Full Version: Snuffymith's Blog-Sept. 17 - Nov. 29, 2007
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42
Lethal Illusion
Homeland Security: In Defense of the Indefensible
by Russ Wellen / October 19th, 2007
If you go through life without making any enemies you’re doing something wrong. If you go through life making a lot of enemies you’re doing something worse. (Full article …)
It’s Time for the Banks to Face the Hangman
by Mike Whitney / October 19th, 2007
How can one defend a system that creates wealth by making the majority poor? – Henry C. K. Liu (Full article …)
Recess Games
by Eric Walberg / October 19th, 2007
It’s been a busy week for Russian President Vladimir Putin. First he had a visit from French President Nicolas Sarkozy 9 October, followed by both United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates 12-13 October, who were in Moscow for talks with their Russian counterparts the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Serdyukov. He then squeezed in a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas prior to departing to Wiesbaden to meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Then he set off to Tehran to meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite reports that suicide terrorists had been trained to assassinate him in Iran. (Full article …)
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/10/19/...market_crashes/
Bernanke speaks; market crashes
"In a world of uncertainty," Ben Bernanke said in a speech Friday morning, "informing the public about the central bank's objectives, plans and outlook can affect behavior and macroeconomic outcomes."
Case in point? He also said, "Indeed, intuition suggests that stronger action by the central bank may be warranted to prevent particularly costly outcomes." Following which, the stock market went into freefall. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 366 points, with the other major indexes in similar disarray.
Let's be fair. Investors have a lot more to worry about right now than the shape of Bernanke's nuance. The woeful quarterly earnings numbers reported by four big banks -- Citigroup, Bank of America, Washington Mutual and Wachovia -- are distressing. The news that two "structured investment funds" are having trouble paying back their debts is also nerve-racking. The continued terrible performance of the housing sector, along with oil prices that briefly broke through $90 a barrel on Friday, has the word "recession" front and foremost. The much ballyhooed plan to pull Wall Street's coals out of the fire by creating a "super-conduit," aka "The Entity," may have backfired, by signaling to financial markets that the credit crunch is much worse than people had begun to hope.
As the central banker in charge, Bernanke certainly has the power to move markets with no more than an infelicitous phrase, but we can't give him all the blame for this one.
Nevertheless, what he said was very interesting and deserves close attention. The speech was ostensibly an appraisal of the contributions to economic theory made by Bill Poole, the soon-to-be-retiring president of the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve. Poole's academic work focused on the challenge of conducting appropriate monetary policy in the absence of certainty about the true state of the economy.
To simplify vastly, one school of thought argues that, absent total certainty about what is really going on, the Fed should move slowly, carefully and gradually, surprising no one, and thus minimizing potential shocks or disruption to the economy. Another school of thought says that such actions won't make any real difference, because the public will factor into their expectations of what's going to happen any such gradualist moves, and thus negate their impact. Therefore, the only actions the Fed can take that would make a real difference would be surprising ones.
All very interesting, and seemingly theoretical; every speech by Bernanke has the feel of a brilliant lecturer at an Ivy League school stretching his muscles just for the intellectual fun of it.
But then he concluded by saying that a) the Fed should be ready to take "stronger action" to "prevent particularly costly outcomes" and
that it is very important to keep the public informed about the central bank's plans.
So was he saying to the world: Get ready -- at any moment I might do something shocking? That's almost what it sounds like. And although one might think that Wall Street would be heartened by this warning -- yippee, another big fat rate cut could be coming! -- the flip side is that if Bernanke is preparing the way for strong action, that means strong action could be necessary in the near future. Which, in turn, could explain why the bloom is suddenly off Wall Street's rose, again.
On the 20th anniversary of Black Monday, no less, to the very day. How spooky is that?
-- Andrew Leonar
Bernanke speaks; market crashes
"In a world of uncertainty," Ben Bernanke said in a speech Friday morning, "informing the public about the central bank's objectives, plans and outlook can affect behavior and macroeconomic outcomes."
Case in point? He also said, "Indeed, intuition suggests that stronger action by the central bank may be warranted to prevent particularly costly outcomes." Following which, the stock market went into freefall. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 366 points, with the other major indexes in similar disarray.
Let's be fair. Investors have a lot more to worry about right now than the shape of Bernanke's nuance. The woeful quarterly earnings numbers reported by four big banks -- Citigroup, Bank of America, Washington Mutual and Wachovia -- are distressing. The news that two "structured investment funds" are having trouble paying back their debts is also nerve-racking. The continued terrible performance of the housing sector, along with oil prices that briefly broke through $90 a barrel on Friday, has the word "recession" front and foremost. The much ballyhooed plan to pull Wall Street's coals out of the fire by creating a "super-conduit," aka "The Entity," may have backfired, by signaling to financial markets that the credit crunch is much worse than people had begun to hope.
As the central banker in charge, Bernanke certainly has the power to move markets with no more than an infelicitous phrase, but we can't give him all the blame for this one.
Nevertheless, what he said was very interesting and deserves close attention. The speech was ostensibly an appraisal of the contributions to economic theory made by Bill Poole, the soon-to-be-retiring president of the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve. Poole's academic work focused on the challenge of conducting appropriate monetary policy in the absence of certainty about the true state of the economy.
To simplify vastly, one school of thought argues that, absent total certainty about what is really going on, the Fed should move slowly, carefully and gradually, surprising no one, and thus minimizing potential shocks or disruption to the economy. Another school of thought says that such actions won't make any real difference, because the public will factor into their expectations of what's going to happen any such gradualist moves, and thus negate their impact. Therefore, the only actions the Fed can take that would make a real difference would be surprising ones.
All very interesting, and seemingly theoretical; every speech by Bernanke has the feel of a brilliant lecturer at an Ivy League school stretching his muscles just for the intellectual fun of it.
But then he concluded by saying that a) the Fed should be ready to take "stronger action" to "prevent particularly costly outcomes" and
that it is very important to keep the public informed about the central bank's plans. So was he saying to the world: Get ready -- at any moment I might do something shocking? That's almost what it sounds like. And although one might think that Wall Street would be heartened by this warning -- yippee, another big fat rate cut could be coming! -- the flip side is that if Bernanke is preparing the way for strong action, that means strong action could be necessary in the near future. Which, in turn, could explain why the bloom is suddenly off Wall Street's rose, again.
On the 20th anniversary of Black Monday, no less, to the very day. How spooky is that?
-- Andrew Leonar
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/10/19/bush_iran/
Nuclear hypocrisy
To avoid war, Bush should engage in direct negotiations with Iran -- and restore America's commitment to its own disarmament.
By Joe Conason
George W. Bush makes a statement concerning Iran and nuclear weapons at a news conference in the media briefing room of the White House in Washington October 17, 2007. Oct. 19, 2007 | Trying to understand what is on George W. Bush's mind when he opens his mouth is often a fruitless exercise, but his latest statement concerning Iran, nuclear weapons and World War III was troubling as well as opaque. Just what did the president mean when he uttered those apocalyptic remarks on Wednesday?
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he blathered. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Sorry, but the Iranian leadership and many other unsavory figures around the world cannot be prevented from "having the knowledge" needed to build a nuclear weapon, since, as Matthew Yglesias has noted, the scientific and engineering information is commonly available.
What the Iranians don't have yet is the industrial capacity to make enough weapons-grade enriched uranium for that purpose and then to transform that material into a bomb. What they do have, unfortunately, is the means to achieve that end eventually -- and thanks in part to the irresponsible policies of the Bush administration, they also have both a motive and an excuse.
It is true that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ugly speeches about the Jewish state and the Holocaust leave little doubt about his attitudes. Moreover, there is no question that the Islamic Republic rejects Israel's legitimacy and has sought to undermine the Middle East peace process through every means at its disposal, including terrorism.
Yet despite the American media's constant repetition of Ahmadinejad's rhetorical attacks, the destruction of Israel is almost certainly not the real reason that Tehran's theocrats want to develop nuclear reactors that could someday be used for sinister purposes. Neither the Iranian president nor the mullahs who actually control the Islamic Republic can possibly imagine that their state would survive for long if they launched a first strike against Israel -- or even looked as if they were preparing to do so.
Within Iran, the debate over nuclear development centers on ensuring the security of the regime against external enemies, notably including the United States, that are suspected of plotting its destruction.
No doubt that perception, which only strengthens the regime's hard-liners, was reinforced by Bush's explanation of his Iran policy during that Wednesday press conference. "The whole strategy is that, you know, at some point in time leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, 'This isn't worth it,' and to me it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government," said the president. "My intent is to continue to rally the world, to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you in the hopes that at some point somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation."
Let us leave aside for a moment the Bush administration's abject failure in rallying the world for any purpose, let alone regime change or even nuclear sanity in Iran. Six years of neoconservative "toughness" has done nothing to discourage the Iranian regime, and instead has encouraged a harder line by the mullahs -- who have enjoyed a vast improvement in their regional power because of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. But the problems with Bush's approach go even deeper, because he has consistently provided the Iranians with excuses to do precisely what we and our allies want to stop them from doing.
Even before 9/11, the president and his policymakers set out to undermine the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), the same treaty whose strictures they cite in seeking to impose sanctions (or worse) on Iran. What almost nobody in the United States ever mentions -- but the Iranians and other hostile regimes know very well -- is that the Bush administration blatantly violates the NPT every day. The treaty's sixth article says in plain terms that the United States and other signatories that possess nuclear weapons are obligated to disarmament, in exchange for all the other signatories agreeing not to develop those weapons in the future.
The Bush administration's strategic doctrine rejects the obligations of the NPT and urges the construction of a new and more powerful nuclear arsenal, including "tactical" weapons that could be used against regional adversaries such as ... Iran. Moreover, the administration seeks to provide nuclear assistance to India, a nuclear state that never signed the NPT, which is also a treaty violation. And then there's Israel, another nonsignatory nation, whose stockpile of hundreds of nuclear weapons is simply not a subject that American diplomats are willing to discuss.
All these large and small hypocrisies undermine our moral case against Iran's nuclear program, especially when there is still no proof that the Iranians have a bomb-making program at this stage -- and when our own intelligence estimates suggest that any such capacity is probably still eight to 10 years away. The flaws in the American argument against Iran are amplified by Bush's continuing rejection of direct negotiations.
None of this means that we shouldn't try to stop Iran and other hostile states from acquiring nuclear weapons, which would indeed destabilize the region and, like those in Pakistan and elsewhere, make the world a more dangerous place. But if the world somehow evades World War III or war with Iran until the day Bush and his belligerent Vice President Dick Cheney leave office, we can only hope that their successors abandon the policies that have failed -- and replace them with initiatives that just might make us safer.
What would we do if we were interested in "avoiding World War III"? We could start by engaging Iran in direct negotiations to bring the regime into the global and regional system, so that hard-liners like Ahmadinejad will have fewer excuses for pursuing their nuclear mania. And we might at last abandon the neoconservative fantasies of nuclear dominance, by restoring the American commitment to eventual nuclear disarmament as the only path away from worldwide proliferation.
Nuclear hypocrisy
To avoid war, Bush should engage in direct negotiations with Iran -- and restore America's commitment to its own disarmament.
By Joe Conason
George W. Bush makes a statement concerning Iran and nuclear weapons at a news conference in the media briefing room of the White House in Washington October 17, 2007. Oct. 19, 2007 | Trying to understand what is on George W. Bush's mind when he opens his mouth is often a fruitless exercise, but his latest statement concerning Iran, nuclear weapons and World War III was troubling as well as opaque. Just what did the president mean when he uttered those apocalyptic remarks on Wednesday?
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he blathered. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Sorry, but the Iranian leadership and many other unsavory figures around the world cannot be prevented from "having the knowledge" needed to build a nuclear weapon, since, as Matthew Yglesias has noted, the scientific and engineering information is commonly available.
What the Iranians don't have yet is the industrial capacity to make enough weapons-grade enriched uranium for that purpose and then to transform that material into a bomb. What they do have, unfortunately, is the means to achieve that end eventually -- and thanks in part to the irresponsible policies of the Bush administration, they also have both a motive and an excuse.
It is true that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ugly speeches about the Jewish state and the Holocaust leave little doubt about his attitudes. Moreover, there is no question that the Islamic Republic rejects Israel's legitimacy and has sought to undermine the Middle East peace process through every means at its disposal, including terrorism.
Yet despite the American media's constant repetition of Ahmadinejad's rhetorical attacks, the destruction of Israel is almost certainly not the real reason that Tehran's theocrats want to develop nuclear reactors that could someday be used for sinister purposes. Neither the Iranian president nor the mullahs who actually control the Islamic Republic can possibly imagine that their state would survive for long if they launched a first strike against Israel -- or even looked as if they were preparing to do so.
Within Iran, the debate over nuclear development centers on ensuring the security of the regime against external enemies, notably including the United States, that are suspected of plotting its destruction.
No doubt that perception, which only strengthens the regime's hard-liners, was reinforced by Bush's explanation of his Iran policy during that Wednesday press conference. "The whole strategy is that, you know, at some point in time leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, 'This isn't worth it,' and to me it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government," said the president. "My intent is to continue to rally the world, to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you in the hopes that at some point somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation."
Let us leave aside for a moment the Bush administration's abject failure in rallying the world for any purpose, let alone regime change or even nuclear sanity in Iran. Six years of neoconservative "toughness" has done nothing to discourage the Iranian regime, and instead has encouraged a harder line by the mullahs -- who have enjoyed a vast improvement in their regional power because of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. But the problems with Bush's approach go even deeper, because he has consistently provided the Iranians with excuses to do precisely what we and our allies want to stop them from doing.
Even before 9/11, the president and his policymakers set out to undermine the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), the same treaty whose strictures they cite in seeking to impose sanctions (or worse) on Iran. What almost nobody in the United States ever mentions -- but the Iranians and other hostile regimes know very well -- is that the Bush administration blatantly violates the NPT every day. The treaty's sixth article says in plain terms that the United States and other signatories that possess nuclear weapons are obligated to disarmament, in exchange for all the other signatories agreeing not to develop those weapons in the future.
The Bush administration's strategic doctrine rejects the obligations of the NPT and urges the construction of a new and more powerful nuclear arsenal, including "tactical" weapons that could be used against regional adversaries such as ... Iran. Moreover, the administration seeks to provide nuclear assistance to India, a nuclear state that never signed the NPT, which is also a treaty violation. And then there's Israel, another nonsignatory nation, whose stockpile of hundreds of nuclear weapons is simply not a subject that American diplomats are willing to discuss.
All these large and small hypocrisies undermine our moral case against Iran's nuclear program, especially when there is still no proof that the Iranians have a bomb-making program at this stage -- and when our own intelligence estimates suggest that any such capacity is probably still eight to 10 years away. The flaws in the American argument against Iran are amplified by Bush's continuing rejection of direct negotiations.
None of this means that we shouldn't try to stop Iran and other hostile states from acquiring nuclear weapons, which would indeed destabilize the region and, like those in Pakistan and elsewhere, make the world a more dangerous place. But if the world somehow evades World War III or war with Iran until the day Bush and his belligerent Vice President Dick Cheney leave office, we can only hope that their successors abandon the policies that have failed -- and replace them with initiatives that just might make us safer.
What would we do if we were interested in "avoiding World War III"? We could start by engaging Iran in direct negotiations to bring the regime into the global and regional system, so that hard-liners like Ahmadinejad will have fewer excuses for pursuing their nuclear mania. And we might at last abandon the neoconservative fantasies of nuclear dominance, by restoring the American commitment to eventual nuclear disarmament as the only path away from worldwide proliferation.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/19/giuliani/
How the Christian right could defeat Rudy -- and make Hillary president
Salon crunches the numbers -- what happens to the 2008 electoral map if a third-party social conservative enters the race, as threatened, against Giuliani and Clinton?
By Alex Koppelman
How the Christian right could defeat Rudy -- and make Hillary president
Salon crunches the numbers -- what happens to the 2008 electoral map if a third-party social conservative enters the race, as threatened, against Giuliani and Clinton?
By Alex Koppelman
<h4 class="coverline_header">Harry Reid works to ensure telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance</h4>The Senate majority leader takes an extraordinary step to side with the Bush administration and the telecom industryBy Glenn Greenwald
Opinion
Giuliani: The Next "Decider"
Posted by Taki Theodoracopulos on October 18, 2007
OK sports fans. This is it. Everyone one of you can now be president. All you have to do is kick a bearded Palestinian "epithet deleted" out of Lincoln Center and … [Read More]‘Christian Zionism’ and Dual Loyalty
Posted by Justin Raimondo on October 19, 2007 From David Weigel’s account of the GOP presidential beauty contest now taking place in front of the Family Research Council:
“[Duncan Hunter’s] first big applause line is ‘we are crushing al Qaeda in Anbar province!’ His second applause line is… more interesting. Swerving to the Middle East, Hunter praises Israel. ‘That little country, that little postage stamp called Israel, they have stood tall… they should not give back an inch of their land!’ Huge, whooping applause. In the front rows at least three people get up and start waving Israeli flags.”
So these crazed dispensationalist cultists are carrying around Israeli flags, which they whip out at opportune moments? The trend among younger, intermarried American Jews is that they could care less about Israel, and the rising generation doesn’t identify with or endose its bulldozing-and-annexation foreign policy—as this weird incident at the FRC conference dramatizes, however, it’s the “born again” Christians who have a real “dual loyalty” problem.
Pollard Almost Freed
Posted by Justin Raimondo on October 19, 2007 From the Jersusalem Post:
“Israel once came close to securing the release of convicted Pentagon spy Jonathan Pollard, but the American security services pulled the plug on the move at the last moment, President Shimon Peres said on Wednesday. During a tour of Safed, the president said that before the last-minute change, it seemed that the US had finally agreed to free the spy. Peres was probably referring to 1998’s Wye River negotiations. He noted that Washington was being ‘surprisingly stubborn”’ on the Pollard issue, adding that nevertheless, Israel was doing everything possible in order to bring about his release.”
Yes, “surprisingly stubborn”—because it usually takes but a few moments for the Americans to back down and appease The Lobby. In this case, however, it appears that a good number of intelligence and military types would immediately resign if Pollard is ever given the chance to take advantage of his Israeli citizenship—conferred by a grateful Israeli government for services rendered.
<h3 class="entryTitle">No Get out of Jail Free Card on Iran</h3> The Deputy Prime Minister (and Finance Minister) of Russia, Alexei Kudrin, spoke today at a Nixon Center lunch. His response to a question about the use of financial sanctions as a means of pressure against Iran was very interesting. He said that sanctions should only be imposed if Iran is engaged in the construction and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and that at present there was no evidence that Iran was building weapons.
Two points of divergence from the U.S. narrative. The first is that the operative word used was "weapons"—e.g. Iran has to be building actual weapons. In other words, it would seem that just having capabilities or equipment is not the threshold for action.
The second has to do with intelligence. What standard are other powers going to demand? Can the U.S. do the Cuban missile crisis-style intelligence briefings with other partners, being able to show satellite photos or human intelligence that can convince beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt?
I think that the bar is being set quite high for proof on Iran, if we take these remarks at face value.
Posted by Nikolas Gvosdev at 10/19/2007 05:49:48 PM |
Pentagon: Nuclear Warheads Domestic Flight was 'Serious Error' By VOA News
19 October 2007
The U.S. Air Force confirms that nuclear warheads were mistakenly flown over America in August, calling the error "unprecedented".
Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said Friday several commanders and dozens of servicemen involved in the incident have been relieved of their duties.
Wynne described a series of errors that allowed a package of six nuclear armed missiles to be loaded mistakenly onto a B-52 bomber at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. The weapons should have been been disarmed before their transfer to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, where they were to be destroyed.
The Air Force secretary called the incident isolated. He attributed it to a lack of attention to detail.
Defense experts have said there was no risk of nuclear detonation even if the plane had crashed, because of safety features built into the warheads.
Wayne Friday added that despite the errors, the warheads were always under the protection of Air Force security.
He also said the incident continues to be under review. He did not rule out criminal proceedings against those involved.
The incident has been described as the biggest breach of nuclear weapons security in decades.
A Pentagon spokesman said at the time that the incident was so serious that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were told of it right away.
[i]Some information for this report provided by AP.
[/i]
19 October 2007
The U.S. Air Force confirms that nuclear warheads were mistakenly flown over America in August, calling the error "unprecedented".
Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said Friday several commanders and dozens of servicemen involved in the incident have been relieved of their duties.
Wynne described a series of errors that allowed a package of six nuclear armed missiles to be loaded mistakenly onto a B-52 bomber at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. The weapons should have been been disarmed before their transfer to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, where they were to be destroyed.
The Air Force secretary called the incident isolated. He attributed it to a lack of attention to detail.
Defense experts have said there was no risk of nuclear detonation even if the plane had crashed, because of safety features built into the warheads.
Wayne Friday added that despite the errors, the warheads were always under the protection of Air Force security.
He also said the incident continues to be under review. He did not rule out criminal proceedings against those involved.
The incident has been described as the biggest breach of nuclear weapons security in decades.
A Pentagon spokesman said at the time that the incident was so serious that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were told of it right away.
[i]Some information for this report provided by AP.
[/i]
Afghan Foreign Minister Disputes Claim Iran Arming Taliban Militants By VOA News
19 October 2007
Afghanistan's foreign minister says there is no evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to Taliban insurgents, despite U.S. claims.
Rangeen Dadfar Spanta Rangeen Dadfar Spanta made the remarks Friday in Herat, one day after the top commander of NATO forces said weapons intercepted in Afghanistan had originated in Iran.
U.S. Army General Dan McNeill said NATO forces stopped a convoy from Iran on September 5 in western Afghanistan. He said the convoy contained a number of advanced technology improvised explosive devices.
Afghan officials say the country's intelligence agency is investigating the source of sophisticated weapons used by Taliban insurgents, and says it has no proof they are coming from Iran.
Iran has also denied the allegations.
General McNeill said it is hard to believe that a shipment of hi-tech explosives could have originated in Iran and come to Afghanistan without the knowledge of the Iranian military.
U.S Defense Secretary Robert Gates has also said he believes members of the Taliban are getting help from Iran.
Taliban insurgents have increased their use of suicide and roadside bombs against foreign and Afghan troops.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and Reuters.
19 October 2007
Afghanistan's foreign minister says there is no evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to Taliban insurgents, despite U.S. claims.
Rangeen Dadfar Spanta Rangeen Dadfar Spanta made the remarks Friday in Herat, one day after the top commander of NATO forces said weapons intercepted in Afghanistan had originated in Iran.U.S. Army General Dan McNeill said NATO forces stopped a convoy from Iran on September 5 in western Afghanistan. He said the convoy contained a number of advanced technology improvised explosive devices.
Afghan officials say the country's intelligence agency is investigating the source of sophisticated weapons used by Taliban insurgents, and says it has no proof they are coming from Iran.
Iran has also denied the allegations.
General McNeill said it is hard to believe that a shipment of hi-tech explosives could have originated in Iran and come to Afghanistan without the knowledge of the Iranian military.
U.S Defense Secretary Robert Gates has also said he believes members of the Taliban are getting help from Iran.
Taliban insurgents have increased their use of suicide and roadside bombs against foreign and Afghan troops.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and Reuters.
US Military: Intercepted Afghan Weapons Came From Iran By VOA News
18 October 2007
The top commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan says weapons intercepted in the country last month originated in Iran.
General Dan McNeill (file photo)U.S. Army General Dan McNeill said Thursday NATO forces stopped a convoy from Iran on September 5 in western Afghanistan. He said the convoy contained a number of advanced technology improvised explosive devices.
McNeill said it is hard to believe that a shipment of hi-tech explosives could have originated in Iran and come to Afghanistan without the knowledge of the Iranian military.
U.S. leaders have accused Iran of arming the Taleban insurgency in Afghanistan, a charge that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has denied.
Taleban insurgents have increased their use of suicide and roadside bombs against foreign and Afghan troops.
In other news, NATO officials say nine soldiers were wounded Wednesday when Taleban rebels ambushed a patrol in the southern Afghanistan province of Kandahar.
And at least four Afghan police officers were killed and three others wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near Afghanistan's border with Pakistan in the eastern province of Khost.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.
18 October 2007
The top commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan says weapons intercepted in the country last month originated in Iran.
General Dan McNeill (file photo)U.S. Army General Dan McNeill said Thursday NATO forces stopped a convoy from Iran on September 5 in western Afghanistan. He said the convoy contained a number of advanced technology improvised explosive devices.McNeill said it is hard to believe that a shipment of hi-tech explosives could have originated in Iran and come to Afghanistan without the knowledge of the Iranian military.
U.S. leaders have accused Iran of arming the Taleban insurgency in Afghanistan, a charge that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has denied.
Taleban insurgents have increased their use of suicide and roadside bombs against foreign and Afghan troops.
In other news, NATO officials say nine soldiers were wounded Wednesday when Taleban rebels ambushed a patrol in the southern Afghanistan province of Kandahar.
And at least four Afghan police officers were killed and three others wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near Afghanistan's border with Pakistan in the eastern province of Khost.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.
Afghanistan Investigating Iran Link to High-Powered Taliban Bombs By Al Pessin
Pentagon
18 October 2007
Afghanistan's defense minister says his government is gathering evidence on the source of sophisticated weapons found in the hands of Taliban fighters. But unlike the top American commander in Afghanistan, the minister is not ready to say the material comes from Iran. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates ® greets his Afghan counterpart Abdul Rahim Wardak at the Pentagon, 18 Oct 2007 The Afghan Defense Minister, Abdul Rahim Wardak, says in a meeting with him about a month ago Iranian officials denied allegations they are sending high-powered explosives to insurgents in Afghanistan. But the minister says such material is making its way into Afghanistan, and the Afghan intelligence agency is seeking evidence about where it is coming from.
"Some type of that armor-piercing IED [Improvised explosive device] and some other weapons are at the disposal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, so we are very carefully monitoring this development," he said.
Minister Wardak called it a "very significant development," but several times during a Pentagon news conference, he declined to accuse Iran of sending in the advanced explosives.
"There is no doubt that there is something coming from our western border," said Wardak. "There are weapons and maybe some financial support and others. But to be completely clear about it I think it will take a little bit of time to come up with the right conclusion."
Earlier Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he also believes Iran is helping the Taliban, although he did not say exactly how.
"I think the Taliban are getting support from Iran, both weapons and money," he said. "They are clearly getting support from elsewhere outside of Afghanistan."
But also on Thursday, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, U.S. General Dan McNeil, said a shipment of high-powered bomb material intercepted early last month did come from Iran. And the general said he can not imagine such a shipment could be made without "at least the knowledge of the Iranian military."
U.S. officials have made similar charges regarding sophisticated explosives flowing to insurgents in Iraq. But the newly appointed top U.S. military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, says the issue should be dealt with through diplomatic channels.
"There is a significant amount of activity right now to try to influence them diplomatically," he said. "I'm not one to take options off the table, and wouldn't do that. However, I really do consider that military option one of the last resort."
U.S. officials are working to get more international help for Afghanistan to respond to the Iranian and Taliban activity. Secretary Gates noted that he will attend a NATO defense ministers' meeting next week, at which he said the top priority will be to get Afghanistan all the help that has been promised, particularly more trainers for its army.
Minister Wardak says it makes sense for the western countries to provide more training and equipment for the Afghan army to speed the day when Afghanistan can take primary responsibility for its own defense.
Pentagon
18 October 2007
Afghanistan's defense minister says his government is gathering evidence on the source of sophisticated weapons found in the hands of Taliban fighters. But unlike the top American commander in Afghanistan, the minister is not ready to say the material comes from Iran. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates ® greets his Afghan counterpart Abdul Rahim Wardak at the Pentagon, 18 Oct 2007 The Afghan Defense Minister, Abdul Rahim Wardak, says in a meeting with him about a month ago Iranian officials denied allegations they are sending high-powered explosives to insurgents in Afghanistan. But the minister says such material is making its way into Afghanistan, and the Afghan intelligence agency is seeking evidence about where it is coming from. "Some type of that armor-piercing IED [Improvised explosive device] and some other weapons are at the disposal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, so we are very carefully monitoring this development," he said.
Minister Wardak called it a "very significant development," but several times during a Pentagon news conference, he declined to accuse Iran of sending in the advanced explosives.
"There is no doubt that there is something coming from our western border," said Wardak. "There are weapons and maybe some financial support and others. But to be completely clear about it I think it will take a little bit of time to come up with the right conclusion."
Earlier Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he also believes Iran is helping the Taliban, although he did not say exactly how.
"I think the Taliban are getting support from Iran, both weapons and money," he said. "They are clearly getting support from elsewhere outside of Afghanistan."
But also on Thursday, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, U.S. General Dan McNeil, said a shipment of high-powered bomb material intercepted early last month did come from Iran. And the general said he can not imagine such a shipment could be made without "at least the knowledge of the Iranian military."
U.S. officials have made similar charges regarding sophisticated explosives flowing to insurgents in Iraq. But the newly appointed top U.S. military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, says the issue should be dealt with through diplomatic channels.
"There is a significant amount of activity right now to try to influence them diplomatically," he said. "I'm not one to take options off the table, and wouldn't do that. However, I really do consider that military option one of the last resort."
U.S. officials are working to get more international help for Afghanistan to respond to the Iranian and Taliban activity. Secretary Gates noted that he will attend a NATO defense ministers' meeting next week, at which he said the top priority will be to get Afghanistan all the help that has been promised, particularly more trainers for its army.
Minister Wardak says it makes sense for the western countries to provide more training and equipment for the Afghan army to speed the day when Afghanistan can take primary responsibility for its own defense.
Liberals Want Quick Vote on U.N. Treaty
By Cliff Kincaid | October 19, 2007 Please tell the committee members that they have an obligation to hold a hearing into Sam-Thambiah's explosive allegations and invite representatives of the ISA and the U.S. State Department to respond.
In new developments concerning the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had scheduled a quick vote on the pact for next Wednesday, October 24. But a member of the committee, Senator David Vitter, has reportedly requested―and received―a postponement of the vote. Vitter has been in the forefront of exposing the dangerous provisions of the measure.
October 24 just happens to be “United Nations Day,” which is probably why committee chairman and presidential candidate Senator Joseph Biden had scheduled a vote at this time. Biden, who once wrote an article titled, “How I Learned to Love the New World Order,” thinks his pro-U.N. credentials will help garner liberal votes in the Democratic primaries.
The announcement of the vote had been made on the website of the committee.
Vitter’s postponement is a temporary measure and it is not clear how quickly Biden could reschedule the vote.
Meanwhile, there is no indication at this point that the committee intends to hold a hearing to hear from a U.N. whistleblower, Nithi Sam-Thambiah, who is offering to provide the Senate with documentary evidence proving financial corruption in the treaty’s International Seabed Authority (ISA). The ISA stands to receive millions of dollars if the Senate ratifies the pact.
You can find the names of the members of the committee and links to their contact information here.
Please tell the committee members that they have an obligation to hold a hearing into Sam-Thambiah’s explosive allegations and invite representatives of the ISA and the U.S. State Department to respond. This is an urgent matter of ensuring government accountability in an area that will dramatically affect the national security and sovereignty of the United States.
Under the treaty, the ISA assumes jurisdiction over oil, gas, and mineral resources worth potentially billions of dollars. It also collects “fees” or global taxes from companies and countries wanting to harness those resources, providing the first independent source of revenue for the U.N. It is in the national interest of the United States to make sure, before ratification, that this entity is not involved in any corrupt practices. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not held any hearings into the operations of the ISA.
AIM stands ready to assist members of the committee with the appropriate contact information for Sam-Thambiah so that they can conduct a thorough interview and obtain the documentary evidence proving his case. He was in charge of administration and management of the entity and has memos and documents that he can provide.
You can find AIM’s special articles about this case here and here.
As AIM has reported, the major media favor this treaty and actually fund the pro-U.N. lobby group known as the United Nations Association. For example, the New York Times Company Foundation, TV personality Barbara Walters, Time Inc., Newsweek, Oprah Winfrey’s Oxygen Cable (just sold to NBC Universal), MTV Networks, and GE (owner of NBC News and MSNBC) are listed in annual reports of the U.N. Association as contributing to the group’s activities. But the major media will never reveal these facts to the American people because it would further damage whatever credibility they may have left in foreign affairs coverage.
AIM also led the way in reporting that the former head of the U.N. Correspondents Association was actually on the payroll of the U.N. and that a reporter for National Public Radio covering the U.N. had received thousands of dollars from the U.N. lobby.
It is time for the American people to register their views and opinions on this treaty. Time is running out.
Help us break through the media blackout and save our sovereignty.
By Cliff Kincaid | October 19, 2007 Please tell the committee members that they have an obligation to hold a hearing into Sam-Thambiah's explosive allegations and invite representatives of the ISA and the U.S. State Department to respond.
In new developments concerning the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had scheduled a quick vote on the pact for next Wednesday, October 24. But a member of the committee, Senator David Vitter, has reportedly requested―and received―a postponement of the vote. Vitter has been in the forefront of exposing the dangerous provisions of the measure. October 24 just happens to be “United Nations Day,” which is probably why committee chairman and presidential candidate Senator Joseph Biden had scheduled a vote at this time. Biden, who once wrote an article titled, “How I Learned to Love the New World Order,” thinks his pro-U.N. credentials will help garner liberal votes in the Democratic primaries.
The announcement of the vote had been made on the website of the committee.
Vitter’s postponement is a temporary measure and it is not clear how quickly Biden could reschedule the vote.
Meanwhile, there is no indication at this point that the committee intends to hold a hearing to hear from a U.N. whistleblower, Nithi Sam-Thambiah, who is offering to provide the Senate with documentary evidence proving financial corruption in the treaty’s International Seabed Authority (ISA). The ISA stands to receive millions of dollars if the Senate ratifies the pact.
You can find the names of the members of the committee and links to their contact information here.
Please tell the committee members that they have an obligation to hold a hearing into Sam-Thambiah’s explosive allegations and invite representatives of the ISA and the U.S. State Department to respond. This is an urgent matter of ensuring government accountability in an area that will dramatically affect the national security and sovereignty of the United States.
Under the treaty, the ISA assumes jurisdiction over oil, gas, and mineral resources worth potentially billions of dollars. It also collects “fees” or global taxes from companies and countries wanting to harness those resources, providing the first independent source of revenue for the U.N. It is in the national interest of the United States to make sure, before ratification, that this entity is not involved in any corrupt practices. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not held any hearings into the operations of the ISA.
AIM stands ready to assist members of the committee with the appropriate contact information for Sam-Thambiah so that they can conduct a thorough interview and obtain the documentary evidence proving his case. He was in charge of administration and management of the entity and has memos and documents that he can provide.
You can find AIM’s special articles about this case here and here.
As AIM has reported, the major media favor this treaty and actually fund the pro-U.N. lobby group known as the United Nations Association. For example, the New York Times Company Foundation, TV personality Barbara Walters, Time Inc., Newsweek, Oprah Winfrey’s Oxygen Cable (just sold to NBC Universal), MTV Networks, and GE (owner of NBC News and MSNBC) are listed in annual reports of the U.N. Association as contributing to the group’s activities. But the major media will never reveal these facts to the American people because it would further damage whatever credibility they may have left in foreign affairs coverage.
AIM also led the way in reporting that the former head of the U.N. Correspondents Association was actually on the payroll of the U.N. and that a reporter for National Public Radio covering the U.N. had received thousands of dollars from the U.N. lobby.
It is time for the American people to register their views and opinions on this treaty. Time is running out.
Help us break through the media blackout and save our sovereignty.
Is it Time for Democrats to Start Panicking?
Terence Samuel
October 19, 2007 | web only
Unless they can re-establish some of their 2006 momentum, Democrats may find themselves going into to the next election tagged as the party that couldn't stop Bush when given a chance, or as the party that did not try hard enough.
Terence Samuel
October 19, 2007 | web only
Unless they can re-establish some of their 2006 momentum, Democrats may find themselves going into to the next election tagged as the party that couldn't stop Bush when given a chance, or as the party that did not try hard enough.
The Years of Magical Thinking
Madeleine Elfenbein
October 19, 2007 | web only
In her latest book, Susan Faludi plumbs the depths of the national psyche for reasons why our response to 9-11 was so disastrous -- and so bizarrely familiar.
Madeleine Elfenbein
October 19, 2007 | web only
In her latest book, Susan Faludi plumbs the depths of the national psyche for reasons why our response to 9-11 was so disastrous -- and so bizarrely familiar.
www.newworldrisingmovie.com
1 hr 22 min 45 sec - Oct 18, 2007
www.newworldrisingmovie.com
9-11 NEW WORLD RISING(FINAL DIRECTOR'S CUT)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=20...16411&hl=en
1 hr 22 min 45 sec - Oct 18, 2007
www.newworldrisingmovie.com
9-11 NEW WORLD RISING(FINAL DIRECTOR'S CUT)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=20...16411&hl=en
IEDs Seen As Rising Threat in The U.S.
As Preparedness Is Criticized, Bush Works on a Plan
By Spencer S. Hsu and Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 20, 2007; A01
The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI agree that the homemade explosive devices that have wreaked havoc in Iraq pose a rising threat to the United States. But lawmakers and first responders say the Bush administration has been slow to devise a strategy for countering the weapons and has not provided adequate money and training for a concerted national effort.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who told the Senate last month that such bombs are terrorists' "weapon of choice," said yesterday at a local meeting that President Bush will soon issue a blueprint for countering the threat of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Chertoff's department said in a draft report on IEDs earlier this year that national efforts "lack strategic guidance, are sometimes insufficiently coordinated . . . and lack essential resources."
Among the shortcomings identified in the report: Explosives-sniffing dogs are trained differently by various federal agencies, making collaboration between squads "difficult if not impossible." Federal agencies maintain separate databases on bomb incidents. Separately, bomb squad commanders have complained of inadequate training for responding to truck bombs.
Local officials say preparedness efforts around the country remain a patchwork. For instance, the Los Angeles Police Department's bomb squad, which responds to about 1,000 calls a year, has 28 full-time explosives technicians and is about to move into a new, $8 million downtown headquarters. The squad has an explosives library, a research facility for testing and access to an explosives range for training.
In contrast, the D.C. police bomb squad's 10 technicians handle about 700 calls a year, but they are housed in portable trailers and must also perform crime patrols. Among the six U.S. metropolitan regions considered top terrorist targets, only the Washington area has not earned the top rating of the DHS three-level scoring system for bomb squads. Regional officials recently decided to spend $7 million in federal grants to buy equipment to lift that rating.
Experts and officials have struggled in reaching a consensus that the government should invest more in efforts to detect and disrupt bomb plots in advance, and not just pay for equipment and training that could keep specific devices from exploding in metropolitan regions or reaching other targets.
Senior Democratic senators have criticized the administration for not completing its national strategy. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella said of the forthcoming strategy, "It's late and we wish we were two months earlier, but the bottom line is we have submitted . . . a product [to the White House] that we're very proud of."
Although the document has been under preparation since February, Chertoff said, "we haven't waited for the paperwork . . . because my concern, frankly, is not words; it's deeds and actions." He said his department has provided $1.7 billion in grants related to the IED threat, trained workers at 16 ports and deployed thousands of new explosives detectors at airports, and plans to increase the screening of small boats and private aircraft that might carry bombers or bombs.
While roadside bombs and armor-piercing charges have become the signature weapons of the Iraqi insurgency, U.S. officials define the domestic IED threat across a wide spectrum, including a block of TNT with a remote-controlled detonator; a fertilizer bomb delivered by a car, truck or plane; and a suicide runner carrying a peroxide-based explosive. At the extreme, an IED can be enhanced into a "dirty bomb," rigged to scatter radioactive material.
"Terrorists' use of IEDs cannot be extrapolated into anything other than a major threat to this country," Supervisory Special Agent Barbara Martinez, a senior official at the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group, said yesterday at a discussion organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"National coordination of IED prevention efforts is absolutely crucial," said Lt. Shawn E. Stallworth, a Michigan State Police detective and member of the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board. The group this year called for "urgent action" to increase training in handling the threat posed by large-vehicle bombs.
Congress last fall called for DHS to produce a national strategy, but the department never released it. Instead, the White House stepped in on Feb. 12, issuing a presidential directive reassigning the lead role for the project to the Justice Department and setting a new, July deadline. That date passed, too, a casualty of fierce disputes among the FBI, the DHS Office for Bombing Protection and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives over the role that the ATF should continue to play in training, the collection of statistics and technical analysis.
"U.S. leaders have been concerned about IEDs for a number of years, but despite the known threat and fear of IEDs reaching America, the government has fallen way behind," said David Heyman, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' homeland security program. "If terrorists initiated an IED campaign in America today, it could paralyze us."
Addressing Heyman's group, Chertoff said the lesson from Iraq is to gather intelligence to disrupt the long chain of events needed to deliver a bomb -- from recruiting terrorists to infiltrating them into the country, gathering bomb materials, and selecting targets and tactics. "The better we hone our intelligence, the better we are in having a focused, less disruptive and less costly intervention to prevent an IED from detonating," he said.
Chertoff cited the example of Raed al-Banna, 32, a Jordanian identified through his fingerprints as the perpetrator of a February 2005 suicide car-bombing in Iraq. In 2003, he was flagged as a potential terrorist by customs inspectors at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago and ordered to leave the country.
U.S. authorities have long tracked the IED threat, since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. But officials worry that Iraq -- where the explosives have killed or wounded more than 21,200 Americans -- has become a laboratory for bomb design, technologies and tactics that can be spread over the Internet.
From the transit system bombings in Madrid and London in 2004 and 2005, to a disrupted Britain-based plot to smuggle liquid explosives onto transatlantic airliners in 2006, al-Qaeda-inspired cells may be importing that group's signature tactic of coordinated and spectacular attacks but using quickly assembled conventional weapons against softer targets, analysts said.
"As we saw in London and Glasgow, Scotland, in June, this trend has already begun," FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said in August, citing the failed car-bomb attacks against a nightclub and an airport.
Critics have noted that although the Pentagon's main IED-fighting agency is spending $15 billion over five years to defeat the threat in Iraq, the DHS Office for Bombing Prevention is to receive less than $50 million over the same period.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has proposed adding $25 million per year to its budget, said the office currently cannot afford to finish comparing the capabilities of all local and state bomb squads, or to connect enough first responders to an online network called Tripwire that contains information on terrorist IEDs.
In a recent letter to Chertoff, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) criticized the administration for its slow pace and for threatening to veto IED-related funding in a pending budget bill. Byrd told Chertoff in another letter this week: "Having a Strategy is not worth the paper it is printed on unless it is backed up with resources and a commitment to working at all levels of government to address the threat."
As Preparedness Is Criticized, Bush Works on a Plan
By Spencer S. Hsu and Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 20, 2007; A01
The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI agree that the homemade explosive devices that have wreaked havoc in Iraq pose a rising threat to the United States. But lawmakers and first responders say the Bush administration has been slow to devise a strategy for countering the weapons and has not provided adequate money and training for a concerted national effort.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who told the Senate last month that such bombs are terrorists' "weapon of choice," said yesterday at a local meeting that President Bush will soon issue a blueprint for countering the threat of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Chertoff's department said in a draft report on IEDs earlier this year that national efforts "lack strategic guidance, are sometimes insufficiently coordinated . . . and lack essential resources."
Among the shortcomings identified in the report: Explosives-sniffing dogs are trained differently by various federal agencies, making collaboration between squads "difficult if not impossible." Federal agencies maintain separate databases on bomb incidents. Separately, bomb squad commanders have complained of inadequate training for responding to truck bombs.
Local officials say preparedness efforts around the country remain a patchwork. For instance, the Los Angeles Police Department's bomb squad, which responds to about 1,000 calls a year, has 28 full-time explosives technicians and is about to move into a new, $8 million downtown headquarters. The squad has an explosives library, a research facility for testing and access to an explosives range for training.
In contrast, the D.C. police bomb squad's 10 technicians handle about 700 calls a year, but they are housed in portable trailers and must also perform crime patrols. Among the six U.S. metropolitan regions considered top terrorist targets, only the Washington area has not earned the top rating of the DHS three-level scoring system for bomb squads. Regional officials recently decided to spend $7 million in federal grants to buy equipment to lift that rating.
Experts and officials have struggled in reaching a consensus that the government should invest more in efforts to detect and disrupt bomb plots in advance, and not just pay for equipment and training that could keep specific devices from exploding in metropolitan regions or reaching other targets.
Senior Democratic senators have criticized the administration for not completing its national strategy. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella said of the forthcoming strategy, "It's late and we wish we were two months earlier, but the bottom line is we have submitted . . . a product [to the White House] that we're very proud of."
Although the document has been under preparation since February, Chertoff said, "we haven't waited for the paperwork . . . because my concern, frankly, is not words; it's deeds and actions." He said his department has provided $1.7 billion in grants related to the IED threat, trained workers at 16 ports and deployed thousands of new explosives detectors at airports, and plans to increase the screening of small boats and private aircraft that might carry bombers or bombs.
While roadside bombs and armor-piercing charges have become the signature weapons of the Iraqi insurgency, U.S. officials define the domestic IED threat across a wide spectrum, including a block of TNT with a remote-controlled detonator; a fertilizer bomb delivered by a car, truck or plane; and a suicide runner carrying a peroxide-based explosive. At the extreme, an IED can be enhanced into a "dirty bomb," rigged to scatter radioactive material.
"Terrorists' use of IEDs cannot be extrapolated into anything other than a major threat to this country," Supervisory Special Agent Barbara Martinez, a senior official at the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group, said yesterday at a discussion organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"National coordination of IED prevention efforts is absolutely crucial," said Lt. Shawn E. Stallworth, a Michigan State Police detective and member of the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board. The group this year called for "urgent action" to increase training in handling the threat posed by large-vehicle bombs.
Congress last fall called for DHS to produce a national strategy, but the department never released it. Instead, the White House stepped in on Feb. 12, issuing a presidential directive reassigning the lead role for the project to the Justice Department and setting a new, July deadline. That date passed, too, a casualty of fierce disputes among the FBI, the DHS Office for Bombing Protection and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives over the role that the ATF should continue to play in training, the collection of statistics and technical analysis.
"U.S. leaders have been concerned about IEDs for a number of years, but despite the known threat and fear of IEDs reaching America, the government has fallen way behind," said David Heyman, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' homeland security program. "If terrorists initiated an IED campaign in America today, it could paralyze us."
Addressing Heyman's group, Chertoff said the lesson from Iraq is to gather intelligence to disrupt the long chain of events needed to deliver a bomb -- from recruiting terrorists to infiltrating them into the country, gathering bomb materials, and selecting targets and tactics. "The better we hone our intelligence, the better we are in having a focused, less disruptive and less costly intervention to prevent an IED from detonating," he said.
Chertoff cited the example of Raed al-Banna, 32, a Jordanian identified through his fingerprints as the perpetrator of a February 2005 suicide car-bombing in Iraq. In 2003, he was flagged as a potential terrorist by customs inspectors at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago and ordered to leave the country.
U.S. authorities have long tracked the IED threat, since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. But officials worry that Iraq -- where the explosives have killed or wounded more than 21,200 Americans -- has become a laboratory for bomb design, technologies and tactics that can be spread over the Internet.
From the transit system bombings in Madrid and London in 2004 and 2005, to a disrupted Britain-based plot to smuggle liquid explosives onto transatlantic airliners in 2006, al-Qaeda-inspired cells may be importing that group's signature tactic of coordinated and spectacular attacks but using quickly assembled conventional weapons against softer targets, analysts said.
"As we saw in London and Glasgow, Scotland, in June, this trend has already begun," FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said in August, citing the failed car-bomb attacks against a nightclub and an airport.
Critics have noted that although the Pentagon's main IED-fighting agency is spending $15 billion over five years to defeat the threat in Iraq, the DHS Office for Bombing Prevention is to receive less than $50 million over the same period.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has proposed adding $25 million per year to its budget, said the office currently cannot afford to finish comparing the capabilities of all local and state bomb squads, or to connect enough first responders to an online network called Tripwire that contains information on terrorist IEDs.
In a recent letter to Chertoff, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) criticized the administration for its slow pace and for threatening to veto IED-related funding in a pending budget bill. Byrd told Chertoff in another letter this week: "Having a Strategy is not worth the paper it is printed on unless it is backed up with resources and a commitment to working at all levels of government to address the threat."
U.N. Eyes Pics Of Possible Syria Nuke Site
Analyzing Satellite Images Of Facility Struck Last Month By Israeli Warplanes
VIENNA, Austria, Oct. 19, 2007
(AP / CBS)
InteractiveNuclear Armed World
The world's nuclear weapons powers, missile defense and a history of the nuclear weapons age.
(AP) U.N. experts have begun analyzing satellite imagery of the Syrian site struck last month by Israeli warplanes, diplomats said Friday, disclosing what amounts to the first independent look at reports that Damascus was hiding a nuclear facility.
It was unclear where the material was obtained or what exactly it showed. One of the diplomats who is linked to the International Atomic Energy Agency - the U.N. nuclear watchdog examining the photos - said IAEA experts were looking at commercial images, discounting suggestions from other quarters that they had come from U.S. intelligence.
Separately, a senior diplomat familiar with the issue indicated that agency experts were looking at several possible locations for the Israeli strike. Two other diplomats said initial perusal of the material had found no evidence that the target hit Sept. 6 was a nuclear installation. They emphasized, however, that it was too early to draw definite conclusions.
All of those speaking to The Associated Press were briefed on the agency's receipt of the images but demanded anonymity because their information was confidential.
Since the bombing, news media have quoted unidentified U.S. officials as saying that the airstrike hit some sort of nuclear facility linked to North Korea, which is now in the process of dismantling its nuclear weapons program. On Friday, The Washington Post cited American officials as saying the site in Syria's eastern desert near the Euphrates River had characteristics of a small but substantial nuclear reactor similar to North Korea's facility.
<h5 class="head_black fastFactHead">Fast Fact</h5>Two diplomats said initial perusal of the material had found no evidence that the target hit Sept. 6 was a nuclear installation. They emphasized, however, that it was too early to draw definite conclusions.
Officials of the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog and the U.S. diplomatic mission to the IAEA had no comment Friday. But IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming indirectly rebuked Washington earlier this week, saying the agency "expects any country having information about nuclear-related activities in another country to provide that information to the IAEA."
The investigation by the IAEA is important because it is the first instance of an independent and respected organization looking at the evidence and trying to reach a conclusion as to what was hit.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, cautioned that - without full U.S. cooperation - the IAEA's probe might be hampered because commercial satellite imagery "may not be of sufficient quality to figure out difficult questions." Still, he welcomed IAEA involvement, saying it gave the chance for a neutral organization to "provide an assessment and give the international community some guidance about what has or has not happened."
Syria denies that it has an undeclared nuclear program and North Korea has said it was not involved in any nuclear program in the Mideast nation. Damascus has said the Israelis targeted an empty building, and the agency has said it has no evidence to the contrary.
The diplomats said that Vienna-based Syrian diplomats have met with senior IAEA representatives since the bombing, but have provided no substantive information that would indicate their country had nuclear secrets.
Syria has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has allowed agency experts to inspect its only known nuclear facility - a small, 27-kilowatt reactor, according to diplomats linked to the IAEA.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Analyzing Satellite Images Of Facility Struck Last Month By Israeli Warplanes
VIENNA, Austria, Oct. 19, 2007
InteractiveNuclear Armed WorldThe world's nuclear weapons powers, missile defense and a history of the nuclear weapons age.
(AP) U.N. experts have begun analyzing satellite imagery of the Syrian site struck last month by Israeli warplanes, diplomats said Friday, disclosing what amounts to the first independent look at reports that Damascus was hiding a nuclear facility.
It was unclear where the material was obtained or what exactly it showed. One of the diplomats who is linked to the International Atomic Energy Agency - the U.N. nuclear watchdog examining the photos - said IAEA experts were looking at commercial images, discounting suggestions from other quarters that they had come from U.S. intelligence.
Separately, a senior diplomat familiar with the issue indicated that agency experts were looking at several possible locations for the Israeli strike. Two other diplomats said initial perusal of the material had found no evidence that the target hit Sept. 6 was a nuclear installation. They emphasized, however, that it was too early to draw definite conclusions.
All of those speaking to The Associated Press were briefed on the agency's receipt of the images but demanded anonymity because their information was confidential.
Since the bombing, news media have quoted unidentified U.S. officials as saying that the airstrike hit some sort of nuclear facility linked to North Korea, which is now in the process of dismantling its nuclear weapons program. On Friday, The Washington Post cited American officials as saying the site in Syria's eastern desert near the Euphrates River had characteristics of a small but substantial nuclear reactor similar to North Korea's facility.
<h5 class="head_black fastFactHead">Fast Fact</h5>Two diplomats said initial perusal of the material had found no evidence that the target hit Sept. 6 was a nuclear installation. They emphasized, however, that it was too early to draw definite conclusions.
Officials of the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog and the U.S. diplomatic mission to the IAEA had no comment Friday. But IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming indirectly rebuked Washington earlier this week, saying the agency "expects any country having information about nuclear-related activities in another country to provide that information to the IAEA."
The investigation by the IAEA is important because it is the first instance of an independent and respected organization looking at the evidence and trying to reach a conclusion as to what was hit.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, cautioned that - without full U.S. cooperation - the IAEA's probe might be hampered because commercial satellite imagery "may not be of sufficient quality to figure out difficult questions." Still, he welcomed IAEA involvement, saying it gave the chance for a neutral organization to "provide an assessment and give the international community some guidance about what has or has not happened."
Syria denies that it has an undeclared nuclear program and North Korea has said it was not involved in any nuclear program in the Mideast nation. Damascus has said the Israelis targeted an empty building, and the agency has said it has no evidence to the contrary.
The diplomats said that Vienna-based Syrian diplomats have met with senior IAEA representatives since the bombing, but have provided no substantive information that would indicate their country had nuclear secrets.
Syria has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has allowed agency experts to inspect its only known nuclear facility - a small, 27-kilowatt reactor, according to diplomats linked to the IAEA.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
October 20, 2007 Assassination of Sheikh Shakes US Claims
by Ali al-Fadhily BAGHDAD - Resistance to occupation seems to have risen after the assassination last month of Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, head of the al-Bu Risha tribe. Abu Risha had begun to cooperate actively with US forces.
Abu Risha was killed Sep. 13 when a bomb exploded outside his house in the restive al-Anbar province to the west of Baghdad. His tribe is a branch of the powerful al-Dulaim tribe in al-Anbar.
The Bush administration used Abu Risha to send messages to many parties and groups in Iraq. The week before Abu Risha was killed, US President George W. Bush met with him in Iraq, and claimed that al-Anbar province now suggested "what the future of Iraq can look like."
"Bush kept his mouth shut when his little collaborator was killed despite all the protection he had," a young man from Ramadi, capital of al-Anbar province, told IPS. "This was and will be the end of all those who take the path of collaborating with the occupation."
Abu Risha, who had been arrested by Saddam Hussein, became the centerpiece of Bush administration efforts to show that its troops surge in Iraq had been a success.
Many Iraqis, even one of Abu Risha's distant cousins, think differently.
"Sattar was a common thief, and we all knew him to be chief of a highway robbers gang," Salim Abu Risha told IPS in Baghdad. "He and his gang brought shame to our tribe and the whole province, but the Americans tried to make a hero of him."
It is no secret in Anbar province that Abu Risha's activities were not legal either before or after the US-led invasion of Iraq. When the US government began to support the "Awakening of Anbar" led by Sattar Abu Risha, which operated under the flag of fighting al-Qaeda, some people did begin to think differently.
"Americans always choose the worst of their collaborators to be leaders of their campaigns," Sheikh Ahmed Ali of the Muslim Scholars Association told IPS in Baghdad. "Look at the governments and councils they chose to lead Iraq. This Sattar Abu Risha only provoked a division among the people of Anbar, and that was exactly what the Americans wanted."
But many saw in Abu Risha an answer to their endless suffering. "We know what Sattar was, but what could we do but support him," Ali Farhan, who worked as a captain in Abu Risha's US-backed militia told IPS.
"Those sectarian officials in Baghdad have destroyed our cities and deprived us of life for over four years, and someone had to do something about it," said Farhan, who operated in an Iraqi police uniform. "It is only cooperation with Americans that could solve the problem."
Other Iraqis say the US strategy of arming and backing certain Sunni militias has been a huge mistake.
"Americans applied a strategy that has affected some weak brains and hearts," former Iraqi Army colonel Jabbar Saed from Fallujah told IPS. "They starved people, arrested those who opposed their occupation, killed a million Iraqis, supported sectarian militias and death squads, destroyed infrastructure to increase the rate of unemployment, and divided Iraqis into sects and now into tribes, just to make us feel that life would not be possible unless we work for them."
Just Foreign Policy, a US-based independent group, says more than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the US-led invasion and occupation. The group is "dedicated to reforming US foreign policy to serve the interests and reflect the values of the broad majority of Americans, rather than those of special interests both inside and outside of government."
An Iraqi policeman who referred to himself as Colonel Saed spoke with IPS about US policy in the siege of Fallujah during 2004 which left thousands dead, and destroyed much of the city. The crimes committed were not mistakes as US officials claim, but a well organized and conducted strategy, he said.
"The only factor they did not calculate well was that Iraqis prefer starving to death to living under the dirty flag of occupiers," Saed said.
(Inter Press Service)
by Ali al-Fadhily BAGHDAD - Resistance to occupation seems to have risen after the assassination last month of Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, head of the al-Bu Risha tribe. Abu Risha had begun to cooperate actively with US forces.
Abu Risha was killed Sep. 13 when a bomb exploded outside his house in the restive al-Anbar province to the west of Baghdad. His tribe is a branch of the powerful al-Dulaim tribe in al-Anbar.
The Bush administration used Abu Risha to send messages to many parties and groups in Iraq. The week before Abu Risha was killed, US President George W. Bush met with him in Iraq, and claimed that al-Anbar province now suggested "what the future of Iraq can look like."
"Bush kept his mouth shut when his little collaborator was killed despite all the protection he had," a young man from Ramadi, capital of al-Anbar province, told IPS. "This was and will be the end of all those who take the path of collaborating with the occupation."
Abu Risha, who had been arrested by Saddam Hussein, became the centerpiece of Bush administration efforts to show that its troops surge in Iraq had been a success.
Many Iraqis, even one of Abu Risha's distant cousins, think differently.
"Sattar was a common thief, and we all knew him to be chief of a highway robbers gang," Salim Abu Risha told IPS in Baghdad. "He and his gang brought shame to our tribe and the whole province, but the Americans tried to make a hero of him."
It is no secret in Anbar province that Abu Risha's activities were not legal either before or after the US-led invasion of Iraq. When the US government began to support the "Awakening of Anbar" led by Sattar Abu Risha, which operated under the flag of fighting al-Qaeda, some people did begin to think differently.
"Americans always choose the worst of their collaborators to be leaders of their campaigns," Sheikh Ahmed Ali of the Muslim Scholars Association told IPS in Baghdad. "Look at the governments and councils they chose to lead Iraq. This Sattar Abu Risha only provoked a division among the people of Anbar, and that was exactly what the Americans wanted."
But many saw in Abu Risha an answer to their endless suffering. "We know what Sattar was, but what could we do but support him," Ali Farhan, who worked as a captain in Abu Risha's US-backed militia told IPS.
"Those sectarian officials in Baghdad have destroyed our cities and deprived us of life for over four years, and someone had to do something about it," said Farhan, who operated in an Iraqi police uniform. "It is only cooperation with Americans that could solve the problem."
Other Iraqis say the US strategy of arming and backing certain Sunni militias has been a huge mistake.
"Americans applied a strategy that has affected some weak brains and hearts," former Iraqi Army colonel Jabbar Saed from Fallujah told IPS. "They starved people, arrested those who opposed their occupation, killed a million Iraqis, supported sectarian militias and death squads, destroyed infrastructure to increase the rate of unemployment, and divided Iraqis into sects and now into tribes, just to make us feel that life would not be possible unless we work for them."
Just Foreign Policy, a US-based independent group, says more than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the US-led invasion and occupation. The group is "dedicated to reforming US foreign policy to serve the interests and reflect the values of the broad majority of Americans, rather than those of special interests both inside and outside of government."
An Iraqi policeman who referred to himself as Colonel Saed spoke with IPS about US policy in the siege of Fallujah during 2004 which left thousands dead, and destroyed much of the city. The crimes committed were not mistakes as US officials claim, but a well organized and conducted strategy, he said.
"The only factor they did not calculate well was that Iraqis prefer starving to death to living under the dirty flag of occupiers," Saed said.
(Inter Press Service)
Secrecy and the War Without End
by Alan Bock I am at a conference on war, liberty and the free press sponsored by the Liberty Fund, and there are some discussions we have held that I believe are worth passing on.
One of the most significant aspects of the relationship between the press and the military in time of war is secrecy. Almost everybody, including the most liberal advocates of a free press, seems to agree, for example, that news of plans for future troop movements or actions, at least during actual combat, should not be published lest they give the enemy information that could be valuable to defeating an attack or planning an ambush.
In practice this is hardly ever an issue; most American reporters are pretty scrupulous about such matters. The only instance of which I’m aware that something similar happened in Iraq was when Geraldo Rivera (not quite my idea of a real journalist) drew some possible plans with a stick in the sand on camera, but it also seems to be the case that he had been given a phony briefing so he wasn’t really revealing anything genuinely useful to an enemy. Still, it could have been a sticky situation, especially given the instantaneous nature of transmission of news reports today, compared with the old, old days when a story might not get into newspapers back home for three days or more.
Given that criterion, what about this story in Thursday’s USA Today? It noted that airport screeners at LAX missed 75 percent of the fake explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid in carry-on bags or under clothes, while screeners at O’Hare missed 60 percent of them. Could such a story alert potential terrorists of a vulnerability to a possible suicide bomb mission? If so, is it the kind of story that should not be published? Most of us agreed that it was better to print the story to create an incentive to correct the problem (assuming the airport screening does much good at all, which isn’t necessarily obvious). But a case could be made for suppressing it.
This leads to the larger issue of government secrecy. When I was in high school, my father, a chemist who worked for a defense contractor, got me summer jobs in the receiving department. So there I was, a punk kid who had not been scrupulously screened, routinely handling paperwork and parts ominously stamped “Confidential” or “Secret.” Some of the stuff I simply didn’t understand, but it soon became reasonably obvious to me that while they were intended for use in missiles, many of the parts were simply standard industrial items and the justification for classifying them was weak at best.
Later, when I spent time in Babylon-on-the-Potomac, it became even more obvious to me that many items are classified without any justification remotely connected to genuine national security. Some were classified to cover up embarrassments or mistakes. Others were classified simply out of inertia.
There was consensus in our group that a large portion of the stuff that is classified – perhaps as much as 95 percent? – is done so without any genuine justification in national security.
I would argue for a more radical position: that the government takes money from us by force and uses it to develop information that it then hides from us, the people. There’s an argument that since it was developed with our money, that the information really belongs to us and shouldn’t be kept secret at all. Enemies or potential enemies can usually get the stuff anyway, so the only people from whom it is hidden are the people, who in theory are supposed to be the masters of the government, which is their servant.
I don’t know if I would defend all the implications of this argument to its logical end that nothing should be classified as secret, but it’s worth putting out there for discussion.
We discussed another issue that’s sadly relevant today. Most wars of modern times have a beginning and a foreseeable end. The assumption is that once victory is won, the liberties that have been taken away for the duration, or the restrictions placed on the people, will be restored or lifted, and life will return to normal, with the presumption of liberty reigning.
The great Global War on Terror, however, is a war without a foreseeable end. What president, Democrat or Republican, would declare the war won, knowing that the next day, or the next week, or the next month, a terrorist attack could occur, making him or her look like an idiot? So we have plunged into a “war” without a foreseeable end.
This means that it is very possible that the freedoms we are losing during the current conflict – to fly without hassles, to be free from electronic surveillance, to be free from cameras stationed all over major cities, and on and on – may never be restored. The nature of the GWOT is that it has no foreseeable end. So the losses of freedom we are suffering may not only serve as a precedent for further reductions in freedom, they could be permanent features of the American landscape.
The war on Iraq was a huge mistake, but at some point it will be resolved, even if it involves relatively permanent military bases in Iraq. But will there ever be an end to the Global War on Terror? That could have much more deleterious implications for the preservation of American liberties than the Iraq http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=11787war.
by Alan Bock I am at a conference on war, liberty and the free press sponsored by the Liberty Fund, and there are some discussions we have held that I believe are worth passing on.
One of the most significant aspects of the relationship between the press and the military in time of war is secrecy. Almost everybody, including the most liberal advocates of a free press, seems to agree, for example, that news of plans for future troop movements or actions, at least during actual combat, should not be published lest they give the enemy information that could be valuable to defeating an attack or planning an ambush.
In practice this is hardly ever an issue; most American reporters are pretty scrupulous about such matters. The only instance of which I’m aware that something similar happened in Iraq was when Geraldo Rivera (not quite my idea of a real journalist) drew some possible plans with a stick in the sand on camera, but it also seems to be the case that he had been given a phony briefing so he wasn’t really revealing anything genuinely useful to an enemy. Still, it could have been a sticky situation, especially given the instantaneous nature of transmission of news reports today, compared with the old, old days when a story might not get into newspapers back home for three days or more.
Given that criterion, what about this story in Thursday’s USA Today? It noted that airport screeners at LAX missed 75 percent of the fake explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid in carry-on bags or under clothes, while screeners at O’Hare missed 60 percent of them. Could such a story alert potential terrorists of a vulnerability to a possible suicide bomb mission? If so, is it the kind of story that should not be published? Most of us agreed that it was better to print the story to create an incentive to correct the problem (assuming the airport screening does much good at all, which isn’t necessarily obvious). But a case could be made for suppressing it.
This leads to the larger issue of government secrecy. When I was in high school, my father, a chemist who worked for a defense contractor, got me summer jobs in the receiving department. So there I was, a punk kid who had not been scrupulously screened, routinely handling paperwork and parts ominously stamped “Confidential” or “Secret.” Some of the stuff I simply didn’t understand, but it soon became reasonably obvious to me that while they were intended for use in missiles, many of the parts were simply standard industrial items and the justification for classifying them was weak at best.
Later, when I spent time in Babylon-on-the-Potomac, it became even more obvious to me that many items are classified without any justification remotely connected to genuine national security. Some were classified to cover up embarrassments or mistakes. Others were classified simply out of inertia.
There was consensus in our group that a large portion of the stuff that is classified – perhaps as much as 95 percent? – is done so without any genuine justification in national security.
I would argue for a more radical position: that the government takes money from us by force and uses it to develop information that it then hides from us, the people. There’s an argument that since it was developed with our money, that the information really belongs to us and shouldn’t be kept secret at all. Enemies or potential enemies can usually get the stuff anyway, so the only people from whom it is hidden are the people, who in theory are supposed to be the masters of the government, which is their servant.
I don’t know if I would defend all the implications of this argument to its logical end that nothing should be classified as secret, but it’s worth putting out there for discussion.
We discussed another issue that’s sadly relevant today. Most wars of modern times have a beginning and a foreseeable end. The assumption is that once victory is won, the liberties that have been taken away for the duration, or the restrictions placed on the people, will be restored or lifted, and life will return to normal, with the presumption of liberty reigning.
The great Global War on Terror, however, is a war without a foreseeable end. What president, Democrat or Republican, would declare the war won, knowing that the next day, or the next week, or the next month, a terrorist attack could occur, making him or her look like an idiot? So we have plunged into a “war” without a foreseeable end.
This means that it is very possible that the freedoms we are losing during the current conflict – to fly without hassles, to be free from electronic surveillance, to be free from cameras stationed all over major cities, and on and on – may never be restored. The nature of the GWOT is that it has no foreseeable end. So the losses of freedom we are suffering may not only serve as a precedent for further reductions in freedom, they could be permanent features of the American landscape.
The war on Iraq was a huge mistake, but at some point it will be resolved, even if it involves relatively permanent military bases in Iraq. But will there ever be an end to the Global War on Terror? That could have much more deleterious implications for the preservation of American liberties than the Iraq http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=11787war.
WWIII – Bring It On
by Gordon Prather Five years ago, in a new National Security Statement, President Bush announced that;
"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security.
"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.
"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
On August 26, 2002, in a major address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vice-President Cheney developed the theme.
"On the nuclear question, many of you will recall that Saddam's nuclear ambitions suffered a severe setback in 1981 when the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor."
Nuclear ambitions? The Israelis launched a "pre-emptive" attack on a small French-built research reactor – safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency – because of their assessment of Saddam's "nuclear ambitions"?
The UN Security Council "strongly condemned" the Israeli attack as constituting a clear violation of the UN Charter, and "a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime, which is the foundation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Cheney continues;
"But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors -- including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction."
Cheney lied. Contrarily, Saddam's son-in-law had provided the CIA documentary evidence in 1995 that all of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" and their means of production had been destroyed, either in the Gulf War or on Saddam's orders in the immediate aftermath. And UN inspectors had since confirmed that Saddam had made no effort to reconstruct them.
Nevertheless, quoth Cheney,
"Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."
From the Tooth Fairy?
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors – confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."
How to thwart Saddam's alleged "aggressive regional ambitions"?
Well, how about launching a preventive attack, depriving him of ambitions – as well as "his oil wealth"?
Okay, but in the six months it took Bush to get the necessary invasion force amassed on Iraqi borders, those pesky UN inspectors had reentered Iraq and were reporting to the Security Council that Cheney was wrong – the Tooth Fairy had not supplied Saddam any nuclear weapons after all.
Bummer.
Worse still, China and Russia had made it clear to Bush that the UN Security Council Resolution [1441] they had allowed to pass did not authorize the use of force against Iraq. Furthermore, they would not allow any resolution to pass that did.
Nevertheless, Bush launched his war of aggression against Iraq, anyway.
Back in 2002, all the while he was preparing to invade and occupy Iraq, Bush insisted he wanted a "diplomatic" solution to the alleged Iraqi nuke threat.
And since 2003 Bush has been insisting that he wants a "diplomatic" solution to the alleged Iranian nuke threat.
The problem is that all Iranian nuclear programs were – and are – subject to IAEA Safeguards and Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei keeps reporting that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."
In late 2004, Iran voluntarily entered into negotiations with the British, French, and Germans [E3], who purported to be negotiating on behalf of the European Union. Iran voluntarily suspended for the duration of the negotiations all uranium-enrichment activities.
The negotiations were undertaken by the Iranians in the hope they could obtain "objective guarantees" that the EU would defy the United States, would re-establish normal diplomatic and trade relations, and would, inter alia, respect both Iran's "inalienable" rights and European obligations under the NPT.
Iranian officials made it clear (a) at the IAEA Board of Governors meetings in March and June, ( at the Seventh Review Conference of the Treaty in April, and © in their Note Verbale to the IAEA of August 1st, 2005, that any attempt by the EU/E3 to turn their voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment activities into a cessation or long term suspension would be "incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement and therefore unacceptable to Iran."
But that is exactly what Bush has been attempting to do – using the strong-arm tactics he terms "diplomacy" – ever since, denying Iran its "inalienable rights," corrupting, in the process, the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council, itself.
Up until now the Russians and the Chinese have limited themselves to making it clear that failure by the Iranians to fully comply with the resolutions of the IAEA Board or Security Council could not be used by Bush as a pretext to launch another war of aggression.
Then, last week, Iran hosted a "summit" of leaders of the Caspian Sea littoral states – Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iran.
Russian President Putin met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and afterwards declared that "Iran is an important regional and global power." Putin also said that he had seen no evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program and announced that Russia would go ahead and complete the Iranian nuclear power plant at Bushehr.
The summit, itself, resulted in a number of "milestone" agreements, including one prohibiting other countries – such as the United States – from using territory or facilities of one or more Caspian Sea littoral states for attacks on another "in any circumstances," and another "disallowing" the passage on the Caspian Sea of any ship not flying the national flag of a littoral state.
Bush's promptly convened an unusually lengthy press conference, in which to get off zingers like this one.
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel."
"So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
So, if Bush is to be believed, he's recently told Putin that he is willing to start World War III, not because Iran allegedly has nukes with which to allegedly attack Israel, or not because Iran has the capability of making the material to make nukes with which to allegedly attack Israel, or not even because Iran allegedly wants to make nukes with which to allegedly attack Israel. Now all it takes to start WWIII is some Iranians knowing how to make a nuke.
Well, since many Iranians have access to the internet, WWIII – bring it on!
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11786
by Gordon Prather Five years ago, in a new National Security Statement, President Bush announced that;
"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security.
"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.
"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
On August 26, 2002, in a major address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vice-President Cheney developed the theme.
"On the nuclear question, many of you will recall that Saddam's nuclear ambitions suffered a severe setback in 1981 when the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor."
Nuclear ambitions? The Israelis launched a "pre-emptive" attack on a small French-built research reactor – safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency – because of their assessment of Saddam's "nuclear ambitions"?
The UN Security Council "strongly condemned" the Israeli attack as constituting a clear violation of the UN Charter, and "a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime, which is the foundation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Cheney continues;
"But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors -- including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction."
Cheney lied. Contrarily, Saddam's son-in-law had provided the CIA documentary evidence in 1995 that all of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" and their means of production had been destroyed, either in the Gulf War or on Saddam's orders in the immediate aftermath. And UN inspectors had since confirmed that Saddam had made no effort to reconstruct them.
Nevertheless, quoth Cheney,
"Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."
From the Tooth Fairy?
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors – confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."
How to thwart Saddam's alleged "aggressive regional ambitions"?
Well, how about launching a preventive attack, depriving him of ambitions – as well as "his oil wealth"?
Okay, but in the six months it took Bush to get the necessary invasion force amassed on Iraqi borders, those pesky UN inspectors had reentered Iraq and were reporting to the Security Council that Cheney was wrong – the Tooth Fairy had not supplied Saddam any nuclear weapons after all.
Bummer.
Worse still, China and Russia had made it clear to Bush that the UN Security Council Resolution [1441] they had allowed to pass did not authorize the use of force against Iraq. Furthermore, they would not allow any resolution to pass that did.
Nevertheless, Bush launched his war of aggression against Iraq, anyway.
Back in 2002, all the while he was preparing to invade and occupy Iraq, Bush insisted he wanted a "diplomatic" solution to the alleged Iraqi nuke threat.
And since 2003 Bush has been insisting that he wants a "diplomatic" solution to the alleged Iranian nuke threat.
The problem is that all Iranian nuclear programs were – and are – subject to IAEA Safeguards and Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei keeps reporting that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."
In late 2004, Iran voluntarily entered into negotiations with the British, French, and Germans [E3], who purported to be negotiating on behalf of the European Union. Iran voluntarily suspended for the duration of the negotiations all uranium-enrichment activities.
The negotiations were undertaken by the Iranians in the hope they could obtain "objective guarantees" that the EU would defy the United States, would re-establish normal diplomatic and trade relations, and would, inter alia, respect both Iran's "inalienable" rights and European obligations under the NPT.
Iranian officials made it clear (a) at the IAEA Board of Governors meetings in March and June, (
at the Seventh Review Conference of the Treaty in April, and © in their Note Verbale to the IAEA of August 1st, 2005, that any attempt by the EU/E3 to turn their voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment activities into a cessation or long term suspension would be "incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement and therefore unacceptable to Iran."But that is exactly what Bush has been attempting to do – using the strong-arm tactics he terms "diplomacy" – ever since, denying Iran its "inalienable rights," corrupting, in the process, the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council, itself.
Up until now the Russians and the Chinese have limited themselves to making it clear that failure by the Iranians to fully comply with the resolutions of the IAEA Board or Security Council could not be used by Bush as a pretext to launch another war of aggression.
Then, last week, Iran hosted a "summit" of leaders of the Caspian Sea littoral states – Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iran.
Russian President Putin met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and afterwards declared that "Iran is an important regional and global power." Putin also said that he had seen no evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program and announced that Russia would go ahead and complete the Iranian nuclear power plant at Bushehr.
The summit, itself, resulted in a number of "milestone" agreements, including one prohibiting other countries – such as the United States – from using territory or facilities of one or more Caspian Sea littoral states for attacks on another "in any circumstances," and another "disallowing" the passage on the Caspian Sea of any ship not flying the national flag of a littoral state.
Bush's promptly convened an unusually lengthy press conference, in which to get off zingers like this one.
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel."
"So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
So, if Bush is to be believed, he's recently told Putin that he is willing to start World War III, not because Iran allegedly has nukes with which to allegedly attack Israel, or not because Iran has the capability of making the material to make nukes with which to allegedly attack Israel, or not even because Iran allegedly wants to make nukes with which to allegedly attack Israel. Now all it takes to start WWIII is some Iranians knowing how to make a nuke.
Well, since many Iranians have access to the internet, WWIII – bring it on!
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11786
From the Baltimore Sun
Report says buildup in Iraq gained little
U.S. military, civilian officials warn progress will require years of work normal;
By David Wood | Sun reporter
October 19, 2007
WASHINGTON - Despite hopes that the U.S. military "surge" in Iraq would encourage economic and political headway and sap the strength of the insurgency, very little lasting progress has been achieved, according to a new U.S. report.
The study, based on the assessments of dozens of U.S. military and civilian officials working at local levels across Iraq, runs counter to the optimistic forecasts by the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It said that with the exception of Anbar province, there has been "little progress" toward political reconciliation, a key U.S. goal in Iraq.
Withdrawal of U.S. troops would produce "open battlegrounds of ethnic cleansing" in some Baghdad neighborhoods and elsewhere in Iraq, the report said.
In high-profile congressional hearings last month, Petraeus and Crocker testified that the addition of 28,000 American troops in Iraq, ordered last winter by President Bush, was reducing violence and providing opportunity for economic projects, government reform and political reconciliation.
The troop "surge" is temporary, with the first of the reinforcement units scheduled to leave Iraq before Christmas.
But instead of charting progress, the new report, by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, warns that Iraq "will require years of steady engagement" before there is significant progress in providing Iraqis with power and clean water, jobs, health resources and government that works.
"Iraq's complex and overlapping sectarian, political, and ethnic conflicts, as well as the difficult security situation, continue to hinder progress in promoting economic development, rule of law, and political reconciliation," the report cautioned.
With a $44 billion investment by American taxpayers in rebuilding Iraq, there are some visible improvements, the report said. But it warned that local and provincial governments "have little ability to manage and maintain" new health clinics, water treatment plants, power-generating facilities and other projects.
One U.S. official in Iraq, quoted anonymously in the report, said he foresaw a "train wreck" ahead as costly U.S. projects in Iraq grind to a halt for lack of manpower or maintenance.
The report's grim conclusions parallel previous U.S. assessments, including a major national intelligence estimate in August that said there had been little economic improvement. That report forecast that sectarian violence would continue displacing Iraqis from their own neighborhoods and that Iraq's government would "become more precarious" over the next six to 12 months.
Nevertheless, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates dismissed the report's conclusion, which he said "doesn't square" with what he is hearing from senior U.S. military officers in Iraq.
The office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, created by Congress three years ago to probe U.S. spending in Iraq, is headed by Stuart W. Bowen, a lawyer who previously worked for then-Gov. Bush in Texas and served on Bush's White House staff in Washington.
His report, released yesterday, is based on assessments from 32 provincial reconstruction teams made up of U.S. military and civilian experts in local government.
Despite the arduous and often dangerous conditions these teams work under, they have achieved some "incremental" success, the report said. But it went on to document continuing problems that run deep and wide through Iraq.
The judicial system is not functioning because of police corruption and judges who are subject to intimidation by sectarian violence. To boost employment, U.S. military commanders are spending millions of dollars on short-term reconstruction projects that employ Iraqis, but these projects often are not coordinated with local governments and rarely provide long-term job opportunities, the report said.
The report documented "a growing public frustration" of Iraqis with their government. As a result, there has been "little progress" toward political reconciliation, which it said was being undermined by jockeying for power among rival Shiite groups and a "sense of alienation" on the part of the minority Sunnis.
Asked yesterday about the report, Gates said he had not read it and does not believe its assessment.
"The information that we're getting from the commanders and from the ambassador doesn't square with that," Gates said at a Pentagon news briefing. "Our sense is that, in fact, there is progress in these areas - more than we would have expected."
Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said the report's assessments differ from what he saw on a recent trip to Iraq.
As evidence of a growing economy, Mullen cited a butcher at a local market just outside Baghdad who until recently was selling a sheep every week. Now, the butcher is selling a sheep every day, Mullen said.
"I don't want to overly state it ... but it's starting to happen," he said.
david.wood@baltsun.com
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/mayfaire/baltsun01.htm
Report says buildup in Iraq gained little
U.S. military, civilian officials warn progress will require years of work normal;
By David Wood | Sun reporter
October 19, 2007
WASHINGTON - Despite hopes that the U.S. military "surge" in Iraq would encourage economic and political headway and sap the strength of the insurgency, very little lasting progress has been achieved, according to a new U.S. report.
The study, based on the assessments of dozens of U.S. military and civilian officials working at local levels across Iraq, runs counter to the optimistic forecasts by the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It said that with the exception of Anbar province, there has been "little progress" toward political reconciliation, a key U.S. goal in Iraq.
Withdrawal of U.S. troops would produce "open battlegrounds of ethnic cleansing" in some Baghdad neighborhoods and elsewhere in Iraq, the report said.
In high-profile congressional hearings last month, Petraeus and Crocker testified that the addition of 28,000 American troops in Iraq, ordered last winter by President Bush, was reducing violence and providing opportunity for economic projects, government reform and political reconciliation.
The troop "surge" is temporary, with the first of the reinforcement units scheduled to leave Iraq before Christmas.
But instead of charting progress, the new report, by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, warns that Iraq "will require years of steady engagement" before there is significant progress in providing Iraqis with power and clean water, jobs, health resources and government that works.
"Iraq's complex and overlapping sectarian, political, and ethnic conflicts, as well as the difficult security situation, continue to hinder progress in promoting economic development, rule of law, and political reconciliation," the report cautioned.
With a $44 billion investment by American taxpayers in rebuilding Iraq, there are some visible improvements, the report said. But it warned that local and provincial governments "have little ability to manage and maintain" new health clinics, water treatment plants, power-generating facilities and other projects.
One U.S. official in Iraq, quoted anonymously in the report, said he foresaw a "train wreck" ahead as costly U.S. projects in Iraq grind to a halt for lack of manpower or maintenance.
The report's grim conclusions parallel previous U.S. assessments, including a major national intelligence estimate in August that said there had been little economic improvement. That report forecast that sectarian violence would continue displacing Iraqis from their own neighborhoods and that Iraq's government would "become more precarious" over the next six to 12 months.
Nevertheless, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates dismissed the report's conclusion, which he said "doesn't square" with what he is hearing from senior U.S. military officers in Iraq.
The office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, created by Congress three years ago to probe U.S. spending in Iraq, is headed by Stuart W. Bowen, a lawyer who previously worked for then-Gov. Bush in Texas and served on Bush's White House staff in Washington.
His report, released yesterday, is based on assessments from 32 provincial reconstruction teams made up of U.S. military and civilian experts in local government.
Despite the arduous and often dangerous conditions these teams work under, they have achieved some "incremental" success, the report said. But it went on to document continuing problems that run deep and wide through Iraq.
The judicial system is not functioning because of police corruption and judges who are subject to intimidation by sectarian violence. To boost employment, U.S. military commanders are spending millions of dollars on short-term reconstruction projects that employ Iraqis, but these projects often are not coordinated with local governments and rarely provide long-term job opportunities, the report said.
The report documented "a growing public frustration" of Iraqis with their government. As a result, there has been "little progress" toward political reconciliation, which it said was being undermined by jockeying for power among rival Shiite groups and a "sense of alienation" on the part of the minority Sunnis.
Asked yesterday about the report, Gates said he had not read it and does not believe its assessment.
"The information that we're getting from the commanders and from the ambassador doesn't square with that," Gates said at a Pentagon news briefing. "Our sense is that, in fact, there is progress in these areas - more than we would have expected."
Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said the report's assessments differ from what he saw on a recent trip to Iraq.
As evidence of a growing economy, Mullen cited a butcher at a local market just outside Baghdad who until recently was selling a sheep every week. Now, the butcher is selling a sheep every day, Mullen said.
"I don't want to overly state it ... but it's starting to happen," he said.
david.wood@baltsun.com
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/mayfaire/baltsun01.htm
Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom:
The Case Against Expanding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Powers
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Oct. 19, 2007
"I've got nothing to hide, so electronic surveillance doesn't bother me. To the contrary, I'm delighted that the Bush Administration is monitoring calls and electronic traffic on a massive scale, because catching terrorists is far more important that worrying about the government's listening to my phone calls, or reading my emails." So the argument goes. It is a powerful one that has seduced too many people.
Millions of Americans buy this logic, and in accepting it, believe they are doing the right thing for themselves, their family, and their friends, neighbors, community and country. They are sadly wrong. If you accept this argument, you have been badly fooled.
Click here to find out more!
This contention is being bantered about once again, so there is no better time than the present to set thinking people straight. Bush and Cheney want to make permanent unchecked Executive powers to electronically eavesdrop on anyone whom any President feels to be of interest. In August, before the summer recess, Congress enacted the Protect America Act, which provided only temporary approval for the expanding Executive powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). These temporary powers expire in February 2008, so Congress is once again addressing the subject.
The FISA Amendments: The Administration Is Seeking Immunity for Miscreants
Because of the way electronic traffic is directed from foreign countries through the United States, the FISA Court had previously rejected requests to intercept certain foreign-person- to-foreign-person communications in the United States. It was a technical problem, arising from the fact that FISA was written before modern data routing had been designed, and FISA thus needed fixing. On this, everyone agreed.
However, when the Bush Administration asked for the necessary fix to FISA, it also requested much more, including immunity under the existing laws for all the telecommunications companies that have been assisting the government in its illegal warrantless surveillance. Significantly, this practice - justified by reference to the "war on terror" - apparently started well before 9/11 under the Bush Administration.
Ironically, in requesting this immunity, the Bush White House has refused to disclose exactly what type of activities Congress would be retroactively immunizing. Preliminary congressional inquiry has revealed that a massive amount of electronic surveillance of Americans has gone on under the Bush/Cheney Administration. For example, one of the telecom giants, Verizon, reported that between January 2005 and September 2007 they provided information on 94,000 occasions. These numbers suggest that Verizon was operating as merely another (and a secret) extension of the federal intelligence establishment.
Many of the companies appear to be violating a number of federal criminal statutes - such as 18 U.S.C. 2511, which requires a warrant for such surveillance and 18 U.S.C. 2702, which prohibits any "entity providing an electronic communication service to the public" from knowingly divulging "to any person or entity the contents of a communication" without a court order.
Currently, the telecoms are not likely to be particularly worried about being prosecuted by the very same government that instructed them to violate the law, and is leading the way in doing so itself.
But what about under the next Administration? The five-year statute of limitations will make them potentially criminally liable after Bush is gone - at least, unless the Bush Administration gains for them retroactive and future immunity. In a new Administration, the telecoms may be viewed not as cooperative patriots, but rather as criminal co-conspirators.
Civil Liability Appears To Be Driving the Immunity Request
Meanwhile, civil liability for these companies is also a realistic prospect. For example, in a San Francisco federal court, AT&T customers are seeking to protect their privacy with actions under laws like 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides a civil remedy and hefty damages -- ranging up to $10,000 per day per violation. Since it is possible that, over five-plus years, there have been tens upon tens of thousands of such violations, the, if liable telecoms could be looking at hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of damages.
The Bush Administration clearly wants to help its partners in crime; it also wants to avoid accountability for what it has done and is still doing. If the civil litigation proceeds - and one judge already ruled that the "state secrets" privilege does not prevent the plaintiffs from going forward - the Bush Administration faces the risk of a federal court's forcing it to disclose its unsavory surveillance activities.
Privacy advocates are horrified at the prospect of Congress's potentially protecting this activity through immunity legislation. Yet, in sharp contrast, most people could care less. Indeed few people seem to care about their loss of privacy, notwithstanding the fact that, like an invisible pollutant to our air or water, it is increasingly eroding our freedom. Unfortunately, it seems that the invasion of our privacy, like the destruction of our atmosphere, may be tolerated until it is too late to fix it.
One of the leading causes of both problems is ignorance. Privacy is a highly complex issue, so people easily accept the claims of those who assert that, if you are not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to be concerned about government surveillance, and if you are, you have no right to privacy to break the law.
Understanding the Misunderstanding about Privacy
For several years I have been reading the work of George Washington University Law School Professor Daniel J. Solove, who writes extensively about privacy in the context of contemporary digital technology. The current apathy about government surveillance brought to mind his essay "'I've Got Nothing To Hide' And Other Misunderstandings of Privacy."
Professor Solove's deconstruction of the "I've got nothing to hide" position, and related justifications for government surveillance, is the best brief analysis of this issue I have found. These arguments are not easy to zap because, once they are on the table, they can set the terms of the argument. As Solove explains, "the problem with the nothing to hide argument is with its underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things." He warns, "Agreeing with this assumption concedes far too much ground and leads to an unproductive discussion of information people would likely want or not want to hide." Solove's bottom line is that this argument "myopically views privacy as a form of concealment or secrecy."
In his work, Solove addresses the reality that privacy problems differ: Not all are equal; some are more harmful than others. Most importantly, he writes, "to understand privacy, we must conceptualize it and its value more pluralistically." Through several years of work, Solove has developed a more nuanced concept of privacy that rebuts the idea that there is a "one-size-fits-all conception of privacy."
The concept of "privacy" encompasses many ideas relating to the proper and improper use and abuse of information about people within society. Privacy protects information not only because it would cause others to think less of the person at issue, but also simply to give us all breathing room: "Society involves a great deal of friction," Solove writes, "and we are constantly clashing with each other. Part of what makes a society a good place in which to live is the extent to which it allows people freedom from the intrusiveness of others. A society without privacy protection would be suffocation, and it might not be a place in which most would want to live."
Professor Solove's work - much of which he makes available online - helps clarify thinking about privacy in its fuller context, and helps explain what is wrong with reductive dismissals of privacy using the mantra, "I've got nothing to hide." Before rushing to give the Bush Administration more ways to invade our privacy, not to mention absolving those who have confederated with him to engage in the most massive invasion of America privacy ever, members of Congress should look at Solove's work. Too many of them have no idea what privacy is all about, and grossly underestimate the value of this complex and essential concept.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20071019.html
The Case Against Expanding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Powers
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Oct. 19, 2007
"I've got nothing to hide, so electronic surveillance doesn't bother me. To the contrary, I'm delighted that the Bush Administration is monitoring calls and electronic traffic on a massive scale, because catching terrorists is far more important that worrying about the government's listening to my phone calls, or reading my emails." So the argument goes. It is a powerful one that has seduced too many people.
Millions of Americans buy this logic, and in accepting it, believe they are doing the right thing for themselves, their family, and their friends, neighbors, community and country. They are sadly wrong. If you accept this argument, you have been badly fooled.
Click here to find out more!
This contention is being bantered about once again, so there is no better time than the present to set thinking people straight. Bush and Cheney want to make permanent unchecked Executive powers to electronically eavesdrop on anyone whom any President feels to be of interest. In August, before the summer recess, Congress enacted the Protect America Act, which provided only temporary approval for the expanding Executive powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). These temporary powers expire in February 2008, so Congress is once again addressing the subject.
The FISA Amendments: The Administration Is Seeking Immunity for Miscreants
Because of the way electronic traffic is directed from foreign countries through the United States, the FISA Court had previously rejected requests to intercept certain foreign-person- to-foreign-person communications in the United States. It was a technical problem, arising from the fact that FISA was written before modern data routing had been designed, and FISA thus needed fixing. On this, everyone agreed.
However, when the Bush Administration asked for the necessary fix to FISA, it also requested much more, including immunity under the existing laws for all the telecommunications companies that have been assisting the government in its illegal warrantless surveillance. Significantly, this practice - justified by reference to the "war on terror" - apparently started well before 9/11 under the Bush Administration.
Ironically, in requesting this immunity, the Bush White House has refused to disclose exactly what type of activities Congress would be retroactively immunizing. Preliminary congressional inquiry has revealed that a massive amount of electronic surveillance of Americans has gone on under the Bush/Cheney Administration. For example, one of the telecom giants, Verizon, reported that between January 2005 and September 2007 they provided information on 94,000 occasions. These numbers suggest that Verizon was operating as merely another (and a secret) extension of the federal intelligence establishment.
Many of the companies appear to be violating a number of federal criminal statutes - such as 18 U.S.C. 2511, which requires a warrant for such surveillance and 18 U.S.C. 2702, which prohibits any "entity providing an electronic communication service to the public" from knowingly divulging "to any person or entity the contents of a communication" without a court order.
Currently, the telecoms are not likely to be particularly worried about being prosecuted by the very same government that instructed them to violate the law, and is leading the way in doing so itself.
But what about under the next Administration? The five-year statute of limitations will make them potentially criminally liable after Bush is gone - at least, unless the Bush Administration gains for them retroactive and future immunity. In a new Administration, the telecoms may be viewed not as cooperative patriots, but rather as criminal co-conspirators.
Civil Liability Appears To Be Driving the Immunity Request
Meanwhile, civil liability for these companies is also a realistic prospect. For example, in a San Francisco federal court, AT&T customers are seeking to protect their privacy with actions under laws like 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides a civil remedy and hefty damages -- ranging up to $10,000 per day per violation. Since it is possible that, over five-plus years, there have been tens upon tens of thousands of such violations, the, if liable telecoms could be looking at hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of damages.
The Bush Administration clearly wants to help its partners in crime; it also wants to avoid accountability for what it has done and is still doing. If the civil litigation proceeds - and one judge already ruled that the "state secrets" privilege does not prevent the plaintiffs from going forward - the Bush Administration faces the risk of a federal court's forcing it to disclose its unsavory surveillance activities.
Privacy advocates are horrified at the prospect of Congress's potentially protecting this activity through immunity legislation. Yet, in sharp contrast, most people could care less. Indeed few people seem to care about their loss of privacy, notwithstanding the fact that, like an invisible pollutant to our air or water, it is increasingly eroding our freedom. Unfortunately, it seems that the invasion of our privacy, like the destruction of our atmosphere, may be tolerated until it is too late to fix it.
One of the leading causes of both problems is ignorance. Privacy is a highly complex issue, so people easily accept the claims of those who assert that, if you are not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to be concerned about government surveillance, and if you are, you have no right to privacy to break the law.
Understanding the Misunderstanding about Privacy
For several years I have been reading the work of George Washington University Law School Professor Daniel J. Solove, who writes extensively about privacy in the context of contemporary digital technology. The current apathy about government surveillance brought to mind his essay "'I've Got Nothing To Hide' And Other Misunderstandings of Privacy."
Professor Solove's deconstruction of the "I've got nothing to hide" position, and related justifications for government surveillance, is the best brief analysis of this issue I have found. These arguments are not easy to zap because, once they are on the table, they can set the terms of the argument. As Solove explains, "the problem with the nothing to hide argument is with its underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things." He warns, "Agreeing with this assumption concedes far too much ground and leads to an unproductive discussion of information people would likely want or not want to hide." Solove's bottom line is that this argument "myopically views privacy as a form of concealment or secrecy."
In his work, Solove addresses the reality that privacy problems differ: Not all are equal; some are more harmful than others. Most importantly, he writes, "to understand privacy, we must conceptualize it and its value more pluralistically." Through several years of work, Solove has developed a more nuanced concept of privacy that rebuts the idea that there is a "one-size-fits-all conception of privacy."
The concept of "privacy" encompasses many ideas relating to the proper and improper use and abuse of information about people within society. Privacy protects information not only because it would cause others to think less of the person at issue, but also simply to give us all breathing room: "Society involves a great deal of friction," Solove writes, "and we are constantly clashing with each other. Part of what makes a society a good place in which to live is the extent to which it allows people freedom from the intrusiveness of others. A society without privacy protection would be suffocation, and it might not be a place in which most would want to live."
Professor Solove's work - much of which he makes available online - helps clarify thinking about privacy in its fuller context, and helps explain what is wrong with reductive dismissals of privacy using the mantra, "I've got nothing to hide." Before rushing to give the Bush Administration more ways to invade our privacy, not to mention absolving those who have confederated with him to engage in the most massive invasion of America privacy ever, members of Congress should look at Solove's work. Too many of them have no idea what privacy is all about, and grossly underestimate the value of this complex and essential concept.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20071019.html
The War on Afghanistan Was Wrong, Too
by Jacob G. Hornberger, Posted October 19, 2007
While most Americans have turned against the Iraq War, many of them still think that the war on Afghanistan was morally and legally justified. Their rationale is that the United States was simply defending itself by attacking Afghanistan and retaliating against those who had conspired to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Of course, the last thing on people’s mind was that the 9/11 perpetrators themselves were retaliating for the bad things that the U.S. government had long been doing to people in the Middle East.
In fact, the irony of the attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraq is that both actions are simply a continuation of regime-change operations that have long characterized U.S. foreign policy, operations that are in large part responsible for much of the anger that foreigners have for the United States.
For example, there was the regime-change operation in Iran in 1953, where the CIA successfully ousted the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, and replaced him with the shah of Iran, whose brutal dictatorship ultimately culminated in the Iranian revolution in 1979. Not surprisingly, Iranians are still angry about that U.S.-imposed regime change.
There was also Guatemala in 1954, where the CIA successfully ousted the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, which led to the decades-long civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of Guatemalan citizens. There were Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, and Grenada. And, of course, there were the unsuccessful regime-change operations against Cuba.
In the Middle East, there was the U.S. support of Saddam Hussein, including the furnishing of weapons of mass destruction to him to use against Iranians, whose regime was no longer friendly to the United States after the 1979 revolution. There was the Persian Gulf intervention, which was followed by the brutal sanctions against Iraq, whose purpose was to bring about regime change after the United States turned against Saddam. There was the implicit U.S. endorsement of Madeleine Albright’s famous statement that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions against Iraq had been “worth it.” There was the unconditional financial and military support of the Israeli government. And there was the stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands, with full knowledge of the adverse effect such an action would have on Muslim religious sensitivities.
Long before the 9/11 attacks, the terrorists who had struck the World Trade Center in 1993 had cited, as had Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, those foreign policies as the basis for their grievances against the United States.
Therefore, it is ironic that U.S. officials used the 9/11 attacks to do the kind of thing they had long been already doing and which had in fact motivated the 9/11 attacks: regime-changing nations whose regimes were not inclined to obey U.S. orders. In what has become a customary perverse consequence of U.S. policies, the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan have not only produced chaos, death, and destruction, they have also ensured a steady stream of terrorist recruits to al-Qaeda and other groups that hate the United States more than ever. It is almost as if U.S. officials were saying after 9/11, “We are going to show you that your attacks will not cause us to change our ways, and our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq will be our proof.”
After the 9/11 attacks, here at The Future of Freedom Foundation we recommended that the U.S. government not use the U.S. military to attack Afghanistan as a way to get bin Laden. We recommended instead that U.S. officials treat the attacks as a criminal-justice problem rather than a military problem.
After all, that’s the way that the federal government has always treated terrorism — as a criminal violation of federal statutes against terrorism. That was, in fact, how the government treated the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, in which one of the perpetrators was a Kuwaiti man of Pakistani descent named Ramzi Yousef who was residing in Pakistan. Rather than invade Pakistan to capture or kill Yousef, which would have killed and maimed countless Pakistanis, U.S. officials simply bided their time until he was arrested in Pakistan and brought to New York for trial. It took time, but that’s the way the criminal-justice system often works. Sometimes a criminal is arrested immediately, sometimes much later, sometimes never. By the way, at Yousef’s sentencing, he angrily cited U.S. foreign policy as the basis for his grievances.
Recall that in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, there was a tremendous outpouring of sympathy and empathy all over the world for the United States. If U.S. officials had exercised wisdom, instead of reacting in a knee-jerk military fashion, they could have capitalized on those positive feelings by isolating bin Laden and the rest of his gang. Immediately after the attacks, we recommended offering a huge financial reward for the arrest of bin Laden and his cohorts and bringing them to trial. We pointed to the “letters of marque” that are authorized in the Constitution for such captures.
If President Bush had announced to the world that the United States would not kill innocent people in the quest to bring bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda to justice, the entire world would have remained sympathetic to the United States. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda would have been isolated, not knowing who would turn them in to the authorities. Compare that to the situation in the world today, where countless ordinary people all over the world are filled with rage over the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the torture and sex-abuse scandals at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere. Moreover, even U.S. intelligence agencies are admitting that the continuous killings of Afghanis and Iraqis continue to provide al-Qaeda with a steady stream of recruits.
The Taliban and bin Laden
Another major problem with the attack on Afghanistan was the one that most U.S. presidents and, alas, most Americans, have chosen to ignore for the past several decades: that the U.S. Constitution requires the president to secure a congressional declaration of war from Congress before waging war against another country. Bush failed to do that.
Why did Bush order an invasion of Afghanistan? Not because he believed that the Taliban had conspired with al-Qaeda to commit the 9/11 attacks and not because he felt that the Taliban had committed some act of war against the United States by knowingly “harboring” a known fugitive.
Instead, Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan for one reason: the Taliban government refused to comply with his demand to unconditionally deliver bin Laden to the United States. He always made it clear that if the Taliban delivered bin Laden to the United States, such action would spare Afghanistan from a U.S. invasion. The “offer” that he made to the Taliban was not significantly different from that made to Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharraf, a close friend of the Taliban, after 9/11: play ball with us and you stay in power; refuse to do so, and you’re history.
So why did the Taliban refuse to turn over bin Laden? For one thing, there wasn’t any extradition agreement between Afghanistan and the United States. And there is a long tradition in Muslim countries to treat foreign visitors as guests. Nevertheless, the Taliban did express a willingness to deliver bin Laden over to the United States or to a third country if U.S. officials provided convincing evidence that bin Laden had, in fact, been complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Was the demand unreasonable? Well, it would be nothing more than any government, including the United States, would expect in any extradition proceeding.
Bush’s response was that U.S. officials would not furnish any such evidence to the Taliban government. The Taliban simply needed to follow U.S. orders and turn bin Laden over to the United States, with no guarantees of what would happen to him once he was in U.S. custody. That is, there were no assurances that bin Laden would be brought back to the United States for trial for terrorism in federal district court instead of being turned over to the CIA for torture and execution.
The Taliban refused to accede to Bush’s unconditional demand. The result was the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the ouster of the Taliban from power, the installation of a U.S.-approved regime, a nation ruled by regional warlords, the deaths of countless Afghanis, the failure to capture bin Laden, and an ever-growing terrorist movement generated by ever-deepening anger and hatred against the United States.
Moreover, Bush’s conflation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda into one amorphous “terrorist” group, when each group obviously had its own reasons for resisting the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, ultimately set the stage for his “enemy-combatant” doctrine in the “war on terror” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq as part of the “war on terror,” which would later be used to justify the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, Abu Ghraib, rendition, torture, and the military power to indefinitely incarcerate Americans and foreigners.
Did the United States have the legal and moral right to invade Afghanistan upon the Taliban’s refusal to turn bin Laden over to the United States? Many Americans would undoubtedly respond, “Yes, absolutely. When a country experiences a terrorist attack, it has the legal and moral right to attack and invade a sovereign and independent country that refuses to comply with an unconditional demand to give up the suspected perpetrators.”
Venezuela’s war on terrorism
Well, if that’s true then how would such proponents respond if, say, Venezuela attacked the United States for harboring terrorists? Would the proponents say, “I’m going to fight on the side of Venezuela because in the war on terror a country has the right to attack countries that are harboring terrorists”? Not likely.
Yet the U.S. response to Venezuela’s extradition of a suspected terrorist named Luis Posada Cariles, a former CIA operative, not only provides a good example of the hypocrisy of the U.S. government’s “war on terror,” it also shows how such a war leads inexorably toward endless international conflict and discord. After all, ask yourself, Can a world in which each country has the right to wage a war on terror under the principles followed by the U.S. government possibly be harmonious?
Posada is a prime suspect in the terrorist bombing of a civilian Cuban airliner whose flight originated in Venezuela in 1976. The plane crashed, killing 73 people, including several young members of a Cuban sports team. About a year ago, Posada made his way into the United States, prompting Venezuelan authorities to demand his extradition to Venezuela pursuant to the extradition agreement between the two nations.
U.S. officials, however, announced that they had no intention of returning Posada to Venezuela, extradition agreement or not, suggesting that they didn’t care how much evidence of Posada’s involvement in the terrorist attack Venezuela was able to provide. Their reason? While their stated reason for their decision is that Venezuela might torture Posada on his return, the real reason was the U.S. government’s natural sympathy toward anti-Castro Cuban exiles, including those who commit terrorist acts against the Cuban people.
But how is the U.S. government’s response to Venezuela in the Posada case different from the Taliban’s refusal to turn bin Laden over to the United States? If the U.S. government is going to refuse to turn over a terrorist suspect because of the possibility that he might be tortured, then how can it say that Afghanistan didn’t have the same right, especially since a suspected terrorist is as likely to be tortured by the United States as he is by Venezuela? Or to put it another way, if Afghanistan was “harboring” a terrorist by refusing U.S. demands to turn him over, isn’t the United States doing the same thing by refusing Venezuela’s extradition request of Posada?
In fact, the farcical, chaotic, and destructive nature of the U.S. government’s entire “war on terror” is easily exposed when one applies its principles universally to every other nation. That is, if the U.S. government has the right to wage a war on terror, then so has every other nation. That means then that every nation has the right to attack every other nation in which there are suspected terrorists. Cuba, for example, would have the right to attack the United States in order to kill or capture Posada and, for that matter, those Cuban-American citizens who are funding anti-Castro terrorist activity in Cuba.
Obviously, the only reason that the U.S. government is getting away with its “war on terror,” including regime-change operations against Third World countries and military wars of aggression on sovereign and independent nations, is that it has overwhelming military strength, especially compared with Third World countries. In the U.S. government’s war on terror, might makes right. But as the U.S. empire becomes increasingly overstretched by waging such a war, the American people are going to inevitably discover what lies at the end of that road: death, destruction, conflict, discord, terrorism, torture, rendition, and infringements on liberty.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
This article originally appeared in the July 2007 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0707a.asp
by Jacob G. Hornberger, Posted October 19, 2007
While most Americans have turned against the Iraq War, many of them still think that the war on Afghanistan was morally and legally justified. Their rationale is that the United States was simply defending itself by attacking Afghanistan and retaliating against those who had conspired to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Of course, the last thing on people’s mind was that the 9/11 perpetrators themselves were retaliating for the bad things that the U.S. government had long been doing to people in the Middle East.
In fact, the irony of the attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraq is that both actions are simply a continuation of regime-change operations that have long characterized U.S. foreign policy, operations that are in large part responsible for much of the anger that foreigners have for the United States.
For example, there was the regime-change operation in Iran in 1953, where the CIA successfully ousted the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, and replaced him with the shah of Iran, whose brutal dictatorship ultimately culminated in the Iranian revolution in 1979. Not surprisingly, Iranians are still angry about that U.S.-imposed regime change.
There was also Guatemala in 1954, where the CIA successfully ousted the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, which led to the decades-long civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of Guatemalan citizens. There were Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, and Grenada. And, of course, there were the unsuccessful regime-change operations against Cuba.
In the Middle East, there was the U.S. support of Saddam Hussein, including the furnishing of weapons of mass destruction to him to use against Iranians, whose regime was no longer friendly to the United States after the 1979 revolution. There was the Persian Gulf intervention, which was followed by the brutal sanctions against Iraq, whose purpose was to bring about regime change after the United States turned against Saddam. There was the implicit U.S. endorsement of Madeleine Albright’s famous statement that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions against Iraq had been “worth it.” There was the unconditional financial and military support of the Israeli government. And there was the stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands, with full knowledge of the adverse effect such an action would have on Muslim religious sensitivities.
Long before the 9/11 attacks, the terrorists who had struck the World Trade Center in 1993 had cited, as had Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, those foreign policies as the basis for their grievances against the United States.
Therefore, it is ironic that U.S. officials used the 9/11 attacks to do the kind of thing they had long been already doing and which had in fact motivated the 9/11 attacks: regime-changing nations whose regimes were not inclined to obey U.S. orders. In what has become a customary perverse consequence of U.S. policies, the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan have not only produced chaos, death, and destruction, they have also ensured a steady stream of terrorist recruits to al-Qaeda and other groups that hate the United States more than ever. It is almost as if U.S. officials were saying after 9/11, “We are going to show you that your attacks will not cause us to change our ways, and our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq will be our proof.”
After the 9/11 attacks, here at The Future of Freedom Foundation we recommended that the U.S. government not use the U.S. military to attack Afghanistan as a way to get bin Laden. We recommended instead that U.S. officials treat the attacks as a criminal-justice problem rather than a military problem.
After all, that’s the way that the federal government has always treated terrorism — as a criminal violation of federal statutes against terrorism. That was, in fact, how the government treated the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, in which one of the perpetrators was a Kuwaiti man of Pakistani descent named Ramzi Yousef who was residing in Pakistan. Rather than invade Pakistan to capture or kill Yousef, which would have killed and maimed countless Pakistanis, U.S. officials simply bided their time until he was arrested in Pakistan and brought to New York for trial. It took time, but that’s the way the criminal-justice system often works. Sometimes a criminal is arrested immediately, sometimes much later, sometimes never. By the way, at Yousef’s sentencing, he angrily cited U.S. foreign policy as the basis for his grievances.
Recall that in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, there was a tremendous outpouring of sympathy and empathy all over the world for the United States. If U.S. officials had exercised wisdom, instead of reacting in a knee-jerk military fashion, they could have capitalized on those positive feelings by isolating bin Laden and the rest of his gang. Immediately after the attacks, we recommended offering a huge financial reward for the arrest of bin Laden and his cohorts and bringing them to trial. We pointed to the “letters of marque” that are authorized in the Constitution for such captures.
If President Bush had announced to the world that the United States would not kill innocent people in the quest to bring bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda to justice, the entire world would have remained sympathetic to the United States. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda would have been isolated, not knowing who would turn them in to the authorities. Compare that to the situation in the world today, where countless ordinary people all over the world are filled with rage over the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the torture and sex-abuse scandals at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere. Moreover, even U.S. intelligence agencies are admitting that the continuous killings of Afghanis and Iraqis continue to provide al-Qaeda with a steady stream of recruits.
The Taliban and bin Laden
Another major problem with the attack on Afghanistan was the one that most U.S. presidents and, alas, most Americans, have chosen to ignore for the past several decades: that the U.S. Constitution requires the president to secure a congressional declaration of war from Congress before waging war against another country. Bush failed to do that.
Why did Bush order an invasion of Afghanistan? Not because he believed that the Taliban had conspired with al-Qaeda to commit the 9/11 attacks and not because he felt that the Taliban had committed some act of war against the United States by knowingly “harboring” a known fugitive.
Instead, Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan for one reason: the Taliban government refused to comply with his demand to unconditionally deliver bin Laden to the United States. He always made it clear that if the Taliban delivered bin Laden to the United States, such action would spare Afghanistan from a U.S. invasion. The “offer” that he made to the Taliban was not significantly different from that made to Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharraf, a close friend of the Taliban, after 9/11: play ball with us and you stay in power; refuse to do so, and you’re history.
So why did the Taliban refuse to turn over bin Laden? For one thing, there wasn’t any extradition agreement between Afghanistan and the United States. And there is a long tradition in Muslim countries to treat foreign visitors as guests. Nevertheless, the Taliban did express a willingness to deliver bin Laden over to the United States or to a third country if U.S. officials provided convincing evidence that bin Laden had, in fact, been complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Was the demand unreasonable? Well, it would be nothing more than any government, including the United States, would expect in any extradition proceeding.
Bush’s response was that U.S. officials would not furnish any such evidence to the Taliban government. The Taliban simply needed to follow U.S. orders and turn bin Laden over to the United States, with no guarantees of what would happen to him once he was in U.S. custody. That is, there were no assurances that bin Laden would be brought back to the United States for trial for terrorism in federal district court instead of being turned over to the CIA for torture and execution.
The Taliban refused to accede to Bush’s unconditional demand. The result was the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the ouster of the Taliban from power, the installation of a U.S.-approved regime, a nation ruled by regional warlords, the deaths of countless Afghanis, the failure to capture bin Laden, and an ever-growing terrorist movement generated by ever-deepening anger and hatred against the United States.
Moreover, Bush’s conflation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda into one amorphous “terrorist” group, when each group obviously had its own reasons for resisting the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, ultimately set the stage for his “enemy-combatant” doctrine in the “war on terror” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq as part of the “war on terror,” which would later be used to justify the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, Abu Ghraib, rendition, torture, and the military power to indefinitely incarcerate Americans and foreigners.
Did the United States have the legal and moral right to invade Afghanistan upon the Taliban’s refusal to turn bin Laden over to the United States? Many Americans would undoubtedly respond, “Yes, absolutely. When a country experiences a terrorist attack, it has the legal and moral right to attack and invade a sovereign and independent country that refuses to comply with an unconditional demand to give up the suspected perpetrators.”
Venezuela’s war on terrorism
Well, if that’s true then how would such proponents respond if, say, Venezuela attacked the United States for harboring terrorists? Would the proponents say, “I’m going to fight on the side of Venezuela because in the war on terror a country has the right to attack countries that are harboring terrorists”? Not likely.
Yet the U.S. response to Venezuela’s extradition of a suspected terrorist named Luis Posada Cariles, a former CIA operative, not only provides a good example of the hypocrisy of the U.S. government’s “war on terror,” it also shows how such a war leads inexorably toward endless international conflict and discord. After all, ask yourself, Can a world in which each country has the right to wage a war on terror under the principles followed by the U.S. government possibly be harmonious?
Posada is a prime suspect in the terrorist bombing of a civilian Cuban airliner whose flight originated in Venezuela in 1976. The plane crashed, killing 73 people, including several young members of a Cuban sports team. About a year ago, Posada made his way into the United States, prompting Venezuelan authorities to demand his extradition to Venezuela pursuant to the extradition agreement between the two nations.
U.S. officials, however, announced that they had no intention of returning Posada to Venezuela, extradition agreement or not, suggesting that they didn’t care how much evidence of Posada’s involvement in the terrorist attack Venezuela was able to provide. Their reason? While their stated reason for their decision is that Venezuela might torture Posada on his return, the real reason was the U.S. government’s natural sympathy toward anti-Castro Cuban exiles, including those who commit terrorist acts against the Cuban people.
But how is the U.S. government’s response to Venezuela in the Posada case different from the Taliban’s refusal to turn bin Laden over to the United States? If the U.S. government is going to refuse to turn over a terrorist suspect because of the possibility that he might be tortured, then how can it say that Afghanistan didn’t have the same right, especially since a suspected terrorist is as likely to be tortured by the United States as he is by Venezuela? Or to put it another way, if Afghanistan was “harboring” a terrorist by refusing U.S. demands to turn him over, isn’t the United States doing the same thing by refusing Venezuela’s extradition request of Posada?
In fact, the farcical, chaotic, and destructive nature of the U.S. government’s entire “war on terror” is easily exposed when one applies its principles universally to every other nation. That is, if the U.S. government has the right to wage a war on terror, then so has every other nation. That means then that every nation has the right to attack every other nation in which there are suspected terrorists. Cuba, for example, would have the right to attack the United States in order to kill or capture Posada and, for that matter, those Cuban-American citizens who are funding anti-Castro terrorist activity in Cuba.
Obviously, the only reason that the U.S. government is getting away with its “war on terror,” including regime-change operations against Third World countries and military wars of aggression on sovereign and independent nations, is that it has overwhelming military strength, especially compared with Third World countries. In the U.S. government’s war on terror, might makes right. But as the U.S. empire becomes increasingly overstretched by waging such a war, the American people are going to inevitably discover what lies at the end of that road: death, destruction, conflict, discord, terrorism, torture, rendition, and infringements on liberty.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
This article originally appeared in the July 2007 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0707a.asp
Mosaic on Bush’s World War III ‘Threat’ The Mosaic Intelligence Report tackles Bush’s heated rhetoric about Iran and the connection with the president’s chilly relationship with Russia.
Inside the Military-Industrial Complex 
[b]James Harris and Josh Scheer —[/b] Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Philip Coyle knows a thing or two about the “staggering” amounts of money the U.S. funnels into the military-industrial complex, and why it is so difficult to stanch the profiteering.
[b]James Harris and Josh Scheer —[/b] Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Philip Coyle knows a thing or two about the “staggering” amounts of money the U.S. funnels into the military-industrial complex, and why it is so difficult to stanch the profiteering.
Army recruiting, retention near the limit despite growth plans: general
Washington (AFP) Oct 18, 2007
The US Army is reaching the limits of its ability to recruit and retain more troops even as it embarks on an ambitious program to increase the size of the force in three years, its personnel chief said Thursday. Lieutenant General Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for personnel, said expanding the army to 547,000 troops by 2010 is key to easing mounting pressures on the force while bui ... read more
Washington (AFP) Oct 18, 2007
The US Army is reaching the limits of its ability to recruit and retain more troops even as it embarks on an ambitious program to increase the size of the force in three years, its personnel chief said Thursday. Lieutenant General Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for personnel, said expanding the army to 547,000 troops by 2010 is key to easing mounting pressures on the force while bui ... read more
While Pakistan Burns
By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
The deadly bomb blasts aimed at Benazir Bhutto mean that we will likely hear more about the worsening situation in Pakistan over the coming week. The problems in that country -- and, in particular, in the federally administered tribal areas -- are now apparent to virtually all analysts. (See some of my early analysis of the situation, just after the Waziristan accords were signed last fall, here and here.)
Far trickier than analyzing the challenges we face in Pakistan is discerning the possible solutions. I have the cover story in the new Weekly Standard, which considers our available options at length. An excerpt:
Read the whole article here.
Thus far, American policy toward Pakistan has amounted to unconditional support for Musharraf, coupled with occasional air strikes against high-level al Qaeda targets in the tribal areas. Emblematic of the latter is an October 30, 2006, strike against a madrassa in a Bajaur village that allegedly served as an al Qaeda training camp. While Zawahiri may have been the strike's target, the madrassa was affiliated with another key al Qaeda confederate, Faqir Mohammed, who had contracted a strategic marriage with a woman from the local Mamoond tribe. A U.S. Predator strike destroyed the school, but it hardly slowed down Mohammed, who gave an interview with NBC at the scene of the wreckage and later spoke at the funeral for the victims. Nor is any satisfactory alternative military strategy on offer. One senior American military intelligence officer said it would take a sustained air campaign to deprive al Qaeda of its safe haven in the FATA. "We're talking about a Serbia-style prolonged campaign," he said. NATO's air campaign against Serbia's military lasted from March 24 through June 11, 1999, and comprised over 38,000 missions involving approximately 1,000 aircraft and a barrage of Tomahawk missiles. Such a campaign in Pakistan's tribal areas, the officer said, would "heavily degrade" but not eliminate al Qaeda. "Their camps won't be actively producing terrorists," he said, "but they'll survive the air campaign." Furthermore, a campaign on that scale might result in the toppling of Musharraf--who, in the vivid phrase of retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, is already "dancing on razor blades." . . .
What about covert action? American Special Operations forces are already engaging in actions coordinated with the air strikes. The most notable achievement in this regard occurred in southern Afghanistan, where NATO and Afghan forces killed Mullah Dadullah Lang, the Taliban's top military commander, back in May. There are barriers, though, to expanding the Special Operations forces' role. The topography makes it difficult to insert and remove forces without being detected. Within the military, there is a real desire to avoid another Operation Eagle Claw--the ill-fated attempt to rescue hostages held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran during President Carter's term.
Unfortunately, the potential for things going awry is high if Special Operations missions are increased. Special Operations forces act in small teams and are lightly armed, so could be overwhelmed by larger contingents of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Enemy forces in Pakistan are better armed and trained than the Somali forces in the Black Hawk Down incident, and they have SA-18 surface-to-air missiles capable of downing American helicopters.
October 20, 2007 12:17 AM Link
Pakistani Pressure-Cooker
By Aaron Mannes
Assuming Pakistani police reports are accurate (a big if) that the attack on returning former Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto's convoy was not a car-bomb but a suicide bomber, it would be the deadliest attack by an individual suicide vest so far.
The massive throng that turned out to see Bhutto was a perfect target for a suicide bomber, and there were warning in advance. Bhutto has refrained from blaming the Pakistani government, but she has stated that security was inadequate. As I've noted before?, considering the general level of competence displayed by the Pakistani government, this is hardly surprising.
This brings up a crucial point. The massive crowds were certainly drawn by Bhutto's charisma. But they also came because of their high hopes that Bhutto can bring peace, prosperity, and order. A quick scan of major Pakistani papers reveals crumbling infrastructure, frequent electricity outages, and failing hospitals. This is on top of endemic poverty and corruption and high-levels of political violence (with some areas as effective no-go zones for the government.) In short, for many Pakistanis life is extremely difficult.
Benazir Bhutto is, without doubt, a world historical figure - albeit a flawed one. But saving Pakistan is beyond any one person. The issues are structural. Frequently, U.S. foreign policy focuses on individual leader. Now that Musharraf is problematic, the U.S. has pressed for the restoration of democracy and the return of Bhutto. But the issues go beyond the personalities at the top. In Egypt, the United States has adopted a policy of providing extensive aid in order to maintain stability. It has succeeded, but Egypt has stagnated and become a leading exporter of radical Islam (the managerial and intellectual backbone of al-Qaeda is Egyptian.)
Pakistan is also becoming a leading exportrt of Islamism and it has nuclear weapons. In short, the copying the Egyptian strategy and playing for stability in the short run is not the safe bet and supporting Bhutto (and more importantly the restoration of civilian rule) is only a first step.
October 19, 2007 05:59 PM Link
(U.S.) Former counter-terror czar endorses Spitzer license plan - Richard Clarke endorsed NY Governor's plan to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses
U.S. Armaments Industry Backing Hillary Clinton
October 19th, 2007 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.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
—From the farewell speech of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Paying attention to U.S. presidential elections is probably the most egregious waste of time imaginable, and I promise not to do it much, but for those of you who still don’t get it, even now…
Hillary Clinton is Cheney in drag.
Via: Independent:
An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.
…
“The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed,” said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.
Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of US armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.
After her election to the Senate, she became the first New York senator on the armed services committee, where she revealed her hawkish tendencies by supporting the invasion of Iraq. Although she now favours a withdrawal of US troops, her position on Iran is among the most warlike of all the candidates – Democrat or Republican.
This week, she said that, if elected president, she would not rule out military strikes to destroy Tehran’s nuclear weapons facilities. While on the armed services committee, Mrs Clinton has befriended key generals and has won the endorsement of General Wesley Clarke, who ran Nato’s war in Kosovo. A former presidential candidate himself, he is spoken of as a potential vice-presidential running mate.
Mrs Clinton has been a regular visitor to Iraq and Afghanistan and is careful to focus her criticisms of the Iraq war on President Bush, rather than the military. The arms industry has duly taken note.
U.S. Armaments Industry Backing Hillary Clinton
October 19th, 2007 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.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
—From the farewell speech of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Paying attention to U.S. presidential elections is probably the most egregious waste of time imaginable, and I promise not to do it much, but for those of you who still don’t get it, even now…
Hillary Clinton is Cheney in drag.
Via: Independent:
An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.
…
“The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed,” said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.
Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of US armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.
After her election to the Senate, she became the first New York senator on the armed services committee, where she revealed her hawkish tendencies by supporting the invasion of Iraq. Although she now favours a withdrawal of US troops, her position on Iran is among the most warlike of all the candidates – Democrat or Republican.
This week, she said that, if elected president, she would not rule out military strikes to destroy Tehran’s nuclear weapons facilities. While on the armed services committee, Mrs Clinton has befriended key generals and has won the endorsement of General Wesley Clarke, who ran Nato’s war in Kosovo. A former presidential candidate himself, he is spoken of as a potential vice-presidential running mate.
Mrs Clinton has been a regular visitor to Iraq and Afghanistan and is careful to focus her criticisms of the Iraq war on President Bush, rather than the military. The arms industry has duly taken note.
Foreign Policy News and Commentary Update October 19, 2007
GWU: THE MEDIA AND MISPERCEPTIONS MARC LYNCH (ABU AARDVARK, OCTOBER 17): "Last night, as part of the launch of our new Institute for Middle East Studies here at GW ... Hafez al-Mirazi, the long-time Washington bureau chief for al-Jazeera and host of the extremely popular talk show From Washington ... suggested that the American Arabic-language TV station al-Hurra would have been far more useful to American foreign policy if it had simply concentrated on presenting America in all its complexity and diversity to the Arab public, instead of trying to compete with al-Jazeera in its coverage of Palestine or Egypt. I happen to agree with that suggestion, and have made it myself many times, but that doesn't mean that he isn't right!"
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark...edia-and-m.html
A GUIDE TO A SUCCESSFUL NOVEMBER CONFERENCE? (ISRAEL POLICY FORUM, OCTOBER 10;
GWU: THE MEDIA AND MISPERCEPTIONS MARC LYNCH (ABU AARDVARK, OCTOBER 17): "Last night, as part of the launch of our new Institute for Middle East Studies here at GW ... Hafez al-Mirazi, the long-time Washington bureau chief for al-Jazeera and host of the extremely popular talk show From Washington ... suggested that the American Arabic-language TV station al-Hurra would have been far more useful to American foreign policy if it had simply concentrated on presenting America in all its complexity and diversity to the Arab public, instead of trying to compete with al-Jazeera in its coverage of Palestine or Egypt. I happen to agree with that suggestion, and have made it myself many times, but that doesn't mean that he isn't right!"
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark...edia-and-m.html
A GUIDE TO A SUCCESSFUL NOVEMBER CONFERENCE? (ISRAEL POLICY FORUM, OCTOBER 10;