright that the IAH shares with a private vaccine manufacturer, Merial.

An outbreak the following month about 12 miles away near Virginia Water was not the result of a second leak from the laboratories, the IAH scientists said, but a re-emergence of the first outbreak that had remained undetected by authorities.

The IAH scientists today leaked their own report, which was completed in September, amid frustration that it had not been published by Defra, the BBC reported.

In August, the prime minister, Gordon Brown, broke off his summer holiday to take charge of the eradication effort.

US ‘tapping cell phones in Indonesia’

1

US agents in Jakarta have been eavesdropping on Indonesian citizens’ phone conversations and reading their text messages, a report says.

According to the report by investigative journalist Allan Nairn, US intelligence officers in Jakarta are secretly tapping the cell phones and reading the SMS text messages of Indonesian civilians.

Some of the Americans involved in the spy operation work out of the Jakarta headquarters of Detachment 88, a US-trained and funded paramilitary unit which is part of Kopassus, the Indonesian army’s Special Forces.

Detachment 88 was recently involved in the arrest of a West Papuan human rights lawyer who had sent a text message critical of the Indonesian military and the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

The lawyer, Iwangin Sabar Olif, was charged with ‘incitement and insulting the head of state.’

Sources have also told Nairn that US intelligence is providing covert intelligence aid to Kopassus.
The information on the US surveillance program is provided by three sources, including an individual who has worked frequently with the Indonesian security forces.

Detachment 88 has been mentored by veteran CIA and State Department official Cofer Black, who was one of the architects of the US invasion of Afghanistan.

At present Black is one of the lead officials at the notorious Blackwater security agency which provides mercenaries to protect US diplomatic and other missions in Iraq. The company is the focus of much scrutiny because of a long record of indiscriminate killings of Iraqi civilians.

ARS/RE/HAR

VIDEO: Fool Me Twice (Bali Bombings)

1

Just before the hour mark, we learn the interesting fact that car bombs dont leave craters…So what made rthe 5 foot deep hole in the bali bombing? And the explosion that killed Hariri left a hole… so were these really car bombs.

An what is US role in bali boming that had the US ambassador (at 1.07 in film) summoned investigative jourtnalist Robert Finnegan, after a number of articles he had written in the Jakarta post. Finnnegan weas told to cease his investigations.

Death in Bali

by Brian Harring

I am going to introduce this incredible story by publishing an on-the-spot accounting by Robert Finnegan, an editor of the Jakarta Post. Finnegan, and a team of investigators went to Bali just after the blast and he covered it in depth, took many photographs and samples and conducted a number of interviews with locals and enforcement agents. The results of his efforts is that he was summoned to the American Embassy in Jakarta and personally interviewed by Ambassador Ralph Boyce.

Finnegan was read the riot act by the Ambassador and told that he was “rocking the boat” and ordered to cease and desist his investigative activities at once. When Finnegan refused, the outraged Ambassador told him he would have him ejected from Indonesia within 24 hours. He was ordered to surrender his notes to Embassy personnel, films were confiscated as was a sampling of earth taken from the blast site (Finnegan had two such samples and only one was found)

American authorities also subsequently believed that “an unidentified individual” was believed to be in possession of a tape recording of certain statements made by the Ambassador that might be considered by many to fully support the thrust of Finnegan’s investigations.

US accuses Venezuela of secret election funding

0

Rory Carroll in Caracas
The Guardian

Prosecutors in the US have accused Venezuela of secretly funding the election campaign of Argentina’s newly inaugurated president, Cristina Kirchner. The claim ignited a political row between the three countries.

The prosecutors told a Miami court on Wednesday that a suitcase filled with nearly $800,000 (£392,000) intercepted at Buenos Aires airport was a payment from the government of President Hugo Chávez. Venezuela and Argentina rejected the allegation as a politically motivated smear.

Kirchner, thrown on the defensive on her first week in the job, said it was an example of “garbage in international politics” and that the US wanted to “subordinate” other nations. “This president may be a woman but she’s not going to allow herself to be pressured.”

The row revives suspicions that Chávez has used Venezuela’s oil revenues to sponsor allies to try to forge a Latin American front against the US, which he terms “the empire”. If the charges stick they will taint Venezuela and erode the credibility of Argentina’s first elected female head of state. Both governments said it was an attempt to drive a wedge between Chávez and the rest of the region.

Venezuela’s foreign minister, Nicolás Maduro, said it was a fabricated scandal. “It is a desperate effort by the US government using the judicial branch for a political, psychological, media war against the progressive governments of the continent.”

Three Venezuelans and a Uruguayan are charged with failing to register with the US as agents of a foreign power. All were arrested on Tuesday night.

Flawed 9/11 report‘s conclusions are false

AN American engineer and author recently toured South Africa to dispel alleged myths about the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Enver Masud, 68, presented Fatally Flawed: The 9/11 Commission Report to thousands of South Africans on his tour of the country.

Port Elizabeth-based group Al-Ansar (The Helpers), brought Masud to Port Elizabeth last week because, they said, “the war on terror is based on the premise of the World Trade Centre attacks. If there‘s any doubt about the facts . . . then the whole war on terror is based on a false premise”.

Masud said before his first talk in November 2006 in Washington on the flawed 9/11 commission report, he had had many questions on the attacks, but “first had to gather hard facts instead of going along with conspiracy theories”.

“I‘m not a conspiracy theorist. My goal is purely to show that the US government conclusions are false. I have tons of information, but only use a dozen selected facts from mainstream news sources, pictures and official documents.”

Referring to the plane crash at the Pentagon which formed part of the September 11 attacks, Masud gave a slide presentation at a press briefing on September 12, 2001, stating “that there were no large sections of aircraft visible in the damaged area in front of the Pentagon”.

Jamie McIntyre, CNN senior Pentagon correspondent since November 1992, reported on the day of the attacks that there was no evidence of the plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

McIntyre said: “The only pieces left that you can see are small enough to pick up in your hand.”

On CNN‘s website it states that six months after the attacks, “McIntyre‘s contacts provided security camera pictures of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon”. On the images showed by Masud it is difficult to see a plane flying into the Pentagon, “especially missing the street signs and lamp posts still standing”.

Masud referred to official reports and photographs and said the entry and exit holes at the Pentagon crash site were the signature of a Cruise missile, and the term “punch-out hole” was written by investigators over the exit hole.

Masud also refers to the FBI‘s most wanted terrorists list and questions why Osama Bin Laden is not specifically wanted for the 9/11 attacks.

Instead, he is wanted for murder of US nationals outside the US, conspiracy to murder US nationals outside the US and an attack on a federal facility resulting in death.

Masud said according to the FBI “the reason 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden‘s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”.

Masud was the recipient of the 2002 Gold Award from the Human Rights Foundation for his book The War on Islam.

Masud said: “Polls indicate that 70 million Americans don‘t believe the official version of these attacks.

“Muslims in America have been largely silent. They were concerned after the attacks. More than 1 500 were locked up.”

Masud grew up in India and said his parents had been his biggest influences when it came to speaking the truth.

His father, Mirza Nasiruddin, worked with Gandhi, and his mother, Atiya Fatima, worked with Mother Teresa.

Shaanaaz de Jager

WAC Ireland Confronts Gerry Adams

0

Martin Ingram, a British agent admitted infiltration of the IRA and said that over 70% of their bombings were commanded by British Intelligence. We confronted Gerry Adams to get the info from the ‘horse’s mouth’.

There has been vast amounts of evidence uncovered that show U.S and British controlled terrorist groups through out the world that serve a purpose to the controllers. In Iraq British agents were caught dressed as Iraqis carrying out terrorism, they were dramatically broken out of jail. In Iraqi they have found sophisticated bombs matching those used by the IRA aka British Intelligence bombs.

WAC Confronts Peter Power

0

Members of WeAreChange UK confront Peter power of visor consultants. Visor is a consultancy agency with government and police connections which was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants,

Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

Gov tries to restrict Freedom of Information requests

0

One of the political mysteries of 2007 is why ministers hastily withdrew their threat to curb requests under the Act. Robert Verkaik, Law Editor, thinks he knows why

 

It is customary at this time of year to look back over the past 12 months to re-evaluate key moments that have shaped the political landscape. In the field of information rights it is the battle to force the Government to withdraw plans to restrict its own legislation that stands out.

At the turn of the year, Government forces, led by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then Lord Chancellor, appeared determined to press ahead with new rules that would stop the media and campaign groups from making costly and embarrassing requests for information. By mid-spring there was strong cross-party opposition to the plans but Falconer and his ministerial colleagues showed no appetite for compromise. But then Jack Straw, the new Justice Secretary, seemed to lose his will for the fight. By October the whole debate had been turned on its head, with Gordon Brown suggesting that Freedom of Information laws could be extended to cover some private firms.

New documents released under the Freedom of Information Act now provide a clearer understanding of why the Government got cold feet.

Responses to its own consultation paper published last year include submissions from FOI officers who show themselves to be less than enthusiastic about the idea of “blanket aggregation”, whereby a financial cap would be put on the amount of money that could be spent on complying with FOI requests made by individuals from within the same organisation.

For example, the Department of Health wrote: “We consider that it may not be reasonable to aggregate where the applicant is clearly acting as a conduit to a large organisation and refusal would lead to multiple non-related requests following from a myriad of requestors.” The department was also lukewarm on the question of introducing a “ready reckoner” to help calculate the amount of time taken by officials to consider a freedom of information request. It added:

DH considers that the Regulations are prescriptive enough but would welcome indicators or examples rather than a “ready reckoner” as part of the guidance. A “ready reckoner” could be overly rigid and not take account of the complexity of some documentation that may have to be examined carefully.

The Serious Fraud Office also had concerns: “The aggregation provision is potentially problematic,” its response stated.

It is proposed to aggregate requests made by a person or persons, who may be acting in concert for the purpose of calculating the appropriate limit. This will be difficult to implement. Anyone can submit a request via e-mail and it would be very difficult to assess whether different identities are being used or whether individuals are collaborating to acquire information.

Government agencies were even less enthusiastic. In its detailed response, Transport for London noted that the consultation paper did not present any evidence that “burdensome FOI requests are a significant or extensive problem outside of central government”.

It added:

TfL does not consider that it incurs unacceptable costs in responding to over 1,000 FOI requests a year, including a significant proportion that are complex. An alternative . . . might have been to develop proposals that would have implemented a revised fees regime for central government only.

And on the issue of aggregation it said: “We consider that the existing Fees Regulations are adequate in this regard and in general multiple unrelated requests from individual applicants, or different applicants in a single organisation, have not imposed an unacceptable burden on TfL.” Such unexpected opposition to its plans must have given the Government plenty of reason to beat a hasty retreat.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article3249843.ece

U.S. House passes bill to ban “waterboarding”

0

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill on Thursday to prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from using “waterboarding” and other harsh tactics to interrogate terrorist suspects.

Being voted 222-199, the intelligence bill was sent to the Senate and will take effect should President George W. Bush sign it.

Among the bill’s provisions that were made public, one requires reporting to the committees on whether intelligence agency employees are complying with protections for detainees from cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Another provision requires a report on the use of private contractors in intelligence work.

As the first intelligence authorization conference bill Congress has presented in three years, the bill also suspended 70 percent of the intelligence budget spending in 2008 until the House and Senate intelligence committees are briefed on Israel’s Sept. 6 air strike on an alleged nuclear site in Syria.

It also requires the creation of a new internal watchdog to oversee all the intelligence agencies.

The bill was approved days after CIA Director Michael Hayden testified at Congress hearings on the agency’s destruction of interrogating videotapes, reviving debate whether CIA was trying to cover torture on terrorist suspects including waterboarding.

However, the White House threatened to veto the bill this week, noting that they disagree with more than 11 areas of the bill, especially opposing restricting the CIA to interrogation methods approved by the U.S. military in 2006.

Source: Xinhua

U.N. suspects CIA may continue torture at Gitmo

0

Xinhua

A United Nations human rights expert expressed grave concerns on Thursday that the CIA may continue using torture on terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

Martin Scheinin, U.N. special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, said the behavior of CIA officials he met on a visit to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba last week only strengthened his suspicions.

“They were participants in one of my meetings but they failed to answer any single question in a substantive, meaningful way, which only confirmed the suspicions that they have too much to hide,” Scheinin told a news briefing in Geneva.

The Finnish law professor said currently about 300 detainees were still being held at Guantanamo, almost all of them without prosecution.

He suspected that the CIA intend to keep the detainees at Guantanamo without trial in order to hide their methods of interrogation that are incompatible with international law.

Scheinin also expressed concern at recent revelation that the CIA had destroyed videotapes showing the interrogation of terror suspects.

“It is one more argument that supports the contention that the CIA has been involved and continues to be involved in the use of interrogation techniques that violate the absolute prohibition against torture,” he said.

Scheinin presented on Wednesday a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, in which he expressed grave concern about the situation of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and the lack of judicial guarantees and fair trial procedures.

He also called on the United States to close the Guantanamo facility and make decisions on what to do with the remaining detainees as soon as possible.

MPs: Abandon 42-day limit

0

The government must give up its proposal to extend the period of time terror suspects can be held without trial to 42 days, MPs and peers have said.

Home secretary Jacqui Smith has called for the extension from the current 28-day limit in “exceptional circumstances” but the joint committee on human rights has dismissed this as being unjustified.

It said evidence received from the crown prosecution service that the extension was unnecessary had proved “devastating” to its case and called on the government to maintain a consensual approach.

“We can see no reason why the proposal to extend the limit for pre-charge detention to 42 days should be brought before parliament at this time,” committee chairman Andrew Dismore said.

The report’s findings echo those of the Commons’ home affairs committee, which said there was “no basis” on which it could recommend a maximum limit for pre-trial detention.

The Home Office has argued the 42-day extension is necessary in “exceptional circumstances” only.
© Adfero Ltd

Identities will never be safe

0

Phil Booth

When, not if, the projected ID cards database is leaked, it will make the HMRC scandal seem trivial.The scheme is designed to move data between government departments.

That is what “identity management” means to this Government: them managing your identity, for their convenience and with utter contempt for your privacy.

Once all your personal information is captured under Home Office control, it could end up anywhere.

It just cannot be secured.

Adding fingerprints to other confidential details won’t secure the information that is on the ID database. Officials won’t be using your fingerprint to unlock the information to pass it around.

Biometrics will just make stolen data more valuable.

And when breaches DO happen, you won’t be able to change your fingers like you can an account number.

Please join NO2ID and stop the Government’s database madness.

Who is Jack kidding?

0

Liberty and the state: The erosion of our freedom is all about opinon polls and crass populism

Helena Kennedy

Ah, the boys are at it again. Somewhere in the back rooms of government there have been discussions about how they should deal with the Blair legacy on civil liberties. What should the public line be on: internment without trial, control orders, efforts to include evidence based on torture, repeated efforts to reduce jury trial, attacks on the independence of the judiciary, reducing rights to protest, hugely extending custody before charge, abandoning safeguards for accused people so that previous convictions go before the court, undermining of the burden of proof and assumption of innocence, subversion of new technology such as telecommunications and DNA for undeclared ends, introducing identity cards so that people can be monitored at all times, attempts to remove access to the courts for those refused asylum? How do we repackage the narrative, our old friends would have wondered.

The former Attorney General is telling us now that he would have resigned had 90 days gone through, when he did not utter a peep at the time. This has caused cynical laughter in some circles but reworking history is the stuff of politics. Telling it differently is how the game works.

And in Wednesday’s Guardian we had a superlative example of repackaged narrative. With jaw-dropping chutzpah, Jack Straw tells us that not only is it a complete fantasy that Labour reduced liberty – in fact Labour advanced its cause. Well, as my old mother would have said, tell that to the marines.

This piece of effrontery did not come as a total surprise, as only a couple of weeks ago I was invited to debate the government’s record on civil liberties and heard the same load of horse manure fall from the mouth of the former Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer. It is the new line. “We gave you human rights so we have actually added to your civil liberties.” He who fashioned it? I can hazard a guess but, dear reader, do not be misled. What it tells us is that spin is alive and well and sadly living in the hearts of some of those we thought had been translated to the new administration unencumbered by the pall of the old.

Just look at our achievements, says Jack. And indeed they are many. Labour in government has been more socially liberal than any previous government. The reforms on homosexuality, violence against women, racism and many more issues have been exemplary, but Straw makes the crude mistake of thinking human rights and civil liberties are precisely the same. They are not. Arguing for a society to accept and value the humanity of everyone is the starting point for any civilised society. Human rights is the language for shared living, the grammar of our interconnectedness.

What the Holocaust taught us was that states and governments are not the only abusers of rights; our neighbours too can abuse us, so can our partners, our spouses or our parents. We have collective responsibility to ensure that all people can flourish in our society free from discrimination and hostility and harassment. The government seemed to understood this when it passed the Human Rights Act, a piece of legislation which says that the state should ensure that those who beat or sexually abuse or debase another are brought to account. All to its credit. What they have squandered is the mortar that holds together the relationship between citizen and state.

Civil liberties are about containing the power of the state and are rooted in ancient soil; civil liberties recognise that the most egregious abuser of all can be the state. It may have started with the king, but we know now that government in all its forms has the tendency to hoard power – a truth we should never forget. History has also taught us that those who have power are often tempted to abuse it, whether they are government ministers, police officers, bureaucrats, prison or immigration officers.

Of course, there is overlap between human rights and civil liberties. The great advance of the postwar consensus on rights was to accept that fair trial and the right to religious freedom and the right to family life should not depend on citizenship but should be vested in each of us by virtue of our common humanity. But Straw has placed a haze around the importance and virtue of civil liberties and their purpose of actively restraining state power. It is not enough for us to have the Human Rights Act as a safety net, to be put into use after the event. One of the most disgraceful conjuring tricks in the Blair cupboard of illusion was to claim that he was rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of victims when in fact he was creating new paradigms of state power.

Why have we seen this erosion of liberty? Firstly, let me make it clear, the Labour party is not full of authoritarians. Just a few. Jack is not a man of straw, but he is a wily operator. The sad truth is liberty has been the casualty of the new politics, a new and shallow politics, which understands the potency of “law and order” initiatives in the eyes of a fearful public. In the shallow obsessions of the pollster, these are issues which they think could win the marginals. This is all about crass populism.

The considerable and far-reaching erosions of civil liberties which have taken place have the short term purpose of wrong footing the other parties. It is a win/win situation. Get your legislation through and trumpet it as a triumph of tough government; lose the vote and have the knowledge that you can berate your opponents as lily-livered wets. David Blunkett and John Reid relished their reputations for toughness like playground bullies and Derry Irvine, who tried to bid for some restraint, was one of the casualties of that illiberalism. The costs are long-term. In many ways, the law is the autobiography of a nation, and this has been a sorry chapter.

Mr Straw, your claims are a sleight of hand. Our liberties have been eroded and a serious abandonment of principle, to which you lent your name and your votes, has been in train. But it is not too late. I have always believed in the rehabilitation of offenders.

US repatriates 15 from Guantanamo

0

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – The U.S. announced Wednesday that it has sent 15 prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay prison back to their home nations.

The military transferred 13 men to Afghanistan and two to Sudan, the Department of Defense said in a statement. Their names were not released.

The U.S. has now transferred about 485 prisoners to their native countries, where most have been subsequently released.

There are now about 290 men held at Guantanamo, most of them without charge. U.S. authorities have said they plan to prosecute about 80 in military tribunals at the Navy base in southeast Cuba. Military officials have said they are in negotiations with countries to accept dozens of prisoners who have been cleared for transfer by review panels.

Pelosi and Harman Aided and Abetted 9/11 Cover Up

1

George Washington’s Blog

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is blocking efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, or to take any other real steps to save America. One of the grounds for impeachment is that the government made knowingly false claims about 9/11.

Congresswoman Jane Harman chaired the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security which pushing for the labeling 9/11 truth sites as terrorist incubators.

What do these two congresswomen have in common? They were both part of the 9/11 cover up.

Veteran reporter Robert Scheer gives the background in his opinion piece today in the San Francisco Chronicle. The first two lines of the piece set the stage:

“When the CIA destroyed those prisoner interrogation videotapes, were they also destroying the truth about Sept. 11, 2001? After all, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day – and the nature of the enemy in this war on terror that Bush launched in response to the tragedy – comes from the CIA’s account of what those prisoners told their torturers.

Scheer then moves on to Pelosi and Harman’ role in the cover up:

But what about those congressional leaders who were briefed on the torture program as early as 2002? That includes Democrats like Nancy Pelosi . . . .

Pelosi claimed that “several months later” her successor as the ranking Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman of Los Angeles County, was advised the techniques “had in fact been employed” and wrote a classified letter to the CIA in protest, and Pelosi “concurred.” Neither went public with her concerns.

Harman told the Washington Post “I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four . . . an insider reference to the top members of the House and Senate intelligence committees . . . .

Not only did the congressional Gang of Four fail to inform the public about the use of torture by our government but they also kept the 9/11 Commission in the dark.

Pelosi testified before the commission on May 22, 2003 but uttered not a word of caution about the methods used. However, more than two years later on Nov. 16, 2005, Pelosi stated correctly that on the basis of her “many years on the intelligence committee,” she knew that “The quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is … uncorroborated and it is worthless.”

***
As matters now stand, they not only concealed torture but, more significantly, they abetted the waterboarding of our democracy.

Pelosi and Harman played an instrumental role in the 9/11 cover up by keeping their knowledge about the interrogation videotapes secret from the 9/11 Commission and from the American people (they weren’t the only ones who knew). This is made all the worse because Pelosi knew that intelligence “collected by torture” is worthless, and yet she never even hinted to the Commission or to anyone else that the CIA’s version of events should be questioned. They could have stopped the whole farce cold — but they chose to go along with it.

These two congresswomen — who are fighting against 9/11 truth — previously aided and abetted the 9/11 cover up. Is that why they don’t want the truth to come out?

Secret prisons may give CIA out in tape probe

0

Matt Apuzzo

Federal courts had prohibited the Bush administration from discarding evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.

Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.

While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse there would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videos of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard “all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.”

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.

At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped in 2002 and destroyed three years later, weren’t at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners who existed off the books – and apparently beyond the scope of the court’s order.

Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue. Kennedy gave the government until Friday to respond.

Exactly who signed off on the decision is unclear, but CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case.

Meanwhile, Hayden acknowledged Wednesday that the CIA failed to keep key congressional committees adequately informed of the agency’s decision to destroy the tapes.

“I think that it’s fair to say that, particularly at the time of the destruction, we could have done an awful lot better in keeping the committee alerted and informed as to that activity,” Hayden said after a threehour meeting with the House Intelligence Committee on the tapes controversy.

The Los Angeles Times contributed to this story.

The price of ID infamy

0

Rob Merrick

SHOULD I go to jail rather than carry a hated identity card – and will I be able to get myself locked up, even if I try?

Those questions have been following me around ever since the Datagate’ scandal broke here in the North-East, with the loss of two CDs bearing our child benefits records. Until this extraordinary blunder, we were all sleepwalking into the looming disaster of ID cards and the scary database that will accompany them.

The potential exposure of half the nation to fraudsters made everyone sit up and realise the far greater risk of piling far more detailed information onto the National Identity Register (NIR).

Well, I say everyone. Everyone, that is, except the Government, which insisted the answer to the crisis sparked by Datagate was, er, biometric ID cards.

This, of course, is complete nonsense. We now know, for certain, that any database is only as secure as the people who guard it. Or, as at HMRC, fail to.

Experts agree that organised criminals are licking their lips at the prospect of breaching the NIR, with its 49 separate pieces of information on all of us. Already, there is evidence that the microchips that will contain our biometrics – face, fingerprints and iris – can be read by illegal scanners at 30 paces.

In trials, the technology did not even work properly, failing to identify many people who are disabled, elderly, or from ethnic minorities.

It leaves in tatters the Government’s insistence that it will be impossible to steal someone’s fingerprints in the way, for example, a national insurance number can be nicked. And how exactly do ministers propose to issue me with new fingerprints, or eyes, once my identity has been stolen?

All this criticism ignores the mindblowing cost of ID cards – £5.3bn according to the Government, up to £20bn say independent studies.

Yet, from 2009, if you want a passport, you will be entered on to this ID card register. The only other option will be never to leave these shores.

Further legislation, to make ID cards compulsory for the remaining minority will follow as surely as cock-up follows Gordon Brown.

Recently, would-be Liberal Democrat leaders Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne have vowed to disobey this insane law, so should I join them?

But this is where it gets tricky, because the Home Office has cunningly made it all but impossible to take such a protest all the way to the prison gates.

Failing to register will not mean a jail term.

Instead, there will be a £1,000 civil penalty for failing to reveal changes of circumstances, such as a new address or marriage. Presumably, I could – eventually — go to jail for non-payment of fines? But being an ID card martyr could prove a very expensive business.

THE award for the most shameless attempt to jump on this week’s Led Zeppelin bandwagon must go to Newcastle MP Nick Brown, our Minister for the North-East’.

Winding up a debate on whether to bring Olympic skateboarding to Middlesbrough, Mr Brown – clearly a youthful prog-rocker – declared: “Let me conclude with a quote from the pop group Led Zeppelin: “Many dreams come true and some have silver linings. I live for my dream and a pocketful of gold.” I trust skateboarders were enlightened.

Holyrood puts ID cards plan under scrutiny

0

UK Government plans to introduce compulsory ID cards were set to go under the spotlight at Holyrood today.

MSPs were also to discuss the controversial issue of DNA retention during a Liberal Democrat-led debate at the Scottish Parliament.

A motion put forward by the party’s justice spokeswoman, Margaret Smith, calls on the Scottish Government not to allow the UK ID database to access personal information held by authorities north of the Border. And it spells out the party’s position that there should be no blanket retention of DNA samples.

Her motion also calls on the Government to ensure that all data protection procedures are secure.

It comes a month after HM Revenue and Customs lost two CDs containing the data of 25 million people and amid growing fears over internet identity fraud.

Following the security breach, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced checks on the handling of data by every government department and agency.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1944842007

Afghanistan: The Dollar Line

1

Chimes of Freedom

The Battle of Musa Kala is supposedly over and the city is once more in the hands of NATO forces. There has been a virtual news blackout about the manner in which the city was taken but, listening to the BBC World Service yesterday, I picked up snippets about a heavy aerial bombardment by the US Air Force, using B1 and Stealth bombers in what appeared to be a Shock & Awe blitzkrieg. Phosphorous bombs may have been used. Thousands of civilians may have been killed. We just don’t know.

Nor do we know just what what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is doing in South Central Asia. It is a question that after six years still goes unanswered. If pressed, we are given vague assurances about a continued “War against Terrorism”, the catch-all justification the USUK regimes give their public for just about whatever they wish to do, either domestically or abroad.

In fact the much-vaunted “War against Terrorism” is really the ongoing World War of western capitalism that replaced the Cold War, a time during which “hot” wars were exported to places like Korea and Vietnam, with the idea of “Endless War”, which is really an unending war based on geostrategic needs to grab as much of the Planet’s mineral resources as possible.

And in this scenario, Afghanistan, rich in Gas, Oil and Coal, sits neatly in the middle of the Great Game, currently occupied by the western economic bloc but neighboured by the opposing bloc of the countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).


SCO

Indeed, looking at the history of US involvement in the area since the early days of its use of the Taleban as anti-Russian insurgents, it may be seen how Afghanistan has played the part of a significant chess-piece in the Great Game of geostrategic politics and war. And the entire fake operation of 911 as the window of opportunity which provided, amongst much else, the excuse for the US along with its dogged ally the UK, to occupy in perpetuo this strategic cross-roads, hence ensuring that it would never fall into the hegemony of the opposing powers.

The argument for a pipeline through Afghanistan was made before the US Congress in 1998 by John Maresca of the Unocal Oil Company in testimony to the House Sub-Committee on Asia and the Pacific:

Maresca concluded his Congressional testimony with this peroration. “Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task. It has been accomplished before. A commercial corridor, a “new” Silk Road, can link the Central Asia supply with the demand — once again making Central Asia the crossroads between Europe and Asia.”

Gas, Oil and Afghanistan by Jon Flanders

The area includes a huge field of natural resources, predominantly Gas, Oil and Coal. Since the ‘nineties the Texas-based Unocal company was negotiating with the Taleban to build pipelines south to the Arabian Gulf. But these negotiations were brought to a halt by events in a highly destabilized part of the Great Game.

Yet, even were the US oil monopolies temporarily unable to secure the required conditions to pipe the resources, they could still hold a stake in the area’s oil-fields for future exploitation, particularly if the area concerned remained under US occupation. After Unocal pulled-out of the Central Asian Gas Pipeline (Centgas) the company’s chief shareholder became the Saudi Arabian Delta Oil Company.

Unocal’s defection did not end pipeline plans. According to the VOA’s Sarah Horner “But the pipeline dreams have surfaced again. In May 2000 there were reports of discussions of the issue involving Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Iran and Turkmenistan. And the Taliban newspaper, the Kabul Times, recently reported that the mine and industries minister, Mullah Mohammed Isa Akhond, met representatives of the Central Asia-based US company, Central Asia Oil and Gas Industry. The newspaper quoted company representative, Rafiq Yadgar as saying: “Central Asia Oil and Gas Industry is ready to invest in Afghanistan in the field of oil and gas extraction and meanwhile is willing to build an gas and oil refinery in Afghanistan.” He added that Turkmen authorities are ready to cooperate with his company.”

ibid

Now it is the US-puppet Karzai regime which runs Afghanistan, not the Taleban. So if anyone is going to exploit Afghanistan’s rich resources they would come from the western bloc, not the SCO. Hence the importance of Afghanistan remaining under the permanent occupation of the USUK and a fragmented NATO reborn as a ‘Coalition of the Willing.’ And why the UK Government has built in Kabul a huge, new fortified Embassy, signifying plans for a long-term occupation.

The present Bush junta represents nothing less than a coup d’état against the US people by oil interests.

As most of us know, the Bush-Cheney team that took control of the US Government in January, 2001, was heavily influenced by the oil industry. Bush himself is a veteran of a number of mostly failed oil enterprises. Condolezza Rice, Bush’s assistant to the president for national security affairs, was on the board of Chevron. Vice President Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, a major player in the downstream oil industry.

ibid

The hot spot for where the business is the Caspian.

In a column dated Thursday, August 10, 2000 in the Chicago Tribune , Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego [wrote] … “Because of the instability in the Persian Gulf, Cheney and his fellow oilmen have zeroed in on the world’s other major source of oil –the Caspian Sea. Its rich oil and gas resources are estimated at $4 trillion by US News and World Report. The Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, voice of the major US oil companies, called the Caspian region, “the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East.” Cheney told a gaggle of oil industry executives in 1998, “I can’t think of a time when we’ve had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.” Halliburton’s Caspian investments include Turkmenistan.

ibid

And in this revealing paper, written in 2001, its author goes on to note,

P.V. Vivekanand, chief editor of The Gulf Today in the United Arab Emirates sums up the pipeline picture in the Caspian/Central Asia region in this way…”There are dozens of oil and gas pipeline projects in Central Asia, some estimated to cost billions of dollars and almost all sparking transborder disputes and controversies. Most of the projects have been discussed for decades as the oil giants wait for the right political conditions to move in. Because pipelines are the best method to transport oil and gas over land, the efficiency of such a delivery system is too tempting for energy exporters and importers to let go of plans in a hurry. And for many potential exporters and pipeline hosts, the realization of such projects can mean economic survival.”

ibid

and finally concludes,

I think the evidence is overwhelming. The Bush administration plans to use the WTC attack as an opportunity to use the US military as pipeline police, with the current goal of splitting the government of Pakistan and the Taliban from the Islamic militants led by Bin Laden. If they can accomplish this, and this is a big if, the way might be cleared for the Afghanistan pipeline project, and the basis for further penetration into the oil rich former Soviet republics established, as part of a general rollback of Russian influence in the Caspian and Central Asia.

ibid

Six years on we can see how this analysis has been borne out. It underscores the vital role played by the false-flag events of 911 which are now being increasingly exposed as having been a CIA-Mossad operation. And it reveals the skeleton-in-the-cupboard behind a nonsensical war, not so much against terror but of ongoing terror by the USUK-led capitalist West against the people of our Planet.

We have seen how in these wars the deaths of millions are just written-off as “collateral damage”, of no significance in contrast to the purposes to be achieved by the constant playing-out of a hell on earth. Hells which are carefully kept out of the view of consumer target audiences and where war crimes are repeated so often that the concept itself begins to seem meaningless.

All wars are ruthless. But when the very survival of the New World Order lies at stake, as it now does, we can be sure that their horror and intensity will only grow, foreshadowing a great, planetary showdown in the interests of the Dollar Line.

UK Police Confronted Over “Common Purpose” Links

By John Blacker and Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News

The following is a freedom of information act request to Lancashire Police made by John Blacker, RINF science correspondent, to provide details of Lancashire Constabularys’ connections to “Common Purpose“. It should also be noted that police officers at the roadblock in question refused to give their names, rank and numbers – which fails to comply with British law. 

Dear Chief Constable Lancashire Police,

On 01 December 2007 I was reporting one of your public Road blocks on Morecambe Rd, Lancaster, UK, were upon I parked my car legally on a private car park and then set about reporting the police Roadblock activity for RINF.COM. Information was withheld by your officers who refused to give names or details of the operation.

As such I now politely request under the freedom of information act the following Details in full please.

1 Could I have the full name, rank and number of every officer who was present at the Roadblock on Morecambe Rd through the entire time the Roadblock was set up to the time the roadblock was closed down on 01 December 2007.

2 Could I have full details of every vehicle stopped by your officers and a list of every reason why each and every vehicle was stopped and the time at which it was stopped please.

3 Could I have the name and rank of the police officer that gave the order to hold said roadblock on Morecambe Rd Lancaster on 01 December 2007.

4 Could you list ever member or graduate of “Common Purpose” you employ in any capacity within the Lancashire constabulary.

5 How much money has the Lancashire police spent on “Common Purpose” in the last 10 financial years please.

I require this information so that I can make full public disclosure of said Police activity — if you have nothing to hide then why try to hide it?

Bush Vetoes Kids’ Health Bill Again

0

Rejection Of New SCHIP Bill Marks The President’s Sixth Veto This Year

President Bush vetoed legislation Wednesday that would have expanded government-provided health insurance for children, his second slap-down of a bipartisan effort in Congress to dramatically increase funding for the popular program.

It was Bush’s seventh veto in seven years – all but one coming since Democrats took control of Congress in January. Wednesday was the deadline for Bush to act or let the bill become law. The president also vetoed an earlier, similar bill expanding the health insurance program.

Bush vetoed the bill in private.

In a statement notifying Congress of his decision, Bush said the bill was unacceptable because – like the first one – it allows adults into the program, would cover people in families with incomes above the U.S. median and raises taxes.

“This bill does not put poor children first, and it moves our country’s health care system in the wrong direction,” Bush’s statement said. “Ultimately, our nation’s goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage.”

Bush urged Congress to extend the program at its current funding level before lawmakers leave Washington for their holiday break.

In fact, congressional leaders had already said earlier Wednesday that they now will try only to extend the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, well into 2008 in basically its current form. Their comments signaled that they have given up efforts to substantially expand the program.

The bill passed the Democratic-controlled Senate by a veto-proof margin, but the same was not true in the House. Even after the bill was approved, negotiations continued to find a compromise version that would attract enough Republican lawmakers to override Bush’s expected veto. A two-thirds vote in both chambers is required to override a presidential veto.

But that effort was unsuccessful.

The bill Bush vetoed would have increased federal funding for SCHIP by $35 billion over five years, to add an estimated 4 million people to the program that provides insurance coverage for children from families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance. The joint federal-state program currently provides benefits to roughly 6 million people, mostly children.

A major point of contention with the White House was Bush’s demand that nearly all poor children eligible for the program be found and enrolled before any in slightly higher-income families could be covered. He originally proposed adding $5 billion to the program over five years but later said he was willing to go higher as long as his conditions were met.

The president also has opposed using an increased tobacco tax to fund the program expansion. The bill includes a 61-cent rise on a package of cigarettes.

Bush’s veto in early October of a similar bill was narrowly upheld by the House.

But such votes are uncomfortable for GOP lawmakers. It is a popular program with the public, making some Republicans wary of sticking with Bush on such an issue with the 2008 elections looming. Of the 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, more than 6 million are under 18 years old. That’s more than 9 percent of all children.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the House will take up the extension question Thursday in a bill that also will make adjustments to Medicare.

“We’ll obviously need to put additional money” into the children’s health insurance program, Hoyer said, because several states say they will have to remove recipients from their rolls if the current funding level continues into next year.

Hoyer declined to say how much new money would go into the program or how long it might be extended. In the past, top Democrats have suggested they might extend the program until September or October, allowing them to reconsider it shortly before the 2008 elections.

Leading up to Bush’s quiet late-afternoon action, the White House and Democratic leaders sought the upper hand with the public — with each blaming the other for causing the stalemate and being unwilling to give ground.

In his veto statement, Bush said: “The leadership in the Congress has refused to meet with my administration’s representatives.” White House press secretary Dana Perino said that “even on a staff level, we weren’t invited to negotiate.”

“They’ve instead been intransigent and sent us two bills that they knew he wouldn’t sign,” she scoffed.

Not so, said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

For instance, Reid approached Bush to ask for negotiations during a ceremony for the Dalai Lama in the Capitol Rotunda in mid-October, a couple of weeks after Bush’s first SCHIP veto, he said. The president told Reid, “No, I’m not moving, meet with my staff,” Reid said at the time.

“The fact is that Senator Reid and Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi asked to meet with the president to discuss giving children the health care they need, and he blew them off by telling them to talk to his staff,” Manley said before the veto. “Now he’s going to veto it for a second time without negotiating once.”

© MMVII The Associated Press

CIA director knew about destroyed tapes in 2006

0

By Pamela Hess, Washington

THE CIA’s Michael Hayden, pictured, knew of the terrorist interrogation videotapes at the centre of controversy more than a year ago, he said yesterday.

Mr Hayden knew “the fact of” the destroyed videotapes late in his tenure as principal deputy director of national intelligence, a post he held from April 2005 to May 2006, he said on his way to brief the House Intelligence Committee about the unfolding investigation. “We are very happy to let the facts take us where they will,” he said at the Capitol.

Mr Hayden made a similar appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, but said he could not answer all the panel’s questions because the tapes were created and destroyed before he arrived at the CIA, under the tenure of his predecessors George Tenet and Porter Goss.

“Other people in the agency know about this far better than I,” he said, and promised the committee he would make those witnesses available.

Mr Hayden told CIA employees last week that the videotapes, made in 2002, showed the CIA’s interrogations of two terrorist suspects. The CIA destroyed the tapes in 2005. The tapes were made to document how CIA officers were using new, harsh questioning techniques recently approved by the White House to force recalcitrant prisoners to talk.

The CIA has not described exactly what was shown on all the tapes. However, among the harsh interrogation techniques the White House approved in 2002 was waterboarding.

Waterboarding involves strapping down a prisoner, covering his mouth and pouring water over his face. The prisoner quickly begins to inhale water, causing the sensation of drowning. The CIA has not used the technique since 2003, according to a government official.

Databases brim with our personal details

0

Thinktank reveals risks people are taking for financial incentives

Andrea-Marie Vassou

The average British adult unknowingly has their personal details recorded on around 700 databases with many different organisations, according to one thinktank.

In its report, Demos said people are losing control of how many organisations hold their personal data because they “are willing to give away information in exchange for the conveniences and benefits they get in return”.

As well as Government databases such as the Home Office’s National DNA database, the report, FYI: The New Politics of Personal Information, said other organisations gather people’s personal data, such as supermarkets who offer loyalty cards to customers.

The report said handing over information needed to get these cards seems like a good idea to people at the time, as they offer benefits and discounts. But Demos warned it was just another way of gathering information and tracking people’s movements and lifestyles.

“There is a disconnect between people’s standard concerns about privacy and Big Brother on the one hand and, on the other, their willingness to be part of a world to which surveillance of some form is fundamental,” Demos said.

The thinktank said although people had an individual responsibility to take care of personal data, the Government had a big part to play. Demos called for it to develop a more coherent strategy on data gathering and protection and give more powers to the Information Commissioner. It also says organisations in the private sector should also be more open about the personal information they collect and why they do this.

Demos also raised concerns about ID cards saying the Government should either launch a “serious renewed debate” with meaningful engagement with the public about how the technology should work, or scrap the scheme completely.

Blackwater Mercenaries on the USA-Mexico Border

1

By Nancy Conroy

 

In San Diego County, California, a firestorm has erupted over plans to build a Blackwater mercenary training camp in the hills behind Potrero, a remote area east of the city. The residents of San Diego are opposing the idea on the grounds that firing ranges are noisy and mercenaries would be undesirable neighbors. So far the controversy has been a localized, “not in my backyard,” type of debate involving planning commissions and citizen’s action groups.

 

Americans tend to think in an American way, and therefore nobody seems to have noticed that the location of this camp is right on the US-Mexico border, just a few miles from Tecate.

 

From an international perspective, there are a number of geopolitical reasons that could explain why this border location was selected. This is probably not merely an issue for the local planning commission, given that the idea of mercenaries along the border has broader international implications.

 

Blackwater USA is a private army based in Louisiana that has received billions of dollars in US government contracts to assist with the Iraq war. These “contractors” are highly trained ex-military specialists, many of whom come from foreign countries with poor human rights records.

 

Blackwater, at its website, identifies itself as “… not simply a ‘private security company.’ We are a professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations firm who provides turnkey solutions.”

 

The presence of Blackwater in Iraq has generated controversy over the concept of an “outsourced” war, using mercenaries instead of regular US troops. The mercenaries do not answer to US military commanders, their conduct is not governed by the Geneva Convention, and they answer only to the people who are signing their paychecks.

 

Critics often compare them to the Nazi brownshirts.

 

A Blackwater camp on the border may be a covert attempt to militarize the border without going through congressional oversight or public debate. A so-called “training camp” could probably also function as an operational base. Perhaps Blackwater will obtain government contracts to patrol the border, gradually edging out US agents and putting border security into the hands of a private army away from public scrutiny.

 

And Blackwater could run immigrant detention camps using the same methods they use in the Middle East. Even if this is not the plan, the Mexicans would have good reason to suspect this motivation.

 

The proposed training camp is located near international drug supply routes controlled by the Sinaloa Cartel. The remote, mountainous terrain is like Afghanistan, where Blackwater has years of experience running covert operations.

 

Six miles from the proposed Blackwater camp, northern Mexico has a serious problem with “Men in Black” who coincidentally look, dress, and act just like the Blackwater people. In Mexico, the Men in Black are kidnappers, corrupt police officers, fake federal agents, or Zetas, a narco-paramilitary group. Although Americans may still be swallowing the argument that Blackwater is a “military auxiliary” outfit, the Mexicans are not fooled about who the Men in Black are, what they do, and who they work for. That these same people are now camped out on the US border, or are somehow involved in border enforcement, will lack credibility in Mexico.

 

Since the Iraq war, business at Blackwater has been booming, which is why they need the new “Blackwater West” facility. Most of Blackwater’s contracts come from the US government, at least those that are publicly disclosed. But, Blackwater is a private army that is available to run “corporate security” missions for anyone that can afford it. This suggests another possible motivation for the border location: to serve emerging markets in northern Mexico.

 

There are surely plenty of possible clients with money in the Baja California area who need special operations. Since Blackwater personnel look just like the Mexican Men in Black, they should have no trouble blending in.

 

Another possible reason for the border location is the potential to perform “extraordinary renditions” into Mexico. “Extraordinary renditions” is a euphemism for off-the-record prisoner processing, the subjects of which are known in Latin America as “los desaparecidos” (“the disappeared”). Blackwater conducts extraordinary renditions in the Middle East, quietly transferring prisoners to third countries where interrogation techniques are not monitored. From their new border location, Blackwater could perform extraordinary renditions into northern Mexico far away from prying eyes.

 

Blackwater has said that the reason for the site selection is to be close to the San Diego area, where many branches of the US military need extra training. Still, the location so close to the US-Mexico border raises international issues that local San Diego citizen’s groups are not aware of and generally do not think about. Americans should consider the possible international dimensions, and responsible Mexican citizens should evaluate the potential impact of this camp on their own country.

 

As well, if Mexicans were more informed about this issue, the specter of mercenaries along the border has the potential to create an international controversy.

Do we trust government on ID cards?

0

Identity cards will have to be “reassessed” in the wake of the child benefits fiasco, a Government minister has said. (Really).

The data protection minister, said the loss of the personal details of 25million was “deplorable”.

He said a review will be carried out into the way officials store and use data – putting the future of the £5.6billion ID cards scheme under review.

The plans call for a database storing 49 pieces of personal information on every citizen.

Leading academics have rounded on the Government’s “fairytale view” of the technology needed to make the scheme work.

In a letter to MPs, Professor Ross Anderson and Dr Richard Clayton warned lives would be ruined if information from the ID database went missing.

“Once lost, it would be impossible to issue a person with new fingerprints. One cannot change one’s fingers as one can a bank account. Adding more data, like fingerprints, will make records even more valuable to fraudsters and thieves when – not if – they are lost and leaked.”

Can we trust the Government to look after the data?

And I’d like to ask, who will they be sharing this data with?

DANNY STOWELL

Britain’s breach of honour over Iraq interpreters

0

More than half the Iraqi interpreters who applied to come to live in Britain have had their applications rejected, drawing accusations that the Government is “wriggling out” of its promise to help former Iraqi employees.

The Times has learnt that 125 of the 200 interpreters who took up the offer to resettle in Britain have failed to meet the strict criteria laid down for eligibility.

The revelation challenges Gordon Brown’s pledge in August that the Government would fulfil its “duty of care” to those who had served with British troops.

In three cases seen by The Times, former Iraqi employees were told that they were ineligible because of “absenteeism”.

The interpreters claim that they risked their lives to serve the British and are living in constant danger of reprisal from Shia militias. If they did not show up for work, it was because they were fleeing for their lives. They said that they now felt betrayed by the Government.

After a two-month campaign by The Times that highlighted the plight of the interpreters, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, promised to help them under a scheme launched in October.

Last night MPs urged the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to reconsider the decisions. The 200 interpreters are among a total of 600 Iraqis who have applied to come to Britain, all people who have worked for the British and who today face intimidation from Iranian-backed Shia groups.

Safa, 28, one of the rejected interpreters who worked for the British for more than two years, received a letter from the Locally Employed Staff Assistance Office in Basra which said: “We have considered your case very carefully but we are sorry to inform you that, because your service with the British Forces was terminated for absence, you do not meet the minimum employment criteria for this scheme.”

Safa told The Times that he had never resigned but had been forced to stop working after receiving two bullets and a written death threat at his house in Basra in April. Married with one child, he said that he was advised by an army liaison officer and intelligence officials to stay at home until he felt safe.

A few months later the interpreter contacted the military to see if he could return only to be told that he was not needed but would be called if an opening arose.

Safa thought back to when he had stood by the British troops during two and a half years of service since April 2004.

“Was I absent when they needed their lives saving?” he said, recalling the time that he took off his flak jacket and turned his T-shirt and trousers into a makeshift rope to help 12 soldiers out of an irrigation channel. They had been struggling to cross because of the weight of their body armour and weapons.

“Was I absent when the militias were mortaring us all the time? Was I absent when I had to sleep in the cold desert with the soldiers?”

Iraqis employed by the British have to prove “continuous” service for at least 12 months to be eligible to come to Britain. The interpreters have had the highest-profile jobs, but others who have worked at the Embassy in Baghdad, the consulate in Basra and with the Department for International Development have also faced threats.

The MoD yesterday insisted that if an Iraqi could prove that he had been absent from work because of intimidation, then he would still be considered. But it emerged that those who have now been turned down for British residency have no right of appeal.

The FCO refused to discuss individual cases but, in a statement, said: “Staff who terminated their employment as a result of intimidation are eligible for assistance. We fully recognise the difficulties of such staff and do not insist on official or formal notification, or staff working out their notice.”

David Lidington, a Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, said the Government should not try to “wriggle out” of commitments made to former Iraqi employees. “The test should be whether they are in danger because they worked for the British, not their record in the attendance register.”

Lynne Featherstone, a Liberal Democrat MP who has championed the cause of the Iraqi interpreters, said that the Government needed to use its imagination in a difficult case.

“If those Iraqis who have helped us are now being told that they can’t come here because their absence was regarded as a resignation, this is the world gone mad,” she said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3037418.ece

Homeland Security Wants All Ten Fingers

0

Robert Longley

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has started collecting the prints from all 10 fingers, rather than just two, of international visitors to the U.S. arriving Washington, D.C.’s Dulles International Airport.

DHS hopes the increased fingerprint count will enhance the accuracy of print-matching software, thus increasing security.

Apparently a fan of “CSI,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a press release, “Anyone who’s watched the news or seen crimes solved on television shows can appreciate the power of biometrics.” Chertoff suggested that improved biometrics would help speed legitimate travelers on their way, “while protecting their identity.”

“Biometrics tell the story that the unknown terrorist tries to conceal, and it causes them to question whether they’ve ever left a print behind,” said Chertoff. Nine other international ports of entry into the U.S. will initiate the 10-fingerprint collection process over the next few months.

In November, DHS and the Coast Guard reported that their biometrics-at-sea program has resulted in a nearly 50 percent reduction in the rate of illegal aliens entering the U.S. by sea from ports in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic.

Fingerprint first for new stadium

0

Two sports venues in Fife have become the first in the UK to use fingerprint recognition systems on their doors. The Carnegie Leisure Centre and Pitreavie Stadium in Dunfermline have both been installed with hi-tech bio-metric security ID scanners.

Staff will have their fingerprints scanned into a computer which should recognise them on subsequent visits.

Managers believe the system, developed in Glasgow, will be more secure than conventional keys or Pin-coded doors.

They said doors requiring keys are often left unlocked and the security numbers for keypad operated entry points often become known to too many people.

No infringement

Fife Council’s sports and leisure manager, Wendy Watson, said: “One of our duty managers suggested biometrics because it eliminates anyone who is unauthorised to access the reception area and it is easy to use.

“Now our security is as good in the reception area as we can get it.”

The developers have insisted the system does not infringe human rights because whole fingerprints are not stored.

The system instead recognises key parts of the print.

Installation of the technology was carried out by Glasgow-based UK Biometrics.

Spokesman Scott Goldie said: “The Carnegie Leisure Centre and Pitreavie Stadium offer facilities comparable with any in Europe so installing a state-of-the art security system is an extension of that commitment to excellence.

“We are proud to be associated with a UK first for the biometrics industry.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7139951.stm

NYC Shuts 9/11 Remains Sifting Facility

0

AP

The city has closed a facility where debris was sifted for Sept. 11 victims’ remains, but the search won’t end until after the World Trade Center site is rebuilt, a city official said Tuesday.

Ongoing construction around ground zero – including the dismantling of a toxic skyscraper that caught fire in August – could put off a complete search of areas believed to contain human remains for years, according to a memo by Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler.

“At no point in the near future would it be prudent to declare this search `over,'” Skyler wrote to Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The discovery of more than 80 bones in a manhole at ground zero in October 2006 prompted an expanded search of nearby rooftops, manholes and sewer lines for bone fragments of victims of the terrorist attacks. Hundreds of bones were found beginning in 2005 at the former Deutsche Bank tower across from the trade center site.

The city has found 1,772 bones and fragments so far. Seven victims have been identified from bones found in a service road at ground zero and on the roof of the bank building, Skyler said. More than 1,100 of the trade center victims have not been identified from the thousands of remains found after the attack.

The medical examiner’s office finished work Monday at a facility opened last year to hand-sift debris from around ground zero, but it will use a tractor-trailer and other equipment to continue sifting remains, Skyler said.

Energy Source of Northern Lights Found

0

Anne Minard in San Francisco, California

NASA spacecraft have revealed new insights into the forces that cause the northern lights, including giant magnetic “ropes” between Earth and the sun.

Until now, scientists haven’t had adequate tools to study how energy from the sun is captured by Earth’s magnetic field to trigger the awe-inspiring phenomenon.

“What it shows is promise,” said Vassilis Angelopoulos, researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles and principal investigator for a new NASA mission to study auroras.

“We’re coming up on a new era in space physics.”

The findings were presented at a teleconference today at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

Perfect Storm

The latest discoveries began on March 23, when a “substorm” erupted over Alaska and Canada, producing vivid auroras for more than two hours. During such an event, the northern lights’ green and white streaks periodically build in intensity until they blast apart into multicolored, fragmented lights.

(Download a desktop photo of the northern lights.)

A network of ground cameras photographed the display from below while a series of five satellites, collectively called THEMIS, looked on from above.

(Read about the THEMIS mission and the probes’ launch earlier this year.)

“The auroras surged westward twice as fast as anyone thought possible, crossing 15 degrees of longitude in less than one minute,” Angelopoulos said.

“The storm traversed an entire polar time zone, or 400 miles [640 kilometers], in 60 seconds flat.”

The images revealed a series of staccato outbursts each lasting about ten minutes. Some of the bursts died out, while others reinforced each other.

The researchers likened the substorm’s power to a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.

Magnetic “Ropes”

NASA’s THEMIS probes are designed to unravel the mysterious dynamics that create such colorful displays.

Angelopoulos said the prime observation season for the northern lights hasn’t begun yet, but already the results are exciting.

“The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ‘ropes’ connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the sun,” said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

These ropes could serve as conduits for waves of charged particles from the sun called solar wind.

“We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras.”

Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft was insufficient to map their 3-D structure.

THEMIS’ identical micro-satellites were able to perform the feat.

The satellites have also glimpsed the evolution of heat waves and pressure blasts emitted from the northern lights’ substorm.

Angelopoulos likened THEMIS’ role to that of weather stations in our ability to predict atmospheric weather a century ago.

“These substorm processes are really helping us to understand and predict space weather,” Angelopoulos said.

CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders

CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders, but secret prison system could provide legal cover

The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.

Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.

While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videotapes of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard “all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.”

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.

At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren’t at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books – and apparently beyond the scope of the court’s order.

Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue.

Though Remes acknowledged the tapes might not be covered by Kennedy’s order, he said, “It is still unlawful for the government to destroy evidence, and it had every reason to believe that these interrogation records would be relevant to pending litigation concerning our client.”

In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were “well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation.”

For just that reason, officials inside and outside of the CIA advised against destroying the interrogation tapes, according to a former senior intelligence official involved in the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because it is under investigation.

Exactly who signed off on the decision is unclear, but CIA director Michael Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case.

Remes said that decision raises questions about whether other evidence was destroyed. Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation helped lead investigators to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Remes said Abu Zubaydah may also have been questioned about other detainees. Such evidence might have been relevant in their court cases.

“It’s logical to infer that the documents were destroyed in order to obstruct any inquiry into the means by which statements were obtained,” Remes said.

He stopped short, however, of accusing the government of obstruction. That’s just one of the legal issues that could come up in court. A judge could also raise questions about contempt of court or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in “pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.”

Kennedy has not scheduled a hearing on the matter and the government has not filed a response to Remes’ request.

Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes Jordan contributed to this report.

Nothing is Resolved in Iraq

0

What’s Really Happened During the Surge?

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Has the US turned the tide in Baghdad? Does the fall in violence mean that the country is stabilizing after more than four years of war or are we seeing only a temporary pause in the fighting?

American commentators are generally making the same mistake that they have made since the invasion of Iraq was first contemplated five years ago. They look at Iraq in over-simple terms and exaggerate the extent to which the US is making the political weather and is in control of events there.

The US is the most powerful single force in Iraq but it is by no means the only one. The shape of Iraqi politics have changed over the last year though for reasons that have little to do with ‘the Surge’–the 30,000 US troop reinforcements — and much to do with the battle for supremacy between the Sunni and Shia communities.

The Sunni Arabs of Iraq turned against al Qa’ida partly because it tried to monopolize power but primarily because it had brought their community close to catastrophe. The Sunni war against the US occupation had gone surprisingly well for them since it began in 2003. It was a second war, the one against the Shia majority led by al-Qa’ida, which the Sunni were losing with disastrous results for themselves.

“The Sunni people now think they cannot fight two wars–against the occupation and the government–at the same time,” a Sunni friend in Baghdad told me last week. “We must be more realistic and accept the occupation for the moment.”

This is why much of the non-al-Qa’ida Sunni insurgency has effectively changed sides. An important reason why al-Qa’ida has lost ground so swiftly is a split within its own ranks. The US military–the State Department has been very much marginalized in decision making in Baghdad–does not want to emphasize that many of the Sunni fighters now on the US payroll and misleadingly called ‘Concerned Citizens’ until recently belonged to al Qa’ida and have the blood of a great many Iraqi civilians and US soldiers on their hands.

The Sunni Arabs, five million out of an Iraqi population of 27 million and the mainstay of Saddam Hussein’s government, were the core of the resistance to the US occupation. But they have also been fighting a sectarian war to prevent the 16 million Shia and the five million Kurds holding power.

At first the Shia were very patient in the face of atrocities. Vehicles, packed with explosives and driven by suicide bombers, were regularly detonated in the middle of crowded Shia market places or religious processions, killing and maiming hundreds of people.

The bombers came from al-Qa’ida, but the attacks were never wholeheartedly condemned by Sunni political leaders or other guerrilla groups. The bombings were also very short sighted since the Iraqi Shia outnumber the Sunni three to one. Retaliation was restrained until a bomb destroyed the revered Shia al-Askari shrine in Samarra on 22 February, 2006.

The bombing led to a savage Shia onslaught on the Sunni which became known in Iraq as ‘the battle for Baghdad’. This struggle was won by the Shia. They were always the majority in the capital, but by the end of 2006 they controlled 75 per cent of the city. The Sunni fled or were pressed back into a few enclaves, mostly in west Baghdad.

In the wake of this defeat there was less and less point in the Sunni trying expel the Americans when the Sunni community was itself being evicted by the Shia from large parts of Iraq. The Iraqi Sunni leaders had also miscalculated that an assault on their community by the Shia would provoke Arab Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt into giving them more support but this never materialized.

It was al-Qa’ida’s slaughter of Shia civilians, whom it sees as heretics worthy of death, which brought disaster to the Sunni community. Al-Qa’ida also grossly overplayed its hand at the end of last year by setting up the Islamic State of Iraq which tried to fasten its control on other insurgent groups and the Sunni community as a whole. Sunni garbage collectors were killed because they worked for the government and Sunni families in Baghdad were ordered to send one of their members to join al Qai’da. Bizarrely, even Osama bin Laden, who never had much influence over al Qa’ida in Iraq, was reduced to advising his acolytes against extremism.

Defeat in Baghdad and the extreme unpopularity of al Qa’ida gave the impulse for the formation of the 77,000-strong anti al-Qa’ida Sunni militia, often under tribal leadership, which is armed and paid for by the US. But the creation of this force is a new stage in the war in Iraq rather than an end to the conflict.

Sunni enclaves in Baghdad are safer, but not districts where Sunni and Shia face each other. There are few mixed areas left. Many of the Sunni fighters say openly that they see the elimination of al Qai’ida as a preliminary to an attack on the Shia militias, notably the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which triumphed last year.

The creation of a US-backed Sunni militia both strengthens and weakens the Iraqi government. It is strengthened in so far as the Sunni insurrection is less effective and weakened because it does not control this new force.

If the Sunni guerrillas were one source of violence in 2006 the other was the Mehdi Army, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia nationalist cleric. This has been stood down because he wants to purge it of elements he does not control and wishes to avoid a military confrontation with his rivals within the Shia community if they are backed by the US army. But the Mehdi Army would certainly fight if the Shia community came under attack or the Americans pressured it too hard.

American politicians continually throw up their hands in disgust that Iraqis cannot reconcile or agree on how to share power. But equally destabilizing is the presence of a large US army in Iraqi and the uncertainty about what role the US will play in future. However much Iraqis may fight among themselves a central political fact in Iraq remains the unpopularity of the US-led occupation outside Kurdistan. This has grown year by year since the fall of Saddam Hussein. A detailed opinion poll carried out by ABC News, BBC and NTV of Japan in August found that 57 per cent of Iraqis believe that attacks on US forces are acceptable.

Nothing is resolved in Iraq. Power is wholly fragmented. The Americans will discover, as the British learned to their cost in Basra, that they have few permanent allies in Iraq. It has become a land of warlords in which fragile ceasefires might last for months and might equally collapse tomorrow.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of ‘The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq‘, a finalist for the National Book Critics’ Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006. His forthcoming book ‘Muqtada! Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia revival and the struggle for Iraq’ is published by Scribner in April.

Interrogation used by CIA is torture, ex-agent says

0

But simulated drowning got results, former interrogator says as Senate begins probe

Andy Sullivan, Reuters

WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday began investigating why the CIA destroyed videotapes that recorded al-Qaida suspects undergoing waterboarding, while a former interrogator said the controversial technique yielded important information but amounted to torture.

CIA Director Michael Hayden testified behind closed doors to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has launched one of several investigations to determine if the agency broke any laws when it destroyed the tapes in 2005.

“There are other people in the agency who know about this far better than I, and I have committed them to come on down and answer all the questions the committee might have,” Hayden said after the hearing.

Many countries, U.S. lawmakers and human rights groups have denounced the simulated drowning technique as torture. Reports of its use, as well as harsh treatment of terrorist suspects, have damaged the U.S. image around the world.

The full House of Representatives could vote as early as today to outlaw waterboarding. Drafted by negotiators for the House and Senate Intelligence committees, the measure would require U.S. interrogators to comply with the Army Field Manual, which bans interrogation methods seen as torture.

A former CIA interrogator said waterboarding has saved lives in the war against al-Qaida.

John Kiriakou, who now works in the private sector, told several U.S. news outlets that suspected al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaida started cooperating after being waterboarded for less than a minute by CIA officials in 2002.

Kiriakou said he now believes waterboarding is torture.

Critics have charged that the CIA destroyed the tape of Abu Zubaida, along with that of another al-Qaida suspect, to hide illegal torture. The agency has said it destroyed the tapes in 2005 to protect the interrogators from possible retaliation.

It is believed that the CIA has not used waterboarding since 2003.

The Washington Post reported that a judge had ordered the tapes to be preserved as possible evidence in a lawsuit filed by prisoners at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba, where the United States holds captured terrorism suspects.

Hayden is scheduled to testify to the House Intelligence Committee today.

U.S. Commits, Lies About Human Rights Violations

Human rights violations taint almost every social sector in the U.S.

By Alex Jung

The Geneva conventions aren’t the only humanitarian standards the United States ignores. Under the Bush administration, the United States routinely commits human rights violations within its borders, according to a new report by the U.S. Human Rights Network.

The USHRN, a coalition of over 250 social justice and human rights organizations, published its report to challenge the findings of a self-assessment the U.S. government filed with the U.N. Committee on Ending Discrimination (CERD) last April.

The United States ratified human rights standards from the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) in 1994 (meaning they have the force of domestic law), but according to the USHRN, has failed to live up to them.

The picture of human rights within the United States is bleak. Blacks and Latino/as constitute over 60 percent of the incarcerated, while only making up a quarter of the general population. Youth of color are overrepresented in juvenile detention centers and are disproportionately tried and sentenced as adults. Once out of prison, formerly incarcerated persons are often denied access to public housing, voting rights and financial aid for post-secondary education — all crucial elements for reintegrating them back into community life.

Minorities also face rampant labor discrimination. Nonwhites are twice as likely as their white counterparts to be stuck in low-wage, dead-end jobs. People of color are likewise overrepresented in dirty or dangerous industries such as food service and manufacturing.

Such racial disparities taint almost every social sector. Public transportation, education, healthcare and even the housing market are all rife with abuse. For example, in housing disputes between landlords and tenants in New York, almost all landlords have legal representation, while only about one in eight tenants do. Most of these unrepresented tenants are low-income women of color who have limited resources to hire representation.

In stark contrast to these sad realities, the U.S. government’s report understates, skews or ignores the facts about domestic human rights abuses.

“Our analysis reveals that the Bush administration is utterly out of touch with the reality of racial discrimination in America,” said Ajamu Baraka, the executive director of USHRN, in a statement. “From failing to address the chronic persistence of structural racism to even acknowledging the disparate racial impact on people of color of Hurricane Katrina, the State Department report reads like a fantasy; unfortunately, a fantasy that is too often experienced as a nightmare for Americans of color.”

The U.S. report limits its analysis of Katrina to one paragraph beginning with:

“Concern has been expressed about the disparate effects of Hurricane Katrina on housing for minority residents of New Orleans. Recognizing the overlap between race and poverty in the United States, many commentators conclude nonetheless that the post-Katrina issues were the result of poverty (i.e., the inability of many of the poor to evacuate) rather than racial discrimination per se.”

The U.S. government’s argument is that as long as the law does not, on its face, mention race, then the law cannot be racist, even if its policies negatively affect communities of color.

USHRN’s report was released beside polling data from social justice organization The Opportunity Agenda, which showed that 80 percent of Americans see human rights as crucial to a healthy nation. According to the poll, the public considers specific areas such as a quality public education, healthcare, and a living wage as an integral part of human rights. These mundane aspects are what Lisa Crooms, professor of law at Howard University and an author of the USHRN report, called the “ordinary human rights” that the U.S. government ignores on a regular basis.

USHRN’s Baraka believes the human rights framework will yield success because it opens up the possibility of a “new kind of movement” that can “expose the contradictions of the system the way it’s presently organized.”

The USHRN report will be read alongside the U.S. government’s self-assessment by the Committee in February of 2008, when they will determine whether or not the United States is in compliance with the agreement. Baraka expects they will conclude “the U.S. is in noncompliance” but he also hopes that the report will “motivate the U.S. to identify the gaps in protections, and to monitor levels of compliance on every level of government.”

The strategy of holding the U.S. government accountable to international standards has deeper historical roots and perhaps also suggests the United States is not the vanguard of democracy that it purports to be. Professor Crooms said, “Back when Du Bois and Paul Robeson filed the first petitions before the U.N., they were positions that challenged Jim Crow in the U.S.” The use of international law as a means to empower domestically marginalized people has strong implications in a global community. Such a strategy links the human rights abuses the U.S. government inflicts overseas with those that occur within its borders.

House Democrats Pull War Funding From Budget Offer

0

The GOP is negotiating in bad faith, Obey says.

By Jonathan Weisman

    A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.

    Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to the president’s spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers’ pet projects, as well as most of the Bush administration’s top priorities. It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    “Absent a Republican willingness to sit down and work out a reasonable compromise, I think we ought to end the game and go to the president’s numbers,” Obey said. “I was willing to listen to the argument that we ought to at least add more for Afghanistan, but when the White House refuses to compromise, when the White House continues to stick it in our eye, I say to hell with it.”

    House Democratic leaders were scheduled to complete work last night on a $520 billion spending bill that included $11 billion in funding for domestic programs above the president’s request, half of what Democrats had initially approved. The bill would have also contained $30 billion for the war in Afghanistan, upon which the Senate would have added billions more for Iraq before final congressional approval.

    But a stern veto threat this weekend from White House budget director Jim Nussle put the deal in jeopardy, and Obey said he is prepared for a long standoff with the White House.

    “If anybody thinks we can get out of here this week, they’re smoking something illegal,” he said.

    Obey’s proposal would ax about 9,500 home-district and home-state projects worth a total of $9.5 billion, according to Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. Republicans inserted about 40 percent of those projects. Not all of that money could be eliminated, however. The budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is parceled out as home-district projects, and Congress has no intention of eliminating the Army Corps.

    Obey would not specify where the remaining billions would come from to reach Bush’s bottom line, beyond saying the money would be shaved from the president’s priorities. One possibility would be funding for abstinence education. Other targets could be nuclear weapons research and development in the Energy Department, NASA programs and high-technology border security efforts that have come under criticism for being wasteful and ineffective, said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
ad_icon

    Obey’s proposal did not move the White House to negotiate, spokesman Tony Fratto said. “Different day, different Democrat, different direction. Our position hasn’t changed,” Fratto said.

    House Republican leaders would be happy to take Obey’s offer on spending, GOP aides said yesterday. But rank-and-file lawmakers from both parties could revolt. Home-district projects – known as earmarks – were stripped from the fiscal 2007 spending bills early this year, after Democrats took control of Congress and hastily disposed of budget bills their Republican predecessors had not passed. Earmarks were also eliminated from the 2006 appropriations bill that funded labor, health and education programs, the biggest domestic spending bill of the year.

    “There are a lot of people who were very disappointed last year when nobody got any earmarks. If they do it again for the second year in a row, it will be a very bitter pill to swallow,” said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), an appropriator who complained that he could lose $400,000 he needs for the Abraham Lincoln bicentennial celebration, slated to begin Feb. 12.

    LaHood is not the only Republican appropriator who is angry at the White House and at GOP leaders who have refused to negotiate with Democrats on domestic spending levels. In recent days, Rep. David L. Hobson (Ohio), ranking Republican on the Appropriations subcommittee in charge of energy and water projects, had a heated discussion with House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), arguing that Boehner should come off his hard line.

    Rep. James T. Walsh (N.Y.), another senior Republican appropriator, took to the House floor to argue: “If the proposal is to split the difference, to reduce the amount of spending above the president’s request by $11 billion, I would advise the president to take yes for an answer.”

    But most Republicans are expected to fall in line, as the GOP leadership pushes to regain the mantle of small-government conservatism. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), another member of the Appropriations Committee, said Republican lawmakers will face no political jeopardy for not bringing money home for their districts, because they can simply blame Democrats.

    “The smartest thing for [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi to do is to realize the White House always wins these spending contests,” he said, advising her to “cut your losses, get out of town and say Bush is still relevant” to the legislative process.

    That still leaves the war-funding issue unresolved. Democratic leadership aides on Capitol Hill concede that at some point, Republicans can add some money for Iraq as a stripped-down spending bill winds through Congress. But plans for a quick end to the showdown appear to be fading.

    “It is extraordinary that the president would request an 11 percent increase for the Department of Defense, a 12 percent increase for foreign aid, and $195 billion of emergency funding for the war while asserting that a 4.7 percent increase for domestic programs is fiscally irresponsible,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said.

Iraqi Policewomen Told To Surrender Their Weapons

0

Los Angeles Times

The Iraqi government has ordered all policewomen to hand in their guns for redistribution to men or face having their pay withheld, thwarting a U.S. initiative to bring women into the nation’s police force.

The Interior Ministry, which oversees the police, issued the order late last month, according to ministry documents, U.S. officials and several of the women. It affects all officers who have earned the title “policewoman” by graduating from the police academy. It does not apply to men in the same type of jobs.

Critics say the move is the latest sign of the religious and cultural conservatism that has taken hold in Iraq since Saddam Hussein’s ouster ushered in a government dominated by Shiite Muslims. Now, that tendency is hampering efforts to bring stability to Iraq by driving women from the force, said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to recruit female officers.

Lawyer: CIA may have more interrogation tapes

0

White House tacitly approved destruction of CIA waterboarding tapes, former official says

John Byrne

Contrary to the official CIA line, the lawyer for a captured prisoner revealed that her client reported seeing videocameras in interrogation rooms and on the wall of the prison in 2003 — a year after the CIA said interrogations had stopped, suggesting there may be yet more tapes.

“The former prisoner who reported seeing cameras, Muhammad Bashmilah of Yemen, was seized by Jordanian intelligence agents in 2003 and turned over to the C.I.A., according to an investigation by Amnesty International, the human rights advocacy organization,” the New York Times reported Tuesday. “He was flown from Jordan to Afghanistan in October 2003 and held there until April 2004, when he was flown by plane and helicopter to a C.I.A. jail in an unidentified country, Amnesty found. Mr. Bashmilah and two other Yemeni men held with him were flown to Yemen in May 2005 and later released.”

“Meg Satterthwaite, a director of the International Human Rights Clinic at New York University who is representing Mr. Bashmilah in a lawsuit, said Mr. Bashmilah described cameras both in his cells and in interrogation rooms, some on tripods and some on the wall,” the paper added. She said his descriptions of his imprisonment, in hours of conversation in Yemen and by phone this year, were lucid and detailed.

This comes in contrast to a statement from CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden, who told agency employees in a message Tuesday that “videotaping stopped in 2002,” after officials “determined that its documentary reporting was full and exacting, removing any need for tapes.”

What’s more, the White House was pressed by the agency on numerous occasions as to whether the existing tapes — showing waterboarding of detainees — should be kept.

Even after two years of debate among government agencies, the White House declined to order the CIA to retain videotapes showing hundreds of hours of interrogations of two terror suspects, according to officials who spoke under condition of anonymity in Tuesday’s New York Times.

“They never told us, ‘Hell, no,’” the source, described as a former senior intelligence official, said. “If somebody had said, ‘You cannot destroy them,’ we would not have destroyed them.”

The White House and the Justice Department advised against destroying the tapes in 2003. But after two years of inter-agency deliberation and CIA pressure on the White House to deliver a clear answer, the tapes were destroyed after clearance from lawyers from the CIA’s clandestine service.

Jose Rodriguez, the former chief of the then-Directorate of Operations, authorized the tapes destruction.

The official quoted said Rodriguez destroyed the tapes because he was concerned for the safety of the CIA agents shown on the recordings.

Read the full Times article here.

CIA chief to appear before Congress

0

 

General Michael Hayden, head of the CIA, is to appear before the US congress to explain why his agency destroyed video footage of interrogations.

Hayden was going before a closed session of the Senate intelligence committee on Tuesday.

He will appear before the House of Representatives’ intelligence committee on Wednesday, also in secret.

The CIA chief told employees last week that the agency had taped the interrogations of two alleged terrorists in 2002.

He said congress was notified in 2003 both of the tapes’ existence and the intent to destroy them.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November of 2005. When congress was notified and in what detail remains unclear.Multiple investigations have begun into who approved the decision to destroy the tapes and why.

One of the recorded interrogations was the “waterboarding”, or simulated drowning, of Abu Zubaydah, suspected to be a senior member of al-Qaeda

Justification

The leader of the CIA team interrogating him said it was necessary to use the technique to extract information from suspects in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

John Kiriakou, now retired, told ABC News he had no knowledge that the session was being recorded or that the tapes were subsequently destroyed.

Kiriakou said: “He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time – about 30-35 seconds.”

“[A] short time afterwards, in [the] next day or so, he told his interrogators that Allah had visited him in his cell at night and told him to co-operate because his co-operation would make it easier on the other brothers who’d been captured.”

When asked if the waterboarding broke Abu Zubaydah, Kiriakou said: “I think it did, yes.”

He said the use of the technique, which critics have cited as evidence of US torture, provided information to disrupt up to a dozen attacks.

“We are Americans and we’re better than this and we shouldn’t be doing this kind of thing.

“But at the same time, what happens if we don’t waterboard a person and we don’t get that nugget of information? I would have trouble forgiving myself.”

Torture?

Meanwhile, the CIA has said it no longer uses waterboarding and the Bush administration has repeatedly denied authorising torture.

George Bush, the US president, said CIA procedures were safe, lawful and necessary.

Human-rights groups say, quite to the contary, that it is clearly torture.

International law defines torture as “an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him … information or a confession.”

But when asked about the use of waterboarding, Dick Cheney, said: “Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives? Well, it’s a no-brainer for me, but for a while there I was criticised as being the vice president for torture.

“We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in.”

Al Jazeera and agencies

US soldier charged with murder heads to court

0

US soldier charged with murdering Iraqi civilians heads to court

The Associated Press

A U.S. soldier accused of murdering and assaulting Iraqi civilians was scheduled to appear in military court Tuesday in a hearing aimed at determining whether he should face a court martial.

Sgt. Leonardo Trevino, 30, is charged with premeditated murder, attempted murder, assault and obstruction of justice for in connection with the incidents in the volatile Iraqi city of Muddadiyah in June 24. Authorities maintain Trevino shot two detained civilians – killing one, and allegedly assaulted another civilian who was lying on the floor.

The incidents were detailed in an Army document obtained by the San Antonio Express-News through the Freedom of Information Act.

Army officials have not commented on the case. But family members and Trevino’s attorney said the sniper with the Fort Hood-based1st Cavalry Division has been falsely accused.

The Article 32 hearing Tuesday is similar to a civilian grand jury hearing and aims at determining whether sufficient evidence exists to move the case forward.

His is the latest of several cases in which U.S. troops have been accused of assaulting or killing Iraqi civilians. Among the most high profile cases were the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha by a Marine squad and the rape-slaying of an Iraqi girl and the murder of her family in Hamandia, also allegedly by Marines.

The charge sheet also alleges that Trevino tried to force a soldier to murder a detainee and told a soldier to “drop a pistol” near a detainee who had been shot. The Army accuses Trevino tried to hamper the investigation into the incident.

Trevino’s attorney told the newspaper for its Tuesday edition that the allegations are connected to an incident in a house in a “hostile neighborhood.”

Relatives said Trevino was on his second tour of duty in Iraq this summer and had lost a close comrade in a roadside bomb explosion less than one month before the alleged crime.

The return of the ID card debate

0

The UK Government’s embarrassing loss of 25 million citizens’ personal details has reignited the ID card debate

 

By Pete Swabey

ID cards data protection

It was the most highly publicised data breach of all time. And when details of the loss by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) of 25 million UK citizens’ personal data emerged in November 2007, it was not long before the nation’s attention turned to the Government’s controversial proposals for a national identity card.

Up to 25 million Britons now face worries that their bank details could fall into criminal hands, after two HMRC disks containing their details were lost in the post. So does data loss on that scale demonstrate that the state should not attempt to store large volumes of personal data? Or does it actually demonstrate that citizens need the security that a biometric ID card would bring?

Under the current ID card proposals, the UK Government would store an unprecedented volume of sensitive personal information — and given its reputation on protecting data, those plans need rethinking, insists George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor. The child benefit scandal should be the “final blow” for the national ID card scheme, he says: “They simply cannot be trusted with people’s personal details.”

Conversely, Government officials believe that the mistakes that led to the HMRC’s data breach underscore the need for a national ID system. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith argues that the identity system will make ID fraud harder by enforcing dual authentication of biographic details — similar to those lost by HMRC — with biometric data. The biographic and biometric data will be stored in separate databases. “It is an increased protection even against times when people’s biographic details are actually stolen or lost,” argues Smith.

Many business leaders will recognise the ‘chicken and egg’ dilemma facing the Government. It insists the ID card is central to plans for offering better public services, yet there may be reluctance to hand over additional information when its track record on data protection is seemingly so lamentable.

Pelosi did not object to waterboarding

0

Secretly briefed, Pelosi did not object to waterboarding in 2002

Pelosi would later boot sole objector to program from chance to chair Intelligence Committee

John ByrneTwo senior Republicans and Democrats in Congress — including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — were briefing on the CIA’s program to use waterboarding on terror suspects in September 2002 and did not object, according to Sunday’s Washington Post.

In the long-ranging article, which seemingly takes the lawmakers and the Bush Administration to task by discussing the practice’s emergence in Nazi Germany and other totalitarian states, a Pelosi aide said the Speaker remembered discussion of “enhanced” interrogation techniques and “acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.”

“In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody,” the Post wrote. “For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.”

“Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill,” the Post added. “But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.”

Democrats have since been vehement critics of the practice, piggybacking on public outrage to a practice many have described as torture — including 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ) who was tortured in the Vietnam War.

Only Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) — then the second-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who would supplant Pelosi in 2003 — formally objected. Harman, who was set to lead the House Intelligence Committee when the Democrats retook the chamber in 2006, was pushed aside by Pelosi when she took over as Speaker, in what was seen as an element of personal rivalry.

“Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee’s top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program,” the Post notes. “Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA’s program because of strict rules of secrecy.”

“When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath — one of secrecy,” she said. “I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything.”

None of the other lawmakers briefed raised formal objections. Those lawmakers included former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), former Sen. John Rockefeller IV (D-WV), former Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KN).

“Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support,” the Post added. ‘Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,’ said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. ‘And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.'”

Read the full Post story here.

White House clams up on CIA cover-up

0

The White House said Monday it would not answer questions about the CIA’s destroying interrogation tapes of terrorism suspects, citing ongoing investigations into what some have called a cover-up.

Spokesman Dana Perino said that President George W Bush’s official lawyer had requested a no-comment policy while the Justice Department and Central Intelligence Agency looked into the simmering controversy.

“Until that process works itself out, I’m going to adhere to their request,” she told reporters. “I think that that’s appropriate, and I’ll adhere to it.”

When a reporter noted that the White House has similarly stonewalled questions about other potentially embarrassing issues, and suggested that such a policy was politically expedient, Perino bristled.

“I can see why that cynicism that usually drifts from this room could come up in this regard. What I can tell you is that I try my best to get you as much information as I can, and in this regard I’ve been asked by our Counsel’s office not to comment, and I’m not going to,” she said.

But she repeated that Bush had no recollection of being told about the tapes or about their destruction in 2005 until briefed last week following media reports.

Some of Bush’s Democratic critics and human rights groups have denounced the decision as an attempt to cover up interrogation practices widely seen as torture – despite Washington’s insistence that it does not torture.

The videotapes, made in 2002, reportedly showed harsh interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who were among the first suspects interrogated by the CIA after the Sept 11, 2001 attacks.

CIA director Michael Hayden, who was not leading the agency when the tapes were destroyed, has said that doing so was necessary to avoid having the recordings leak to the public, revealing the identity of CIA questioners.


(AFP)

Did White House Censor Science?

CLAYTON SANDELL

House Democrats and Republicans traded rhetoric Monday over a new report claiming White House officials sought to suppress scientific views of global warming that clashed with Bush administration policies.

The report — originally undertaken as a bipartisan effort — leads to what the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee calls an “inescapable” conclusion that “the Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.”

The report is the result of a 16-month investigation by the committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Republicans on the committee quickly dismissed the report as a “political attack” and issued their own findings that question the Democrats’ conclusions and investigative methods. The White House called the allegations untrue.

One of the issues addressed in the report released by the Democratic majority is whether the White House Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, required approval of all media requests to interview government climate scientists.

The report states that “by controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White House and agency political appointees suppressed dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with administration policies.”

The report repeatedly cites the testimony of Kent Laborde, a career public affairs officer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Laborde told the committee that the White House CEQ insisted on approving all news media requests to interview NOAA climate scientists — a practice Laborde said has only recently ended.

“According to Mr. Laborde,” the report said, “climate change was considered a high-profile issue, and anything that was very high profile, anything that related to policy, anything that particularly related to a current policy debate or policy deliberation’ had to be routed through CEQ for approval.”

White House approval for interviews with journalists became more prevalent after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, according to the report; scientists who denied a link between stronger hurricanes and global warming were given approval over scientists who suggested such a link.

Laborde told the committee that climate change seemed to be the only topic that garnered this special attention by the White House, and if the CEQ disapproved of an interview, “it would have not gone forward.”

The Republican minority report criticized Democrats for relying so heavily on Laborde’s testimony.

“A thorough investigation would have sought further evidence to complete the record before drawing conclusions based on the uncorroborated statements of one individual,” the Republican report said.

Keith Ausbrook, the committee’s Republican general counsel, told ABC News the report from Democrats led to conclusions “they had already decided on.”

Ausbrook said the report ignored the role that policymakers play in drafting policy and communicating it to the public.

“These guys are doing science, and that’s what they do,” Ausbrook said of government scientists. “And political appointees and other senior officials are responsible for developing policy and programs and taking that science and doing things with it.”

White House press secretary Dana Perino dismissed the Democrats’ report as “rehashed rhetoric.”

“I think that it’s inescapable that they issued the report on a day where [the] U.S. would be represented at the Bali conference, where we are currently talking about the next step for our framework after 2012, which is when Kyoto would end,” Perino said.

Perino was asked whether the White House told employees at federal agencies like NOAA to suppress climate science information.

“Not that I’m aware of,” Perino said. “I do not believe that is true.”

Lies Of The Health And Fitness Industry Exposed

2

Craig Pepin-Donat

If history has taught us anything, it is that when a business concept exhibits the potential for growth, companies and industries spread like a virus to expand and exploit the opportunity. From the meager beginnings of muscle-bound bodybuilders, steel barbells, medicine balls and once-a-day vitamins, the health and fitness industry has transformed into a multi-billion dollar juggernaut. Health and fitness professionals have evolved from spandex and headbands to being highly trained sales and marketing snipers. Your cash is their target.

Although the expansions of this industry and advances in modern technology have helped usher in a new era of quality health and fitness products, they have also opened the door for liars and con artists who could care less about your health. The trick is to understand how to maneuver through the marketing madness to find the truth. Sadly, the number of people who fall victim to unrealistic quick-fix solutions is in the tens of millions. All the while, companies that sell ineffective products, cheap services and unrealistic results profit at your expense.

Beyond the scams and rip-offs designed to separate you from your hard-earned cash, there are people, companies, industries and even government agencies with hidden agendas designed to sabotage your attempts to improve your health. It’s not a conspiracy theory; it is simply the undeniable truth that you will see once the facts are known. There is no shortage of people who stand to profit from those who do not know the truth, and they will do everything possible to refute the facts. Just remember that when it comes to big business and their profits, the fix is in: billions are spent to keep consumers in the dark. You will need to rely on the one thing that marketing cannot spin – your common sense.

Let’s start with a simple truth that helps feed the big, fat health and fitness lie. That truth is that the average person would much prefer to go on a diet or take a pill rather than exercise. This is why the fitness industry, at $17.6 billion in annual revenue, pales in comparison with the diet and weight loss industry, which exceeds $40 billion. Even the supplement industry, with more than $20 billion in annual revenue, outperforms the fitness industry. Yet with a success rate of sustained weight loss as low as 5 percent, more than 50 million Americans line up each year to go on a diet. Why? The answer is simple. When people think about exercise, they relate it to work. Even the phrase we use to describe exercise is to “workout.” The truth is that the average American spends the majority of waking life working. Who wants more work? We want to play. We want to relax. We want to escape from the reality of work, Exercise is the last thing we want to do. Instead, we want a shortcut, and the desire for a quick fix is an open invitation for health and fitness parasites.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The smoking gun that reveals the real truth about the state of health in the U.S. is the stratospheric revenue within the pharmaceutical industry. Between 1995 and 2005, prescription drug sales increased by 249 percent to a staggering $251 billion on more than 3.6 billion prescriptions written annually. This doesn’t include the $17 billion we spent on more than 100,000 over-the-counter drugs that contained in excess of 1,000 chemical compounds. As you peel back the layers of the lie, you quickly realize that these record-breaking numbers were made possible by drugs that treat conditions and diseases, which are largely self-inflicted or forced upon us by accomplices that stand to profit from our ill health.

Not convinced? Consider that heart disease is the number one killer in the U.S., claiming approximately 700,000 lives each year. According to the Centers for Disease Control, this represents 29 percent of all deaths. Now consider that two of the main risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease are high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Although both conditions can be mitigated largely with improved eating habits, physical activity and other lifestyle changes; millions of people are diagnosed with these two diseases every year. They are given prescription drugs instead of taking preventive measures. The 2007 estimates of direct and indirect costs associated with cardiovascular disease are $431.8 billion and $66.4 billion for high blood pressure. Drugs designed to reduce cholesterol and triglycerides are the top therapeutic class of drugs with $32.3 billion in sales.

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has an interesting way of dealing with our modern-day health crisis. It labels as many conditions as possible as a “disease.” This is important to know because according to the FDA, only a drug can “diagnose, mitigate, cure, prevent or treat a disease.” It is interesting that even obesity is now categorized as a disease. The truth is that obesity is not a disease at all. We didn’t catch obesity; we developed it bite by bite, pound by pound. Big Pharma would have you believe the mantra of “Better living through chemistry.” I’m not buying it and neither should you. Yes, there are drugs that are necessary and many that save lives, but the truth is that we have become a nation of prescription drug addicts who look to pills as the first line of defense for whatever ails us. The solution we find is in the cure-all prescription pads that provide us with toxic, synthetic chemicals that only trick the body and treat the symptoms, while the true cause of our failing health is left to fester. When was the last time you walked out of your doctor’s office without that little piece of white paper? How quickly did you drop it off at your local drugstore?

Unfortunately, the problem with our failing health is not one-dimensional. Beyond the obvious lack of preventive measures to fend off deadly, life-threatening diseases, there are many forms of addiction that contribute to unhealthy lifestyles and lead us down the path toward poor health. Many of these addictions go unrecognized or fly under the radar of conventional thinking. Consider that the number one reason people do not exercise regularly is that they can’t find the time. Yet the average American watches more than four hours of television per day. Not many people would consider watching TV as an addiction, but with one click of the remote, we enjoy instant escape from all the work we want so much to put out of our minds.

Then there are those who like to unwind at the end of each day with a few drinks. No one is trying to bring back prohibition, but could you give up your happy hour for a month? Do the math. An average drink has approximately 125 calories. That means just two drinks per day equals more than 7,000 calories per month. It only takes 3,500 excess calories to pack on one pound of fat, not to mention the fact that when consuming a few drinks before a meal, you are eating under the influence. It’s always easier to say yes to seconds or that chocolate mousse with a little help from an increased blood alcohol level. It’s the little addictions like these that sneak up on us.

Okay, so you can’t live without the brew. Instead you decide to at least cut back on those dreaded calories by purchasing low-calorie, sugar-free, fat-free packaged foods to make sure you don’t get fat. But just as these products have increased in mainstream America over the past few decades, so too have our waistlines. We have been duped into believing we can eat more and weigh less. It doesn’t work that way. If you want to weigh less, you have to eat less and move more. Weight gain or loss is a simple formula of calories consumed versus calories burned.

Another critical issue that impacts our health is toxic exposure. There are many forms of toxicity. Most people don’t recognize that they can slowly and quietly destroy our health and make us ill. Consider the synthetic chemical sweeteners designed to keep us thin. They are laced in thousands of packaged foods. How about sodium fluoride, which is a known industrial waste byproduct that is pumped into our water supply and dental hygiene products? Or what about the chemicals that are routinely injected into our food supply to extend shelf life and improve the color, taste and texture? It’s all good, right? Wrong! It’s all bad.

Our bodies operate with 11 complicated systems all designed to work together to create a state of homeostasis in an ever-changing environment. There are trillions of natural chemical reactions that take place in order for the body to operate optimally. When we introduce synthetic chemicals into the mix, they disrupt the body’s natural function on a cellular level. The effects of toxic exposure may not be recognized immediately, but over time they eat away at our health, and there is a price to pay. Symptoms of disease will rear their ugly head, and when they do, we treat them with more chemicals in the form of prescription drugs.

Perhaps the biggest toxic exposure of all is the one that is responsible for as much as 80 percent of all disease – stress. We are forced to work harder than ever before to make ends meet. We strive to live the American dream of financial freedom, but only a small fraction of the population realizes the dream. The rest are left struggling under a mountain of debt. The majority of every waking moment is spent trying to make more money to buy things we have been conditioned to believe are important, when our health and the time we spend with the ones we love are really the most important things in life. Indeed, the big, fat health and fitness lie runs deep, but there is also truth. Where there is truth, there is hope. The answers are there for the taking, if you dare to open your eyes and see them.

Visit www.FitAdvocate.com for more information about how to protect and enhance your health and your life.

About the author

Fit Advocate, international fitness expert and author of The Big Fat Health and Fitness Lie, Craig Pepin-Donat is uniquely qualified to speak about issues related to health and fitness.
Starting as a nationally certified personal trainer and rising to the top of his profession, Craig led several high profile fitness organizations as president and also served as executive vice president of sales and marketing for the world’s largest fitness organization, 24 Hour Fitness.
With over a quarter century of experience, he has operated more than 450 health and fitness clubs in 11 countries and has visited over 30 countries while studying health and fitness trends worldwide. He has researched and purchased millions of dollars worth of fitness equipment, dietary supplements and other health and fitness related products. From this unique experience, he has developed a keen understanding of the physiology that triggers health and fitness buying decisions and the real world issues that prevent people from attaining lasting results.
A dynamic public speaker and educator, Craig Pepin-Donat has trained literally thousands of people within the fitness industry all over the world. Craig has created numerous professional training programs, seminars and workshops, based on his simple formula for success that have helped millions of people get on the path to living a healthier and more active lifestyle. He has dedicated his life to helping people through health and fitness education and now brings that knowledge and expertise to you in his ground breaking book, The Big Fat Health and Fitness Lie. He developed www.FitAdvocate.com as an ongoing platform to “protect and enhance the lives of health and fitness consumers”.

How to Control the AMERICAN Population

How to Control the AMERICAN Population by Paul Ehrlich

Brent Jessop
Knowledge Driven Revolution.com

In 1968, Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich wrote a well publicized book entitled The Population Bomb*. Ehrlich predicted widespread famine and disaster unless population growth was reduced to zero in America and throughout the world by compulsory methods if necessary.

Ehrlich is a Professor of Biology at Stanford University specializing in population biology. He has written many books and scientific papers related to overpopulation and has been well rewarded for his efforts.

“Professor Ehrlich is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Professor Ehrlich has received several honorary degrees, the John Muir Award of the Sierra Club, the Gold Medal Award of the World Wildlife Fund International, a MacArthur Prize Fellowship, the Crafoord Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (given in lieu of a Nobel Prize in areas where the Nobel is not given), in 1993 the Volvo Environmental Prize, in 1994 the United Nations’ Sasakawa Environment Prize, in 1995 the Heinz Award for the Environment, in 1998 the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement and the Dr. A. H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences, in 1999 the Blue Planet Prize, in 2001 the Eminent Ecologist Award of the Ecological Society of America and the Distinguished Scientist Award of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.” – Stanford University Bio

What is Population Control?

Ehrlich’s definition of population control is very telling toward the broader belief system that he holds. As will become clear throughout this article, he believes that the dictates of an all powerful government, supposedly for the benefit of the whole society should trump any and all rights of the individual or family.

From The Population Bomb:

“Population control is the conscious regulation of the number of human beings to meet the needs not just of individual families, but of society as a whole.” [emphasis mine] – XI

“…family planning…By stressing the right of parents to have a number of children they want, it evades the basic question of population policy, which is how to give societies the number of children they need… people would still be multiplying like rabbits.” [emphasis mine] – 79

How to Fix the Population Explosion?

“We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.” – XI

According to Ehrlich the first step to worldwide population control is the control of the American population because:

“We want our propaganda based on “do as we do” – not “do as we say.” ” – 130

A truly commendable ethical stand indeed.

“So the first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involved the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” 130

For completeness I will include, below, Ehrlich’s description as to why such a population control method would not work. Please note that his reasoning is purely technical, with no ethical or moral objection to this method. Continuing:

“Those of you appalled at such a suggestion can rest easy. The option isn’t even open to us, since no such substance exists. If the choice now is either such additive or catastrophe, we shall have catastrophe. It might be possible to develop such population control tools, although the task would not be simple. Either the additive would have to operate equally well and with minimum side effects against both sexes, or some way would have to be found to direct it only to one sex and shield the other. Feeding potent male hormones to the whole population might sterilize and defeminize the women, while the upset in the male population and society as a whole can be well imagined. In addition, care would have to be taken to see to it that the sterilizing substance did not reach livestock, either through water or garbage.

Technical problems aside, I suspect you’ll agree with me that society would probably dissolve before sterilants were added to the water supply by the government. Just consider the fluoridation controversy! Some other way will have to be found.” – 130

Some More Subtle Methods

Financial coercion is also an effective method to reduce the population. Ehrlich recommends changes to the income tax laws to encourage small families. But his creativity goes beyond just simple income tax.

“On top of the income tax change, luxury taxes could be placed on layettes, cribs, diapers, diaper services, expensive toys, always with the proviso that the essentials be available without penalty to the poor. There would, of course, have to be considerable experimenting on the level of financial pressure necessary to achieve the population goals. To the penalties could be added some incentives. A governmental “first marriage grant” could be awarded each couple in which the age of both partners was 25 or more. “Responsibility prizes” could be given to each couple for each five years of childless marriage, or to each man who accepted irreversible sterilization (vasectomy) before having more than two children. Or special lotteries might be held – tickets going only to the childless. Adoption could be subsidized and made a simple procedure. Considering the savings in school buildings, pollution control, unemployment compensation, and the like, these grants would be a money-making proposition. But even if they weren’t, the price would be a small one to pay for saving our nation.” – 132

“In short, the plush life would be difficult to attain for those with large families – which is as it should be, since they are getting their pleasure from their children, who are being supported in part by more responsible members of society.” – 131

Abortion

Ehrlich makes his views on the use of abortion to help control the population crystal clear.

“[Japan’s] dramatic halving of the birth rate was achieved originally through the sanctioning of abortion. Abortion is highly effective weapon in the armory of population control. It is condemned by many family planning groups, which are notorious for pussyfooting about methodology, despite beginning 60 years ago as revolutionary social pioneers.” – 84

“One of the more encouraging signs of progress has been the change in abortion laws [in the US].” – 89

“Biologists must promote understanding of the facts of reproductive biology which relate to matters of abortion and contraception. They must do more than simply reiterate the facts of population dynamics. They must point out the biological absurdity of equating a zygote (the cell created by joining of sperm and egg) or fetus (unborn child) with a human being. As Professor Garrett Hardin of the University of California pointed out, that is like confusing a set of blueprints with a building. People are people because of the interaction of genetic information (stored in a chemical language) with an environment. Clearly, the most “humanizing” element of that environment is the cultural element to which the child is not exposed until after birth. When conception is prevented or a fetus destroyed, the potential for another human being is lost, but that is all. That potential is lost regardless of the reason that conception does not occur – there is no biological difference if the egg is not fertilized because of timing or because of mechanical or other interference.

Biologists must point out that contraception is for many reasons more desirable than abortion. But they must also point out that in many cases abortion is more desirable than childbirth. Above all, biologists must take the side of the hungry billions of living human beings today and tomorrow, not the side of potential human beings. Remember, unless, their numbers are limited, if those potential human beings are born, they will at best lead miserable lives and die young. We can not permit the destruction of humanity to be abetted by a doctrine conceived in total ignorance of the biological facts of life. [emphasis in original] – 138

Conclusion

The next article in this series will examine Ehrlich’s desires for the rest of the planet, especially the third world. It will also look at the issue of “optimum” world population size and who should get to decide what that optimum level will be. The third part in this series will discuss the need for altering religion, sex education and the role of women in society. Part four will examine in some detail the different organizations, foundations and individuals involved in population control. Finally, I will compare the arguments for “population explosion” with that of “global warming” by directly comparing The Population Bomb (1968) to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (2006).

*Quotes from: Paul R. Ehrlich. The Population Bomb: Revised & Expanded Edition (1968, 1971). SBN 345-24489-3-150.

US, Israel collude against Iran

0

The top US army commander holds high-level talks with Israeli military echelons after the Zionists rejected the NIE report on Iran.

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen met his Israeli counterpart Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi and War Minister Ehud Barak in Tel Aviv on Monday, Israeli sources said.

Zionists military sources added that Admiral Mullen, who has been reportedly opposed to military strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites, was briefed on the argument of Israeli spy agencies that the Islamic Republic ‘could have nuclear bombs by 2010’.

Israel which is widely believed to possess the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East claims a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the region. However, Tehran has repeatedly attested that its nuclear program is civilian.

The December 3rd National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear activities concluded with ‘high confidence’ that the Tehran is not pursuing nuclear weaponry.

The NIE report has provoked an outcry amongst hawkish US officials and their Zionist allies; however political observers believe the findings make a US military strike against Iran less likely.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=34419&sectionid=351020104

U.S. Government Checking Amazon Customer Records

0

Big Brother U.S. Government Subpoenaed Amazon.com to Obtain Book Purchasing Records of Customers

Mike Adams

Newly unsealed court records have revealed that the U.S. government issued a subpoena to Amazon.com seeking to obtain the identities of customers purchasing books through the Amazon marketplace. The snooping attempt was blocked by U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker who wrote in a recently-unsealed ruling, “Well-founded or not, rumors of an Orwellian federal criminal investigation into the reading habits of Amazon’s customers could frighten countless potential customers into canceling planned online book purchases.”

Is the U.S. government trying to profile the psychology of its citizens by secretly data mining their book purchasing habits? Since 9/11 and the passage of the ill-designed Patriot Act (which, if anything, is traitorous, not patriotic), it seems that the U.S. government is aggressively expanding its powers to search records, tap phones and surveil electronic messages, all in an effort to conduct Gestapo-like profiling operations on its own citizens. It is now a well-known fact, for example, that domestic phone calls and e-mails are now tracked and recorded by the U.S. government, then mined for “dangerous” words which are linked back to those callers.

“The subpoena is troubling because it permits the government to peek into the reading habits of specific individuals without their knowledge or permission,” Judge Crocker wrote in his ruling. “It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else.”

Welcome to Police State Amerika

This News.com story by Declan McCullagh documents how AT&T opened up its massive telecommunications network to U.S. government security agents who used it to profile the telecomm behaviors of AT&T customers. Curiously, the Bush Administration jumped in and classified key AT&T documents, preventing them from being presented in federal court (so we’ll never know what they really said).

For years, the FBI has been operating its ultra-secret Carnivore program that surveils emails, capturing keywords in e-mail communications across the internet. You can read about it on this Wikipedia page. There’s also the Total Information Awareness program from DARPA which sought to create a massive domestic surveillance system that would keep tabs on virtually every electronic transaction made by Americans. Congress defunded the project once its existence was made known by a New York Times reporter. In response, the Feds simply renamed it, refunded it from other “shadow” funding sources, and continued to build the project. It is now up and running behind the scenes here in America. (You can keep tabs on this program and other shadow government operations at the ultra-popular www.Rense.com website, which posts daily headlines on this topic.)

Increasingly, the U.S. government is operating in secret, using greatly expanded police state power to spy on its own citizens. This attempt at acquiring Amazon.com book records is just the latest round in an ongoing campaign of secret police tactics being used against the American people by its own government… a government that was once created “Of the People, By the People and For the People” but now seems a lot more interested in terrorizing the people through fear-based politics and war mongering propaganda.

This is no conspiracy theory, it’s present-day Amerika

None of this is “fringe” information or conspiracy theory guesswork. Every statement made in this article is a matter of fact that’s easily verified through publicly-available records and news reports (not to mention common sense observation skills of what’s really happening). It’s not even a secret anymore: The U.S. government openly admits it is spying on U.S. citizens through various programs, but claims it’s all necessary to protect the public from “terrorism.” Remarkably, most U.S. citizens actually agree with the government on these points, and they happily surrender their privacy and freedoms in exchange for the (empty) promise of security.

These people claim, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, there is nothing to be afraid of when it comes to domestic surveillance.” In doing so, they firmly establish themselves as the reincarnated ghosts of Nazi Germany war criminals, who used the same distorted logic to justify police state laws and round-em-up policies that eventually led to the mass murder of millions of innocent civilians.

Why governments are more dangerous than terrorists

Speaking from historical fact, there is no entity more dangerous to the safety of human beings than a government. More people have been murdered, tortured and imprisoned by governments than by any other definable group (including those involved in the religious crusades). This is precisely why the founding fathers of the United States of America were careful to place the People in charge, establishing a system where the government answered to the People, and where power was never centralized in any single government office or department.

Examine this list of the worst genocides in the 20th century, and you’ll notice one fact that stands out: Almost all of them were committed by governments against their own people! Even more importantly, these were all committed by governments where power became too centralized and the People were stripped of their freedoms, rights and privacies.

Do you notice the pattern throughout history, and do you see where the U.S. is logically headed?

The stripping away of the power of the People is, historically, a consistent prelude to mass genocide. That’s why keeping power distributed throughout society was crucial to the engineers of the original United States of America. Shared power is safe power. A government with checks and balances that actually work is a much safer government than one where the President, for example, can bypass the legislative process by issued Executive Orders. (How many executive orders has Bush issued? Click here to see the list yourself.) Concentrated power is almost universally dangerous, and the use of executive orders to bypass Congress and create whatever laws one person wants to create is a dangerous sign of a growing dictatorship. Shared power is essential in any free society.

But today’s U.S. federal government has long since abandoned any ideas of shared power. Today, it steamrolls over the People of this country, tapping their phone lines without warrants, searching them without probable cause, arresting and imprisoning them but not charging them with any crime, arbitrarily adding their names to “no fly” lists used by commercial airlines, and engaging in other serious transgressions. This example of the U.S. government attempting to acquire customer records from Amazon.com is not any real deviation from the consistent behavior of the U.S. government today: It wants to gather information on the People, surveilling everyone and then selectively declaring who is a “criminal” and who isn’t.

Could it really be true?

Many people, when faced with these facts about domestic surveillance and the dangers of a police state society, simply cannot believe any of it is true. They naively think their government would never violate their rights. The U.S. government is here to protect the People, right?

It’s an incredibly naive belief. To get the facts on how the U.S. government really treats its people, step back a few decades and look at the U.S. Civil Rights movement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as local government police and law enforcement personnel, repeatedly engaged in heinous crimes against the “Black Power” leaders of the day. They planned and carried out literally hundreds of attacks, bombings and executions of black leaders. (This is not conjecture: It’s all on-the-record testimony from former FBI agents.) And when the Freedom Riders boarded buses and drove through the American South to protest the accelerating violence against the black people, law enforcement personnel took part in the beatings, shootings and violence perpetrated against these innocents. And the FBI? It said that it would do nothing to protect the rights of these black civilians against racial violence, but that if black people were actually killed in the attacks, it would “investigate.”

The history of the Civil Rights movement is a damning indictment of the State. It shows, in gruesome detail, the way in which the U.S. government protected itself at the expense of the freedoms of its people. Even U.S. Congresspeople, Senators and Presidents stood by and did nothing while blacks were being shot, stabbed, beaten and bombed all across the nation. For decades, the U.S. government passed empty laws making racism illegal then did absolutely nothing to enforce those laws. (Read more gruesome historical details in the eye-opening book A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.)

Can a government really treat people in this way? The answer is a resounding YES! And it’s not just any government, it’s the American government. Today, the U.S. government stands as the only first world government on the planet that openly condones the kidnapping and torturing of civilians from other nations, neither charging them with crimes nor declaring them war criminals under which they would be protected by the Geneva Convention (which the U.S. openly ignores). Today, Guantanamo Bay holds prisoners who have been held for six years and never charged with a crime! It is a violation of both domestic and international law, and that’s why the Bush Administration chose to kidnap and imprison these people on non-U.S. land — it was a way to attempt to avoid adhering to U.S. laws establishing the basic rights of those charged with criminal acts. (Yes, even criminals have basic rights, like the right to legal representation and the right to know what crime they’re being charged with.) The behavior of the U.S. in these matters is very much like Nazi Germany and is nothing less than a series of war crimes being perpetrated against not just men from Middle Eastern nations, but also U.S. citizens.

The U.S. government is also the only government in the world to have ever dropped nuclear weapons on predominantly civilian populations (Japan, World War II), and today, the U.S. government is openly engaged in the widespread use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan through the use of depleted uranium shells. They will irradiate the Iraqi soils for generations to come, destroying the genetic code of an entire race. This is a case of mass genocide against civilians being carried out right now by the U.S. government, with the full awareness of the President, the Congress and the mainstream media. The long sought-after Weapons of Mass Destruction have finally been found: They’re being used by the U.S. military!

Heard enough? We’ve barely scratched the surface. As far as the crimes of the U.S. federal government go, tapping into Amazon.com’s records is little more than a drop in the bucket. It’s just a tiny glimpse of the outright betrayal of the U.S. Constitution and the American People that’s going on every day in our nation’s capitol.

So what can we do about it?

As citizens we have both the right and the responsibility to take our power and freedoms back from the hands of the corrupt, pro-war, fear-mongering tyrants who now operate it. I have consistently advocated non-violent protests and grassroots action campaigns that can work towards a better future for all Americans.

I believe that we must do everything in our power — in a non-violent way — to take back our freedoms, our privacy and our power. And we must do it NOW, before the United States of America collapses into a bankrupt police state, drowning in a worthless U.S. dollar, with rampant hyperinflation and a massive expansion of police powers.

There is only one Presidential candidate who even has a shot at delivering this, and his name is Ron Paul. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican, a Democrat, a Green Party member, a Libertarian or Independent: If you believe that power should be returned to the People, and that America should cease to be an imperialist, police state nation, then there is only one candidate in the running right now that can even come close to delivering the kind of changes that matter to you. That’s Ron Paul.

In fact, I will offer a prediction right here: If Ron Paul is not elected President in 2008, the United States of America will self destruct by 2025, having suffocated under terminal debt, its currency worthless, its international reputation in shambles, its people impoverished and starving, and its leaders fleeing indictment for their crimes against their own people. It may self-destruct anyway, even if Paul is elected, because much of what has been set in motion is not easily reversible. Read articles by Paul Craig Roberts to learn more…

We have one last desperate effort to turn this around, and that’s the ballot box. It is our last hope to save this nation from near-certain collapse. It is also the last way to avoid the inevitable violence and crimes against humanity that will sadly emerge from the economic and political turmoil that’s almost certainly in our future if something doesn’t radically change for the better. We CAN create a better future for ourselves and our children, but not if we keep electing tyrants and ignoring the increasingly thunderous march of government-sponsored tyranny that seems to set the tone in Washington today.

The signs of economic collapse can no longer be ignored

Skeptical of all this? Look around you. The U.S. dollar is collapsing faster than a skyscraper packed with demolition charges. China is threatening to dump the U.S. currency and start selling all the debt it has purchased from the wild-party-spending United States government — a move that would send the dollar into a tailspin. A secret meeting among OPEC members revealed that they, too, are fleeing the dollar and looking to trade oil in Euros.

The collapse of the U.S. dollar means there will be no more buyers in the world for U.S. debt, and that means immediate hyperinflation of the currency as the government tries to bail itself out of endless debt. Hyperinflation will wipe out the savings of every person in the country with money held in banks. Retirement accounts? Gone. Savings? Wiped out. FDIC insurance? Worthless. Real estate? Collapsed into a decades-long depression. (Think the FDIC will save you? Don’t be so gullible: The FDIC can only bail out a tiny percentage of failed banks in a massive, national bank run, perhaps 2 to 3 percent.)

Just last week, Citibank itself reached out to the Abu Dhabi government, desperately seeking a loan of cash to bail it out of a house-of-cards debt collapse scenario. It agreed to pay a whopping 11 percent interest on a loan to save it from collapse. That technically makes Citibank a sub-prime borrower itself! (When the largest banks desperately need high interest rate loans to bail themselves out of bankruptcy, you know something is seriously wrong with the debt bubble…)

Oil is now flirting with $100 a barrel, a price level that virtually all economists and politicians thought was laughable just two years ago. But smart-minded economics like Stephen Leeb saw this coming well ahead of the masses. If you want to know what’s in the picture for the near future, I recommend Leeb’s newest book: The Coming Economic Collapse: How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs $200 a Barrel. You can get it, ironically, at Amazon.com, the very online retailer where the feds were trying to snoop into customer records:

Meanwhile, the Fed is pumping money into the economy in a desperate move to delay the inevitable popping of the massive U.S. debt bubble. It’s buying up bad bank debt as fast as it can, much like a group of frantic sailors trying to bail water out of a rapidly sinking ship. Only a financial fool could look at the current situation and have any degree of confidence in the future of the U.S. economy, and much of this has been caused by outrageous national debt spending by our current pro-war president.

Ron Paul cannot reverse all this overnight, but if the People use their voting power to eject all the criminals, hucksters, war mongers and corrupt fat cats that currently run this country, we could begin the economic and political healing processes that, in fifty years or so, might return this country to something resembling an honest society. It will take at least two generations to pay off the national debt, and that’s if we radically slash government spending on war and health care right now.

Of course, there is no candidate other than Ron Paul who has any intention of even thinking about paying off the national debt. The issue is simply ignored from one presidency to the next in a great pass-the-buck game that can only end in a sudden a total collapse of the U.S. economy (and its currency). Recent news reports reveal the U.S. debt is now increasing at the rate of $1 million a minute!.

Ron Paul believes in honest currency (having the currency backed by gold, so that savings cannot be stolen from the People through the Fed’s planned hyperinflation). He believes in health freedom and in getting the U.S. out of wars in the Middle East. He believes in returning America to its Constitutional roots, where the People don’t have to live in fear of the U.S. Gestapo police who wiretap their phones, surveil their e-mails and steal their Amazon.com book purchasing records.

If you believe in freedom at all, there’s only one candidate to vote for: Ron Paul.

Sure, Paul has some downsides. He’s not up to speed on global warming and the role of governments in aggressively regulating corporations. I don’t agree with Paul on everything. But for the core issues — war, the money supply, taxation, health freedom — he’s so right on that there’s simply no other candidate that even comes close.

If you believe in corruption, endless debt, secret police, a collapsing economy and an endless stream of government lies, vote for the popular, mainstream, corporate-backed candidates. But if you believe in returning honesty to government, there is only one sensible choice, and his name is Ron Paul.

The People’s Surveillance

There’s also something else happening in society today that might have a chance of helping us all win back our freedoms: People-powered surveillance and the YouTube phenomenon!

YouTube is amazing. That’s where regular people can post videos of things they’ve video recorded in society. The police hate YouTube because it puts them on the record beating innocents, tasering students, and violating people’s civil rights.

Watch how the police assault this woman with a taser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWaCD6jIH5Q

Don’t forget the “Don’t Tase Me Bro” incident at the University of Florida:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s

In this next video, Canadian police EXECUTE a Polish man with a taser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6nx0Cx3uMk

Here’s a video about a 78-year-old man being tasered by L.A. cops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIrxrOT4nzk

Here’s a frightening compilation of numerous police brutality videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jIy4FUloxU
(Warning: GRAPHIC, contains profanity)
Most of this video was taken by amateurs.

And don’t forget these amateur photos taken by idiot U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

Video is our secret weapon against the tyrants. That’s why authorities hate YouTube so much. Just this week, a group of Canadian health researchers slammed YouTube, claiming it had too many videos from people giving out “false” information about vaccines. (That “false” information, it turned out, was urging parents to avoid vaccinating their children due to the link between mercury in vaccines and autism.)

Keep those videos rolling

There are a lot of good cops out there, and local law enforcement is, of course, a necessary thing. But there are bad cops, bad soldiers and bad tyrants out there, too, and it’s the job of reasonable people everywhere to catch these perpetrators on video, post it on YouTube, and share it with the world.

A surveillance society can work both ways, you see. While the tyrants are surveilling the People, the People can also surveil the tyrants. Plus, we’ve got the internet on our side (because information WANTS to be free!), which gives us the ability to bypass the mainstream media and share information directly with the people.

The internet could be the single most important tool in the regaining of freedom and civil liberties in America and other countries.

So keep those cell phone videos rolling. Keep a compact video camera handy for all occasions. When the authorities step out of line, press the record button and try not to get your ass arrested. Book it back home, upload it to YouTube, and send me the link. We’ll spread the word. (You can reach me through our feedback form, see the Contact Us link on our home page.)

FDA Caving to Corps

0

The Food and Drug Administration is developing a proposal for how drug companies can inform doctors about drug uses that aren’t FDA approved, a contentious but important area of promotion for the industry.

While it is legal for physicians to prescribe drugs or use medical devices in ways not specifically approved by the FDA, companies that make the products aren’t allowed to market such practices. A number of drug makers have been prosecuted for allegedly pushing to increase “off-label” use.

According to a draft of the proposal, the FDA is considering guidelines that would say manufacturers may give doctors articles from medical journals and materials drawn from scientific reference texts that discuss off-label uses of drugs and medical devices. The draft was released Friday by Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), who criticized it, saying it “would carve a large loophole in the law.” Supporters of allowing distribution of such materials say companies should be allowed to provide doctors with accurate and unbiased information.

Separately, the FDA Friday released a harsh report from a group of its own advisers that warned the agency isn’t equipped to deal with emerging scientific developments. The report said that “science at the FDA is in a precarious position: the agency suffers from serious scientific deficiencies and is not positioned to meet current or emerging regulatory responsibilities.”

The report, from a subcommittee of the FDA’s outside Science Board that included members and advisers from industry as well as academe, echoed past critiques that have said the agency needs substantial new resources. But it was unusually blunt in pointing to specific areas of science where the agency was falling behind, including its information-technology resources, which the report termed “obsolete.” Today, “not only can the agency not lead, it cannot even keep up with the advances in science,” the report said.

An FDA spokeswoman declined to comment on the contents of the report, which will be discussed in a public meeting on Monday. The agency is expected to get some additional funding from increased industry user fees under a bill that recently passed Congress.

On the matter of so-called off-label promotion of drugs and medical devices, there has long been debate, including court battles, about what falls over the legal line. The current legal situation is muddy. A 1997 law that laid out conditions under which companies could distribute certain information about off-label uses expired at the end of September.

According to the draft, the agency would lay out details on what types of publications are appropriate, as well as certain other requirements, such as that the materials come with a copy of the drug or device’s FDA-approved label.

Mr. Waxman said the proposal would allow companies to promote off-label uses. In a letter to the company, he wrote that articles in medical journals may provide “a distorted picture of a drug’s safety or effectiveness,” because journal editors may not know the full story behind a study — such as whether its design was changed, or if negative results were left out of an article.

On the other side, courts have pressured the FDA to avoid restricting companies’ free-speech rights. “Off-label prescribing is very often the standard of care,” and companies should be able to give doctors “truthful, non-misleading information” about such uses, said Daniel Troy, a former FDA chief counsel who previously helped argue against the agency in a major suit over restrictions on off-label promotion. Mr. Troy now represents drug companies and others in private practice.

An FDA spokeswoman declined to comment on the proposal and said the agency would respond directly to Mr. Waxman.

The FDA’s draft proposal seems to try to strike a middle ground, allowing companies to distribute information about off-label uses but setting limits on the practice. Among other restrictions, the draft suggests that letters to the editor of a medical journal wouldn’t quality and that the scientific articles would have to be peer-reviewed. In addition, if the conclusions in a particular article have been disputed, it would have to be distributed along with another article showing the opposing view.

Write to Anna Wilde Mathews at anna.mathews@wsj.com

Is freedom being eroded?

0

Gwyn Topham

For those who fear that our civil liberties are under threat, there is plenty of ammunition. Pre-trial detention has been stretched to 28 days. Britain is home to millions of surveillance cameras. Labour is still planning ID cards. Protests are restricted. Government agencies can intercept email without seeking court permission, and have access to all phone records. Centralised databases of personal information such as DNA are growing. Terror laws, control orders, Asbos and the criminal justice act have all run counter to the traditional idea of an open trial by jury.

Are new laws a necessary trade-off for security in an era of terrorism? And should we worry? Is it true that if you’ve nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide?

Throughout this week on Comment is Free we’ll be looking at liberty and the state. Natasha Walter will open the debate, with AC Grayling, Jack Straw, Madeleine Bunting, Philippe Sands, Mark Thomas, Gareth Peirce, Conor Gearty and others to follow.

With a government weighing up the conflicting arguments of liberty and security, considering on one hand a bill of rights, on the other extending detention without charge, it’s a timely and critical debate.

Meanwhile, to whet the appetite, why not revisit these articles: Timothy Garton Ash on liberty and terrorism. A dissection of the “nothing to hide” defence. Or a wealth of work from Henry Porter, who has consistently and vigilantly monitored what he describes as the shaving away of liberty.

Ending the surveillance invasion

0

Gareth Crossman

Liberty and the state: The state can no longer rely on the misplaced belief that privacy must be sacrificed for securityLiberty’s policy department usually writes for audiences in parliament and Whitehall. If there’s a golden rule for effective engagement it’s this: avoid hyperbole. It undermines your message and alienates the audience. So, when writing on privacy issues, all talk of “Big Brother”, “Orwellian”, and “1984” has definitely been discouraged. Earlier this year it struck me that perhaps I had been erring on the side of caution when I was asked to speak at an event organised by the parliamentary IT forum. The title? “Big Brother Britain.”

Liberty has long battled against the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” fallacy that presumes only criminals place any premium on their privacy. If any good is to come out of the HMRC lost disc fiasco it is possibly that people will not continue to take such a complacent approach to their private information in future. Opinion polls certainly seem to indicate an increasingly critical public turning against such privacy relevant subjects as the compulsory identity card scheme. The early years of this century were marked by an understandable, if misplaced, belief that privacy was an expendable luxury to be sacrificed in the name of security. It seems the state can no longer rely on this reservoir of goodwill.

Much of the credit for this is due to the information commissioner, Richard Thomas, and his office. Thomas, whose post is filled on government recommendation, has skilfully navigated a tricky path. He has frequently been constructively critical of government policy while staying within the boundaries required of independent public sector officials.

The information commissioner’s conference this week in Manchester will provide an opportunity to assess what can be done about the “surveillance society”. Liberty will be using its platform at the conference and our new report “Overlooked: Privacy and Surveillance in Britain”, to set out our priorities in helping address the privacy imbalance between state and individual. Of course, legitimate surveillance and information sharing is necessary to prevent crime and terrorism and allow public services to operate. However, we also need proper protection and accountability in a world dramatically changed over the last decade. Some moves, like scrapping ID cards, are relatively straightforward. However, much more is needed.

At the top of the list is the need to review the legislative framework of privacy protection. As it approaches its 10th anniversary, the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) is looking dated. The protection it provides is being outstripped by the ever-increasing capabilities of mass information data processing capabilities. There is also a need for specific statutory regulation of CCTV. A new CCTV act could ensure fewer and better CCTV systems, meaning less privacy intrusion and better crime detection capability.

Better laws are of little use without proper enforcement. This necessitates greater resources and increased powers for the ICO. Following the HMRC debacle the government has promised the ICO new spot-check powers, an important first step towards a far more proactive role. The lost discs episode also provided an accidental snapshot of ever-increasing levels of data matching and data profiling of personal information that take place daily. The ICO needs to be in a position to ensure data profiling is used with proportionality.

The use of intrusive surveillance for crime detection and national security purposes is, by its nature, secretive. There is, however, much that can be done to increase accountability without jeopardising security. The most invasive surveillance, including phone tapping, should be authorised by a court rather than by a government minister, as currently permitted. In addition, sheer volume issues might make judicial authorisation impractical for less intrusive surveillance methods, currently used by public bodies ranging from local authorities to the Food Standards Agency. However, the role of the various commissioners who oversee these types of surveillance could be expanded to allow greater scrutiny and auditing capabilities.

Today, DNA can be permanently retained for everyone arrested for any but the most minor offences, even if they are then released without charge. This needs to be reviewed urgently. Many thousands of innocent people, including children, have had their DNA sample held, as do three-quarters of all black men. With limited scope for rolling back the grounds of allowing DNA to be taken, the duty to remove samples of the innocent and minor offenders must be explored.

CIA photos show UK Gitmo detainee was tortured

By Robert Verkaik

Lawyers for a British resident who the US government refuses to release from Guantanamo Bay have identified the existence of photographs taken by CIA agents that they say show their client suffered horrific injuries under torture.

The photographic evidence will be vital to clear Binyam Mohammed, 27, who the Americans want to bring before a Military Commission on charges of terrorism, say his lawyers.

Last week it emerged that Britain had negotiated the release of four detainees who have British residence status but Mr Mohammed, who speaks with a London accent, and at least three others are being held back.

In a letter sent to the Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Britain is urged to ask the US to stop the CIA destroying the pictures.

Clive Stafford-Smith, the legal director of Reprieve representing Mr Mohammed, said that he also knows the identity of the agents who were present when his client was allegedly beaten and tortured. Writing to Mr Miliband, he said: “Given the opportunity, we can prove that the evidence was the fruit of torture. Indeed, we can prove that a photographic record was made of this by the CIA. Through diligent investigation we know when the CIA took pictures of Mr Mohammed’s brutalised genitalia, we know the identity of the CIA agents who were present including the person who took the pictures (we know both their false identities and their true names), and we know what those pictures show.”

He added: “I have been privy to materials that allegedly support the finding that Mr Mohammed should be held, and while I cannot discuss some here (due to classification rules), I can state unequivocally that I have seen no evidence of any kind against Mr Mohammed that is not the bitter fruit of torture.”

Reprieve says it will be pressing for criminal prosecutions against the CIA agents alleged to have carried out the torture.

Last week it emerged that the CIA destroyed hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the torture of detainees held by the US.

Binyam Mohammed was born in Ethiopia but was given leave to remain in the UK after seeking asylum in 1994. Seven years later, he travelled to Pakistan and Afghanistan where the Americans allege that he underwent training in firearms and explosives. In 2002, he was arrested by Pakistani immigration officials at Karachi airport on his way back to the UK. He says he was then taken to Morocco and tortured for 18 months, including having his penis slashed, before being sent to Guantanamo, where he still remains.

Mr Stafford-Smith added in his letter: “As you know, the only purported basis for the US holding Mr Mohammed is an allegation that he is an (‘illegal’) enemy combatant. Five-and-a-half years after his initial seizure, he is not currently charged in a military commission, and he has never been offered a fair trial. As you are aware, Mr Mohammed was rendered to Morocco by the CIA and tortured for 18 months in a way that was medieval.

“There can be no rational dispute that this is true. We have the CIA flight records which precisely match Mr Mohammed’s version of events. He has nothing to do with Morocco, and he was not taken there by the CIA for a Club Med vacation.”

CIA uses Jordan for torture of detainees

0

One of the countries that has been most frequently used by the CIA for torturing detainees is Jordan, a key US ally in the Middle East.

By Joe Kay

The revelation that the CIA organized the destruction of videotapes documenting the interrogation of prisoners at secret CIA detention facilities abroad has focused attention on one aspect of the US torture program. Another important component is the policy of “extraordinary rendition”–the transfer of prisoners to the control of other countries that specialize in torture.

One of the countries that has been most frequently used by the CIA in this way is Jordan, a key US ally in the Middle East. An article in the Washington Post published on Saturday (“Jordan’s Spy Agency: Holding Cell for the CIA” by Craig Whitlock) documents the close relationship that has developed over the past seven years.

According to the Post, “The General Intelligence Department, or GID, is perhaps the CIA’s most trusted partner in the Arab world. The Jordanian agency has received money, training and equipment from the CIA for decades and even has a public English-language web site,” the newspaper reports. “The relationship has deepened in recent years, with US officials praising their Jordanian counterparts for the depth of their knowledge regarding al-Qaeda and other Islamic networks.”

Despite official denials, however, the main benefit of the Jordan state is that it tortures–and with abandon. The Post notes in characteristically understated language that the GID was “attractive for another reason”: “Its interrogators had a reputation for persuading tight-lipped suspects to talk, even if that meant using abusive tactics that could violate US or international law.”

One of the prisoners who has been subject to this fate is Al-Haj Addu Ali Sharqawi, a prisoner originally from Yemen. Sharqawi was captured in Pakistan in February 2002, transferred to Jordan, transferred to an undisclosed CIA-run prison 19 months later, and eventually transferred to Guantánamo in February 2004.

Throughout this period, he has never been charged with a crime, and there is little prospect that he will any time soon. The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case earlier this week that will determine whether prisoners at Guantánamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US courts.

Sharqawi describes his ordeal in a written document that was obtained by the Post: “I was kidnapped, not knowing anything of my fate, with continuous torture and interrogation for the whole of two years. When I told them the truth, I was tortured and beaten.”

The Post does not indicate why Sharqawi was originally arrested. The newspaper writes, however, “He was threatened with sexual abuse and electrocution while in Jordan. He also said he was hidden from officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross during their visits to inspect Jordanian prisons.”

Jordan has become notorious for torturing prisoners captured by the government that represent a threat to its interests. “Former prisoners have reported that their captors were expert in two practices in particular: falaqa, or beating suspects on the soles of their feet with a truncheon and then, often forcing them to walk barefoot and bloodied across a salt-covered floor; and farruj, or the ‘grilled chicken,’ in which prisoners are handcuffed behind their legs, hung upside down by a rod placed between their knees, and beaten.”

In July 2006, Amnesty International issued a report noting the “systematic torture of political suspects” in Jordan. The report documented the cases of dozens of individuals tortured in Jordan, among whom were 10 believed to have been sent to Jordan by the United States.

Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, described the cooperation of the US and Jordan as follows: “Jordan appears to be a central hub in a global complex of secret detention centers operated by the US in coordination with foreign intelligence agencies. It is into this complex that suspects ‘disappear’–and are held for interrogation indefinitely, outside any legal or administrative process.”

The tapes destroyed by the CIA documented only a small component of a network of prisons and interrogations facilities set up by the US government and its allies. Most of the abuse is never recorded in the first place.

The full Washington Post article can be found here

The Amnesty International report can be found here

Minister twists truth on ID cards

0

Home Office Minister Meg Hillier is twisting the truth in a way only a politician can.

She says “enrolment on the National Identity Scheme cannot become universally compulsory until a further Act of Parliament has been passed”. Does this mean the new ID card won’t be compulsory? Of course not, because, at some point in the future, the Government can just go ahead and pass this “further Act of Parliament”.

She suggests other countries around the world are moving to add fingerprints to passports and that all other (democratic) countries are building databases as powerful as the NIR (national identity register), which simply isn’t true. And if they are, why do we have to follow them?

“The scheme will directly combat the use of multiple identities by criminals, which facilitates illegal activity such as fraud, terrorism, and illegal immigration,” she says, but in no instance have ID cards been shown to be a significant deterrent to terrorist activity.

How will ID cards deter illegal immigrants if they’re willing to repeatedly enter the country? How will ID cards stop benefit fraud when most benefit fraud relates not to ID but to over-claiming?

She says: “The NIR will, just as with the current passport database, hold core identity information. It will not be an amalgam of all existing Government data. It will not hold tax, benefit or other financial records.” But what’s to stop them adding these later?

“The scheme will be fully security accredited and an independent commissioner will oversee it,” she says. Is this the same commissioner who ordered the government to publish Gateway reviews on ID cards in July 2006 and was taken to the High Court by the Government? By the time the case has gone through the courts it won’t matter what Gateway reviews said.

She says: “I have yet to hear realistic alternatives … Doing nothing is not an option.” Again and again we hear of new laws to help us catch criminals and terrorists.

This may come as something of a surprise to Ms Hillier but catching criminals has never been the problem; the problem is that the Government keeps letting them go!

How often in the Mercury have there been reports of criminals convicted of 20, 30 or 40 crimes?

The Government does not need to make us all carry ID cards and watch us 24/7, just stop releasing persistent offenders and leave the rest of us to live our own lives without being told what to do.

Avtar Singh, Leicester No2id

In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood and Bioterrorism

1

Dr. Horowitz generously donated this life-saving DVD for widespread free public distribution without copyright restrictions. Every American should watch this film to prepare for forced injections, mass quarantines, and official predictions of disasters.

This full version was built by The Kick Them All Out Project: http://www.KickThemAllOut.com from the 16 pieces posted on YouTube so you can watch the entire film in one piece. After watching this film, please join the revolution at the Kick Them All Out Project and help put an end to this insanity once and for all by taking control of our government away from these megalomaniacs!

In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood & Bioterrorism to learn why your life is entrusted to Manchurian candidates who don’t even know how and why they aim to kill you.

Horowitz brilliantly critiques the government’s new 24-hour television network and feature documentary, History of Bioterrorism, which is now broadcasting daily over the Dish Network.

September is “National Preparedness Month.” Officials say you must prepare for the worst bioterrorist attacks, yet they use fear and gross inaccuracies (propaganda) examined by Horowitz for your edutainment and informed choice.

Loose Change – Final Cut – New Chapter

Loose Change – Final Cut – New Chapter – Planes

This is another chapter of Loose Change – Final Cut which is not in the movie. The chapter is called Planes.

Why did Netherlands vote against DU enquiry?

0

SP: why did the Netherlands vote against an international enquiry into depleted uranium?

The Netherlands delegation to the United Nations General Assembly has been instructed by parliament to change its position and give its support to demands for an international enquiry into the effects of depleted uranium. A motion presented by SP defence and disarmament spokeswoman Krista van Velzen in favour of such an enquiry won the backing of her parliamentary colleagues earlier this week, yet when the matter came before the UN the Dutch delegation voted — for the second time in a month – against. Declaring that she is not prepared to put up with such a blatant negation of a democratic decision, Van Velzen is demanding an explanation from the cabinet. At the same time, the SP will be joined by Labour colleagues in organising a hearing on the effects of depleted uranium on health.

Krista van VelzenThe Netherlands delegation last month voted against a resolution in favour of an enquiry, on the grounds that a single word suggested a causal connection between depleted uranium and negative health effects. “There’s a great deal of uncertainty about the effects of the military use of depleted uranium,” Van Velzen said. “In Italy a parliamentary enquiry is currently being conducted and compensation has been paid out to soldiers who probably became ill as a result of contact with recycled nuclear waste. Families of such people have also received compensation payments. This is not a time to be burying our heads in the sand. We need to know precisely what we are dealing with and take appropriate measures.”

The SP motion adopted this week by parliament called on the government to change its position in a UN vote scheduled for the following day and support an enquiry, if necessary having the single offending word removed. Together with the PvdA (Labour Party) the SP has also taken the initiative to organise a hearing to look into the health effects of depleted uranium.

Despite parliament’s demand for change, the Netherlands delegation last night nevertheless once again voted against a resolution calling on the UN to establish an enquiry into the matter. “Unlike the Italians, who are paying compensation, the Dutch government is refusing to face the facts,” said Van Velzen. “They’re obviously better informed down there, which is why we need a parliamentary hearing, so that we can gather as much information as possible on the adverse health effects of depleted uranium.”

Bush under fire over Iran claims

0

AFP

The White House Thursday struggled to defend the dire warnings about Iran made by US President George W. Bush even after he had learned that Tehran had likely frozen its atomic weapons program in 2003.

A new US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released on Monday formally endorsed that conclusion, which Bush had first heard about in August from US Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell.

On August 28, Bush warned of a “nuclear holocaust” if the Islamic republic developed nuclear weapons, and on October 17 he warned that anyone interested in avoiding “World War III” should support US pressure on Tehran.

On October 21, US Vice President Dick Cheney warned Iran to suspend uranium enrichment or face “serious consequences” — the very language in the UN resolution on Iraq that the White House says justified the March 2003 invasion.

On Tuesday, the US president defended himself from Democratic charges of exaggerating the threat by saying that he had only been briefed on the NIE on November 28 and suggesting that McConnell’s earlier warning had been vague.

“In August, I think it was, Mike McConnell came in and said, ‘we have some new information’. He didn’t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze,” Bush told a press conference.

But White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said one day later that McConnell had told Bush that he was looking into information that Tehran had frozen its atomic weapons quest, casting doubt on previous US charges.

McConnell “said that if the new information turns out to be true, what we thought we knew for sure is right. Iran does in fact have a covert nuclear weapons program, but it may be suspended,” the spokeswoman said.

Confronted with the apparent contradiction between her comments and Bush’s own words, Perino replied: “The president could have been more precise in that language. But the president was being truthful.”

But some of Bush’s Democratic critics, including candidates to succeed him in the November 2008 election, charged that Bush knew or should have known in August about the blockbuster finding that upended years of US rhetoric on Iran.

“Are you telling me a president who’s briefed every single morning, who’s fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the United States government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in ’03?” asked Senator Joseph Biden.

Biden noted Bush’s contention that McConnell’s warning had not been specific and flatly declared: “That’s not believable.”

“If that’s true, he has the most incompetent staff in modern American history and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history,” the senator told reporters on a conference call on Tuesday.

Biden also linked the latest flap to the flawed case for war with Iraq.

“For this president to knowingly disregard or once again misrepresent intelligence about the issue of war and peace, I find it outrageous. This is exactly what he did in the run-up to the war in Iraq,” said Biden.

CNN Pulls 9/11 E4B ‘Doomsday’ Plane Video?

1

Mike Baron

CNN Pulls 911 Mystery Plane Video: The Military’s 747 E4B ‘Doomsday’ Plane flew over white house on 9/11 – A large plane was sighted over the White House on 9/11 at about the time of the Pentagon strike, or soon after. Witnesses who saw the plane say it circled over Washington.

Now, you simply don’t see aircraft in the area over the White House. That is supposed to be restricted air space. Amazingly enough, it is not mentioned in the 9/11 report.

The video was here. But it is mysteriously not working (7:30 am EDT) as CNN has pulled it (video expired), but why? Working now, imagine that. (1:30 pm EDT)

However, we now provide it and another below. If they do not play, ckick here for the first one and here for the second.

Last night during Anderson Cooper 360, CNN replayed their footage of the “mystery plane” seen over the White House roughly 10 minutes before the 1st WTC tower fell. That plane has now been definitively identified. It is the National Airborne Command Center.

Yet after making the discovery, CNN has seemingly shut it down. Most likely for national security reasons.

Pat Tillman Soldier Death In Afganistan War By M16

0

Patrick Daniel Tillman was born on 6th November, 1976 in San Jose, California and was into football. He was an American, who quitted sports and joined the United States Army in May, 2002 accompanied by Kevin Tillman, his brother. However he did not live for a long time and died fighting against Afghanistan on the 22nd April, 2004. This resulted in a lot of enquiries being conducted. To get a proper result the United States Congress also initiated the search because of the poor performance of the people involved earlier.

Pat Tillman initiated his college life performing as the linebacker for the Arizona State University in the year 1994 and was able to get the last scholarship which would help the team. He had a quarterback friend called Jake Plummer, who also became his teammate in the Arizona Cardinals. He was also given the honor of the Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year. He excelled in the field of marketing and took three and a half years to complete his graduation securing 3.84 GPA.
 
Pat Tillman was the first one as the football player who met death in combat after the end of the life of Bob Kalsu from the Buffalo Bills. Bob was killed in the Vietnam War in the year 1970 very much similar to the fate met by Pat. He was also appraised to the position of Corporal from that of a Specialist.
 
Pat Tillman was the person, who was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart medals. He had a wife called Marie. He came into the limelight due to his stay in Iraq and Afghanistan and the end of his life as a result. On the 28th May, 2004 it was reported by the Pentagon that Tillman died because of a massive fire. However it was clarified many days after the memorial service by the Department of Defense with the view to save the reputation of the U.S. armed forces.
 
The father of Pat Tillman, who was professionaly a lawyer in San Jose discovered from the statements made by the various witness as well as the documents containing the army words that everything was hidden and manipulated purposely by the higher authorities. A week after the 27th July, 2007 the Associated Press found out from the military material received under the Freedom of Information Act that there were three bullets in Pat’s forehead. They also forced the higher officials to find out whether the reason behind his death was a crime but to no success.
 
According to the information received from the doctors who conducted Pat Tillman’s autopsy, it was found that M16 was used from a distance of nearly 10 yards (10 m) to kill him. The Army criminal investigation which was made was able to prove that he lost his life due to friendly fire but it was not that successful because of the lack of retention of the physical evidence like bullet fragments. Wikipedia

Pat Tillman Soldier Death In Afganistan War Related Articles

CPSC Security Against Serious Injury Or Death
The CPSC or the US Consumer Product Safety Commission is bestowed with the protection of the common man from risks of serious injury or death with more than 15,000 types of consumer products.
Christa Pike Youngest Death Row Convict
Christa Gail Pike is the youngest death row convict of America who has an innocent and peaceful face.
Fidel Castro Death Recent Controversy
Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, the current president of Cuba, was born on 13th August, 1926 in a Sugar plantation in Biran, to Angel Castro y Argiz, a Galician immigrant.
A Death In The Family Famous Literary Work
A Death In The Family is a famous work in Literature and is listed as one of the best specimens in American Classic Literature.
Alvin York Famous American World War I Soldier
Alvin Cullum York was a famous U S.
Amity Kozak Death Mystery
On May 30, 2007 Amity Kozak’s body was found at an apartment off the Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach, Florida.
Ashley Barnett Death Mystery
The death of Ashley Barnett is still a mystery.
Arielle Newman Death Mystery
Arielle Newman was all of seventeen and a senior at the Notre Dame Academy and a brilliant sportstar in her own right.
Cathy Lynn Henderson Death Row For Murder Of A Baby
Cathy Lynn Henderson is an American woman who shot into news in 1994 when she was charged and convicted of the abduction and murder of a three month old boy in Temple, Texas.
Myspace Hoax Death Of A Teenage Girl
The recent Myspace Hoax, resulting in the suicide of a thirteen-year-old Missouri girl, Megan Meier, has created much rage among the audience.

Ron Paul is needed to end the war

0

Many have speculated what will happen if Rep. Ron Paul is not elected president. The obvious answer is that nothing will change; that is, nothing regarding our present circumstances will change and most likely will only get worse.

So, by eliminating the fact that there are no good alternative candidates in the event that Ron Paul is not our next president, we will need to focus on our nation’s future degradation that will result from the continuation of the neoconservatives’ status-quo of legislative and foreign policies – regardless of which party wins the presidency.

Ancient Roman statesman and orator, Cicero (42 B.C.) stated:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself … A murderer is less to be feared.”

Today, almost 2,050 years later, the world is faced with this dilemma, where we are fighting an invisible enemy in a perpetual “War On Terror.” Our nation is also facing the removal of our constitutional liberties and freedoms through two Patriot Acts and various House Resolutions that have effectively turned the table against a citizen’s free speech rights to voice dissent against a costly and unconstitutional war.

Essentially, any U.S. citizens who exercise their constitutional right to voice their objections against their government can be branded as an enemy of the state, or a “Homegrown Terrorist” (see House Resolution 1955).

We now understand that the U.S. neoconservatives created lies to invade and occupy two sovereign Middle East nations. The fact that President Bush now claims that our military must remain there to fix something that we unlawfully broke, is at best, insanity.

This war, which was proposed to be a slam-dunk, pre-emptive strike that will only cost the taxpayers a few billion dollars, has now exceeded $1 trillion. Based on the projection that this “War on Terror” might continue for another 20 years, coupled with the devaluation of the U.S. dollar, it is understood that the future costs of this war will eventually bankrupt our country.

The taxpayer is paying to have our honorable military forces blow up another nation’s infrastructure and then pay to have private U.S. contractors rebuild that infrastructure – while our bridges and highways at home are falling apart.

The expense of this endless war has greatly inflated the price of energy and the overall cost of living. This war has also desecrated the priceless commodity of families all over the world through the countless deaths of loved ones.

After evaluating the Democratic and Republican candidates, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has expressed his pledge to end this costly, unconstitutional war on terror now, end our failed foreign policy of imperialist nation-building and bring our troops home from all over the globe.

Rather than postulating what will happen if Ron Paul is not elected, we should reflect on the history and sacrifice that built our once great republic, how we arrived at our present state and how we can change direction to bridge hope for our nation’s future.

If you have Internet access, please Google: “Ron Paul” and you will find 55.8 million links to this candidate’s 2008 presidential platform. If you do not have Internet access, you may call the Ron Paul campaign headquarters at 703-248-9115. They will direct you to one of the 1,000-plus national Ron Paul volunteer groups. Ron Paul is truly the best and only hope for America.

Darren Andrews Gary Brown

Larry Simons

Hagerstown

NIE report final nail in Bush coffin

0

Former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, attacks a recent intelligence report that discredited Washington for its policies on Iran.

US intelligence services were seeking to influence political policy-making with their assessment that Iran had halted its nuclear arms program in 2003, Bolton told the Der Spiegel magazine.

The surprise report was ‘a quasi-coup against the president,’ the former UN ambassador said.

“This is politics under the guise of intelligence reporting,” he claimed.

The hawkish Bolton was referring to the recent US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran which confirms that Tehran is not developing nuclear weaponry.

Some experts say the release of the report was the final nail in the Bush doctrine and that Washington’s hands are now tied as they are unable to wage war on Iran.

A previous NIE report that was released in October 2003 claiming that Iraq had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, gave Bush the necessary support to pursue his warmongering policies in Iraq.

Bolton is a staunch supporter of Bush and believes that the US must either wage war on Iran or topple Tehran’s government to counter the so-called threat of the Islamic Republic.

Bolton has also fiercely criticized remarks by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for declaring the non-diversion of Iran’s nuclear program.

MT/AA/MG

8 Senior Republican Appointees Challenge 9/11 Story

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – “Not Possible”, “a Whitewash”, “False”

Eight former senior Republican administration appointees have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and several have called for a new investigation. “I find the facts against the official story of the [WTC] buildings’ collapse more compelling than the case that has been made in behalf of the official story. I would like to see the issue debated by independent scientists and engineers,” wrote Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan. “A real investigation is needed to find an explanation consistent with the evidence, even if it doesn’t reassure the public,” said Dr. Roberts [1], frequently referred to as the “Father of Reagonomics.”

“Over the past six years, the ranks of distinguished skeptics of the 9-11 storyline have grown enormously. The ranks include distinguished scientists, engineers and architects, intelligence officers, air traffic controllers, military officers and generals, including the former commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, former presidential appointees and members of the White House staff in Republican administrations, Top Gun fighter pilots and career airline pilots who say that the flying attributed to the 9-11 hijackers is beyond the skills of America’s best pilots, and foreign dignitaries.” [2] Dr. Roberts currently serves as Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. Previously he was the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. He also served as a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and as Associate Editor of The Wall Street Journal.

In a 2004 interview by Dennis Bernstein on the Flashpoints radio show, Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush (41) said “The official story could not possibly have happened. In other words, what the administration has put forward is essentially a conspiracy theory that does not conform to the facts. It’s not possible. It’s not operationally feasible … The Commission was a whitewash.” [3]


Catherine Austin Fitts
Prior to her appointment to the first Bush administration, Ms. Fitts served as Managing Director and Member of the Board of Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co. She previously was President of The Hamilton Securities Group.

In a 2004 essay, Ms. Fitts wrote, “Much has transpired since September 11, 2001. … We have emerged deeply disturbing unanswered questions of 9-11 through global Internet media. We have worked with [Paul Thompson’s Complete] 911 Timeline and realized that the official explanation of events is conspiracy theory, not conforming to documented fact.

We have watched the U.S. government suppress facts and restrict of the 9-11 Commission’s access to information. We have watched the 9-11 Commission fail to answer the unanswered questions and concede to official suppression of information. We have watched the leaders of the national security infrastructure richly rewarded for their failure to protect America on 9-11. We have noted the material omissions of the corporate media. Something does not add up. Someone has something to hide. … The Administration has something to hide. Rather than lose time and resources getting lost in the White House fog, let’s follow the alleged advice of one of the 9-11 Commissioners, Fred Fielding …”Follow the Money.” [4]


Morgan Reynolds, PhD
In a 2006 video interview with Alex Jones, Morgan Reynolds, PhD, former Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush said, “I first began to suspect that 9/11 was in inside job when the Bush-Cheney Administration invaded Iraq. … We can prove that the government’s story is false.” [5] Prior to his appointment to the Bush administration, Dr. Reynolds was Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. He is also Professor Emeritus of Economics, Texas A&M University. And in a 2005 essay, Dr. Reynolds wrote, “It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the Twin Towers [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories] and Building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely [to] prove to be sound.” [6]

WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.

Another senior Republican appointee who has questioned the official account of 9/11 is Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan. He’s a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). He was also appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 — 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. He was Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. (1990 — 1994).


Col. Ronald D. Ray
In an interview on Alex Jones’ radio show on June 30, 2006 [7], Col. Ray described the official account of 9/11 as “the dog that doesn’t hunt”, meaning it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In response to Alex Jones’ question, “Is it safe to say or is the statement accurate that you smell something rotten in the state of Denmark when it comes to 9/11?” Col. Ray replied, “I’m astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that that’s accurate. That’s true.”

Another senior Republican appointee who has questioned the official account of 9/11 is Mary Schiavo. Appointed under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Ms. Schiavo served as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 – 1996. Ms. Schiavo and her staff secured more than 1,000 criminal convictions and uncovered billions in waste and abuse at the U.S. DOT. Since leaving the Transportation Department, Ms. Schiavo has represented passenger and crew families in every major U.S. air crash, as well as pilots and passengers on private planes.


Mary Schiavo
In an article written by Gail Sheehy that appeared in the New York Observer on Feb. 16, 2004, Ms. Sheehy wrote, “Ms. Schiavo sat in on the commission’s hearing on aviation security on 9/11 and was disgusted by what it left out. ‘In any other situation, it would be unthinkable to withhold investigative material from an independent commission,’ she told this writer. ‘There are usually grave consequences. But the commission is clearly not talking to everybody or not telling us everything.’ ” [8]

In a press conference on June 10, 2002 regarding the events of 9/11, Ms. Schiavo stated, “First of all, the question is not ‘What they [the U.S. government] should have known?’ And I believe I can show you in just a few seconds the question is, ‘What did they know?’ And believe me, they knew a lot. The second thing to emphasize is that in every single aviation disaster, whether there was intervening criminal activity or not, in every single one in the course of modern aviation history it has been followed by, not only were it necessary, a criminal investigation, but also a National Transportation Safety investigation into what went wrong in the aviation system. And the reason for that is so that it never happens again.”

Ms. Schiavo continued, “This is the first time, and this is the worst disaster, but this is the first time that families have been attempted to be silenced through a special fund, which I believe is about silence more so than about money. Why? … And from my rounds on the Hill to find these facts and others, I found that the airlines approached members of Congress and the Senate to get their bailout and their immunity and their protection starting on 9/11. They sent their first lobbyist up to the Hill on 9/11. And this has been confirmed to me personally by Senators and members of Congress. Now to me that’s very shocking but to me it raises another question, Why? Why did they have to rush to the Hill to change the law? … So in the wake of September 11, 2001, when we heard the carriers and governments alike saying, ‘Oh, no one could have foreseen this. No one knew that this was coming. No one knew that there was any risk like this in the world,’ is absolutely false. … In the last thirty years we have had 682 hijackings. 682. Here’s an interesting statistic. When we had the United States saying, ‘Oh, we couldn’t have known this.’ ” [9]


Barbara Honegger
Another critic of the official account of 9/11 is Barbara Honegger, who served as Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a White House Policy Analyst. “The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11,” she wrote. [10]

“A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, steep, high-speed 270- to 330-degree dive towards the Pentagon that Dulles Air Traffic Controllers were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens that morning. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the “Friendly” signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building. Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response systems on 9/11.”

Ms. Honegger also served as Project Director of the Attorney General’s Anti-Discrimination Federal Law Review at the U.S. Department of Justice in Reagan’s administration. She is a graduate of the Naval War College master’s program in National Security Decision Making and for over 12 years has served as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the U.S. Navy’s and the Defense Department’s premier science, technology and national security affairs university.

Ms. Honegger has become a prominent critic of the official account of 9/11 as a private researcher, author and speaker at conferences. This is not Ms. Honegger’s first experience with allegations of serious executive branch misconduct. In 1983, she resigned from the Reagan administration in protest to planned domestic policy decisions. In 1989, she authored the pioneering Irangate expose October Surprise, which led to a full-subpoena-power U.S. House of Representatives investigation. Her book alleged that prior to the 1980 Presidential election, members of the Reagan campaign cut a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of the 52 American hostages, in order to prevent President Jimmy Carter from arranging their release and prevent him from winning the November election. The hostages were released on the day of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, after 444 days in captivity.


Edward Peck
Shortly after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, a group of over 100 prominent Americans signed a petition [11] urging Congress to immediately reinvestigate 9/11. In addition to four prominent former CIA officials [12], the signers included Catherine Austin Fitts (mentioned above), Edward Peck, and Morton Goulder. Edward Peck served as Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Peck, a 32-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service also served as Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department and as U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq (1977 – 1980).

Morton Goulder
Morton Goulder was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under President Richard Nixon and continued in that capacity under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. In World War II, he served as a Lt. Commander in the U.S. Navy. He is a co-founder of Sanders Associates, a billion dollar defense contractor, now a division of BEA Systems.

The petition stated, in part, “We want truthful answers to questions such as:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

4. Why hasn’t a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

5. Why haven’t authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?”

These questions and many others still remain unanswered three years after the petition was submitted and six years after the terrible events of 9/11. As the statements of these eight senior Republican Administration appointees show, the need for a new thorough, and independent investigation of 9/11 is not a matter of partisan politics, nor the demand of irresponsible, mentally ill, or disloyal Americans. It is instead a matter of the utmost importance for America’s security and the future of the entire world.

Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by more than 800 credible individuals can be found at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com

Additional information on skeptics of the official account of 9/11 can be found in the author’s other articiels on this subject.

Sept. 23, 2007 – Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report – Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up” featured statements by CIA veterans Raymond McGovern, William Christison, Melvin Goodman, Robert Baer, Robert David Steele, Lynne Larkin, and David MacMichael.

Sept. 5, 2007 – U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ Pilot Questions 9/11, featured the statement of Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot.

Sept. 4, 2007 – Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of 9/11 featured the statement of Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association.

Aug. 27, 2007 – National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation featured the statment of Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., world renowned scientist.

Aug. 21, 2007 – Former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation featured the statement of James Quintiere, Ph.D., one of the world’s leading fire science researchers.

July 16, 2007 – Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement featured the statement of J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission.

Endnotes

[1] Is American Democracy Too Feeble to Deal with 9/11? By Paul Craig Roberts, PhD on VDare.com Sept. 10, 2006 http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060910_911.htm

[2] 9/11, Six Years Later by Paul Craig Roberts, PhD on VDare.com Sept. 10, 2007 http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070910_911.htm

[3] Interview of Catherine Austin Fitts by Dennis Bernstein on the Flashpoints radio show Sept. 9, 2004 http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=4024

[4] 9/11 Profiteering by Catherine Austin Fitts on March 22, 2004 on GlobalResearch.ca http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT403A.html

[5] Video interview of Morgan Reynolds, PhD, by Alex Jones June 2, 2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278

[6] Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? by Morgan Reynolds, PhD on LewRockwell.com June 9, 2005 http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

[7] Radio interview of Col. Ronald D. Ray by Alex Jones, June 30, 2006 (Subscription required.) Summarized in July 1, 2006 article on propagandamatrix.com http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2006/010706doesnthunt.htm

[8] Stewardess ID’d Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show by Gail Sheehy, New York Observer, Feb. 15, 2004 http://www.observer.com/node/48805

[9] Press conference with Mary Schiavo June 10, 2002 Video: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia/mary_schiavo.html Transcript: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00159.htm#mary

[10] “The Pentagon Attack Papers” by Barbara Honegger, published in The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs 2006 http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf

[11] Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11 Signed by Over 100 Prominent Americans Oct. 26, 2004 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

[12] Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report by Alan Miller, Sept. 23, 2007 http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070922_seven_cia_veterans_c.htm

Israeli minister ‘in fear of arrest’ cancels UK visit

0

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem

A senior Israeli minister has turned down an invitation to visit Britain because of fears he could have been arrested on war crimes charges arising from the assassination of a top Hamas military commander five years ago.

The Israeli foreign ministry advised Avi Dichter, the Public Security minister, that what it described as an “extreme leftist” group was likely to file a legal complaint over the July 2002 bombing attack in Gaza on Saleh Shehadah which killed at least 13 civilians.

Mr Dichter, who had been due to speak at a seminar in King’s College London, was at the time head of the domestic intelligence agency Shin Bet, which helped to plan the attack. The bombing, which was internationally criticised — including by the US — because of the civilian loss of life, was described after an internal Israeli investigation as a “mistake”.

While Mr Dichter is the first minister to have cancelled a trip for such reasons, the official advice to him followed other cases in which senior generals have refrained from visiting Britain because of similar fears of private legal actions leading to the issue of an arrest warrant.

Asked about the Shehadah bombing in an interview with The Independent in 2005 before he entered politics, Mr Dichter said it had never been intended to kill civilians and insisted that several previous attempts on the life of the Hamas leader were postponed because of intelligence that “he was surrounded by innocent people”. In the event the victims included Mr Shehadah’s wife and three children.

Cynthia McKinney Announces Presidential Aspirations

Cynthia McKinney Announces Presidential Aspirations

Eric Dondero just called me from Houston to inform us that former Democratic congressional representative Cynthia McKinney has just announced her intention to run for President on the Green Party ticket.

According to Dondero, around sixty people attended an event this evening at the library of Texas Southern University. Dondero indicated that McKinney was sharply dressed and very articulate but concise when giving her short speech. Following the speech, McKinney held a brief Q&A session.

One issue McKinney addressed, according to Dondero, was her intent to achieve 51 state ballot access. Dondero also noted that McKinney indicated that the Green Party platform speaks well to members of the African-American community.

There was one local news team present, along with several unidentified cameras, Dondero reported. He estimates there were approximately sixty people attending the event.

McKinney served in the House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2007 as a Democrat in Georgia’s CD4.

UK Guantánamo four to be released

· Foreign Office took up cases after policy change
· Amnesty questions why one man must stay in jail

Ed Pilkington in New York, Alexandra Topping
The Guardian

Four British residents held without charge at the American detention camp for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba are to be released, reducing the UK involvement with the camp to just one inmate.The four men have all lived in Britain after being granted refugee status or temporary immigration status. They have struggled to have their cases heard because until recently Britain refused to represent them on the grounds that they were not UK citizens.

Three of the men – Jamil el-Banna, Omar Deghayes and Abdenour Samuer – are to be allowed to return to the UK by Christmas. A fourth, Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, will be sent back to his home country, Saudi Arabia.

That leaves one UK resident, Binyam Mohammed al-Habashi from Ethiopia, still in Guantánamo. The Pentagon claims he is particularly dangerous and it is determined that he stays to face one of the military commissions established to prosecute prisoners at the camp.

News of the imminent release of the four men came three months after the UK reversed its previous policy and decided to represent the men.

Until August the official Foreign Office position was that the prisoners were not entitled to representation because they were not British nationals.

But David Miliband, the foreign secretary, responded to criticism of the government’s position and agreed to take up their cases. He wrote to his US counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, requesting their release.

The Foreign Office would not confirm reports last night that the men would be released and said discussions were ongoing. A spokesman said: “We have held detailed discussions with the Americans…

“We considered the circumstances of each case with the US and we are in contact with the families and the legal representatives of the five.

“Whilst the discussions are ongoing we are not going to make further comment.”

Officials acknowledge that the fact Habashi remains in Guantánamo means the detention without charge of inmates at the camp will continue to be a point of tension between London and Washington.

Amnesty International said it would seek to establish why Shaker Aamer is to go to Saudi Arabia, Habashi would remain in detention and another former UK resident, Ahmed Belbacha, has not been mentioned in the reports.

Neil Durkin, Amnesty’s UK spokesman said: “We’ve always said that Guantánamo is a travesty of justice and that detainees should either be given proper trials or released to safe countries.”

Banna has been the subject of intense legal and political campaigning in recent months. His Brent East MP, Sarah Teather, in February called on the US authorities either to charge him or send him home.

Teather said she hoped the men could be back before Christmas. “Jamil has been held without any charges being brought against him for five years, he was cleared for release in March this year,” she said. “The US has accepted that he is not a threat and he belongs at home with his family.

“Since the government has taken up the cause it has done everything in its power to secure his release but it is a disgrace that it took them four and a half years to take up the cause.”

A Jordanian, Banna was on a business trip to Gambia in November 2002 when he was picked up, handed over to the Americans and flown to Guantánamo.

The freed men

Jamil el-Banna

Banna, 45, a father of five from London, was seized by the CIA in 2002, and flown to Guantánamo after MI5 wrongly told the US that his travelling companion was carrying bomb parts on a business trip to Gambia. MI5 had attempted to recruit him as an informer days earlier

Omar Deghayes

Born in Libya, Deghayes, 37, came to the UK as a child after his father was murdered. He studied law at Wolverhampton University and in Huddersfield. His family say he has condemned terrorism. He alleges he was by left blind in one eye after a US soldier poked his finger into it.

Abdenour Samuer

Samuer fled to the UK from Algeria and was granted asylum in 2000. He went to Afghanistan after 9/11. He says he was captured on the Pakistan border. He told US interrogators that in 2001 a man at Finsbury Park mosque gave him money to go to Afghanistan

Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer

Aamer, 38, is a Saudi national with a British wife and four British children living in Battersea, London. He was applying for British citizenship when he took his family to Kabul and was seized by troops fighting alongside US forces. He will return to his native Saudi Arabia.

Call for criminal inquiry as CIA destroys torture tapes

0

By Leonard Doyle in Washington

 

Senior US senators and congressmen are pressing for a criminal investigation of the CIA for obstruction of justice after it admitted destroying two videotapes showing apparently abusive interrogations of al-Qa’ida suspects in 2005.

The digital recordings apparently show a team of CIA agents subjecting Abu Zubayadh, the agency’s first detainee, and another suspect to abusive interrogation. The tapes were apparently destroyed because CIA officers feared prosecution for torture, which is a felony under US law.

“We haven’t seen anything like this since the 18-minute gap on the tapes of Richard Nixon,” said Senator Edward Kennedy who accused the CIA of “a cover-up.” He called on the Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate.

Congresswoman Jan Harman said that in early 2003, she had warned the CIA not to destroy any videotapes dealing with interrogation practices.

“To my knowledge, the Intelligence Committee was never informed that any videotapes had been destroyed,” Ms Harman, said.

Senator John Rockefeller, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there must be a review of “the full history and chronology of the tapes, how they were used, and the reasons for destroying them”.

White House officials declined to comment.

A US expert on torture said he believed the digital recordings show CIA interrogation teams carrying out torture including waterboarding or partial drowning of al-Qa’ida suspects in detention centres not on US soil. The interrogations probably took place in Jordan or Egypt where the US has close relations with the national intelligence agencies, said Malcolm Nance who advises the Department of Homeland Security on terrorism.

Mr Nance, who has conducted anti-torture training sessions, said the interrogations would have been relayed live by video link to the CIA’s directorate of operations in Langley, Virginia. They would have been observed by the director of the CIA, along with a team of interrogation experts including, a psychologist and doctor, he said.

“They start by slapping the prisoner around, putting him in stress positions and finally strapping him on the waterboard where he is bound down and has water poured into his lungs,” he continued. “It’s very hard to watch people going through this form of torture,” he said. “They get hysterical and whatever they say is of no value anyway.

“Typically a camera is focused on the detainee’s face to watch for signs that he is cracking; another camera shows the interrogation team in operation,” he said.

The New York Times reported that the CIA destroyed at least two videotapes of the interrogation of two al-Qai’da operatives in the midst of Congressional and legal investigations into its “black site” secret detention programme.

The CIA director, General Michael Hayden, said the decision to destroy the tapes was made “within the CIA” to protect the safety of the agents involved.

Senators and congressmen now want an inquiry into whether CIA officials deliberately withheld information from them as well as the courts and the September 11 Commission.

General Hayden’s explanation was dismissed as unbelievable by Mr Nance. “There are ways of hiding the identity of those involved,” he said.

US: Immigration Detention Practices Endanger Life

The New York Times reported today that in 2005, the CIA destroyed at least two videotapes showing its operatives subjecting terror suspects to harsh interrogation practices in 2002. Officials said the CIA destroyed these tapes to protect agency operatives from legal consequences. The destruction of these tapes appears to be part of an extensive, long-term pattern of misusing executive authority to insulate individuals from criminal prosecution for torture and abuse, the American Civil Liberties Union said.The ACLU is in the midst of a legal challenge calling for the release of three documents issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that are believed to have authorized the CIA to use extremely harsh interrogation methods. The memos, which were written in May of 2005, were not included in the government’s response to the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all documents pertaining to the treatment and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. The government also withheld the documents from key senators during a congressional inquiry.

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project:

“The destruction of these tapes suggests an utter disregard for the rule of law. It was plainly a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence that could have been used to hold CIA agents accountable for the torture of prisoners. Both Congress and the courts have repeatedly demanded that this evidence be turned over, but apparently the CIA believes that its agents are above the law.”

Blackwater Contracts, Short on Detail

0

 By Robert O’Harrow Jr. 

The State Department has released copies of its contracts for private security services with Blackwater Lodge and Training Center and Blackwater Security Consulting. It’s a hefty 323-page stack, and it comes with a catch:

About 169 of the pages are blank or mostly blank.

Released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the contracts — worth up to $1.2 billion — have been heavily redacted by the government. A State Department spokesman said the officials responsible for the cuts are simply trying to protect sensitive information that might put individuals at risk. He declined to say what kind of information was cut.

In a cover letter, the department notes that it “gave full consideration” to deletions recommended by Blackwater officials.

A close look at the pages that have not been cut reveals some choice tidbits. The “statement of work” on Page 13 explains why Blackwater was needed. “As a result of conflicts, wars, political unrest and more recently, terrorist activity, these areas have become extremely dangerous places in which to live and work,” the document says. “The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is unable to provide protective services on a long-term basis from its pool of Special Agents.”

Page 35 specifies that “All Contracting employees working under this contract should: Be well proportioned in height and weight,” among other qualities.

One unnumbered item includes a long list of things. But because it’s surrounded by blank pages, it’s hard to know what the list means. Among the items mentioned: battery carrier tool, quick booster kit, heavy-duty work bench, distilled water and WD-40.

A “standards of conduct” section warns that “abusive or offensive language, quarreling, intimidation by words, actions, or fighting, is considered unacceptable performance under this contract.”

To see a sample of the redactions and a more complete account, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/governmentinc.

Did Bush really know less than Dems about CIA tapes?

0

Bush doesn’t recollect being told of CIA tapes

Nick Juliano

Despite the fact that at least two Democratic lawmakers knew about CIA tapes being destroyed, President Bush is claiming that he has “no recollection” of ever being briefed on the matter.At Friday’s White House briefing, Press Secretary Dana Perino was asked by a reporter, “On these CIA videotapes, did either the president or vice president or Condoleezza Rice, when she was national security adviser, or Steve Hadley see them before they were destroyed?”

“I spoke to the president — and so I will have to defer on the others, but I spoke to the president this morning about this,” Perino said. “He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning. And as to the others, I’ll have to — you know, I’ll refer you to the Vice President’s Office, and I’ll see if I can get the others.”

Video of Perino’s press conference can be seen at this link.

If true, Perino’s assertion would mean Bush was unaware of the CIA’s actions even while top Congressional officials were briefed on the agency’s actions. The top Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence committees both have said they long knew about the tapes — which reportedly show CIA interrogators “waterboarding” suspected al Qaeda detainees. One says she cautioned the CIA about the tapes nearly five years before Bush’s spokesman claims the president knew anything about them.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was the ranking intelligence committee in the House, and she now says she sent a classified letter to the CIA in early 2003 urging the agency not to destroy the tapes, as they previously informed members of Congress they would.

“Given the nature of the classification, I was not free to mention this subject publicly until Director Hayden disclosed it yesterday,” Harman said. “To my knowledge, the Intelligence Committee was never informed that any videotapes had been destroyed. Surely I was not.”

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who now chairs the Senate intel committee, says he learned the tapes were destroyed in November 2006 — more than a year before Bush knew what was going on in his intelligence community — but was unable to press the issue because of the information was classified.

“I’m really sick of this – OK, I’m angry about it,” Rockefeller said. “It’s a manipulation of the Congress – the use of two people of the Senate, two people out of the House, because nobody else can be told, including our committee. We can’t even talk to anybody, and they say, ‘Oh, they were briefed.’ ”

Marijuana rules could seed a new industry

1

Thomas Munro

Proposed rules for medical marijuana providers could open the door to private nonprofit or for-profit producers in New Mexico.

Since the state’s medical marijuana registry was created July 1, patients have had three ways to obtain marijuana: by growing it themselves; by contracting with “designated caregivers,” who grow or otherwise obtain the plant and are each allowed to provide doses of the herb to at most four patients; or by buying it off the street. While street drugs have high, black-market prices, the designated caregivers are not allowed to charge patients any more than the cost of “supplies or utilities associated with the possession of medical use marijuana.”

The proposed rules could open the field of providers to private entities that would establish licit market pricing, raising concerns of a capitalistic free-for-all similar to the market in California, where 300 “pot clubs” offer a marijuana-connoisseur’s delight of exotic varieties, often at prices beyond the means of needy patients. While only nonprofit operations are protected by California law, some clubs are reputed to be making millions.

“California’s gotten really out of control,” said Melissa Milam, coordinator of New Mexico’s medical cannabis program. One bulwark against this distopian future is the much tighter restriction on conditions that can qualify a patient for a medical marijuana card. In California, a doctor can prescribe marijuana for anyone he believes will be helped by it. In New Mexico, only patients suffering pain as a result of one of seven conditions can qualify, short of a special petition to a medical advisory board. The board will look at proposals for additions to the list every six months.

British eavesdropping on Iran

0

British GCHQ eavesdropping played role in US intelligence U-turn on Iran 

 Time lag as agencies checked out conversations
 Ahmadinejad basks in ‘great victory’ of report

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Robert Tait in Tehran
The Guardian

Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses thousands people at a rally in the city of Ilam.
Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses thousands of people at a rally in the city of Ilam. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
 

The US intelligence U-turn on Iran was partly based on telephone conversations in Iran intercepted by the British intelligence listening station GCHQ, according to a source in Washington speaking on a basis of anonymity.In an updated assessment of Iran published on Monday, the US intelligence agencies concluded that the country had ceased work on a nuclear weapons programme four years ago, in contrast with its assessment in 2005 that the country was pushing ahead with its weapons programme.

Article continues



George Bush said on Tuesday that the decision to change the assessment was based on “a great discovery”. Diplomatic and official sources in the US said this was mainly based on human intelligence, almost certainly a major defector, but that intercepts were also a factor.According to the source, there was a lengthy time-lag between the conversations being intercepted by GCHQ and the US intelligence agencies checking out whether they were genuine or whether those involved knew they were being listened to and put out false information.

In remarks to the press yesterday, Bush reiterated his warning that, in spite of the new intelligence assessment, Iran remained a threat and Tehran faced a choice between negotiation or isolation.

The president said that the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, had been in touch with Britain and France to discuss a push for a new round of UN sanctions against Iran.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, was pressed by journalists yesterday over why Bush had continued to ramp up rhetoric against Iran in October if he had been informed by the national intelligence director, Mike McConnell, in August, of the new intelligence. Bush was only told of the national intelligence office’s final assessment last Wednesday, he said.

The questions came against a background of speculation, particularly among bloggers, that the intelligence community put out the assessment to pre-empt a military strike being ordered by Bush and the vice-president, Dick Cheney, next year.

Fratto refused to say how much detail McConnell had provided in August. “What director McConnell said is that we’re going to go back and do rigorous analysis of this intelligence, and when we can be certain of it, we’re going to come back and talk to you – and that’s what they did,” he said.

The conclusions of the national intelligence estimate, the consensus view of the 16 US intelligence agencies, are largely supposed to be independent of the White House. But, contrary to the speculation among bloggers about mutiny by the intelligence community, the president retains control over whether and when the estimates are published. There is a long list of other estimates that Bush has determined should remain classified.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, basked in the “great victory” of the US intelligence report.

“Today the Iranian nation is victorious but you [the west] are empty handed,” he said in a speech to a rally in the western city of Ilam. “This was a final shot to those who, in the past several years, spread a sense of threat and concern in the world through lies of nuclear weapons. If you want to start a new political game the united Iranian nation will resist you and will not retreat one iota from its nuclear programme.”

However, Ali Larijani, Iran’s former chief nuclear negotiator, who resigned in October over policy differences with Ahmadinejad, cautioned against seeing the report as a triumph and warned that it might presage a new phase of US pressure.

“The report refers to Iran’s 2003 voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment, which we undertook to build trust, as resulting from threats and pressure,” Larijani said. “This means they have got the wrong impression from Iran’s [previous] suspension of enrichment. The intention of this part of the report is to claim that if we want Iran now to abandon its nuclear plan we should impose the policy of pressure again.”

The CIA Destroyed Torture Tapes & 9/11 Connection

0

The CIA’s Destroyed Interrogation Tapes and the Saudi-Pakistani 9/11 Connection

Gerald Posner

On December 5, the CIA’s director, General Michael V. Hayden, issued a statement disclosing that in 2005 at least two videotapes of interrogations with al Qaeda prisoners were destroyed. The tapes, which the CIA did not provide to either the 9/11 Commission, nor to a federal court in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, were destroyed, claimed Hayden, to protect the safety of undercover operatives.

Hayden did not disclose one of the al Qaeda suspects whose tapes were destroyed. But he did identify the other. It was Abu Zubaydah, the top ranking terror suspect when he was tracked and captured in Pakistan in 2003. In September 2006, at a press conference in which he defended American interrogation techniques, President Bush also mentioned Abu Zubaydah by name. Bush acknowledged that Zubaydah, who was wounded when captured, did not initially cooperate with his interrogators, but that eventually when he did talk, his information was, according to Bush, “quite important.”

In my 2003 New York Times bestseller, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, I discussed Abu Zubaydah at length in Chapter 19, “The Interrogation.” There I set forth how Zubaydah initially refused to help his American captors. Also, disclosed was how U.S. intelligence established a so-called “fake flag” operation, in which the wounded Zubaydah was transferred to Afghanistan under the ruse that he had actually been turned over to the Saudis. The Saudis had him on a wanted list, and the Americans believed that Zubaydah, fearful of torture and death at the hands of the Saudis, would start talking when confronted by U.S. agents playing the role of Saudi intelligence officers.

Instead, when confronted by his “Saudi” interrogators, Zubaydah showed no fear. Instead, according to the two U.S. intelligence sources that provided me the details, he seemed relieved. The man who had been reluctant to even confirm his identity to his U.S. captors, suddenly talked animatedly. He was happy to see them, he said, because he feared the Americans would kill him. He then asked his interrogators to call a senior member of the Saudi royal family. And Zubaydah provided a private home number and a cell phone number from memory. “He will tell you what to do,” Zubaydah assured them

That man was Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, one of King Fahd’s nephews, and the chairman of the largest Saudi publishing empire. Later, American investigators would determine that Prince Ahmed had been in the U.S. on 9/11.

American interrogators used painkillers to induce Zubaydah to talk — they gave him the meds when he cooperated, and withdrew them when he was quiet. They also utilized a thiopental sodium drip (a so-called truth serum). Several hours after he first fingered Prince Ahmed, his captors challenged the information, and said that since he had disparaged the Saudi royal family, he would be executed. It was at that point that some of the secrets of 9/11 came pouring out. In a short monologue, that one investigator told me was the “Rosetta Stone” of 9/11, Zubaydah laid out details of how he and the al Qaeda hierarchy had been supported at high levels inside the Saudi and Pakistan governments.

He named two other Saudi princes, and also the chief of Pakistan’s air force, as his major contacts. Moreover, he stunned his interrogators, by charging that two of the men, the King’s nephew, and the Pakistani Air Force chief, knew a major terror operation was planned for America on 9/11.

It would be nice to further investigate the men named by Zubaydah, but that is not possible. All four identified by Zubaydah are now dead. As for the three Saudi princes, the King’s 43-year-old nephew, Prince Ahmed, died of either a heart attack or blood clot, depending on which report you believe, after having liposuction in Riyadh’s top hospital; the second, 41-year-old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, died the following day in a one car accident, on his way to the funeral of Prince Ahmed; and one week later, the third Saudi prince named by Zubaydah, 25-year-old Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, died, according to the Saudi Royal Court, “of thirst.” The head of Pakistan’s Air Force, Mushaf Ali Mir, was the last to go. He died, together with his wife and fifteen of his top aides, when his plane blew up — suspected as sabotage — in February 2003. Pakistan’s investigation of the explosion — if one was even done — has never been made public.

Zubaydah is the only top al Queda operative who has secretly linked two of America’s closest allies in the war on terror — Saudi Arabia and Pakistan — to the 9/11 attacks. Why does Bush, and the CIA, continue to protect the Saudi Royal family and the Pakistani military, from the implications of Zubaydah’s confessions? It is, or course, because the Bush administration desperately needs Pakistani and Saudi help, not only to keep Afghanistan from spinning completely out of control, but also as counterweights to the growing power of Iran. The Sunni governments in Riyadh and Islamabad have as much to fear from a resurgent Iran as does the Bush administration. But does this mean that leads about the origins of 9/11 should not be aggressively pursued? Of course not. But this is precisely what the Bush administration is doing. And now the cover-up is enhanced by the CIA’s destruction of Zubaydah’s interrogation tapes.

The American public deserves no less than the complete truth about 9/11. And those CIA officials now complicit in hiding the truth by destroying key evidence should be held responsible.

Thinktank calls for Gov to scrap ID cards

0

The Government should launch a “serious renewed debate” on ID cards or scrap the scheme, a thinktank report has said.

Researchers from Demos warned that the identity card project was launched without adequate public engagement, and said more consideration should be given to what information the cards carry and how they will be used.

The call came in a report entitled The New Politics of Personal Information, which found that the average economically-active British adult now has details recorded on 700 databases.

Researchers Peter Bradwell and Niamh Gallagher found that the modern public, far from resisting Big Brother-style surveillance, were largely happy to share their personal information through social networking websites, supermarket loyalty schemes, public transport swipe-cards and CCTV cameras.

But they said people were gradually becoming more uneasy about the consequences of losing control of their personal data and called on the Government to act to ensure greater protection.

Each official department using citizens’ personal information should say how and why they are accessing it, and public authorities should handle individuals’ details with the same discipline and care as they have traditionally handled cash, they said.

Banks could have an insurance-type “no-claims” bonus for people who successfully protect their own identity from fraudsters, the report proposed.

The recommendations come less than a month after HM Revenue and Customs lost two computer discs containing the data of 25 million people and amid growing fears people using the internet are leaving themselves wide open to identity fraud.

In the wake of the security breach, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced checks on the handling of data by every Government department and agency.

He also pledged that new powers would be given to Information Commissioner Richard Thomas to enable spot-checks on public bodies holding personal information.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2630817.html?menu=

Hackers Launch Major Attack on US Military Labs

0

Hackers have succeeded in breaking into the computer systems of two of the U.S.’ most important science labs, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory.

John E. Dunn

Hackers have succeeded in breaking into the computer systems of two of the U.S.‘ most important science labs, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

In what a spokesperson for the Oak Ridge facility described as a “sophisticated cyber attack,” it appears that intruders accessed a database of visitors to the Tennessee lab between 1990 and 2004, which included their social security numbers and dates of birth. Three thousand researchers reportedly visit the lab each year, a who’s who of the science establishment in the U.S.

The attack was described as being conducted through several waves of phishing emails with malicious attachments, starting on Oct. 29. Although not stated, these would presumably have launched Trojans if opened, designed to bypass security systems from within, which raises the likelihood that the attacks were targeted specifically at the lab.

ORNL director, Thom Mason, described the attacks in an email to staff earlier this week as being a “coordinated attempt to gain access to computer networks at numerous laboratories and other institutions across the country.”

“Because of the sensitive nature of this event, the laboratory will be unable for some period to discuss further details until we better understand the full nature of this attack,” he added.

The ORNL has set up a web page giving an official statement on the attacks, with advice to employees and visitors that they should inform credit agencies so as to minimize the possibility of identity theft.

Less is known about the attacks said to have been launched against the ORNL’s sister-institution at Los Alamos, but the two are said to be linked. It has not been confirmed that the latter facility was penetrated successfully, though given that a Los Alamos spokesman said that staff had been notified of an attack on Nov. 9 – days after the earliest attack wave on the ORNL – the assumption has to be that something untoward happened there as well, and probably at other science labs across the U.S.

The ORNL is a multipurpose science lab, a site of technological expertise used in homeland security and military research, and also the site of one of the world’s fastest supercomputers. Los Alamos operates a similar multi-disciplinary approach, but specializes in nuclear weapons research, one of only two such sites doing such top-secret work in the U.S.

Los Alamos has a checkered security history, having suffered a sequence of embarrassing breaches in recent years. In August of this year, it was revealed that the lab had released sensitive nuclear research data by email, while in 2006 a drug dealer was allegedly found with a USB stick containing data on nuclear weapons tests.

“This appears to be a new low, even drug dealers can get classified information out of Los Alamos,” Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), said at the time. Two years earlier, the lab was accused of having lost hard disks

The possibility that the latest attacks were the work of fraudsters will be seen by some as optimistic – less positive would be the possibility of a rival government having been involved. Given the apparently coordinated nature of events, speculation will inevitably point to this scenario, with the data theft a cover motivation for more serious incursions.

Satanic Pentagon To Resume Open Air Weapons Testing‏

0

Pentagon Appears Poised To Resume Open-Air Testing Of Biological Weapons But Says It Has Received No Presidential Directive To Break Moratorium

By Sherwood Ross

The Pentagon has denied President Bush issued a directive for it to resume open-air testing of chemical and biological warfare(CBW) agents that were halted by President Richard Nixon in 1969. Yet, the Pentagon’s stated preparations make it appear it is poised to do just that.

Spokesperson Chris Isleib did not respond to a request for comment on a passage from the Defense Department’s annual report sent to Congress last April that suggests the Pentagon is gearing up to resume the tests.

Resumption of open-air testing would reverse a long-standing moratorium adopted after a public outcry against them following accidents in the Sixties.

The Pentagon’s annual report apparently calls for both the developmental and operational “field testing of (CBW) full systems,” not just simulations.

The Pentagon’s report to Congress contains the following passage: “More than thirty years have passed since outdoor live-agent chemical tests were banned in the United States, and the last outdoor test with live chemical agent was performed, so much of the infrastructure for the field testing of chemical detectors no longer exists or is seriously outdated. The currently budgeted improvements in the T&E infrastructure will greatly enhance both the developmental and operational field testing of full systems, with better simulated representation of threats and characterization of system response.” “T&E” is an acronym for testing and evaluation.

“Either the military has resumed open-air testing already or they are preparing to do so,” said Francis Boyle, a University of Illinois Professor of International Law who authored the implementing legislation for the U.S. Biological Weapons Convention signed into law by President George Bush Sr. and who has tracked subsequent developments closely.

“I am stunned by the nature of this development,” Boyle said. “This is a major reversal of policy.” The 1972 treaty against germ warfare, which the U.S. signed, forbids developing weapons that spread disease, such as anthrax, a pathogen that is regarded by the military as “ideal” for conducting germ warfare.

“The Pentagon is fully prepared to launch biological warfare by means of anthrax,” Boyle charged. “All the equipment has been acquired and all the training conducted and most combat-ready members of U.S. armed forces have been given protective equipment and vaccines that allegedly would protect them from that agent.”

Open-air testing takes research into deadly agents out of the laboratories in order to study their effectiveness, including their aerial dispersion patterns, and whether they actually infect and kill in field trials. Since the anthrax attacks on Congress in October, 2001, the Bush administration has funded a vast biological research expansion at hundreds of private and university laboratories in the U.S. and abroad involving anthrax and other deadly pathogens.

The anthrax attacks killed five people, including two postal workers, injured 17 others and temporarily shut down the operations of the U.S. Congress, Supreme Court, and other Federal entities.

Although a Federal statute permits the president to authorize open-air testing of CBW agents, Boyle said this “does not solve the compliance problem that it might violate the international Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention as well as their related domestic implementing legislation making such violations crimes.”

Boyle charged the U.S. is already “in breach” of both conventions and also of U.S. domestic criminal law implementing them. In February, 2003, for example, the U.S. granted itself a patent on an illegal, long-range biological-weapons grenade, evidently for offensive purposes.

Boyle said the development of anthrax for possible offensive purposes is underscored by the government’s efforts “to try to stockpile anthrax vaccines and antibiotics for 25-million plus Americans to protect the civilian population in the event there is any ‘blowback’ from the use of anthrax in biowarfare abroad by the Pentagon.”

“In theory,” Boyle added, “you cannot wage biowarfare abroad unless you can protect your civilian population from either retaliation in kind, or blowback, or both.” Under Project BioShield, Homeland Security is spending $5.6 billion to stockpile vaccines and drugs to fight anthrax, smallpox, and other bioterror agents. The project had been marked by delays and operational problems and on December 12th last year Congress passed legislation to pump another $1 billion into BioShield to fund three years of additional research by the private sector.

Boyle said evidence the U.S. has super-weapons-grade anthrax was demonstrated in the October, 2001, anthrax mail attacks on Senators Thomas Daschle(D-S.D.) and Patrick Leahy(D-Vt.) The strain of highly sophisticated anthrax employed has allegedly been traced back to the primary U.S. Army biological warfare campus at Ft. Detrick, Md. The attacks killed five persons and sickened 17 others. A current effort to expand Ft. Detrick has sparked widespread community opposition, according to a report in the Baltimore Sun.

“Obviously, someone working for the United States government has a stockpile of super-weapons grade anthrax that can be used again domestically for the purposes of political terrorism or abroad to wage offensive warfare,” Boyle said.

The Associated Press has reported the U.S. Army is replacing its Military Institute of Infectious Diseases at Ft. Detrick “with a new laboratory that would be a component of a biodefense campus operated by several agencies.” The Army told AP the laboratory is intended to continue research solely for defense against biological threats.

Undercutting the argument U.S. research is for “defensive” purposes is the fact government scientists have been creating new strains of pathogens for which there is no known cure. Richard Novick, a professor of microbiology at New York University, has stated, “I cannot envision any imaginable justification for changing the antigenicity of anthrax as a defensive measure.” Changing a pathogen’s antigenicity means altering its basic structure so that existing vaccines will prove ineffective against it.

Biological warfare involves the use of living organisms for military purposes. Such weapons can be viral, bacterial, and fungal, among other forms, and can be spread over a large geographic terrain by wind, water, insect, animal, or human transmission, according to Jeremy Rifkin, author of “The Biotech Century”(Penguin).

Boyle said the Federal government has been plowing money into upgrading Ft. Detrick, Md., and other CBW facilities where such pathogens are studied, developed, tested, and stored. By some estimates, the U.S. since 2002 has invested some $43 billion in hundreds of government, commercial, and university laboratories in the U.S. for the study of pathogens that might be used for biological warfare.

According to Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright, more than 300 scientific institutions and 12,000 individuals have access to pathogens suitable for biowarfare and terrorism. Ebright found that the Number of National Institute of Health grants to research infectious diseases with biowarfare potential shot up from 33 in the 1995-2000 period to 497 by 2006.Ebright has stated the government’s tenfold expansion of Biosafety Level-4 laboratories, such as those at Fort Detrick, raises the risk of accidents and the diversion of dangerous organisms. “If a worker in one of these facilities removes a single viral particle or a single cell, which cannot be detected or prevented, that single particle or cell can form the basis of an outbreak.”

During the Cold War era, notably in the Fifties and Sixties, various Government agencies engaged in open-air CBW testing on U.S. soil and on naval vessels at sea to study the effects of weaponized pathogens. U.S. cities, including New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, were among the targets and sickness and even a number of deaths were reported as a result.

According to an article titled “Lethal Breeze” by Lee Davidson in the Deseret News of Salt Lake City of June 5, 1994, “In decades of secret chemical arms tests, the Army released into Utah winds more than a half million pounds of deadly nerve agents.” Among them, he said, was VX, a pinhead-sized drop of which can be lethal. The tests were conducted at Dugway Proving Ground but Davidson said the evidence suggests “some (agents) may have escaped with the wind.”

Pentagon documents obtained by the News listed 1,635 field trials or demonstrations with nerve agents VX, GA and GB between 1951 and 1969, “when the Army discontinued use of actual nerve agents in open-air tests after escaped nerve gas apparently killed 6,000 sheep in Skull Valley,” Davidson wrote. The Skull Valley strike also sickened a rancher and members of his family.

Boyle has previously charged the Pentagon with “gearing up to fight and ‘win’ biological warfare” pursuant to two Bush national strategy directives adopted in 2002 “without public knowledge and review.” He contends the Pentagon’s Chemical and Biological Defense program was revised in 2003 to implement those directives, endorsing “first-use” strike of chemical and biological weapons in war.

The implementing legislation Boyle wrote that was enacted unanimously by Congress was known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. Boyle has written extensively on the subject. Among his published works are “Biowarfare and Terrorism” and “Destroying World Order: U.S. Imperialism In the Middle East Before and After September 11th,” both from Clarity Press.

*************
(Sherwood Ross is a free-lance writer and public relations consultant and Director of Anti-War News Service. He was host of a radio talk show in Washington, D.C., reported for the Chicago Daily News and worked as a regular columnist for several wire services. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com)