[osint] Colombian named in U.S. on terror charge
"Hector Rodriguez-Acevedo is charged with conspiring to import cocaine into the United States and to distribute cocaine; and conspiring to use firearms and destructive devices in material support of a terror group." "The Council on Foreign Relations says the AUC is made up of several right-wing paramilitary groups, and is supported by landowners, drug cartels and factions in the Colombian military. AUC forces have assassinated leftist guerrillas, politicians, activists and other Colombian civilians." http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20050705-043748-2674r.htm Colombian named in U.S. on terror charge Jul. 5, 2005 at 5:56PM A man held in Colombia has been indicted in Miami on cocaine charges and a charge of supporting a terror organization, the Justice Department said Tuesday. Hector Rodriguez-Acevedo is charged with conspiring to import cocaine into the United States and to distribute cocaine; and conspiring to use firearms and destructive devices in material support of a terror group. The department said Rodriguez-Acevedo was captured in Colombia Monday, and the United States would seek extradition. The indictment, returned in May and unsealed Monday, says the suspect conspired to provide hundreds of assault rifles, fragmentation hand grenades, rocket propelled grenades, mortar grenades and thousands of rounds of ammunition to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, known by the Spanish acronym AUC. The Council on Foreign Relations says the AUC is made up of several right-wing paramilitary groups, and is supported by landowners, drug cartels and factions in the Colombian military. AUC forces have assassinated leftist guerrillas, politicians, activists and other Colombian civilians. If convicted, Rodriguez-Acevedo could face life in prison. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Central Asians demand pullout of Western military bases
"Considering that the active phase of the military anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan has finished, member states ... consider it essential that the relevant participants in the anti-terrorist coalition set deadlines for the temporary use" of bases in Central Asia, the declaration read." http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID =20050705-090754-6735r Central Asians demand pullout of Western military bases Simon Ostrovsky July 5, 2005 ASTANA -- The leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a six-nation security bloc, called for a deadline to be set on the pullout of Western bases from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and slammed outside interference in their affairs at a summit in Central Asia on Tuesday. At the meeting in the Kazakh capital Astana, the SCO, which comprises Russia, China, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, signed a declaration that called for deadlines to be set on the presence of military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, set up in 2001 by the US-led coalition that toppled Afghanistan's Taliban leadership. "Considering that the active phase of the military anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan has finished, member states ... consider it essential that the relevant participants in the anti-terrorist coalition set deadlines for the temporary use" of bases in Central Asia, the declaration read. At what was their first meeting since the ouster of Kyrgyz leader Askar Akayev in March and a military crackdown in Uzbekistan in May, the leaders also included a clause on the inadmissibility of "monopolizing or dominating international affairs" - apparently a reference to growing US influence in Central Asia. "This declaration calls for templates and standards not to be imposed by force, or the threat of force," Russian President Vladimir Putin said. "There should be no place for interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states," Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev said. Tuesday's declaration echoes a similar one on the "twenty-first-century international order" signed by Putin and Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao in Moscow last week. It follows a string of complaints by leaders such as Uzbek President Islam Karimov suggesting that the West was behind uprisings in three former Soviet republics in the last two years - Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. The Shanghai group leaders also signed a commitment on Tuesday not to harbor persons sought by each other's security forces. The latter appeared to fly in the face of recent Western criticism of the mountain republic of Kyrgyzstan for handing back to Uzbek authorities four people who fled the May violence in eastern Uzbekistan. The Shanghai group has made fighting alleged extremism in the region its top priority, while also trying to use the forum to boost economic ties. Human rights groups have said that member states use the perceived threat of extremism as an excuse to crack down on the political opposition and other dissenters. Relations between Central Asian states and Western countries have cooled since the events in Uzbekistan in May, amid widespread condemnation from rights groups that claim that Uzbek troops killed hundreds of unarmed civilians. Karimov on Tuesday thanked the leaders of Russia and China for recent support, while saying that outside forces were threatening to "hijack stability and impose their model of development" on Central Asia. Amid the growing criticism of several of the Shanghai group members over human rights, the New York-based Human Rights Watch urged the group to condemn the military crackdown in Uzbekistan. "The Shanghai Cooperation Organization should hold member state Uzbekistan to account for the violence committed by government forces in Andijan," Holly Cartner, Human Rights Watch's Europe and Central Asia director said in a written statement. The two main coalition bases, one at Karshi-Khanabad in Uzbekistan, the other at Manas in Kyrgyzstan, have each been used to support US-led operations in Afghanistan since 2001. Both are predominantly staffed by US forces after other countries earlier had forces based at the Kyrgyz base. Germany also has a few hundred military personnel, most of them engineering and medical staff, at a separate base in Uzbekistan, Termez, while a few hundred French forces work from Tajikistan's main airport in Dushanbe. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receivin
[osint] London Blasts Claimed by Al Qaeda
Today's blasts in London have been claimed by Al Qaeda's European chapter, Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe. http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000884.php London Blasts Claimed by Al Qaeda Today's blasts in London have been claimed by Al Qaeda's European chapter, Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe. A statement has been posted on a site often used by Qaeda agents, www.qal3ati.com. The statement follows (translated by one of my staff here in Baghdad): Announcement on London's Operation 7/7/2005 Jamaat al-Tandheem Al-Sierri (secret organization group) Organization of Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe In the name of God the most merciful... Rejoice the nation of Islam, rejoice nation of Arabs, the time of revenge has come for the crusaders' Zionist British government. As retaliation for the massacres which the British commit in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mujahideen have successfully done it this time in London. And this is Britain now burning from fear and panic from the north to the south, from the east to the west. We have warned the brutish governments and British nation many times. And here we are, we have done what we have promised. We have done a military operation after heavy work and planning, which the mujahideen have done, and it has taken a long time to ensure the success of this operation. And we still warn the government of Denmark and Italy, all the crusader governments, that they will have the same punishment if they do not pull their forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So beware. Thursday 7/7/2005 Jamaat al-Tandheem Al-Sierri (secret organization group) Organization of al Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe. Posted by Christopher at July 7, 2005 03:47 PM -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Much Ado about the WTO
http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=589227 Much Ado about the WTO // The Ukrainian opposition goes after the microphones A confrontation Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko yesterday signed a decree dismissing First Deputy Interior Minister Aleksandr Fokin, who accused his boss the day before of arranging the tapping of telephone conversations of high-ranking Interior Ministry officials [see Kommersant of July 5]. Kiev has decided to suppress the scandal by firing its initiator, and the center of tension shifted yesterday to the Supreme Rada, where deputies spent the whole day sorting out their relations with one another. There was already a whiff of a brawl in the Supreme Rada the day before. Representatives of opposition factions blockaded the parliamentary rostrum, demanding that their colleagues in the executive branch resign their powers as deputies. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko had tried to get the same from a number of bureaucrats. The combined efforts paid off. Petr Poroshenko, the secretary of the National Security Council, yesterday submitted a letter of resignation from his powers as deputy. This success reinforced the belief of the parliamentary opposition, especially members of the Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU), that they were on the right track in the political struggle. They continued to blockade the rostrum, despite the fact that Speaker Vladimir Litvin ordered the cost of the microphone torn from the parliamentary leader's seat the day before to be deducted from the salary of one of the deputies. The ruling parties weren't asleep either. At the very start of the session, about 30 deputies from the Yulia Timoshenko Bloc, the People's Party, and the Our Ukraine faction surrounded the rostrum. These elected representatives of the people had received instructions from the government to ensure passage of a package of laws dealing with Ukraine's accession to the WTO. However, as soon as the Speaker tried to announce discussion of the question entered on the agenda, Communist Party member Aleksander Bondarenko began to break off the speaker's microphone. Members of the People's Party tried to stop him. A scuffle broke out. After a while, passions cooled, but the Communist deputies refused to leave the rostrum. Somewhat later, when Litvin gave the floor to Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko in the discussion of the draft bills on WTO accession, the Communists roused themselves again. In order to prevent the prime minister from speaking, Communist Party member Aleksey Bondarchuk turned on the siren. Andrey Shkil, Timoshenko's colleague in the bloc, tried to obstruct the Communist. Communist Yury Salamatin came to his comrade's defense, and a fight broke out between him and Shkil. Social Democratic Party member Nestor Shufrich pulled the fighters apart, but the remaining deputies blockading the rostrum had already joined in the brawl. Nevertheless, towards evening, the Supreme Rada passed the first of a series of laws required to accelerate the country's accession to the WTO and also approved another two draft bills on first reading. However, the deputies refused to consider several other key draft bills, despite the urging of Prime Minister Timoshenko and President Yushchenko, who asked parliament to pass another ten laws eliminating problems in the negotiations Ukraine's accession to the WTO before the end of this week. by Olga Berezintseva Russian Article as of July 07, 2005 -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.
[osint] London Blasts Claimed by Al Qaeda
Today's blasts in London have been claimed by Al Qaeda's European chapter, Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe. http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000884.php London Blasts Claimed by Al Qaeda Today's blasts in London have been claimed by Al Qaeda's European chapter, Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe. A statement has been posted on a site often used by Qaeda agents, www.qal3ati.com. The statement follows (translated by one of my staff here in Baghdad): Announcement on London's Operation 7/7/2005 Jamaat al-Tandheem Al-Sierri (secret organization group) Organization of Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe In the name of God the most merciful... Rejoice the nation of Islam, rejoice nation of Arabs, the time of revenge has come for the crusaders' Zionist British government. As retaliation for the massacres which the British commit in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mujahideen have successfully done it this time in London. And this is Britain now burning from fear and panic from the north to the south, from the east to the west. We have warned the brutish governments and British nation many times. And here we are, we have done what we have promised. We have done a military operation after heavy work and planning, which the mujahideen have done, and it has taken a long time to ensure the success of this operation. And we still warn the government of Denmark and Italy, all the crusader governments, that they will have the same punishment if they do not pull their forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So beware. Thursday 7/7/2005 Jamaat al-Tandheem Al-Sierri (secret organization group) Organization of al Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe. Posted by Christopher at July 7, 2005 03:47 PM -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go?
"The auditors have so far referred more than a hundred contracts, involving billions of dollars paid to American personnel and corporations, for investigation and possible criminal prosecution. They have also discovered that $8.8bn that passed through the new Iraqi government ministries in Baghdad while Bremer was in charge is unaccounted for, with little prospect of finding out where it has gone. A further $3.4bn appropriated by Congress for Iraqi development has since been siphoned off to finance "security"." http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1522804,00.html So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go? At the end of the Iraq war, vast sums of money were made available to the US-led provisional authorities, headed by Paul Bremer, to spend on rebuilding the country. By the time Bremer left the post eight months later, $8.8bn of that money had disappeared. Ed Harriman on the extraordinary scandal of Iraq's missing billions Thursday July 7, 2005 The Guardian When Paul Bremer, the American pro consul in Baghdad until June last year, arrived in Iraq soon after the official end of hostilities, there was $6bn left over from the UN Oil for Food Programme, as well as sequestered and frozen assets, and at least $10bn from resumed Iraqi oil exports. Under Security Council Resolution 1483, passed on May 22 2003, all these funds were transferred into a new account held at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, called the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), and intended to be spent by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) "in a transparent manner ... for the benefit of the Iraqi people". The US Congress also voted to spend $18.4bn of US taxpayers' money on the redevelopment of Iraq. By June 28 last year, however, when Bremer left Baghdad two days early to avoid possible attack on the way to the airport, his CPA had spent up to $20bn of Iraqi money, compared with $300m of US funds. The "reconstruction" of Iraq is the largest American-led occupation programme since the Marshall Plan - but the US government funded the Marshall Plan. Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer have made sure that the reconstruction of Iraq is paid for by the "liberated" country, by the Iraqis themselves. The CPA maintained one fund of nearly $600m cash for which there is no paperwork: $200m of it was kept in a room in one of Saddam's former palaces. The US soldier in charge used to keep the key to the room in his backpack, which he left on his desk when he popped out for lunch. Again, this is Iraqi money, not US funds. The "financial irregularities" described in audit reports carried out by agencies of the American government and auditors working for the international community collectively give a detailed insight into the mentality of the American occupation authorities and the way they operated. Truckloads of dollars were handed out for which neither they nor the recipients felt they had to be accountable. The auditors have so far referred more than a hundred contracts, involving billions of dollars paid to American personnel and corporations, for investigation and possible criminal prosecution. They have also discovered that $8.8bn that passed through the new Iraqi government ministries in Baghdad while Bremer was in charge is unaccounted for, with little prospect of finding out where it has gone. A further $3.4bn appropriated by Congress for Iraqi development has since been siphoned off to finance "security". Although Bremer was expected to manage Iraqi funds in a transparent manner, it was only in October 2003, six months after the fall of Saddam, that an International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) was established to provide independent, international financial oversight of CPA spending. (This board includes representatives from the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.) The IAMB first spent months trying to find auditors acceptable to the US. The Bahrain office of KPMG was finally appointed in April 2004. It was stonewalled. "KPMG has encountered resistance from CPA staff regarding the submission of information required to complete our procedures," they wrote in an interim report. "Staff have indicated ... that cooperation with KPMG's undertakings is given a low priority." KPMG had one meeting at the Iraqi Ministry of Finance; meetings at all the other ministries were repeatedly postponed. The auditors even had trouble getting passes to enter the Green Zone. There appears to have been good reason for the Americans to stall. At the end of June 2004, the CPA would be disbanded and Bremer would leave Iraq. There was no way the Bush administration would want independent auditors to publish a report into the financial propriety of its Iraqi administration while the CPA was still in existence and Bremer at its head still answerable to the press. So the report was published in July. The auditors found that the CPA didn't keep accounts of the hundreds
[osint] U.K. Officials Face Big Task in Bombings
"In the end, authorities will have to identify "whatever failings exist, if any, in the intelligence system that allowed this attack to take place, because it is an intelligence failure," http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050707/D8B6QUC80.html U.K. Officials Face Big Task in Bombings Jul 7, 6:39 PM (ET) By BETH GARDINER LONDON (AP) - British investigators face the daunting task of scrutinizing hours of closed circuit television footage, sifting through tons of wreckage and analyzing tiny traces of explosives to find those responsible for Thursday's deadly explosions in London. Time may not be on their side. Three weeks after bombs struck four Madrid commuter trains last year, police found some of the plotters in a safe house with more explosives, apparently planning fresh attacks. "There is real passion now in the police to make arrests quickly before further attacks can be carried out," said Charles Shoebridge, a security analyst and former counterterrorism intelligence officer. "While (the bombers) are at large now, a second attack is very likely, because there's no reason for them not to, they've broken their cover," he said. "They will now try to exploit whatever freedom they have left" to kill again, because it is likely they will eventually be caught, Shoebridge said. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the bombings - which came the day after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics and as British Prime Minister Tony Blair prepared to open a G-8 summit in Scotland - have the "hallmarks of an al-Qaida-related attack." But there was no credible claim of responsibility. A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" said in an Internet statement that it staged the blasts in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Police said they couldn't confirm the authenticity of the statement, which appeared on a Web site popular with Islamic extremists. Another unanswered question was whether any of the London attacks - one on a bus and three on the subway - may have been carried out by suicide bombers, as is often the case in Israeli bus bombings and in Iraq. Police were investigating that possibility. ABC News reported on its Web site that British officials had told American law enforcement authorities that two unexploded bombs had been found in London, but London's Metropolitan Police said it knew nothing of any such find. In the March 11, 2004, attacks on four commuter trains in Madrid, which left 191 dead, the bombers left backpacks aboard the trains and used cell phones to detonate them. The phones gave investigators a lucky break that led them to some of the attackers. One bomb failed to go off, and the subscriber identity card inside that phone eventually led investigators to the suspects, although they haven't found the plot's masterminds. After New York's World Trade Center was attacked with a truck bomb in 1993, one of the conspirators gave investigators a hand by trying to retrieve a deposit he'd put down on the vehicle destroyed in the blast. Police in London may get a break like that too, but they also have a lot of hard slogging ahead of them. London is crammed with closed-circuit television cameras - 1,800 monitor its train stations, 6,000 watch the Underground network and some buses also have cameras. Shoebridge said detectives will have to watch thousands of hours of tape - slowly and carefully. The system is only loosely coordinated, with cameras run by local authorities, traffic agencies and other bodies, making the task even more unwieldy. Investigators will try to find on tape the point at which bombs were placed, then trace back the movements of the person they identify as the bomber, an arduous task that could involve hundreds of cameras, Shoebridge said. Most of London's Underground cameras are in stations, not subway cars. Shoebridge said investigators also will check records of cell phone calls made in the bombed areas just before the explosions, a job that might be difficult if investigators can't determine where bombers boarded the trains. Authorities will likely look at the ways someone might obtain explosives, or the means to make them, talking to chemical suppliers and others who might provide leads. Forensic evidence will be key. If any of the perpetrators were suicide bombers, there will be body parts to examine for clues. If not, detectives will search for DNA or fingerprints. They'll also have to examine recent intelligence - including the phone and e-mail intercepts routinely collected as part of anti-terrorism work - to see if any clues were missed or if any of the communications contain information that looks significant in hindsight, Shoebridge said. Old interviews with informants will be re-examined and new ones conducted. In the end, authorities will have to identify "whatever failings exist, if any, in the intelligence system that allowed this attack to take place, because it is an intelligence fail
[osint] A short interview
"a quick e-mail interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Cindy and the GSFP were present in Washington on June 15, 2005, to meet with Rep. John Conyers and other members of Congress to demand a Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo and related documents." Just keeping track of the "peace at any cost" activists. I understand the movtivation from her loss, but bailing out of Iraq at this point would be a terrorism disaster. Yes, Bush43 lied and got us into Iraq for his own reasons (oil, ego, etc.) but now we are there and the country has to be stabilized before we leave or it becomes both a roiling civil war AND a huge terrorist training ground (albeit one already) whose products will be exported to our shores...and subways. David Bier http://www.antichimp.com/ A short interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace Thursday 07 July 07:57 � 58 views, [0 comments] [ Permalink ] I recently had the opportunity to conduct a quick e-mail interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Cindy and the GSFP were present in Washington on June 15, 2005, to meet with Rep. John Conyers and other members of Congress to demand a Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo and related documents. Cindy says that "the mission of GSFP is to stop the war so other families won't have to suffer as we are." The organization's web site states a dual purpose: To bring an end to the occupation of Iraq, and to be a support group for Gold Star Families. We talked about her son Casey and her thoughts on the war in Iraq. Casey was 24 when he was killed in an ambush in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, as he rode in the back of an unprotected trailer while on a mission to rescue wounded soldiers. AntiChimp: Were you politically active before your son Casey was sent to Iraq? Cindy Sheehan: No. I still don't consider myself politically active. I don't consider peace a political issue, although I know it is, it is a bipartisan human issue. So, I still don't think I am politically active in that sense... even though I meet with Congressman and Senators and spoke at the hearing. AC: Did your son ever express his feelings to you about his deployment? CS: He didn't think the war was right, but he thought it was his duty to go. AC: Because he made a commitment to military service? Or was it more complicated than that? CS: Because he thought it was his duty, and they (the soldiers) are brainwashed into thinking their buddies and the mission are the most important thing. AC: How did you become affiliated with Military Families Speak Out (MFSO)? CS: I found them shortly after Casey died, and joined. AC: Were you referred to MFSO by someone, or did you find them on the Internet? CS: A friend of mine, Bill Mitchell, whose son Mike was killed in the same ambush as Casey, found them on the internet. AC: Why did you establish Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP)? CS: To be an effective and compelling voice for peace and truth. To support each other forever in our grief. AC: Do you think that young Americans are still being misled by military recruiters? CS: I know they are. AC: Do you believe that the administration uses religion in either a positive or negative way? CS: Negative; it is manipulative and hypocritical. AC: How so? CS: They have corrupted the Gospel message to be one of hate, war, and greed. AC: Your son was very active in the church; how do you think he would feel about the administration's use of religion? CS: He would hate it and think it is hypocritical, too. AC: Is the mainstream media complicit in promoting the war in Iraq? CS: Yes. AC: What could they be doing differently? CS: Reporting the truth, and making Iraq the front page and lead-off stories. AC: Do you think they've been reluctant to present stories critical of the war or the Bush administration? CS: Obviously. AC: How would you argue for impeachment of President Bush? Do you think he should face charges in an international court? CS: He lied to the American people about WMDs and Saddam's link to 9/11. Of course he should be impeached. At the very least the DSMs should be investigated. Our country has ignored the Geneva Convention, and the lies have caused tens of thousands of innocent deaths. AC: Who do you think is primarily responsible for your son's death? CS: Me. AC: Why do you say that? CS: I didn't teach him not to die for this country. AC: Do you believe that we as private citizens have the power to change the course our government is taking? CS: Yes, we in GSFP have already made a major impact. AC: Can you give any examples? CS: Helping to publicize the Downing Street Memos, exit strategies coming from Congress... Our work has helped change public opinion. AC: Do you have hope for the future? CS: Yes, or I wouldn't be doing this.
[osint] So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go?
"The auditors have so far referred more than a hundred contracts, involving billions of dollars paid to American personnel and corporations, for investigation and possible criminal prosecution. They have also discovered that $8.8bn that passed through the new Iraqi government ministries in Baghdad while Bremer was in charge is unaccounted for, with little prospect of finding out where it has gone. A further $3.4bn appropriated by Congress for Iraqi development has since been siphoned off to finance "security"." http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1522804,00.html So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go? At the end of the Iraq war, vast sums of money were made available to the US-led provisional authorities, headed by Paul Bremer, to spend on rebuilding the country. By the time Bremer left the post eight months later, $8.8bn of that money had disappeared. Ed Harriman on the extraordinary scandal of Iraq's missing billions Thursday July 7, 2005 The Guardian When Paul Bremer, the American pro consul in Baghdad until June last year, arrived in Iraq soon after the official end of hostilities, there was $6bn left over from the UN Oil for Food Programme, as well as sequestered and frozen assets, and at least $10bn from resumed Iraqi oil exports. Under Security Council Resolution 1483, passed on May 22 2003, all these funds were transferred into a new account held at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, called the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), and intended to be spent by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) "in a transparent manner ... for the benefit of the Iraqi people". The US Congress also voted to spend $18.4bn of US taxpayers' money on the redevelopment of Iraq. By June 28 last year, however, when Bremer left Baghdad two days early to avoid possible attack on the way to the airport, his CPA had spent up to $20bn of Iraqi money, compared with $300m of US funds. The "reconstruction" of Iraq is the largest American-led occupation programme since the Marshall Plan - but the US government funded the Marshall Plan. Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer have made sure that the reconstruction of Iraq is paid for by the "liberated" country, by the Iraqis themselves. The CPA maintained one fund of nearly $600m cash for which there is no paperwork: $200m of it was kept in a room in one of Saddam's former palaces. The US soldier in charge used to keep the key to the room in his backpack, which he left on his desk when he popped out for lunch. Again, this is Iraqi money, not US funds. The "financial irregularities" described in audit reports carried out by agencies of the American government and auditors working for the international community collectively give a detailed insight into the mentality of the American occupation authorities and the way they operated. Truckloads of dollars were handed out for which neither they nor the recipients felt they had to be accountable. The auditors have so far referred more than a hundred contracts, involving billions of dollars paid to American personnel and corporations, for investigation and possible criminal prosecution. They have also discovered that $8.8bn that passed through the new Iraqi government ministries in Baghdad while Bremer was in charge is unaccounted for, with little prospect of finding out where it has gone. A further $3.4bn appropriated by Congress for Iraqi development has since been siphoned off to finance "security". Although Bremer was expected to manage Iraqi funds in a transparent manner, it was only in October 2003, six months after the fall of Saddam, that an International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) was established to provide independent, international financial oversight of CPA spending. (This board includes representatives from the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.) The IAMB first spent months trying to find auditors acceptable to the US. The Bahrain office of KPMG was finally appointed in April 2004. It was stonewalled. "KPMG has encountered resistance from CPA staff regarding the submission of information required to complete our procedures," they wrote in an interim report. "Staff have indicated ... that cooperation with KPMG's undertakings is given a low priority." KPMG had one meeting at the Iraqi Ministry of Finance; meetings at all the other ministries were repeatedly postponed. The auditors even had trouble getting passes to enter the Green Zone. There appears to have been good reason for the Americans to stall. At the end of June 2004, the CPA would be disbanded and Bremer would leave Iraq. There was no way the Bush administration would want independent auditors to publish a report into the financial propriety of its Iraqi administration while the CPA was still in existence and Bremer at its head still answerable to the press. So the report was published in July. The auditors found that the CPA didn't keep accounts of the hundreds
[osint] A short interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace
"a quick e-mail interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Cindy and the GSFP were present in Washington on June 15, 2005, to meet with Rep. John Conyers and other members of Congress to demand a Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo and related documents." Just keeping track of the "peace at any cost" activists. I understand the movtivation from her loss, but bailing out of Iraq at this point would be a terrorism disaster. Yes, Bush43 lied and got us into Iraq for his own reasons (oil, ego, etc.) but now we are there and the country has to be stabilized before we leave or it becomes both a roiling civil war AND a huge terrorist training ground (albeit one already) whose products will be exported to our shores...and subways. David Bier http://www.antichimp.com/ A short interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace Thursday 07 July 07:57 � 58 views, [0 comments] [ Permalink ] I recently had the opportunity to conduct a quick e-mail interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Cindy and the GSFP were present in Washington on June 15, 2005, to meet with Rep. John Conyers and other members of Congress to demand a Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo and related documents. Cindy says that "the mission of GSFP is to stop the war so other families won't have to suffer as we are." The organization's web site states a dual purpose: To bring an end to the occupation of Iraq, and to be a support group for Gold Star Families. We talked about her son Casey and her thoughts on the war in Iraq. Casey was 24 when he was killed in an ambush in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, as he rode in the back of an unprotected trailer while on a mission to rescue wounded soldiers. AntiChimp: Were you politically active before your son Casey was sent to Iraq? Cindy Sheehan: No. I still don't consider myself politically active. I don't consider peace a political issue, although I know it is, it is a bipartisan human issue. So, I still don't think I am politically active in that sense... even though I meet with Congressman and Senators and spoke at the hearing. AC: Did your son ever express his feelings to you about his deployment? CS: He didn't think the war was right, but he thought it was his duty to go. AC: Because he made a commitment to military service? Or was it more complicated than that? CS: Because he thought it was his duty, and they (the soldiers) are brainwashed into thinking their buddies and the mission are the most important thing. AC: How did you become affiliated with Military Families Speak Out (MFSO)? CS: I found them shortly after Casey died, and joined. AC: Were you referred to MFSO by someone, or did you find them on the Internet? CS: A friend of mine, Bill Mitchell, whose son Mike was killed in the same ambush as Casey, found them on the internet. AC: Why did you establish Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP)? CS: To be an effective and compelling voice for peace and truth. To support each other forever in our grief. AC: Do you think that young Americans are still being misled by military recruiters? CS: I know they are. AC: Do you believe that the administration uses religion in either a positive or negative way? CS: Negative; it is manipulative and hypocritical. AC: How so? CS: They have corrupted the Gospel message to be one of hate, war, and greed. AC: Your son was very active in the church; how do you think he would feel about the administration's use of religion? CS: He would hate it and think it is hypocritical, too. AC: Is the mainstream media complicit in promoting the war in Iraq? CS: Yes. AC: What could they be doing differently? CS: Reporting the truth, and making Iraq the front page and lead-off stories. AC: Do you think they've been reluctant to present stories critical of the war or the Bush administration? CS: Obviously. AC: How would you argue for impeachment of President Bush? Do you think he should face charges in an international court? CS: He lied to the American people about WMDs and Saddam's link to 9/11. Of course he should be impeached. At the very least the DSMs should be investigated. Our country has ignored the Geneva Convention, and the lies have caused tens of thousands of innocent deaths. AC: Who do you think is primarily responsible for your son's death? CS: Me. AC: Why do you say that? CS: I didn't teach him not to die for this country. AC: Do you believe that we as private citizens have the power to change the course our government is taking? CS: Yes, we in GSFP have already made a major impact. AC: Can you give any examples? CS: Helping to publicize the Downing Street Memos, exit strategies coming from Congress... Our work has helped change public opinion. AC: Do you have hope for the future? CS: Yes, or I wouldn't be doing this.
[osint] A short interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peac
"a quick e-mail interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Cindy and the GSFP were present in Washington on June 15, 2005, to meet with Rep. John Conyers and other members of Congress to demand a Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo and related documents." Just keeping track of the "peace at any cost" activists. I understand the movtivation from her loss, but bailing out of Iraq at this point would be a terrorism disaster. Yes, Bush43 lied and got us into Iraq for his own reasons (oil, ego, etc.) but now we are there and the country has to be stabilized before we leave or it becomes both a roiling civil war AND a huge terrorist training ground (albeit one already) whose products will be exported to our shores...and subways. David Bier http://www.antichimp.com/ A short interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace Thursday 07 July 07:57 � 58 views, [0 comments] [ Permalink ] I recently had the opportunity to conduct a quick e-mail interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Cindy and the GSFP were present in Washington on June 15, 2005, to meet with Rep. John Conyers and other members of Congress to demand a Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo and related documents. Cindy says that "the mission of GSFP is to stop the war so other families won't have to suffer as we are." The organization's web site states a dual purpose: To bring an end to the occupation of Iraq, and to be a support group for Gold Star Families. We talked about her son Casey and her thoughts on the war in Iraq. Casey was 24 when he was killed in an ambush in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, as he rode in the back of an unprotected trailer while on a mission to rescue wounded soldiers. AntiChimp: Were you politically active before your son Casey was sent to Iraq? Cindy Sheehan: No. I still don't consider myself politically active. I don't consider peace a political issue, although I know it is, it is a bipartisan human issue. So, I still don't think I am politically active in that sense... even though I meet with Congressman and Senators and spoke at the hearing. AC: Did your son ever express his feelings to you about his deployment? CS: He didn't think the war was right, but he thought it was his duty to go. AC: Because he made a commitment to military service? Or was it more complicated than that? CS: Because he thought it was his duty, and they (the soldiers) are brainwashed into thinking their buddies and the mission are the most important thing. AC: How did you become affiliated with Military Families Speak Out (MFSO)? CS: I found them shortly after Casey died, and joined. AC: Were you referred to MFSO by someone, or did you find them on the Internet? CS: A friend of mine, Bill Mitchell, whose son Mike was killed in the same ambush as Casey, found them on the internet. AC: Why did you establish Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP)? CS: To be an effective and compelling voice for peace and truth. To support each other forever in our grief. AC: Do you think that young Americans are still being misled by military recruiters? CS: I know they are. AC: Do you believe that the administration uses religion in either a positive or negative way? CS: Negative; it is manipulative and hypocritical. AC: How so? CS: They have corrupted the Gospel message to be one of hate, war, and greed. AC: Your son was very active in the church; how do you think he would feel about the administration's use of religion? CS: He would hate it and think it is hypocritical, too. AC: Is the mainstream media complicit in promoting the war in Iraq? CS: Yes. AC: What could they be doing differently? CS: Reporting the truth, and making Iraq the front page and lead-off stories. AC: Do you think they've been reluctant to present stories critical of the war or the Bush administration? CS: Obviously. AC: How would you argue for impeachment of President Bush? Do you think he should face charges in an international court? CS: He lied to the American people about WMDs and Saddam's link to 9/11. Of course he should be impeached. At the very least the DSMs should be investigated. Our country has ignored the Geneva Convention, and the lies have caused tens of thousands of innocent deaths. AC: Who do you think is primarily responsible for your son's death? CS: Me. AC: Why do you say that? CS: I didn't teach him not to die for this country. AC: Do you believe that we as private citizens have the power to change the course our government is taking? CS: Yes, we in GSFP have already made a major impact. AC: Can you give any examples? CS: Helping to publicize the Downing Street Memos, exit strategies coming from Congress... Our work has helped change public opinion. AC: Do you have hope for the future? CS: Yes, or I wouldn't be doing this.
[osint] A short interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace
"a quick e-mail interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Cindy and the GSFP were present in Washington on June 15, 2005, to meet with Rep. John Conyers and other members of Congress to demand a Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo and related documents." Just keeping track of the "peace at any cost" activists. I understand the movtivation from her loss, but bailing out of Iraq at this point would be a terrorism disaster. Yes, Bush43 lied and got us into Iraq for his own reasons (oil, ego, etc.) but now we are there and the country has to be stabilized before we leave or it becomes both a roiling civil war AND a huge terrorist training ground (albeit one already) whose products will be exported to our shores...and subways. David Bier http://www.antichimp.com/ A short interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace Thursday 07 July 07:57 � 58 views, [0 comments] [ Permalink ] I recently had the opportunity to conduct a quick e-mail interview with Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Cindy and the GSFP were present in Washington on June 15, 2005, to meet with Rep. John Conyers and other members of Congress to demand a Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo and related documents. Cindy says that "the mission of GSFP is to stop the war so other families won't have to suffer as we are." The organization's web site states a dual purpose: To bring an end to the occupation of Iraq, and to be a support group for Gold Star Families. We talked about her son Casey and her thoughts on the war in Iraq. Casey was 24 when he was killed in an ambush in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, as he rode in the back of an unprotected trailer while on a mission to rescue wounded soldiers. AntiChimp: Were you politically active before your son Casey was sent to Iraq? Cindy Sheehan: No. I still don't consider myself politically active. I don't consider peace a political issue, although I know it is, it is a bipartisan human issue. So, I still don't think I am politically active in that sense... even though I meet with Congressman and Senators and spoke at the hearing. AC: Did your son ever express his feelings to you about his deployment? CS: He didn't think the war was right, but he thought it was his duty to go. AC: Because he made a commitment to military service? Or was it more complicated than that? CS: Because he thought it was his duty, and they (the soldiers) are brainwashed into thinking their buddies and the mission are the most important thing. AC: How did you become affiliated with Military Families Speak Out (MFSO)? CS: I found them shortly after Casey died, and joined. AC: Were you referred to MFSO by someone, or did you find them on the Internet? CS: A friend of mine, Bill Mitchell, whose son Mike was killed in the same ambush as Casey, found them on the internet. AC: Why did you establish Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP)? CS: To be an effective and compelling voice for peace and truth. To support each other forever in our grief. AC: Do you think that young Americans are still being misled by military recruiters? CS: I know they are. AC: Do you believe that the administration uses religion in either a positive or negative way? CS: Negative; it is manipulative and hypocritical. AC: How so? CS: They have corrupted the Gospel message to be one of hate, war, and greed. AC: Your son was very active in the church; how do you think he would feel about the administration's use of religion? CS: He would hate it and think it is hypocritical, too. AC: Is the mainstream media complicit in promoting the war in Iraq? CS: Yes. AC: What could they be doing differently? CS: Reporting the truth, and making Iraq the front page and lead-off stories. AC: Do you think they've been reluctant to present stories critical of the war or the Bush administration? CS: Obviously. AC: How would you argue for impeachment of President Bush? Do you think he should face charges in an international court? CS: He lied to the American people about WMDs and Saddam's link to 9/11. Of course he should be impeached. At the very least the DSMs should be investigated. Our country has ignored the Geneva Convention, and the lies have caused tens of thousands of innocent deaths. AC: Who do you think is primarily responsible for your son's death? CS: Me. AC: Why do you say that? CS: I didn't teach him not to die for this country. AC: Do you believe that we as private citizens have the power to change the course our government is taking? CS: Yes, we in GSFP have already made a major impact. AC: Can you give any examples? CS: Helping to publicize the Downing Street Memos, exit strategies coming from Congress... Our work has helped change public opinion. AC: Do you have hope for the future? CS: Yes, or I wouldn't be doing this.
[osint] Re: Is There a Khilafah in Your Future?
It would seem that the American people are at risk from religious zealots who would enroll us in either a real version of a Christian "Republic of Gilead" with its "Moral Values" or under the yoke of the Islamic Khilafah enforced by "Sharia". I would greatly prefer they all leave us alone...but neither group of zealots is likely to just peacefully pray in their houses of worship. David Bier --- In osint@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Tefft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/www/Chronicles/2005/February2005/0205Jatra > s.html > > > Is There a Khilafah in Your Future? > The Coming Islamic Revolution > by James George Jatras > > Discussions of jihad terrorism and the best defense against it rarely avoid > entanglement in the contentious question of the relationship of terrorist > actions to Islam as a religion. Is the terrorism an aberration of Islam, or > is it, judged in light of history, the prevailing orthodoxy? Indeed, the > question is an important one, and, in a society that avoids uncomfortable > realities, answering it honestly is less a matter of analysis than of moral > courage. > > Perhaps less important in theory, but more central in terms of policy, is a > question less commonly asked: What is it, exactly, that the terrorists mean > to achieve? Nonstate violence as a political/military methodology is not > new, nor does it exist in a vacuum. It proceeds from a worldview and, in > almost all cases, has stated, ideologically defined, conscious goals. The > question then becomes one of whether the terrorists' motivations are > essentially reactive (i.e., they are offended by the presence of infidels on > the sacred soil of Arabia, they are opposed to U.S. policy in the Middle > East, they are trying to preserve a traditional way of life from the > depredations of modern moral corruption, etc.), in which case we would need > to stop doing something (pull U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia, stop > supporting Israel, stop exporting trashy movies, etc.). Or is what they want > something affirmative, something that has an independent, positive > imperative? > > In suggesting an answer to the question, I ask the reader to do a quick > Google search for the word khilafah. When I first tried this about a year > ago, the result was in the range of 26,000 to 29,000 links (some of them > redundant). Now, the results are above 50,000, and, by the time you read > this, maybe more. Almost all of these sites link to material available in > English; I can only guess what is out there in Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Turkish, > Malay, and other languages. The location of the site operators is not always > clear, but many of them seem to be based in the United Kingdom. (Since many > of the quotations in this article were downloaded a few months ago, some of > the sites have been removed, to some extent because of action of the British > government. Since the sentiments expressed on the sites are unlikely to have > disappeared as conveniently as the sites themselves, this appears to be, at > best, treating the symptom.) > > Khilafahperhaps more familiar in the common form in English, > caliphatehistorically refers to the state ruled by a successor (called > khalifah or, in English, caliph) of Muhammad, beginning in the seventh > century. The khilafah, in one form or another, lasted until it was abolished > in 1924 by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk at the founding of the Turkish Republic. > > Even a cursory review of these websites shows that in only a very few of > them does the khilafah reference pertain to this purely historical entity. > On the contrary, as far as I can see, most of them are found on advocacy > sites. These are people who date the current decrepitude of the Islamic > world in comparison with the West to abolition of the khilafah and insist > that all Muslims are obligated to work for its revival. For example, the > following is from the website (hizb-ut-tahrir.org) of the Turkish branch of > an international political party whose stated goal is reviving the khilafah: > > ===> > > It was a day like this 79 years ago, and more specifically on the 3rd of > March 1924 that . . . the criminal English agent, Mustafa Kemal (so-called > Ataturk, the "Father of the Turks"!) announced that the Grand National > Assembly had agreed to destroy the Khilafah; and . . . he establish . . . a > secular, irreligious, Turkish republic. . . . > > Since that day the Islamic ummah [nation, community] has lived a life full > of calamities; she was broken up into small mini states controlled by the > enemies of Islam in every aspect. The Muslims were oppressed and became the > object of the kuffar's [unbelievers'] d
[osint] The 28,000 victims of terrorism
"According to the NCTC figures, America suffered only five terrorism incidents last year, which included an arson attack in Utah for which the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility. Mr Brennan said that the low number of attacks on US soil reflected the good job that the Bush Administration has done in protecting the US homeland." But of course, attacks against abortion clinics and their physicians are not counted as terrorism even though they fit the definition in the Patriot Act. Nor are right wing terror groups such as the Army of God and others listed as terrorist groups even though their stated aims and actions fit the Patriot Act definition of a terrorist group. A good example of how to lie with statistics and hide a problem which, if exposed, would have to be addressed. But adding those groups to the terrorist list and pursuing them would anger Bush43 right wing Christian supporters. So they bury the problem, with the FBI listing the abortion clinic attacks as just local crime. And Bush43's folks brag about doing a good job... David Bier http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-1684077-3,00.html July 07, 2005 The 28,000 victims of terrorism >From Tim Reid in Washington New figures show dramatic increase in global attacks THERE were nearly 3,200 terrorist attacks worldwide last year, the Bush Administration said yesterday, using a broader definition that increased fivefold the number of incidents that Washington had previously tallied for 2004. In figures published in April, the US State Department said that there were 651 significant international terror incidents, with more than 9,000 victims. But under the newer, less-stringent definition of terrorism, which counts domestic attacks without an international element, the National Counterterrorism Centre (NCTC) reported 3,192 attacks worldwide, with 28,433 people killed, wounded or kidnapped. Iraq, with 866, had the most attacks against civilians and other non-combatants, according to the report. Under the April figures, Iraq was considered to have suffered 201 attacks in 2004. The new tally included attacks on Iraqis by Iraqis, a category previously excluded because it was not considered international terrorism. But attacks against coalition forces were omitted, because soldiers are considered combatants. Insurgent attacks on Iraqi police, deemed non-combatants, were included. The Bush Administrationâs terrorism figures have been the subject of repeated controversies. Last year the State Department withdrew its annual report on global terrorism after claiming that terrorism incidents had been declining for three years and that 190 cases reported in 2003 represented the lowest total since 1969. American officials trumpeted the report as evidence that the US was winning the War on Terror. But the document was found to be full of errors, and officials acknowledged that it had vastly understated the number of attacks. This year the State Department decided not to publish the terrorism figures in its annual report. It handed the responsibility to the new NCTC. John Brennan, its interim director, said that the methodology that produced the April statistics was so flawed that the numbers were unreliable. For example, when Chechen rebels blew up two airliners over Russia in near- simultaneous attacks last year, only one attack was counted under the old system. On board one aircraft were 46 Russians. The other had 43 Russians and one Israeli civilian, a foreign citizen. That allowed only the second attack to meet the criteria for international terrorism, which under the old system required terrorists to claim at least one citizen from another country among their victims. According to the NCTC figures, America suffered only five terrorism incidents last year, which included an arson attack in Utah for which the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility. Mr Brennan said that the low number of attacks on US soil reflected the good job that the Bush Administration has done in protecting the US homeland. But he noted that many attacks overseas are aimed at American and Western interests. According to the report, only 19 per cent of terrorist incidents last year were attributable to Islamic extremists. A quarter were recorded as secular or political attacks, but it said that the motives for 56 per cent remain unknown. Asked how the NCTC distinguishes between freedom fighters and terrorists, Mr Brennan said that the centreâs database is not âblack and white and perfectâ. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorize
[osint] In the Streets of Londonistan
The article contains some good background for Post 56937 in the context of the UK. While the author is obviously biased against the British security system,it gives some good background on Khalifah elements in the UK. Also, one of the persons interviewed provided a valid scenario for the development of anti-terror legislation and its incorporation into fighting regular crimes. A scenario that is exactly valid and parallel to what is happening in the U.S. Example: Last year anti-terror Patriot Act money laundering law was used as the basis for the investigation of a bribery case in Las Vegas involving, not terrorists, but politicians. Note that the Northern Command, headed by the general (then at NORAD) who failed to stop any of the four terrorist aircraft on 9/11 and was then promoted, has been granted extraordinary powers by Bush43 executive order to overcome Constitutional provisions in the event of a national security emergency. The general is empowered to decide if a NSE is occurring. (Note the emergency security provisions in the UK that are outlined at the end of the article.) David Bier "Tim Newburn, the director of the Mannheim Centre for the study of criminology at the London School of Economics, wonders how different the new threats are from those we faced before. 'I do think there is an issue about the extent to which we assume the world has changed. I'm not convinced by the arguments that we now face something that we might regard as super-terrorism with a reach and a power and a likelihood of inflicting damage that is completely different from the things we faced before 11 September. Neither do I agree with the even more dystopian picture of entire nation states now under threat from the new terrorist activities. One of the reasons I feel sceptical about those arguments, apart from the lack of evidence, is the relatively recent history of terrorism. What tends to happen is that we are presented with the idea that we face a new and terrible threat, which necessitates the introduction of emergency powers and the expenditure of vast amounts of money, and then in time we face a normalisation of those powers.' This process of normalisation, which concentrates power in the hands of law enforcement agencies, has several distinct features. First, a law introduced as a temporary measure is transformed in due course into a permanent piece of legislation. Second, a symbiotic relationship develops between the ordinary criminal law and emerging legislation as elements of one are incorporated into the other - and the effect is a general tightening up of the statutory criminal law. Finally, emergency powers are used to deal with ordinary crime. Unlike Tamimi, Newburn believes that 'the police services themselves fuel the process. They are a significant player in what we always see under these kinds of circumstance, which is the emergence of a campaign for new legislative powers and new resources. However, I would have to say that they are usually pushing at a fairly open door." http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n02/upto01_.html LRB | Vol. 26 No. 2 dated 22 January 2004 | John Upton In the Streets of Londonistan John Upton Perhaps it is the rain. The gaggle of BNP protesters standing behind the crowd-control barrier on Tottenham High Road are very subdued. They are almost to a man - they are all men - overweight, shaven-headed and in their late thirties (think Private Eye's Yobs). They stand rather meekly, as if trying hard to prove their reasonableness. One of them, the oldest, holds a soaking piece of paper in his left hand on which is written a speech, and in his right a megaphone to berate his audience of passers-by and journalists on the other side of the road. 'This is a sovereign nation. These people are committing treason. Why are they not being arrested?' The megaphone squeals with feedback. A man is talking about them on his mobile phone; he laughs openly. The small group of policemen posted outside the industrial estate where al-Muhajiroun are holding a press conference, laugh too. The rain begins to fall even harder; on the kebab shops, on the hairdressers, on the BNP. 'Fucking Pakis,' one of the Yobs says. It is 11 September 2003. I cross the road and ask a policeman where to go for the press briefing. He points in the direction of a checkpoint set up by al-Muhajiroun. Al-Muhajiroun are holding a conference to commemorate the 19 mujahideen who gave their lives for the cause of jihad. I am frisked thoroughly, quickly and professionally by a mountain of a man dressed in a jellaba. He tells me to hurry up the stairs - the briefing may already have started. Upstairs is a large room with whitewashed walls and grey carpet tiles. On one of the walls a banner proclaims that there is no God but God. A panel of young, bearded men are sitting under the banner, facing a semi-circular swathe of TV cameras on tripods and photographers jostling for p
[osint] âA Long-Term Threatâ
"There will be the obvious demands for the Department of Homeland Security to pony up an integrated transportation security planâ"which they have not done. We donât have a good sense of how much we ought to be allocating to the air security versus rail security versus any other transportation-mode security in this country. Itâs a very difficult question to address, and it needs to be done in a very careful and integrated fashion." There is $150 million in the Federal budget this year for ground transportation (rail, bus, subway). A pittance in comparison to the scope of the problem. Just to beef up security for New York City alone would probably cost more than that. Ground transport is going to be vulnerable to terrorist attack for a very long time at the current rate of funding. David Bier http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8500211/site/newsweek/?rf=nwnewsletter âA Long-Term Threatâ A counterterrorism expert discusses how the London bomb attacks were carried outâ"and whether they could have been prevented. WEB EXCLUSIVE By Susanna Schrobsdorff Newsweek Updated: 4:06 p.m. ET July 7, 2005 July 7 - The first bomb went off at 8.51 a.m., in the midst of the London rush hour. By 9.47 a.m.â"56 minutes laterâ"at least four blasts had rocked the heart of the British capital. Three were on crowded underground trains; the fourth on one of the cityâs signature red double-decker buses. Hours after the attacks, the number of dead remained unclear. Hundreds, however, were injuredâ"many severelyâ"and tens of thousands of commuters were stranded after the city shut down its subway and bus systems. Who was behind the coordinated attacks? While British authorities initially said they were keeping an open mind, a group calling itself the Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe quickly claimed responsibility. The group also threatened future assaults on Italy and Denmark, two other U.S. allies that have supported the war in Iraq. The London incident, following 15 months after the devastating Al Qaeda-linked rail bombing in Madrid, has security officials around the world on high alert and investigators scrambling for clues as to exactly how the attack was carried out and by whom. Jack Riley, associate director of RAND Infrastructure, Safety and Environment and a founding codirector of RANDâs Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy, spoke with NEWSWEEKâs Susanna Schrobsdorff about how terrorist cells operate and what counterterrorism experts could learn from the attack on London. Excerpts: NEWSWEEK: Is this attack similar to other Al Qaeda attacks? Jack Riley: It is evident from [their] nature that this has the hallmark of an Al Qaeda-inspired or actual Al Qaeda attack. There are very clear parallels to what happened in Madrid [in March 2004] and how the U.S. was attacked in September of 2001, which was also multiple simultaneous attacks. What was the logic behind the timing of the attack? Is it relevant that it was announced yesterday that London had won the 2012 Olympics, or did it have more to do with the G8 summit of the worldâs economic leaders in Scotland? The timing [with respect to] Olympic announcement was just coincidence. The timing of the attack was probably organized around the G8 summit, [but] that might also be just a coincidence. When you look at the list of cities worldwide that are at risk, London has been on that list for virtually as long as New York and Washington, D.C. How prepared was Britain for this kind of attack? There are very few places, in my opinion, that are as well prepared as the United Kingdom in terms of rail security. Thereâs no question that the Brits have been very serious about terrorism preparedness for a long time. Theyâve intercepted major recent threats, including the ricin poisoning plot a few summers ago. They have long, long experience with this kind of issue from the IRA [Irish Republican Army] campaign. They had excellent intelligence capabilities, particularly with respect to the radical Islamic threat. They watched what happened in Madrid very carefully. And to me, that just demonstrates how difficult it is to prevent these kinds of incidents from happening. What kind of logistical planning would it take to execute an attack like this? The demands on an organization to carry out [multiple] attacks like that probably increase exponentially. In other words, to carry out four simultaneous bombings is more difficult than simply just four times the difficulty of carrying out one bombing. You need to have people in position at the right place and time. It increases the risk of being observed by law enforcement and compromising the operation. There are all sorts of ways that these kinds of attacks raise the risk of the operation being compromised by someone on the inside who might be a turncoat. Or there could be law-enforcement penetration [of the organization]. How many people might be
[osint] Re: 'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander
The HSBC tower is located right next to Canary Wharf building which contains a tube station. Highly likely that the police intercepted two bombers who had been unable to enter the tube station or pursued them from it. That scenario would be consistent with instructions to the building occupants to stay clear of the windows so that the two bombs (probably in backpacks) could be defused and removed or (with possible glass impact) detonated in place if defusing was not feasible. This may be the source for the reporting that the British had recovered two unexploded bombs. If true, that will speed the investigation as unexploded ordnance often evidences the "signature" of the bomb maker and thence the group either by his identity or the techniques of bomb construction taught by a particular group in its training centers. That data, along with tracing of materials used, can speed identification and arrest of suspects. David Bier Background on HSBC tower: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/HSBC_Tower,_London HSBC Tower, London >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Photo of HSBC Tower in the article show a building to right which is occuiped by Credit Suisse First Boston and Bank of America) HSBC Tower is a skyscraper located in the Canary Wharf development in the London Docklands. The building, whose formal address is 8 Canada Square, serves as the international headquarters for HSBC Holdings PLC (the largest bank in the world by some measures). The tower was designed by Sir Norman Foster's team of architects. Construction began in 1997 and was completed in 2002. There are 39 office floors in the 200 metre high tower, the second largest in the United Kingdom. Standing alongside the HSBC Tower are 1 Canada Square (known popularly as Canary Wharf); and the Citigroup Centre, which forms the British head office of the multinational US bank, Citigroup. The tower is not open to the public. The nearest tube station is Canary Wharf, serving the Jubilee Line and Docklands Light Railway. A bus service runs to London City Airport. A small shopping mall is at the base of the development. See Also * Tall buildings in London Other tall buildings in the same city as this building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_buildings_in_London * 1 Canada Square another building located on Canary Wharf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Canada_Square --- In osint@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Tefft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10334992 > > 'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander > > > 09.07.05 > > > A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed > the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside > the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London. > > The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two > men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time). > > Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to > stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, > the New Zealand man said. > > He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he > said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower. > > Reports of attacks carried out by suicide bombers have been rife in London. > > Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police > shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower. > > Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, said he > saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the building after London was > rocked by the bombings. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond
[osint] Where has all the money gone?
"Both Saddam and the US profited handsomely during his reign. He controlled Iraqâs wealth while most of Iraqâs oil went to Californian refineries to provide cheap petrol for American voters. US corporations, like those who enjoyed Saddamâs favour, grew rich. Today the system is much the same: the oil goes to California, and the new Iraqi government spends the countryâs money with impunity." "In the absence of any meaningful accountability, Iraqis have no way of knowing how much of the nationâs wealth is being handed out to ministersâ and civil servantsâ friends and families or funnelled into secret overseas bank accounts. Given that many Baâathists are now back in government, some of that money may even be financing the insurgents." Meanwhile, the U.S. government...Bush43...blocked lawsuits in our courts brought by military POWs from the first Gulf War who had sued the Iraqi government for damages from torture during their imprisonment. Reason: Funds were needed for reconstruction. David Bier http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n13/print/harr04_.html LRB | Vol. 27 No. 13 dated 7 July 2005 | Ed Harriman Where has all the money gone? Ed Harriman follows the auditors into Iraq US House of Representatives Government Reform Committee Minority Office | Link: http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/ US General Accountability Office | Link: http://www.gao.gov/ Defense Contract Audit Agency | Link: http://www.dcaa.mil/ International Advisory and Monitoring Board | Link: http://www.iamb.info/ Coalition Provisional Authority Inspector General | Link: http://www.cpa-ig.com/ Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction | Link: http://www.sigir.mil/ On 12 April 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Erbil in northern Iraq handed over $1.5 billion in cash to a local courier. The money, fresh $100 bills shrink-wrapped on pallets, which filled three Blackhawk helicopters, came from oil sales under the UNâs Oil for Food Programme, and had been entrusted by the UN Security Council to the Americans to be spent on behalf of the Iraqi people. The CPA didnât properly check out the courier before handing over the cash, and, as a result, according to an audit report by the CPAâs inspector general, âthere was an increased risk of the loss or theft of the cash.â Paul Bremer, the American pro-consul in Baghdad until June last year, kept a slush fund of nearly $600 million cash for which there is no paperwork: $200 million of this was kept in a room in one of Saddamâs former palaces, and the US soldier in charge used to keep the key to the room in his backpack, which he left on his desk when he popped out for lunch. Again, this is Iraqi money, not US funds. The âreconstructionâ of Iraq is the largest American-led occupation programme since the Marshall Plan. But there is a difference: the US government funded the Marshall Plan whereas Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer have made sure that the reconstruction of Iraq is paid for by the âliberatedâ country, by the Iraqis themselves. There was $6 billion left over from the UN Oil for Food Programme, as well as sequestered and frozen assets, and revenue from resumed oil exports (at least $10 billion in the year following the invasion). Under Security Council Resolution 1483, passed on 22 May 2003, all of these funds were transferred into a new account held at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, called the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), so that they might be spent by the CPA âin a transparent manner . . . for the benefit of the Iraqi peopleâ. Congress, itâs true, voted to spend $18.4 billion of US taxpayersâ money on the redevelopment of Iraq. But by 28 June last year, when Bremer left Baghdad two days early to avoid possible attack on the way to the airport, his CPA had spent up to $20 billion of Iraqi money, compared to $300 million of US funds. The âfinancial irregularitiesâ described in audit reports carried out by agencies of the American government and auditors working for the international community collectively give a detailed insight into the mentality of the American occupation authorities and the way they operated, handing out truckloads of dollars for which neither they nor the recipients felt any need to be accountable. The auditors have so far referred more than a hundred contracts, involving billions of dollars paid to American personnel and corporations, for investigation and possible criminal prosecution. They have also discovered that $8.8 billion that passed through the new Iraqi government ministries in Baghdad while Bremer was in charge is unaccounted for, with little prospect of finding out where it went. A further $3.4 billion earmarked by Congress for Iraqi development has since been siphoned off to finance âsecurityâ. That audit reports were commissioned at all owes a lot to Henry Waxman, a Democrat and ranking minority member of the House of Representatives Committee
[osint] More Trouble for Rove in CIA Leak Case?
"This past weekend, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported that the emails and notes turned over by Time indicated that "one of Cooper's sources [for Time's article that named Plame] was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove." Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for that article. But Luskin maintained that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." (But does that statement cover all possibilities? Might Rove have confirmed Valerie Plame had a job at the CIA? Might he have said that "Valerie Wilson"--not Plame--worked for the CIA?)" BLOG | Posted 07/07/2005 @ 5:33pm More Trouble for Rove in CIA Leak Case? What happened on Wednesday in Courtroom 8 at the federal district courthouse in Washington, DC, gave rise to more questions than answers about the shrouded-in-secrecy Plame/CIA leak investigation. But those questions may not be good for Karl Rove. The most dramatic moment of the hour-plus hearing was when federal District Court Judge Thomas Hogan ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail for failing to reveal a source to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been trying to find out which Bush administration officials outed undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the Bush White House. Conservative columnist Bob Novak first published the leak in a July 14, 2003 article that cited "two senior administration officials." Three days later, Time magazine posted a piece cowritten by Cooper that noted that "government officials" had told Time about Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA. Miller wrote no article on this matter but apparently she talked to at least one source about it. Her decision to honor her pledge of confidentiality to her source and resist a court order might have afforded her source--whoever that might be--a measure of protection. But minutes earlier, Cooper--who had also been held in civil contempt for not cooperating with Fitzgerald--made a dramatic statement that could lead to trouble for a source he had previously protected, and that source might be Rove. Cooper told the court that he had left home that morning--after saying good-bye to his six-year-old son and telling the boy that he might not see him for a while--resolved not to comply with Fitzgerald's request that he testify before the grand jury. (Time had already surrendered Cooper's notes and emails to Fitzgerald--over Cooper's objections--but Fitzgerald still sought Cooper's testimony.) But on the way to the courthouse, Cooper said to the judge, his source had contacted him and provided what Cooper called a "personal and unambiguous waiver to speak before the grand jury." So Cooper declared that he was now prepared to answer Fitzgerald's questions. He would not be sent off to the hoosegow. What does this mean for Cooper's source--a person apparently of intense interest to Fitzgerald? This past weekend, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported that the emails and notes turned over by Time indicated that "one of Cooper's sources [for Time's article that named Plame] was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove." Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for that article. But Luskin maintained that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." (But does that statement cover all possibilities? Might Rove have confirmed Valerie Plame had a job at the CIA? Might he have said that "Valerie Wilson"--not Plame--worked for the CIA?) Is Rove indeed the Cooper source being pursued by Fitzgerald and the person who apparently gave Cooper the greenlight to tell all to the grand jury? After Cooper's announcement, Rove's lawyer told Newsweek that Rove and Cooper had not "spoken" about waiving confidentiality prior to the court hearing. Luskin may have been playing it cute. Perhaps the communication between Rove and Cooper was an email. And The New York Times reported that lawyers representing Cooper and Rove--not Cooper and Rove--had talked prior to hearing. Or could it be that another Cooper source is Fitzgerald's target? What's come out so far still points to Rove. And it does seem clear that only one Cooper source is in the middle of this imbroglio. In a recent court filing, Fitzgerald repeatedly noted that he needed Cooper's testimony regarding "a" source (not more than one). And in Cooper's last-minute courtroom drama, he noted that his "source"--one person, that is--had released him. ** Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Supreme Court pessimism, blaming Hillary, and Safire's latest mis-fact. *** This focus on one person is curious. The Time story written by Cooper reported, And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitor
[osint] Sharon Grants Egypt Military Rewards in Sinai, Is Outmaneuvered by a Secret UK-E
"Arafatâs death has changed little in the financial administration of the Palestinian Authority. And the back door for financing terrorists from such transactions as Palestinian gas exports to Egypt is wide open." http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1051 Sharon Grants Egypt Military Rewards in Sinai, Is Outmaneuvered by a Secret UK-Egyptian-Palestinian Gas Transaction DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 5, 2005, 2:53 PM (GMT+02:00) In the middle of last weekâs Gush Katif clashes between Israeli soldiers and anti-evacuation activists, a Hizballah commando raid on northern Israel and traffic blockages by more protesters, prime minister Ariel Sharonâs emissaries quietly wound up negotiations on a military protocol with Egypt. This protocol, under challenge now by Israeli lawmakers, formally provides for the deployment of 750 Egyptian border police along the southern Gaza Philadelphi border route to enable the withdrawal of Israeli troops and civilians from the Gaza Strip. But, according to DEBKAfileâs military sources, the tacit part of the deal offers Cairo much more than a military foothold along this 14-km border strip. Against the recommendations of the Israeli high command and military intelligence AMAN, the Sharon government has agreed to Egyptâs deployment of commando troops, APCS equipped with night-vision equipment and helicopters along the entire border. Moreover, the Egyptian navy will be allowed to use the northern Sinai Mediterranean port of El Arish as a naval base for warships. Likud Knesset Member Michael Eytan called the House into session Tuesday, July 5, to air the deal before it is finally signed. He acted on receipt of legal opinions confirming that even the limited Philadelphi route deal contravened the military clauses of the Egyptian-Israeli treaty which mandate the demilitarization of all parts of Sinai including the borders. If the deal goes through without parliamentary approval, a group of lawmakers stands ready to file High Court petitions to declare it invalid. June 30, the day after Israeli and Egyptian officials agreed on the protocol, Israeli infrastructure minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer and Egyptian oil minister Sameh Fahmi added their signatures in Cairo to a $2.5bn agreement for the annual sale of 1.1 bn cubic meters of Egyptian natural gas to Israel in the next 15 years. The gas will be pumped through a maritime pipeline to Israelâs Mediterranean port of Ashkelon. The deal was concluded between the Israel Electric Corp. and the Israeli-Egyptian consortium East Mediterranean Gas (Egyptian General Petrol Corporation and Yossi Meimanâs Merhav). Sharon preferred the Egyptian gas offer to the bid made by the Palestinian Authority-British Gas on the grounds that any cash flow to the Palestinian would end up bankrolling terrorist operations against Israel. DEBKAfileâs Middle East sources reveal that, when Ben Eliezer shook the hand of Fahmi in Cairo, he had no notion that Egypt and Britain had secretly struck a separate deal behind Israelâs back. It provided for British Gas and its Palestinian partners - through the Athens-based Consolidated Contractors Company â" CCC - to resume drilling at the Gaza offshore field and sell the gas to Egypt over the same 15-year period as the contract with Israel. This contract stands to put $150-200m a year in Palestinian pockets. Britain and Egypt will lay a marine pipeline from the gas fields to El Arish outside which the British have begun constructing a gas refinery at Sheik Al Zwayed. A small part of its output will be piped to the Gaza power station to replace the energy supplied by Israelâs electric corporation. The Israel-Egyptian military protocol if signed will turn El Arish into a boom port, the harbor of the Egyptian fleet and site of a gas terminal for European tankers to transfer liquid gas outside the Middle East. Britain is sinking $150 m into its construction. The refined Palestinian gas left over from its domestic use, about 60%, will be siphoned into Egyptâs gas pipe system which is linked to Jordan and by the end of summer 2005 will reach Syria. Egyptian and Palestinian gas will both flow through this system and it is entirely possible that Israel will end up with Palestinian gas after all. DEBKAfileâs Palestinian sources add: The head of the Palestinian Electricity Company Walid Sayel (son of the PLO military commander in Lebanon General Saad Sayel who was murdered by the Syrians in 1993) is handling the project for the Palestinians. He Is also the go-between with the CCC, which runs the Palestinian Investment Fund. This turn of events is at complete odds with the Ariel Sharonâs energy strategy. His decision to buy Egyptian rather than Palestinian gas was influenced by the following security considerations: 1. If Israel rejected Palestinian gas, it would have no alternative buyers given the worldâs glut of gas. 2. The Palestinians would thus be denied revenues that would obviously
[osint] Matt Cooper's Source
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter. "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/ Matt Cooper's Source What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter. By Michael Isikoff Newsweek July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA. Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead. For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove didâ"and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify. The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife. In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"â"CIA Director George Tenetâ"or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... " Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK. A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three gr
[osint]
"Failure in Iraq, either by leaving too early or by losing control of the country, would embolden warring Muslim radicals across the Middle East and confirm what Osama bin Laden has preached: The United States doesn't have the stomach for a prolonged fight. The idea of Arab democracy would collapse with American credibility, experts say. Americans would face a host of new security threats." "A lot of the military recovery under (the first President) Bush and Reagan and Desert Storm â" a lot of that would be lost," Brookings' O'Hanlon said. "If we lose in Iraq and you look back several decades, you'd see more defeats than victories â" Somalia, Beirut, Vietnam." Yes Bush43 lied to the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq. But it wasn't Hussein support for Al Qaeda (he didn't even let them operate in areas he controlled, only Ansar al Islami operated in the Kurd zone...protected by allied air power). Nor was it Hussein's WMD (he didn't have any he could use against the U.S.,per both the UN and the 9/11 Commission). It was about OIL with planning for Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)(yes folks that was the original name of the Iraq invasion project) starting in January, 2001 and the plans of the Iraq oil infrastructure reviewed by Cheney in March 2001. It was also about Bush43's compulsion to be labeled in history (as he stated to his ghost writer in 1999) as a warrior president. Regardless, we did invade and now have the tiger by the tail. Letting go before it is tamed is an invitation to be eaten by Al Qaeda and every Jihadi envisoning the Khalifah while our economy goes down the toilet. We have to "stay the course" but if we continue to do it like Bush43 has been doing it (no plan to secure the nation of Iraq, huge corruption and loss of billions unaccounted for, insufficient troops to close the borders to jihadi suicide bombers flowing in to join Zarqawi and not enough troops to secure urban areas from the Baathist insurgents), then we will certainly fail. Half measures will guarantee you end up with half a posterior. Success in Iraq now will require at least 300,000 troops to ensure sufficient coverage of the countryside and borders along with adequate incident response forces to interdict, pursue and destroy insurgents. Yes, we are training Iraqi forces but they are shaky right now at best and too few to make much difference or halt the cycle of violence. Only a vast influx of U.S. troops can stop the current downward spiral of escalating insurgent violence long enough for the Iraqi security forces to stop disintegrating, stabilize and begin to grow in numbers, quality and effectiveness. However, I doubt seriously that Bush43 has the guts (he couldn't even risk showing up for a NG flight physical) to risk his presidency on moving more troops into Iraq and it is doubtful that either his own party or the public would stand for it at this point. Prognosis: Failure in Iraq, collapsing economy at home, a demoralized military, repressive security measures in the homeland, a rising tide of terrorism and activity on the WMD and military fronts by Iran, North Korea and many others. I really, really hope I am wrong... David Bier http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050710/OPINION/507100319/1046 Iraq: Stay the course # Outcome to affect Americans By John Yaukey Gannett News Service WASHINGTON â" President Bush has been trying to rally war-weary Americans by pounding home the message that staying the course in Iraq is strategically and morally necessary. On the flip side of that argument are the considerable costs of failure. In interviews and panel discussions, experts in military strategy, foreign policy, energy markets and national security overwhelmingly conclude that failure in Iraq â" either because of U.S. mistakes or a loss of will to stay â" would have far-reaching effects on Americans. It wouldn't take long, they say, for the shock wave from a faltering Iraq to rumble through U.S. living rooms. Oil prices would skyrocket, Islamic extremists and terrorists would rejoice in an historic victory, Americans would face a new world of security threats while morale among U.S troops likely would sink. "Let me remind you that Iraq is centered in an area with 60 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and 40 percent of its gas," Anthony Cordesman, author of Iraq's Evolving Insurgency," said. "In very narrow, selfish strategic terms, what happens in Iraq will affect the global economy, our economy and every job in this country for years to come." Civil war If the United States were to lose its resolve in Iraq and pull out early, civil war is a real possibility. But what would happen in such a conflict? Iraqis fighting each other â" much like they are now? Much worse, experts say. A civil
[osint] Iraq: Stay the course
"Failure in Iraq, either by leaving too early or by losing control of the country, would embolden warring Muslim radicals across the Middle East and confirm what Osama bin Laden has preached: The United States doesn't have the stomach for a prolonged fight. The idea of Arab democracy would collapse with American credibility, experts say. Americans would face a host of new security threats." "A lot of the military recovery under (the first President) Bush and Reagan and Desert Storm ââ¬" a lot of that would be lost," Brookings' O'Hanlon said. "If we lose in Iraq and you look back several decades, you'd see more defeats than victories ââ¬" Somalia, Beirut, Vietnam." Yes Bush43 lied to the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq. But it wasn't Hussein support for Al Qaeda (he didn't even let them operate in areas he controlled, only Ansar al Islami operated in the Kurd zone...protected by allied air power). Nor was it Hussein's WMD (he didn't have any he could use against the U.S.,per both the UN and the 9/11 Commission). It was about OIL with planning for Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)(yes folks that was the original name of the Iraq invasion project) starting in January, 2001 and the plans of the Iraq oil infrastructure reviewed by Cheney in March 2001. It was also about Bush43's compulsion to be labeled in history (as he stated to his ghost writer in 1999) as a warrior president. Regardless, we did invade and now have the tiger by the tail. Letting go before it is tamed is an invitation to be eaten by Al Qaeda and every Jihadi envisoning the Khalifah while our economy goes down the toilet. We have to "stay the course" but if we continue to do it like Bush43 has been doing it (no plan to secure the nation of Iraq, huge corruption and loss of billions unaccounted for, insufficient troops to close the borders to jihadi suicide bombers flowing in to join Zarqawi and not enough troops to secure urban areas from the Baathist insurgents), then we will certainly fail. Half measures will guarantee you end up with half a posterior. Success in Iraq now will require at least 300,000 troops to ensure sufficient coverage of the countryside and borders along with adequate incident response forces to interdict, pursue and destroy insurgents. Yes, we are training Iraqi forces but they are shaky right now at best and too few to make much difference or halt the cycle of violence. Only a vast influx of U.S. troops can stop the current downward spiral of escalating insurgent violence long enough for the Iraqi security forces to stop disintegrating, stabilize and begin to grow in numbers, quality and effectiveness. However, I doubt seriously that Bush43 has the guts (he couldn't even risk showing up for a NG flight physical) to risk his presidency on moving more troops into Iraq and it is doubtful that either his own party or the public would stand for it at this point. Prognosis: Failure in Iraq, collapsing economy at home, a demoralized military, repressive security measures in the homeland, a rising tide of terrorism and activity on the WMD and military fronts by Iran, North Korea and many others. I really, really hope I am wrong... David Bier http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article ?AID=/20050710/OPINION/5071003\ 19/1046 Iraq: Stay the course # Outcome to affect Americans By John Yaukey Gannett News Service WASHINGTON ââ¬" President Bush has been trying to rally war-weary Americans by pounding home the message that staying the course in Iraq is strategically and morally necessary. On the flip side of that argument are the considerable costs of failure. In interviews and panel discussions, experts in military strategy, foreign policy, energy markets and national security overwhelmingly conclude that failure in Iraq ââ¬" either because of U.S. mistakes or a loss of will to stay ââ¬" would have far-reaching effects on Americans. It wouldn't take long, they say, for the shock wave from a faltering Iraq to rumble through U.S. living rooms. Oil prices would skyrocket, Islamic extremists and terrorists would rejoice in an historic victory, Americans would face a new world of security threats while morale among U.S troops likely would sink. "Let me remind you that Iraq is centered in an area with 60 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and 40 percent of its gas," Anthony Cordesman, author of Iraq's Evolving Insurgency," said. "In very narrow, selfish strategic terms, what happens in Iraq will affect the global economy, our economy and every job in this country for years to come." Civil war If the United States were to lose its resolve in Iraq and pull out early, civil war is a real possibility. But what would happen in such a conflict? Iraqis fighting each other ââ¬" much like they are now? Much worse, experts sa
[osint] Re: Sun: Evil disciples of Osama
One of the hallmarks of a democracy with rule of law is that the police have to demonstrate to the courts that a crime has been committed in order to arrest someone. Speech, absent any exigent circumstance (yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre for example), is NOT a crime in Britain or the U.S. There was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of repeated search warrants as the members' homes were searched repeatedly. However, apparently no prosecutable evidence of crimes or conspiracy to commit crimes was found. Just clapping people in jail for saying bad things or speaking in support of terrible people is generally considered the benchmark of a totalitarian regime and most supporters of the Constitution are hesitant to urge such actions...lest they be next. David Bier --- In osint@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Tefft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Muslims, loyal to Osama bin Laden and there's not enough evidence to arrest > them? Something definitely wrong with the Western criminal justice system > AND the western way of war. > > Bruce > > > "THE bomb blitz is feared to be the work of a new breed of terrorists - > young, well-educated British Asians loyal to Osama bin Laden. ... The gang - > mostly ex-students in their 20s - have had their homes watched for months, > but there has not been enough evidence to arrest them." > > > > http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005310429,00.html > > > Evil disciples of Osama > By BRIAN FLYNN > and JOHN KAY > > > [photo] > Victim ... wounded commuter > in blood-drenched clothes > > > THE bomb blitz is feared to be the work of a new breed of terrorists - > young, well-educated British Asians loyal to Osama bin Laden. > > Last night a terror cell based in the Midlands emerged as suspects behind > the outrage. > > They are Muslim extremists - yet the bombs aimed to deal out death and > injury indiscriminately to people of ALL faiths. > > The gang - mostly ex-students in their 20s - have had their homes watched > for months, but there has not been enough evidence to arrest them. > > Intelligence agents have monitored calls between members and al-Qaeda in > Afghanistan. > > A US security source said: "The suspected cell is not the only one being > looked at but is one of the most serious lines of inquiry. The suspects are > British - disaffected graduates who graduated in the UK, then went to > Islamic schools in Pakistan, near the Afghan border." > > > [photo] > Victims ... Muslim woman in burka and lad are helped > from ambulance at Royal London Hospital > > > > Security services tried to locate the gang yesterday but it is understood > not all could be found. > > Terror expert Professor Michael Clarke, of King's College London, said > planting a string of bombs would require a cell of at least 18 to 20 people. > > Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said at the G8 summit last night the bombings > had "the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda-related attack". > > NO warnings were given, and the TIMING came as massive security was > concentrated on the G8 summit, with 1,500 Scotland Yard cops drafted to > Edinburgh. And public transport was the ultra-soft TARGET - just as when > al-Qaeda attacked Madrid last year. > > > [photo] > Victims ... stunned passengers trudge from Edgware > Road station to have injuries treated at nearby Hilton > > > > A European wing of the evil empire claimed repsonsibility for the attack in > a sick boast on the internet. > > The group - calling itself the Secret Organization Group of al-Qaeda of > Jihad Organization in Europe - called the bombers "heroic" and demanded > troops be withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. > > It ranted: "We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We > have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in > Britain after our mujahidin exerted strenuous efforts over a long period to > ensure success of the raid. > > "He who warns is excused." > > The website is believed to be run by a bin Laden associate based in London, > with links to Abu Dhabi. > > Radical Muslim cleric Sheik Omar Bakri issued a chilling warning three > months ago that a European wing of al-Qaeda was preparing to attack London. > > > [photo] > Evil ... Osama bin Laden > > > > The sheik told a Portugese magazine: "One very well organised group in > London has a great appeal for young Muslims. I know that they are ready to > launch a big operation. It is inevitable." > > He added: "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, > inno
[osint] From Filmmaker in Los Angeles to Iraq Detainee
"A Defense Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of that Pentagon policy said Mr. Kar, his cameraman, Farshid Faraji, and a taxi driver were arrested by Iraqi security forces in Baghdad on May 17, when a search of the taxi turned up "dozens" of washing machine timers - devices that Iraqi insurgents have used to make improvised explosive devices." "He's cleared," one of Mr. Kar's aunts, Parvin Modarress of Los Angeles, quoted Mr. Wilson as saying, "They were waiting for a lie-detector machine, but they finally got it. He passed the lie-detector test." Give me a break. How the dickens would a passenger in a taxi know what the taxi driver had stored in the vehicle? When you hire the taxi, you don't interrogate the driver about his political history. Astounding that it is obvious that this guy is NOT a terrorist but a legitimate scholar and film maker who SUPPORTS the Bush43 war in Iraq. And yet the detention system over there is so screwed up that they can't seem to just let someone GO! Of course, the indications he might have initially been tortured might have some bearing on why now they don't want to let him loose after all the highly negative media about Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo. Probable result: It will probably end up like the case of the young Jewish American who was detained for several months in Iraq until his case got media attention. Then they kicked him loose with no support or cash and the insurgents promptly kidnapped and murdered him. Kar, now that the mostly Sunni insurgents know he is an Iraq war supporter and an Iranian (Shiite in their view), are probably circling the gates of his detention center eagerly waiting for the bad press pressure on the authorities to result in Kar being summarily and vulnerably booted out onto the street...ready to be butchered in yet another video. David Bier http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/international/mi ddleeast/06detain.html?ex=1278302400&en=b4b9101fc7 4d564d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss July 6, 2005 >From Filmmaker in Los Angeles to Iraq Detainee By TIM GOLDEN LOS ANGELES, July 5 - Like a lot of aspiring filmmakers in Los Angeles, Cyrus Kar was obsessed with his project, a documentary about an ancient Persian king who championed tolerance and human rights even as he built an empire that stretched across the Near East. But Mr. Kar, 44, a naturalized American born in Iran, followed his dream where few others might have gone. In mid-May, he traveled to Iraq with an Iranian cameraman to film archaeological sites around Babylon. After a taxi they were in was stopped in Baghdad, the two men were arrested by Iraqi security forces, who found what they suspected might be bomb parts in the vehicle. Since then, Mr. Kar has been held in what his relatives and their lawyers describe as a frightening netherworld of American military detention in Iraq - charged with no crime but nonetheless unable to gain his freedom or even tell his family where he is being held. He is one of four men with dual American citizenship who have been detained in Iraq beginning in April, a Defense Department official said. But none of the others - all Iraqi-Americans suspected of ties to the insurgency - nor an accused Jordanian-American terrorist operative captured in a raid last year appear to have had anything like Mr. Kar's ties to the United States. Mr. Kar, the son of an Iranian physician, came to the United States when he was 2 and was raised partly in Utah and Washington State, where he played high school football. He attended college in California, received a master's degree in technology management from Pepperdine University, worked for years in Silicon Valley and served in the United States Navy and the Naval Reserve. Nonetheless, Mr. Kar's relatives and their lawyers said they had been utterly stymied in trying to learn his fate despite repeated inquires at the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the State Department, the allied forces in Iraq and the offices of two United States senators. The relatives said the only detailed information they had received came from one of the F.B.I. agents who searched Mr. Kar's apartment in the Silver Lake neighborhood of Los Angeles on May 23. They said that after analyzing his personal files, computer drives and other materials, the agent, John D. Wilson, returned the seized items on June 14 and assured them that that the F.B.I. had found no reason to suspect Mr. Kar. "He's cleared," one of Mr. Kar's aunts, Parvin Modarress of Los Angeles, quoted Mr. Wilson as saying, "They were waiting for a lie-detector machine, but they finally got it. He passed the lie-detector test." M. Catherine Viray, a spokeswoman for the F.B.I.'s office here, said she could not comment on either the bureau's investigation of Mr. Kar or Mr. Wilson's conversa
[osint] Rove's Leak Points to Bush Conspiracy
"For two years now, what has been lacking from the White House is a coherent explanation of how the information about Plameâs identity got from the cloistered world of the CIA to White House meetings and then into the hands of political adviser Rove. Long ago, there should have been answers to the following questions: --What national security purpose was served by giving Karl Rove a sensitive secret that, if leaked, could endanger the lives of covert intelligence operatives? --Who attended White House meetings at which Wilsonâs disclosures and Plameâs identity were discussed? How was Plameâs identity brought into these talks? By whom? --Was George W. Bush present at any of these meetings? As the president, who is ultimately responsible for decisions about national security secrets, did Bush say anything about Wilson and Plame? If so, what did he say and to whom? --Did Bush or anyone else in the White House order Rove to disparage Wilson?" "The answer to the Plame mystery is not the Watergate advice of âfollow the moneyâ or even the obvious question of who spilled the beans to Novak. Instead, the route to the heart of this mystery is to follow the trail from who knew Plameâs identity at the CIA through the White House meetings to Karl Rove." http://consortiumnews.com/2005/071105.html Rove's Leak Points to Bush Conspiracy By Robert Parry July 11, 2005 A key national security principle for dealing with top-secret information, such as the identity of undercover CIA officers, is strict compartmentalization, often called âthe need to knowâ â" which raises the question why George W. Bushâs chief political adviser Karl Rove would know anything about the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. The answer to that mystery â" why was Rove involved â" may be more crucial to unraveling who was behind the illegal leaking of Plameâs name and the subsequent cover-up than even the identity of which Bush officials passed the information to right-wing pundit Robert Novak for his infamous column on July 14, 2003. But rather than focusing on how and why Rove knew about Plame, the latest controversy around the case has centered on whether Rove explicitly used her name in an interview with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper three days before Novakâs column. Roveâs lawyer Robert Luskin told the Washington Post that his client didnât identify Plame by name, only mentioning her in giving Cooper guidance about who was responsible for authorizing a fact-finding trip by Plameâs husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger in February 2002. [Washington Post, July 11, 2005] According to an internal Time e-mail (obtained by Newsweek), Cooper informed his editor that Rove offered a âbig warningâ not to âget too far out on Wilsonâ and that âKR saidâ the Niger trip was authorized by âwilsonâs wife, who apparently works at the agency (CIA) on wmd issues.â [Newsweek, July 18, 2005, issue] During Wilsonâs 2002 trip to Niger, the ex-ambassador discovered that claims about Iraq trying to buy yellowcake uranium were almost certainly bogus. But Wilsonâs findings â" which were later corroborated by United Nations officials â" would remain politically sensitive because they undercut Bushâs assertions about Iraqi nuclear ambitions, a central rationale for invading Iraq in March 2003. On July 6, 2003, three months after the U.S.-led invasion, Wilson disclosed his Niger findings in a New York Times op-ed article that represented an early crack in the presidentâs credibility on the Iraq War. Bush Spin Machine The Bush spin machine quickly whirled into action, even though it was clear by July 2003 that Bush was wrong about the existence of large caches of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as well as about an active nuclear weapons program. Still, the goal in summer 2003 was to discredit Joe Wilson. It was in that context that the secret about Plameâs covert role as a CIA officer working on WMD issues was somehow delivered to the White House. From there, the sensitive fact, which also could have jeopardized the lives of other operatives who were cooperating with Plame, was fashioned into a public-relations attack on her husband. Rather than keep the secret under tight control, Bushâs White House bandied it about as a way to question Wilsonâs manhood, as a guy who needed his wifeâs intervention to get him a job â" although Plame appears only to have mentioned her husband as one Africa expert suitable for the Niger assignment. To professional U.S. intelligence officers, the notion of sharing such a precise secret â" the identity of an undercover CIA officer â" with a spinmeister like Rove is anathema. >From a national security viewpoint, it also doesnât matter much whether Rove used Plameâs name. He certainly gave Time magazine enough information â" that Joe Wilsonâs wife was a CIA officer â" to unmask her identity with a little bit of research
[osint] Lessons of the London Bombing
"...a simplistic black-and-white view of the enemy is not helpful in winning this kind of conflict. As counter-insurgency experts have taught for decades, effective strategies to quell rebellions require multilayered responses aimed at winning hearts and minds, not just killing all possible enemies. These military experts note that success requires identifying legitimate grievances, taking concrete steps to address these problems, and then isolating the hard-core enemies." "After years of bloody attacks, the back-and-forth terrorism between the IRA and Protestant militants was brought under control as new leaders, ironically including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, edged back from the hard lines, addressed the reasonable demands of the warring sides, and isolated the violent fringes. Yet, given how deeply Bush has dug himself in to his âwith-us-or-with-the-terroristsâ strategies, it is difficult to envision how the United States might clamber out of the hole, especially the one in Iraq, in the near future." It would be nice to be able to draw an exact parallel between the IRA and Al Qaeda, but of course, there is a vast difference between the political Marxist/nationalist IRA and the fanatic Islamist Al Qaeda. It is doubtful there is any middle ground whatsoever possible between the U.S. position of endless war to stamp out terror and the Al Qaeda position of endless war to extend the Wahhabi version of the Khalifah worldwide. Thus it is very likely that while the lessons in the article are noteworthy, and essentially true, they will mean little in the context of stamping out terror. Nor will Bush43's premise for fighting the war in Iraq to keep terrorists out of the homeland prove true; given the huge jump in terrorist recruiting (our Army should be so lucky) and the large terror training ground in Iraq that Bush43 has so thoughtfully provided. Its graduates will go somewhere they hate. And that is us. David Bier http://consortiumnews.com/2005/070905.html Lessons of the London Bombing By Robert Parry July 9, 2005 At about 9:30 a.m. on July 7, an overcast Thursday, I left a hotel in the Kensington section of London and walked â" with my wife and 16-year-old son â" toward the Earlâs Court subway station, planning to take the Piccadilly line to Heathrow Airport to catch a noontime flight back to Washington. When we reached the Underground, we found a surge of people moving away from the entrance. We were told that the station was being evacuated because of some emergency elsewhere in the system, possibly an electrical explosion. With little prospect for finding a cab and unclear how widespread the problem was, we began trudging off â" luggage in hand â" toward the next stop on the line, at Barons Court. Many Londoners were doing the same, some in their business suits with cell phones to their ears trying to glean the latest detail of what was happening. The sorry parade had the feel of a disaster film in which people are suddenly denied the transportation that they so casually rely on. When we finally reached Barons Court, guards barred the door to that station, too, informing us that multiple explosions had forced the closing of the entire London Underground. It was becoming clear that this incident wasnât just the result of a malfunctioning electrical grid. At the advice of one security guard, we double-backed about a quarter mile and found a store-front office of a âmini-cabâ company. We secured the services of its last available car, which for the price of 40 pounds took us â" and an elderly chap on his way to Belfast â" to Heathrow Airport. By the time we boarded our flight and departed for Washington early in the afternoon, news reports were describing how four bombs â" three on subway cars and a fourth on a double-decker bus â" had killed an undetermined number of people in London. Suspicions were already focused on an al-Qaeda connection. Back in the USA Several hours later, after we landed at Dulles Airport, we climbed into a cab for the last leg of our trip back to Arlington, Va. The cab driver was listening to a right-wing radio station that was already drawing lessons from the London bombings. George W. Bushâs wisdom and resolve were vindicated again, the radio voices told us, while American liberals were cowards and traitors for wanting to coddle terrorists. We were back in the USA. But what are the real lessons of the London bombings â" and what do those lessons mean for the Iraq War, the War on Terror, and the shaky future of American democracy? First, there is the forensic evidence, the relatively crude nature of the four bombs. That could be viewed as a negative or a positive. On the one hand, assuming that these bombs indeed were the work of a militant Islamic group, their simplicity could suggest a declining terrorist capability. On the other hand, the bombs indicate
[osint] Military: Frustration for the Fabled SEALs
"...hundreds of veteran SEALs have not re-enlisted, while others have resigned their commissions..." "Right now," says Jackson, who spoke to NEWSWEEK after attending a memorial service for the 10 dead Seals, "the SEALs are galvanized as one." Considering the circumstances, the SEALS did not do so bad in that engagement. At least one SEAL escaped and survived. In the Russian Afghan war, the Afghan irregulars destroyed a Russian Spetznatz battalion to the last man plus several fighter and helicopter aircrews. Then as now, the Afghan irregulars were able to operate from and retreat to Pakistan (our ally?). It is obvious that the lessons learned from their war against the Russians, developed after we gave them Stinger missiles, have not been forgotten. Interdict the ground force and set missile teams on each hill to fire from the rear (to achieve impact with little warning) on aircraft attempting to provide ground support or land to rescue or augment troops. No doubt that lesson was widely taught in the Taliban and Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and now Pakistan...our ally. No doubt that lesson is also taught by Al Qaeda in Iraq... David Bier http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525634/site/newsweek/ Military: Frustration for the Fabled SEALs Newsweek July 18 issue - It was the worst setback in the 43-year history of the Navy SEAL program. At least 10 of the elite commandos died when a reconnaissance team came under fire in the mountains of Afghanistan's Kunar province, and a SEAL rescue helicopter crashed trying to save them. For many proud SEALs (an acronym for Sea, Air and Land Team), the Afghan debacle was just a bitter new chapter in a very frustrating war on terror. Since 9/11â"but especially since the Iraq warâ"many SEALs have come to feel like second-class citizens in the exclusive world of Special Forces. Why? "The main reason has been severe restrictions on the types of missions they are allowed to undertake," says a U.S. defense analyst under Pentagon contract who works closely with Special Forces (he declined to be identified because his work is classified). While the Army's Delta Force and Green Berets get the best "direct action" and unconventional warfare missionsâ"going after the bad guysâ"SEALs say they are often relegated to doing VIP escorts in Iraq or rescue missions, the defense analyst says. The Afghan recon mission was a rare "bright spot," he says, despite its tragic end. The Army also dominates the senior command, with Gen. Bryan Brown and Lt. Gen. William Boykin running Special Ops worldwide. The result is that hundreds of veteran SEALs have not re-enlisted, while others have resigned their commissions, says the defense analyst, citing official Pentagon numbers. That has deprived the overall SEAL population of about 2,500 of experienced commandos, he says. Asked to respond, SEALs spokesman Cmdr. Jeff Bender said: "We can't go into the nature of our missions. But it's categorically untrue that morale is low." He also said that "retention is better than it has been." Still, many SEALs have left for higher-paying jobsâ"and sometimes better actionâ"with private security firms, like North Carolina-based Blackwater USA (founded by ex-SEAL Gary Jackson). The Defense Department has offered a "retention incentive" $150,000 bonus for SEALs senior officers (and other Special Ops forces) who re-enlist for six years. But John Arquilla, who teaches at the Naval postgraduate program in Monterey, Calif., says the offer of extra money is "a sign that we need to reconsider how we are employing them. These men don't become SEALs for the money. They do what they do for the prospect of action." Some experts say the SEALs might do well to revert to their maritime origins by dealing with terror threats on the high seas or in ports. Blackwater founder Jackson doesn't see a morale problem. "Right now," says Jackson, who spoke to NEWSWEEK after attending a memorial service for the 10 dead Seals, "the SEALs are galvanized as one." â"Michael Hirsh and Jamie Reno -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activi
[osint] Israel Braces for Expanded Hizbollah Network
"Last year alone, he added, Iran funneled $9 million through Hizbollah to the Israeli-occupied territories to support terror operations." http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=960524&C=mideast Posted 07/11/05 07:34 Israel Braces for Expanded Hizbollah Network Tracks Maritime Buys, Links With Palestinian Terror Groups By BARBARA OPALL-ROME, TEL AVIV Israel is girding against a potential deep-sea infiltration and other new types of increasingly sophisticated attacks by Iranian-backed Hizbollah cells capable of operating well beyond the Islamic Shiite organization�s Lebanese home turf. In addition to ambush and attempted kidnapping operations along the Israeli-Lebanese border � the latest of which occurred June 30 in the disputed area known in Israel as Shebaa Farms � Hizbollah is expanding into the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and even into Israel, where citizens are recruited for terror activities, defense officials and counterterrorism experts here said. And while Hizbollah managed to surprise Israel during the past year with two embarrassing unmanned overflights of its northern areas, officials here say they are closely monitoring the organization�s expanding procurement and training networks to minimize chances of again being hoodwinked by the introduction of new methods and means of attack. �For some time, we�ve been following their interest in attacking from the sea. At the same time, we�ve enhanced all appropriate measures to deny them success,� said Amos Malka, a retired major general and former director of Israeli military intelligence. Security officials here confirmed that Israel has begun work on a kilometer-long undersea anti-infiltration barrier along its coastal border with the Gaza Strip. The project, first reported in mid-June editions of the Jerusalem Post, includes a roughly 200-meter-long concrete wall secured into the seabed north of the Strip, while another 800 meters or so will involve a tethered wire fence. Rohan Gunaratna, head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Singapore�s Nanyang Technological University, said Hizbollah has developed an extensive procurement network outside of the Middle East, particularly in Canada. �What they don�t get directly from Iran or Syria, they buy with Iranian money,� said Gunaratna, a visiting lecturer at the Herzliya, Israel-based Institute for CounterTerrorism. �Recently their focus has been on maritime equipment, scuba gear, speedboats and closed-circuit communications systems [for underwater operations].� In a July 4 exchange, Maj. Gen. Dan Harel, commander of Israel�s Southern Command, said he expected Hizbollah operatives working with local Palestinian terror groups to try to incite violence and otherwise take advantage of Israel�s planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, scheduled to begin in August. �They�ve made a few attempts to infiltrate [agents and weaponry] from the sea. Don�t forget the role they played in Karine A,� Harel said, referring to Israel�s January 2001 high-seas seizure of a weapon-laden ship destined for the Palestine Authority. Israel, the United States and numerous international counterterrorism authorities have accused Hizbollah agents in Lebanon of brokering the Karine A smuggling deal between senior aides to then-Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat and Iran. The original plan called for more than 50 tons of Iranian arms and munitions to be delivered off the Gaza coast via dozens of specially designed Iranian containers that floated one meter below the water�s surface. Expanding Footprint Perhaps more worrisome than Hizbollah�s expanding presence in the Gaza Strip, security officials and experts here say, is the Lebanese organization�s intensifying efforts to derail diplomatic progress between Israel and the Palestinian government of Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen. An Israeli intelligence official said June 27 that Abbas has complained to Tel Aviv about Hizbollah�s repeated attempts to undermine the Palestine Authority through financial and operative support not only to rival Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian factions, but to Abbas� own Fatah organization. According to the intelligence official, Hizbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah administers a special unit for infiltrating, supporting and directing Palestinian terror activities in the West Bank and Gaza. �This special unit of the Hizbollah is focused on fighting Abu Mazen and what he stands for,� the official said. �For the first time, there is a Palestinian leader who is at least making an attempt to fight for his people�s right to the pursuit of happiness through nonviolent means. Nasrallah doesn�t hide the fact that he is opposed to the tahdiya,� the Abbas-brokered lull, or cooling-down period, among all armed Palestinian factions, designed to allow Israel to complete its planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and four settl
[osint] USN Seeks Riverine, Other Forces
"The U.S. Navy is sailing flank speed into the war on terror. And more sailors will be heading ashore to help fight it." "A Navy Expeditionary Combat Battalion by 2007. How such a unit would differ from U.S. Marines is unclear." "A provisional civil affairs battalion attached to Navy construction battalions, or Seabees, in 2006 and a reserve civil affairs battalion by 2007." "A Navy Expeditionary Combat Battalion by 2007. How such a unit would differ from U.S. Marines is unclear." Sounds like the Navy is expecting to be in Iraq for some time and plans to start controlling the rivers system there with riverine forces to patrol and respond to incidents, a backup combat force to interdict incident zones and SEAL operations, and its own civil affairs capability colocated with the SEABEE contruction units at port facilities. It is good to see SOMEBODY in the U.S. military finally making serious plans to control the situation in Iraq and other future hot spots. David Bier http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=963335&C=navwar Posted 07/11/05 07:45 USN Seeks Riverine, Other Forces By ANDREW SCUTRO The U.S. Navy is sailing flank speed into the war on terror. And more sailors will be heading ashore to help fight it. In a July 6 memorandum from the office of retiring Adm. Vern Clark, the chief of naval operations (CNO), a copy of which was obtained by Defense News, officials spell out a series of actions to �expand the Navy�s capabilities to prosecute� the so-called global war on terror. Key directives call for establishing expeditionary and riverine warfare units with the Navy. Riverine units would operate on rivers running through combat zones. Specifically, Clark ordered creation of: ⢠An active component riverine warfare force by 2006 and two reserve component riverine units by 2007. ⢠A Navy Expeditionary Combat Battalion by 2007. How such a unit would differ from U.S. Marines is unclear. ⢠A provisional civil affairs battalion attached to Navy construction battalions, or Seabees, in 2006 and a reserve civil affairs battalion by 2007. ⢠An active/reserve integrated structure for two helicopter combat support special squadrons. ⢠A unit that will be able to �data-mine� information culled from the National Maritime Intelligence Center, which tracks information on global ship traffic. ⢠A team to exploit intelligence gathered from maritime interdictions. ⢠A community of foreign area officers who are experts in specific regions of the world, similar to Army and Marine Corps foreign area officers. According to the memo, Navy end-strength �should not grow� as a result of the new initiatives. It also notes, but does not specify, possible budget requirements. Navy officials were unavailable for comment. Effort Wins Applause, Criticism Tom Donnelly, a defense analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, said the ideas have long been on Clark�s agenda. �Just as a principle, I applaud the CNO trying to be relevant for the needs of the country,� he said. �Certainly, it�s a different attitude than some people in other services, who have been waiting for this war to go away.� Donnelly noted the manpower and budgetary implications. �It�s not like the Navy has a lot of excess money running around. [These initiatives] are probably not that expensive, but they�ll run up against resistance from entrenched communities in the Navy.� One Navy industry analyst who has seen the memo and requested anonymity, however, criticized the move, asking why the Navy would take on missions already handled by the Coast Guard and Marine Corps. Creating an entirely new command and structure, he said, makes little sense. �In general, you are more effective building up things that exist rather than building new organizations,� the analyst said. �The Navy has enough trouble managing today�s Navy without adding new structures.� ⢠E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We belie
[osint] Canadian Agency Pushes Technology to Front Lines
"The so-called direct-support plan already has developed an add-on armor kit for light armored vehicles as well as an acoustic system to pinpoint the location of enemy gunfire, researchers said." http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=957391&C=america Posted 07/11/05 07:37Print-friendly version Canadian Agency Pushes Technology to Front Lines By DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA Canada�s defense science agency is shifting part of its focus from longer-term research to deal with the more immediate technology needs of troops on the front lines. The plan would allow scientists with Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) to quickly produce and deliver innovative equipment that can be used in war zones like Afghanistan. The so-called direct-support plan already has developed an add-on armor kit for light armored vehicles as well as an acoustic system to pinpoint the location of enemy gunfire, researchers said. Denis Faubert, director-general of DRDC laboratories in Valcartier, Quebec, said that while the agency has done direct-support programs in the past, it will more aggressively seek out such technology projects that could be of immediate use to the Canadian Forces. He said the shorter-term programs will have �more of an engineering flavor� and see military personnel and the research scientists working more closely together. �We will have [military] engineers working on that direct support,� Faubert explained. �They�ll be working in collaboration with our top scientists in top facilities. That�s the way to go.� Faster Fielding Faubert cited the development of an add-on armor kit to protect the vulnerable undercarriage of the Canadian Forces� light armored vehicles from land-mine blasts. DRDC scientists started developing the kit 18 months ago after receiving a request from the Army, he said. The system is undergoing final tests before being fielded. Another DRDC project, the Ferret Small Arms Detection and Localization System, allows troops to pinpoint the location of enemy shooters using passive acoustic sensors. The system is composed of a 3-D microphone array mounted on the rear of the turret on a Coyote armored reconnaissance vehicle. A controller inside the vehicle turret processes the sound signals and displays the results on a hand-held terminal providing a graphical and numerical display. The Ferret was sent to Afghanistan after it was successfully demonstrated at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, New Brunswick, in May 2003. The Army operates 11 Ferrets in Kabul, while another two are kept in Canada for training. The Ferret can detect gunfire from silenced weapons and determine the caliber of the bullet being fired. The system was developed by the DRDC�s Valcartier laboratories and MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Also in widespread use in Afghanistan is a DRDC-developed device that allows troops to quickly attach night-vision goggles to their helmets. Hypervelocity Missiles Faubert stressed that the bulk of the DRDC�s work will continue to be long-term research projects, but noted that those not directly linked to the plans of the Canadian Forces could be dropped. An example he cited is the agency�s development of a hypervelocity anti-tank missile. DRDC researchers started work about five years ago on the development of the missile especially designed to be used by Canadian light armored vehicles. The project concentrated on designing a weapon that was lighter but exceptionally fast and capable of knocking out a main battle tank. But Faubert said the military�s recently released Defence Policy Statement emphasizes fighting in urban areas and in more complex terrain. �You don�t really need as a priority that kind of [missile] capability to strike at a couple of kilometers,� he said. But Faubert noted the program still produced valuable research. The hypervelocity project showed scientists how to increase the effectiveness of a projectile�s penetrator by 10 percent to 20 percent. �This same technology would be reused perhaps now to develop smaller caliber missiles for the kind of ammunitions used by the LAV-25,� he said. Defense analyst Martin Shadwick said the DRDC�s increased emphasis on direct support makes sense because of operations in war zones like Afghanistan. �The important part will be if DRDC can strike a healthy balance between the more shorter-term, operationally focused projects and those that are still much more glimmer-in-the-eye, down-the-road,� said Shadwick, a strategic studies professor at York University in Toronto. He said long-term research is still needed, even if the programs do not produce actual technology that is incorporated in equipment. �You still need an in-house expertise in various areas, particularly when it comes to understanding the revolution in military affairs,� Shadwick said. Faubert said DRDC has an annual budget of about 240 million Canadian dollars ($192 milli
[osint] Mixed Feelings?
"Unlike some U.S. allies, including Britain and Australia, New Delhi and Washington have considerable differences in matters of national interest." "India�s leftist parties, who were used to closer ties with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, say they are worried by the clauses on missile defense and multinational operations. �We are extremely concerned about the provision in the Indo-U.S. agreement � that the two countries would take part in multilateral military action under U.S. leadership without U.N. ratification,..." http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=958048&C=asiapac Posted 07/11/05 07:37 Mixed Feelings? India Appears Ambivalent About Growing Relationship With U.S. By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI The growing ties between the United States and India were tested when leftist parties that support the ruling coalition objected to some parts of the recent 10-year �New Framework for U.S.-India Defense Relations.� Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who signed the document with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld June 23 in Washington, had to beat back fears that India would become a U.S. vassal. At a July 5 news conference here, Mukherjee said the new framework was merely an intent to carry forward the 1995 Agreed Minute of Understanding with the United States. �There is no mention of any word such as agreement, accord or treaty� in the new framework, he said. The new framework specifies areas of cooperation, including: ⢠Collaboration in multinational operations. ⢠Strengthening each other�s military capabilities. ⢠Expanding interaction with other nations to promote regional security. ⢠Improving capabilities to fight the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. ⢠Increasing bilateral defense trade and collaboration on missile defense. ⢠Exchanging more intelligence. India�s leftist parties, who were used to closer ties with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, say they are worried by the clauses on missile defense and multinational operations. �We are extremely concerned about the provision in the Indo-U.S. agreement � that the two countries would take part in multilateral military action under U.S. leadership without U.N. ratification,� Sitaram Yechuri, a member of the politburo of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), told journalists July 4. The ruling United Progressive Alliance, led by the Congress Party, is in power with the help of leftist parties who are not members of the alliance but support it. Mukherjee during his news conference denied that the framework would lead India to participate in operations outside the ambit of the United Nations. India has declined to send troops to Iraq to participate in the U.S.-led military coalition there. The framework says the two countries would �collaborate in multinational operations when it is in their common interest.� Of the missile defense provision, Mukherjee said, there was �no question� of India accepting a missile defense shield from �anybody.� India, which has been unable to develop its own anti-ballistic missile system, is considering buying the U.S.-built Patriot Advanced Capability-3 or the Israeli-U.S. Arrow-2. Differences Between Allies The leftist parties� charge and Mukherjee�s response reflects India�s ambivalence about U.S. ties: wanting to embrace the United States as a close ally while wishing to act independently on matters of national interest. Many opposition party lawmakers and even some ruling party members of India�s parliament, including Mukherjee, opposed U.S. policies during the Cold War. Unlike some U.S. allies, including Britain and Australia, New Delhi and Washington have considerable differences in matters of national interest. While in Washington, Mukherjee acknowledged the divergence. For example, �the United States considers Pakistan an effective ally� in the fight against terrorism, but �we consider that cross-border terrorism in [the state of] Jammu and Kashmir is taking place inspired by Pakistan,� Mukherjee said at a June 28 news conference in Washington. �But these two perceptions of the situation [do not] mean we are not friends.� In a June 27 speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, Mukherjee said, �A unipolar world is clearly not a sustainable proposition in the long run.� Instead, New Delhi envisions a �multipolar world � of partnership among the nations.� More Agreements To Come? Mukherjee�s visit was a prelude to a July 18-20 state visit to Washington by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Singh and President George W. Bush are expected to sign agreements relating to cooperation on energy, civil nuclear and space programs. Mukherjee�s visit to Washington also led to the creation of a Defense Procurement and Production Group as part of the existing Defense Policy Group, which coordinates policy discussions between the two militaries
[osint] U.S. Attitude Shifts as China�s Military Improves
"China is preparing for a major war over Taiwan. The U.S. military should pay attention to China�s military advances, said Daniel Gour�, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a defense research center in Arlington, Va. �There aren�t many uses for these advanced weapons except against an equally large and capable foe,� he said Gour� cautioned against those who have advised that the QDR focus on the war against terrorism. China and its role as a rising world power are at least as important as the war on terrorism, he said. The forces needed to check the military power that China may become are substantially different from those optimized for the global war on terrorism." The Department of Defense is required to report to Congress each year by March 1st on the status of the Chinese military. The report for this year has not yet been submitted and members of Congress from both parties are demanding it be delivered. It may be that DoD does not want to let Congress know how far along the Chinese may be and how the Taiwan factor may impact this nation's ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the force structure and capabilities suite being erected as part of the QDR. The report has never before been late. David Bier http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=961396&C=america Posted 07/11/05 07:43Print-friendly version U.S. Attitude Shifts as China�s Military Improves By WILLIAM MATTHEWS In 1991, U.S. precision weapons, night vision, stealth and other technologies dazzled the world by obliterating the Iraqi Army in four days. Among those most profoundly impressed by the U.S. accomplishment was China. Awed by the power of U.S. technology, the Chinese military launched a sustained effort to modernize and reorganize its military, said David Finkelstein, an Asia expert at the Center for Naval Analysis. A decade and a half later, it�s Americans who are beginning to be awed by what China has achieved. The Chinese military has acquired an assortment of new weapons: Russian submarines and jet fighters, destroyers with state-of-the-art phased-array radar, airborne early warning aircraft, cruise missiles and wake-homing torpedoes, among others. Stressing quality over quantity, China has cut the size of its military, yet increased its capability, Finkelstein said. It has developed new command-and-control doctrines and new standards for training troops. Chinese military leaders �know what�s broken and what has to be fixed to make themselves a more capable, professional institution,� Finkelstein said July 7 during a discussion on the Chinese military at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank. China�s Ultimate Goal? The question for the U.S. military is: What does China plan to do with its improving military power? For U.S. military planners, who are conducting the Defense Department�s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Finkelstein said,�it would be prudent to assume� that China will continue to improve its military. But it would be a mistake to assume that China inevitably harbors hostile intent toward the United States, he said. That seems to be the assumption President George W. Bush and his administration are making, another expert said. As recently as December, former Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the U.S. relationship with China as the best in 30 years. But since then, there has been a noticeable shift in the way top administration officials discuss China, said John Tkacik, a research fellow in China policy at the Heritage Foundation. In June, for example, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld questioned continued increases in Chinese military spending. �Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment?� Rumsfeld said. Finkelstein contends that China perceives that it has legitimate defense needs. China fears Japan, wants to protect the access of its burgeoning industries to shipping lanes, and has reasons to worry about the aspirations of Asian neighbors such as India. Tkacik offers this answer: China is preparing for a major war over Taiwan. The U.S. military should pay attention to China�s military advances, said Daniel Gour�, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a defense research center in Arlington, Va. �There aren�t many uses for these advanced weapons except against an equally large and capable foe,� he said Gour� cautioned against those who have advised that the QDR focus on the war against terrorism. China and its role as a rising world power are at least as important as the war on terrorism, he said. The forces needed to check the military power that China may become are substantially different from those optimized for the global war on terrorism. Among the U.S. capabilities that have a clear impression on China is the ability �to go downtown,� Gour� said. China is pursuing defenses against the capabilities that enabled the United St
[osint] Re: From Filmmaker in Los Angeles to Iraq Detainee
Fox News reported last night on its scrolling news line that Mr. Kar had been released by U.S. authorities but there was no word on the fate of his cameraman. The taxi driver remains in custody. David Bier --- In osint@yahoogroups.com, "David Bier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "A Defense Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity > because of that Pentagon policy said Mr. Kar, his cameraman, Farshid > Faraji, and a taxi driver were arrested by Iraqi security forces in > Baghdad on May 17, when a search of the taxi turned up "dozens" of > washing machine timers - devices that Iraqi insurgents have used to > make improvised explosive devices." > > "He's cleared," one of Mr. Kar's aunts, Parvin Modarress of Los > Angeles, quoted Mr. Wilson as saying, "They were waiting for a > lie-detector machine, but they finally got it. He passed the > lie-detector test." > > Give me a break. How the dickens would a passenger in a taxi know > what the taxi driver had stored in the vehicle? When you hire the > taxi, you don't interrogate the driver about his political history. > > Astounding that it is obvious that this guy is NOT a terrorist but a > legitimate scholar and film maker who SUPPORTS the Bush43 war in Iraq. > And yet the detention system over there is so screwed up that they > can't seem to just let someone GO! Of course, the indications he > might have initially been tortured might have some bearing on why now > they don't want to let him loose after all the highly negative media > about Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo. > > Probable result: It will probably end up like the case of the young > Jewish American who was detained for several months in Iraq until his > case got media attention. Then they kicked him loose with no support > or cash and the insurgents promptly kidnapped and murdered him. Kar, > now that the mostly Sunni insurgents know he is an Iraq war supporter > and an Iranian (Shiite in their view), are probably circling the gates > of his detention center eagerly waiting for the bad press pressure on > the authorities to result in Kar being summarily and vulnerably booted > out onto the street...ready to be butchered in yet another video. > > David Bier > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/international/mi > ddleeast/06detain.html?ex=1278302400&en=b4b9101fc7 > 4d564d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss > > July 6, 2005 > From Filmmaker in Los Angeles to Iraq Detainee > By TIM GOLDEN > > LOS ANGELES, July 5 - Like a lot of aspiring filmmakers in Los > Angeles, Cyrus Kar was obsessed with his project, a documentary about > an ancient Persian king who championed tolerance and human rights even > as he built an empire that stretched across the Near East. > > But Mr. Kar, 44, a naturalized American born in Iran, followed his > dream where few others might have gone. In mid-May, he traveled to > Iraq with an Iranian cameraman to film archaeological sites around > Babylon. After a taxi they were in was stopped in Baghdad, the two men > were arrested by Iraqi security forces, who found what they suspected > might be bomb parts in the vehicle. > > Since then, Mr. Kar has been held in what his relatives and their > lawyers describe as a frightening netherworld of American military > detention in Iraq - charged with no crime but nonetheless unable to > gain his freedom or even tell his family where he is being held. > > He is one of four men with dual American citizenship who have been > detained in Iraq beginning in April, a Defense Department official > said. But none of the others - all Iraqi-Americans suspected of ties > to the insurgency - nor an accused Jordanian-American terrorist > operative captured in a raid last year appear to have had anything > like Mr. Kar's ties to the United States. > > Mr. Kar, the son of an Iranian physician, came to the United States > when he was 2 and was raised partly in Utah and Washington State, > where he played high school football. He attended college in > California, received a master's degree in technology management from > Pepperdine University, worked for years in Silicon Valley and served > in the United States Navy and the Naval Reserve. > > Nonetheless, Mr. Kar's relatives and their lawyers said they had been > utterly stymied in trying to learn his fate despite repeated inquires > at the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the State > Department, the allied forces in Iraq and the offices of two United > States senators. > > The relatives said the only detailed information they had received > came from one of the F.B.I. agents who searched Mr. Kar's apartment
[osint] U.S. Releases Filmmaker Detained in Iraq
Kar is now a sitting duck for insurgents who might want to kidnap him. No passport and all alone in a Baghdad hotel. Does the American Embassy have any interest in him. Are they going to escort him to the airport with a provisional passport they could issue in an hour. Probably not. They just left him, an American citizen, swinging in the wind. Pray for him... David Bier http://www.rsicopyright.com/AP/content.html?id=D8B8UNBG0 U.S. Releases Filmmaker Detained in Iraq Monday, July 11, 2005 - 03:46:50 AM By FRANK GRIFFITHS Get Copyright Clearance Want to use this article? Click here for options! © The Associated Press. All Rights reserved. An aspiring Iranian-American filmmaker who has been detained by the U.S. military for nearly two months without being charged was released Sunday, officials said. Cyrus Kar, 44, of Los Angeles, was taken into custody May 17 near Balad when potential bomb parts were found in a taxi in which he was riding. His family had filed a lawsuit accusing the federal government of violating his civil rights and holding him after the FBI cleared him of suspicion. "Kar was detained as an imperative security threat to Iraq," the military said Sunday in a statement. "After his initial questioning, the military notified the FBI, who initiated an investigation to determine if Kar had engaged in terrorist activities." The U.S. military then convened a review board hearing on July 4 to determine whether Kar was an "enemy combatant." "Based on the FBI investigation, the testimony of Kar and the witness he called, and other witness statements, the board determined Kar was not an enemy combatant and recommended his release, which was approved," the statement said. "I am very happy to be out," Kar told The New York Times, according to a story posted on its Web site late Sunday. "My family wants me home soon, and I'll be very happy to talk to everybody as soon as I get out of Iraq." The U.S. military defended its detention of Kar. "This case highlights the effectiveness of our detainee review process," spokesman Air Force Brig. Gen. Don Alston was quoted as saying in the statement. "We followed well-established procedures and Mr. Kar has now been properly released." In Los Angeles, family members and Kar's lawyers celebrated his release but criticized the government for the filmmaker's treatment. They said Kar told them the government destroyed his laptop computer, film equipment along with 20 hours of footage and his passport. Kar, who is staying in a Baghdad hotel, told family members he was exhausted and very hungry. The Times reported that Kar won't be able to leave Iraq immediately because U.S. officials told him his passport was destroyed in the course of testing its authenticity. The government owes Kar and his family an apology "for robbing him of 50 days of his life and creating a never-ending nightmare for them," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Kar was born in Iran but immigrated to the United States as a child. He served in the Navy and worked in the computer industry before becoming interested in filmmaking. With help from independent director-producer Philippe Diaz, Kar began working on a documentary about the Persian king Cyrus the Great. He shot of footage at archaeological sites in Afghanistan and Iran, according to his family and Diaz. He was visiting Iraq to film in and around the ancient city of Babylon, one of Cyrus the Great's conquests, according to his family. Officials and relatives say Kar was traveling with an Iranian cameraman after leaving a Baghdad hotel when their taxi was stopped at a checkpoint Balad. Iraqi security forces allegedly seized several dozen washing machine timers, which are frequently used in terrorist bombs. Balad is about 50 miles north of Baghdad. Kar's relatives say FBI agents searched his home in Los Angeles but later told them he had passed a polygraph test and had been cleared of any charges. They said agents indicated the washing machine timers belonged to the taxi driver, who was transporting them to a friend. ___ Associated Press Writer Michael Blood contributed to this story. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included inform
[osint] Who Got the Pink Slip?
Apparently General Weida feels that defending the Constitution takes second place for the military. Undoubtedly he would choose God before defending the Constitution if there is a conflict. And that makes him dangerous. Yes, the same extremist tendencies that fuel the Taliban and other Islamists are alive and well in Christian America. And just as dangerous to democracy. Unless you want to live in a Republic of Gilead... David Bier http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=871 Who Got the Pink Slip? Capt. Melinda Morton is the Air Force Academy chaplain who reported finding "stridently evangelical themes" at academy worship services, and a "systemic and pervasive" problem of religious proselytizing and intolerance throughout the school. Morton said one academy chaplain urged cadets to "try to convert" non-evangelical peers and "remind them of the consequences (that) those not `born again will burn in the fires of hell.'" Morton brought these concerns to the attention of superiors in a two-page memo. Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida is a top commander at the same Air Force Academy. He's also a born-again Christian "who has been the subject of complaints that he improperly mixes religion with education." An analysis of the academy released last month by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State found "a host of reports" about inappropriate, potentially unconstitutional statements by Gen. Weida. One of these people was just offered a major promotion from the Department of Defense. The other received a pink slip. Who got what? Take a wild guess. "wild guess" story links: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201740.html ""They fired me," said Capt. MeLinda Morton, a Lutheran minister who was removed as executive officer of the chaplain unit on May 4. "They said I should be angry about these outside groups who reported on the strident evangelicalism at the academy. The problem is, I agreed with those reports." Morton, whose removal as executive officer was first reported in USA Today, said she has not been asked to brief the task force." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002269158_academy10 .html "The Pentagon said yesterday it wants to promote a top commander at the Air Force Academy a born-again Christian who has been the subject of complaints that he improperly mixes religion with education. The announcement about Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida came one day before the scheduled arrival of a task force investigating allegations that cadets were pressured to attend religious services, that public prayers were held before official events, and that Jewish cadets were harassed and insulted at the Colorado Springs school. In an e-mail in May 2003, Weida urged cadets to "ask the Lord to give us the wisdom to discover the right. ... The Lord is in control. He has a plan." Later he issued a memo stating that cadets are accountable first to their God." Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Simple but seminal: Cornell researchers build a robot that can reproduce
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/selfrep.ws.html Simple but seminal: Cornell researchers build a robot that can reproduce By Bill Steele ITHACA, N.Y. -- One of the dreams of both science fiction writers and practical robot builders has been realized, at least on a simple level: Cornell University researchers have created a machine that can build copies of itself. Admittedly the machine is just a proof of concept -- it performs no useful function except to self-replicate -- but the basic principle could be extended to create robots that could replicate or at least repair themselves while working in space or in hazardous environments, according to Hod Lipson, Cornell assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, and computing and information science, in whose lab the robots were built and tested. Lipson and colleagues report on the work in a brief communication in the May 12 issue of Nature. Their robots are made up of a series of modular cubes -- called "molecubes" -- each containing identical machinery and the complete computer program for replication. The cubes have electromagnets on their faces that allow them to selectively attach to and detach from one another, and a complete robot consists of several cubes linked together. Each cube is divided in half along a long diagonal, which allows a robot composed of many cubes to bend, reconfigure and manipulate other cubes. For example, a tower of cubes can bend itself over at a right angle to pick up another cube. To begin replication, the stack of cubes bends over and sets its top cube on the table. Then it bends to one side or another to pick up a new cube and deposit it on top of the first. By repeating the process, one robot made up of a stack of cubes can create another just like itself. Since one robot cannot reach across another robot of the same height, the robot being built assists in completing its own construction. Although these experimental robots work only in the limited laboratory environment, Lipson suggests that the idea of making self- replicating robots out of self-contained modules could be used to build working robots that could self-repair by replacing defective modules. For example, robots sent to explore Mars could carry a supply of spare modules to use for repairing or rebuilding as needed, allowing for more flexible, versatile and robust missions. Self- replication and repair also could be crucial for robots working in environments where a human with a screwdriver couldn't survive. Self-replicating machines have been the subject of theoretical discussion since the early days of computing and robotics, but only two physical devices that can replicate have been reported. One uses Lego parts assembled in a two-dimensional pattern by moving along tracks; another uses an arrangement of wooden tiles that tumble into a new arrangement when given a shove. Exactly what qualifies as "self-replication" is open to discussion, Lipson points out. "It is not just a binary property -- of whether something self-replicates or not, but rather a continuum," he explains. The various possibilities are discussed in "A Universal Framework for Analysis of Self-Replication Phenomena," a paper by Lipson and Bryant Adams, a Cornell graduate student in mathematics, published in Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Life, ECAL '03, September 2003, Dortmund, Germany. For example, the researchers point out that human beings reproduce but don't literally self-replicate, since the offspring are not exact copies. And in many cases, the ability to replicate depends on the environment. Rabbits are good replicators in the forest, poor replicators in a desert and abysmal replicators in deep space, they note. "It is not enough to simply say they replicate or even that they replicate well, because these statements only hold in certain contexts," the researchers conclude. The conference paper also discusses the reproduction of viruses and the splitting of light beams into two identical copies. The analysis they supply "allows us to look at an important aspect of biology and quantify it," Lipson explains. The new robots in Lipson's lab are also very dependent on their environment. They draw power through contacts on the surface of the table and cannot replicate unless the experimenters "feed" them by supplying additional modules. "Although the machines we have created are still simple compared with biological self-reproduction, they demonstrate that mechanical self- reproduction is possible and not unique to biology," the researchers say. Co-authors of the Nature communication are Viktor Zykov, a graduate student in mechanical engineering, Efstathios Mytilinaios, a former graduate student in computer science now at Microsoft, and Adams. Related World Wide Web sites: The following sites provide additional information on this news release. Hod Lipson
[osint] Army offers 1¼-year hitch
Bet the recruit is not told about involuntary extension under the stop-loss program or recall for a full tour of duty after release from active duty (which has happened to thousands already) because he or she still has a total eight year obligation. In total...a real scam. And with the born-again Republican imams in Congress about to put military women back in their subservient support place behind the men, the recruiting crunch (already so bad, recruiters are cheating and breaking the law to fill quotas) to fill combat and combat support slots is going to get a WHOLE lot worse. Isn't it about time for someone to start a pool on how long it will be before the draft is reinstated? David Bier http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt? action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=14220086&fb=Y&url=http%3A% 2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2Fnews%2F20050513% 2F1a_lede13_dom.art.htm&partnerID=1660 Army offers 1¼-year hitch Recruit shortfall produces shortest enlistment ever By Dave Moniz USA TODAY WASHINGTON The Army, faced with a severe and growing shortage of recruits, began offering 15-month active-duty enlistments nationwide Thursday, the shortest tours ever. The typical enlistment lasts three or four years; the previous shortest enlistment was two years. Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, the head of the Army Recruiting Command, said 2006 could be even worse than this year, a continuation of "the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer Army." Recruits in the new 15-month program could serve in 59 of the more than 150 jobs in the Army, including the combat infantry, and then serve two years in the Reserve or National Guard. They would finish their eight-year military obligation in the Guard or Reserve, volunteer programs such as AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps, or the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former active-duty troops who can still be called to duty but aren't affiliated with any military unit. David Segal, a military personnel expert at the University of Maryland, said the 15-month enlistments are no panacea. Fifteen months, Segal said, is often not enough time to learn complex tasks in a high-tech Army. Jim Martin, a retired Army officer who teaches military culture at Bryn Mawr College, said parents and teachers "see the Army as a real risk, a real danger" because of the war in Iraq. That, more than the length of service, is the major obstacle to recruiting. Rochelle projected the service will have only half the number of recruits ready for 2006 than it did this year, when it had an unusually low number of recruits signed up in advance. Under the Army's delayed entry program, recruits can sign up one year and report for service a year later. In 2006, the Army's stockpile of recruits is projected to drop from 18%, or 14,400 soldiers, of the recruiting target of 80,000 to just under 10%, or slightly less than 8,000, Rochelle said. The Army usually aims at beginning a new recruiting year with 25%-35% of its goal signed up in advance. That cushion of advance recruits often determines whether the Army meets or misses its goal. It's "not a bright picture," Rochelle said during a conference call. More than halfway through its fiscal year, the Army has not been able to make a noticeable dent in the public's reluctance to enlist its sons and daughters. That's despite record-high bonuses paid to recruits, a new advertising campaign that targets parents and a dramatic increase in the number of recruiters throughout the nation. Segal said he doesn't think the Army will make its goals this year or next. The Marine Corps is struggling. But the Air Force and Navy, the two services not heavily involved in ground combat in Afghanistan or Iraq, should meet their goals this year, Segal said. Rochelle said he believes the Army can meet its recruiting goal for 2005, although recruiters are working 80-hour weeks to meet their monthly quotas. In response to cases in which recruiters offered to provide fake high school diplomas and enlist recruits with disqualifying medical conditions, the Army will stop recruiting for one day later this month to provide ethics training. So far this fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, the Army has reported 480 such allegations; 91 have been ruled valid. Eight recruiters have been relieved from duty, and 98 have been admonished. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussi
[osint] Bush asked to explain UK war memo
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/ Bush asked to explain UK war memo WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002. The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval. The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1. British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility. The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6. The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration..." "While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said. But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new." In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting. A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. "The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role. It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003. "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said. "But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance." Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used. The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult." Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors." "If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said. Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route." Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included i
[osint] US real wages fall at fastest rate in 14 years
One of the results of deficit spending, escalating oil prices and the "guns versus butter" effect of extended military conflict is to begin to push up inflation while wages remain constant or even decline with a resultant reduction in consumer spending. That impacts the economy and soon encourages even more deficit spending to offset high fuel costs, encourage the economy and pay for a war. And that elicits more inflation. And so the spiral goes. Not a good time to hold an adjustable rate mortgage as the good times of low interest rates may soon be over. David Bier http://financialtimes.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt? action=cpt&title=FT.com+%2F+Home+UK+- +Real+wages+fall+at+fastest+rate+in+14+years&expire=&urlID=14187511&fb =Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2Ff269a8f4-c173-11d9-943f- 0e2511c8%2Cft_acl%3D%2Cs01%3D1.html&partnerID=1700 US real wages fall at fastest rate in 14 years >By Christopher Swann in Washington >Published: May 10 2005 17:59 | Last updated: May 11 2005 15:20 >> Real wages in the US are falling at their fastest rate in 14 years, according to data surveyed by the Financial Times. Inflation rose 3.1 per cent in the year to March but salaries climbed just 2.4 per cent, according to the Employment Cost Index. In the final three months of 2004, real wages fell by 0.9 per cent. The last time salaries fell this steeply was at the start of 1991, when real wages declined by 1.1 per cent. Stingy pay rises mean many Americans will have to work longer hours to keep up with the cost of living, and they could ultimately undermine consumer spending and economic growth. Many economists believe that in spite of the unexpectedly large rise in job creation of 274,000 in April, the uneven revival in the labour market since the 2001 recession has made it hard for workers to negotiate real improvements in living standards. Even after last month's bumper gain in employment, there are 22,000 fewer private sector jobs than when the recession began in March 2001, a 0.02 per cent fall. At the same point in the recovery from the recession of the early 1990s, private sector employment was up 4.7 per cent. "There is still little evidence that workers are gaining much traction in their negotiations," said Paul Ashworth, US analyst at Capital Economics, the consultancy. "If this does not pick up, it raises the prospect of a sharper slowdown in consumer spending than we have been expecting." Economists are divided over the best source for measuring pay increases in the US, since the government releases three main measures. A gauge of average hourly earnings is released with the employment report. This rose by 0.3 per cent in both March and April and 0.1 per cent in February. Even with a slight rise in the hours employees are working, from 33.7 to 33.9, this suggests wages are struggling to keep pace with inflation. The gauge covers non- supervisory workers, about 80 per cent of the workforce. The Bureau of Economic Analysis figures for personal income showed wages rising at close to 6 per cent in 2004 but slowing down since. This measure also showed wages rising by just 0.3 per cent in each of the past 2 months. This is a broader gauge and includes small businesses and professional partnerships, but it measures total corporate wage bill rather than wages per person. The Employment Cost Index, seen by some as the most reliable measure, excludes overtime and professional partnerships. / Subsequent Article: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/057ec4b6-c1b9-11d9-943f-0e2511c8.html Stagnant salaries push more families towards the breadline Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
[osint] Former FBI 9/11 Whistle-Blower May Run for Congress
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=mod load&name=News&file=article&sid=552&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 Former FBI 9/11 Whistle-Blower May Run for Congress Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 03:28 PM Posted by: khence Current News about 9-11 By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, AP WASHINGTON (May 24) - A former FBI whistle-blower who urged the agency to investigate terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui in the weeks before Sept. 11, 2001, is considering a race for Congress in Minnesota. Coleen Rowley told The Associated Press on Monday she will make a decision by early next month on whether to run as a Democrat against incumbent GOP Rep. John Kline in next year's election. Rowley, who retired from the FBI last year, said she's spoken to people to get their input, both inside and outside of politics, but has been put off by some suggestions that she get a ''makeover.'' ''I've butted heads with a few people - anyone who tells me I have to spruce up my hair and buy a new wardrobe,'' Rowley said, declining to identify the source of this unwanted advice. ''I haven't worn makeup since I was 21. You have to be authentic and genuine in serving the populace.'' Rowley was named one of Time magazine's people of the year for 2002 after criticizing the agency for ignoring her pleas to investigate Moussaoui more aggressively. He was the only person charged in the United States in the attacks. Rowley said she would run as an ''independent-minded Democrat,'' focusing on issues such as international security and civil liberties. The Kline campaign said in a statement that it was too early to speculate about the race, and that Kline is focusing on congressional business. AP-NY-05-24-05 1048EDT Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] NBC clashes with Tom DeLay on Law & Order
The Republican Congress severely cut the Federal Marshal Service budget for court and judiciary protection in the current budget and there are further cuts in the 2006 budget. At the same time DeLay and other Republican lawmakers and their Christian Ayatollah allies such as Falwell and Robertson, have engaged in inflammatory rhetoric attacking federal judges. It amounts to encouragement of their more volatile followers to commit violence and weakening judicial protection to make it more likely for those sycophants to succeed as fledgling terrorists. What did Delay expect when he portrayed judges as heretics? That does not go unnoticed or unconcerned in the mainstream. It was only a matter of time before his position became the butt of someone's humor. Stand by for Jay Leno... David Bier http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050527/tv_nm/media_nbc_delay_dc NBC clashes with Tom DeLay on Law & Order By Steve GormanThu May 26,10:05 PM ET U.S. House of Representative Majority Leader Tom DeLay accused NBC on Thursday of slurring his name by including an unflattering reference to him on the NBC police drama "Law & Order: Criminal Intent." DeLay's name surfaced on Wednesday night on the show's season finale, which centered on the fictional slayings of two judges by suspected right-wing extremists. In the episode, police are frustrated by a lack of clues, leading one officer to quip, "Maybe we should put out an APB (all-points-bulletin) for somebody in a Tom DeLay T-shirt." In a letter to NBC Universal Television Group President Jeff Zucker, DeLay wrote: "This manipulation of my name and trivialization of the sensitive issue of judicial security represents a reckless disregard for the suffering initiated by recent tragedies and a great disservice to public discourse." The Texas Republican went on to suggest the "slur" against him was intended as a jab at comments he had made about "the need for Congress to closely monitor the federal judiciary." NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly responded in a statement that the dialogue in question "was neither a political comment nor an accusation." "The script line involved an exasperated detective bedeviled by a lack of clues, making a sarcastic comment about the futility of looking for a suspect when no specific description existed," Reilly said. He added: "It's not unusual for 'Law & Order' to mention real names in its fictional stories. We're confident in our viewers' ability to distinguish between the two." The show, which frequently incorporates stories and themes ripped from the headlines, aired weeks after a white supremacist was sentenced to 40 years in prison for plotting to assassinate a federal judge whose husband and elderly mother were later slain by another man angry at the judge. That judge, Joan Lefkow, appeared earlier this month before the Senate Judiciary Committee to rebuke politicians and other public figures who have used inflammatory language to criticize judicial decisions they disagreed with. She said such rhetoric encouraged violence against judges. Some leading Republicans used harsh terms to condemn judges earlier this year after courts failed to intervene to save the life of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who died after her feeding tube was removed at her husband's request but against her parents' wishes. At the time, DeLay said, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Producer Dick Wolf, creator of the "Law & Order" franchise, took a swipe at DeLay in his own statement on Thursday, saying, "I ... congratulate Congressman DeLay for switching the spotlight from his own problems to an episode of a TV show." The flap came as ethics questions swirling around DeLay mounted with a Texas judge ruling on Thursday that a political action committee formed by the congressman violated state law by failing to disclose $600,000 in mostly corporate donations. The show's season finale drew 14.5 million viewers, but DeLay wasn't one of them. An aide said he heard about the show through his wife, who learned of it from someone else who saw the episode. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[osint] RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY
It is highly unlikely any impeachment inquiry will emanate from a Republican majority Congress. David Bier http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexandrovna/coalit ion_inquiry_downing_street_memo_526 RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY Coalition of citizen groups seek formal inquiry into whether Bush acted illegally in push for Iraq war By Larisa Alexandrovna | RAW STORY Advertisement A coalition of activist groups running the gamut of social and political issues will ask Congress to file a Resolution of Inquiry, the first necessary legal step to determine whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in misleading the country about his decision to go to war in Iraq, RAW STORY has learned. The formal Resolution of Inquiry request, written by Boston constitutional attorney John C. Bonifaz, cites the Downing Street Memo and issues surrounding the planning and execution of the Iraq war. A resolution of inquiry would force relevant House committees to vote on the record as to whether to support an investigation. The Downing Street Memo, official minutes of a 2002 meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair, members of British intelligence MI-6 and various members of the Bush administration, notes that MI-6 director Richard Dearlove said, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Bonifaz says the minutes were the impetus for his request. “The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people,” Bonifaz wrote in a memo to the ranking House Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI), outlining the case (read his memo here). Blair and other British officials have not questioned the minutes’ veracity. In response to the revelations in the Downing Street memo, Conyers and eighty-eight other members of Congress issued a letter to the White House on May 5 requesting an explanation and answers to questions about whether the President misled Congress into voting for the Iraq war. White House press secretary Scott McClellan waived off the letter, saying he had “no need to respond,” according to the New York Times. Frustrated by the media’s silence, save a few articles buried in major American newspapers and pieces in the alternative media such as Air America Radio, the Ed Schultz Show, Salon and RAW STORY, a grassroots progressive movement has pushed the story forward, culminating in a formal request for a Resolution of Inquiry. Bonifaz wrote the request and outlined the case on behalf of a joint effort by several groups, including: Veterans for Peace, Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), 911Citizens Watch, Democracy Rising, Code Pink, Global Exchange, Democrats.com, Velvet Revolution, and Gold Star Families for Peace. “The president, among other alleged crimes, may have also violated federal criminal law if the evidence from the Downing Street memo is proven to be true, including the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996,” Bonifaz wrote. Some have criticized the media’s coverage of the memo. "To me it's kind of the smoking gun, or maybe the latest in a number of smoking guns,” Editor and Publisher senior editor Dave Astor told RAW RADIO Saturday. “And the fact that the media either didn't cover it or buried the coverage or poo-pooed it is appalling.” “It goes back to the fact of who owns the media and the media being intimidated by this administration,” he added. “I think that memo indicates an impeachable offense, personally. If we had a Congress that had some spine, and was maybe Democratic-controlled, it could be an impeachable offense.” Coalition member Medea Benjamin, founding director of Global Exchange, said she supports legal proceedings. “When a president so callously distorts the facts, manipulates the public and is responsible for so much needless death and destruction, he must be held accountable,” Benjamin told RAW STORY. Other members of the coalition, loosely titled “After Downing Street,” concur. “We will be organizing the grassroots to demand Congress move forward with a Resolution of Inquiry,” PDA director Tim Carpenter stated. As part of Congressional approval for H.R.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, the administration was required to report to Congress that diplomatic options had been exhausted before or within 48 hours after military action had started. In a conversation with RAW STORY, Bonifaz expressed the disappointment of many who put their faith in the President. “Within 48 hours after the attack on Iraq, the president wrote a letter to Congress indicating that Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat to national security and if he knew that was not true at the time he
[osint] Evgeny Adamov Doesnât Want Return Home
http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=581342 Evgeny Adamov Doesn’t Want Return Home // constrained Extradition Former Russian Atomic Energy minister Evgeny Adamov, charged with large-scale fraud and now held in custody in Switzerland, rejected simplified extradition both to the USA and Russia, Kommersant reported earlier. Lenny A. Breuer, Mr. Adamov's American lawyer, explained to Kommersant correspondent Igor Sedykh why his client wouldn’t return home. - Dr. Adamov is very upset by the fact that he is still kept in prison. Once he is released, he is going to exercise his right of the defense and challenge baseless charges put forward against him in the US. - Then why did not he accept simplified extradition to Russia? - The arrest was illegal by all criteria, according to both the Swiss and the international law. If Mr. Adamov had agreed to the simplified procedure it would mean that we admit the arrest. But since we do not agree with it, we proceed from the necessity to contest this decision and turn down any simplified procedures because the arrest itself is illegal. We believe that Dr. Adamov must decide for himself where to go. That is why we decide in this way. - What are your grounds for this? - We have strong evidence that the arrest was illegal, which is also proved by our Swiss colleague [lawyer Stefan Wehrenberg]. First and foremost, Dr. Adamov arrived in Switzerland as a witness out of his own accord to testify on a different case but was arrested on the grounds of the US request and an arrest warrant, without even being notified beforehand that there was an American request on the legal cooperation. I am convinced that if a man arrives at a place of his own free will, he must leave it on his own free will too. We hope that the Swiss court will restore justice. - And if it does not? - Our further steps depend on this decision. If the court hands down a ruling to release Dr. Adamov, we will start preparing for the departure to Russia. If the court upholds extradition, we will be very much disappointed by it. Then we will be waiting for the decision to which country he will be extradited to and will be preparing to defend him there. - Why do you think Adamov may want to return to Russia where a criminal case has been initiated against him? - We have saying from the very beginning that he wants to go to Russia and contest all the charges put forward against him as a free man. The extradition request certainly changes the situation. - Aren’t you really afraid that your client will be cuffed and sent to a pre-detention centre right at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport? - I hope he will not be arrested. After all, no one attempted to put him into prison in Moscow when he was there in April. So why would they send him there now? I hope the Russian government will permit him to stay free so that he could contest all the charges as a free man. I guess our Russian colleagues will render him substantial assistance for him to be completely acquitted in Russia. I do not understand why he should got sent into prison in Russia if he has always loved his mother land and has never sought shelter abroad, though he had a plenty of opportunities to do it. - Mark Kaushansky, the second accused in this case, was released by an American court on bail. Can Evgeny Adamov count on a similar ruling, should he be extradited to the US? - I do not know if it may happen. We are holding talks with the authorities on various aspects of this case. I can assure you that my colleagues and I will do our utmost to achieve accords with the US authorities. But now our primary goal is to achieve the release of Dr. Adamov in Switzerland. by Igor Sedykh Russian Article as of May 30, 2005 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. W
[osint] China Sets Border of Cooperation with Russia
http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=581347 China Sets Border of Cooperation with Russia // Ratification The Chinese parliament ratified yesterday an additional agreement between Russia and China on the Eastern part of the Russian-Sino state border, which was earlier ratified by the Russian parliament. Now the parties will have to exchange instruments of ratification. At this point, there will be no more border problems left in the relations between Russia and China. An additional agreement between Russia and China on the eastern part of their state border defines the border line in the area of the Isle of Bolshoy in the upper reaches of the Argun River (Chita Region) and the territory of the isles of Tarabarov and Bolshoy Ussuriysky in the Amur River. These two strips total less than 2 percent of the whole 4,300 km border. The document was signed on October 14, 2004 during the visit of the Russian president Vladimir Putin to Beijing. It was already clear then that no problems with its ratification by the parliaments of the two countries would arise. However, the residents of the Russian territories adjacent to those to be handed to China, tried protesting claiming they were losing agricultural lands and meadows. Locals threatened to pitch tents on these territories as a sign of protest. Yet, neither tents, nor rallies were spotted in the islands at the moment of the document’s ratification by the Russian Parliament, held last Wednesday. Sergey Razov, deputy Foreign Minister (who is soon to take over from Igor Rogachev the Russian ambassadorship to China), spoke at the session of the Federation Council’s External Affairs Committee shortly before this event. He said that the ratification of the additional agreement did not mean either concessions, or the transfer “of Russian territories to China; the matter does not concern any territorial gains of our territories by this country”. “It is important that the Russian-Sino border will not become a seat of tensions,” Mr. Razov continued. “The agreement concludes long-standing negotiations that were launched by the Chinese party in 1964.” He explained that there are no settlements or strategic objects situated in the plots of land that are to be handed to China. “The lived-in, inhabited part with 15,000 country houses will remain in Russia’s territory, so will a church-chapel and a water-supply point at the Argun River,” Mr. Razov added saying that the document rules out altering the provision on the line of the state border demarcated in the locality as a result of natural changes happening in the territory of the frontier region. He also reported that a joint demarcation commission is to be formed in order to determine at the spot the border line between Russia and China in compliance with the agreement. The commission will aim at the determining the belonging of the island in the frontier-region rivers and preparing draft document on the demarcation of the border and the drawing-up of demarcation maps. The additional agreement was ratified by the 15th session of the Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress yesterday. “Our common [with Russia] goal is to make the Russian-Sino border a territory of friendship and cooperation,” Zhang Qiyue, Chinese Foreign ministry spokesman said. Now the parties will have to exchange instruments of ratification. This is expected to happen soon in Vladivostok where a meeting of Russian, Chinese and Indian Foreign ministers is to take place on June 2. by Andrey Ivanov Russian Article as of May 30, 2005 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
[osint] A Military Base Can Be Set Up at Osh
http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=580556 A Military Base Can Be Set Up at Osh // Acting President of Kyrgyzstan Kurmanbek Bakiev talks to Kommersant First Person Acting President of Kyrgyzstan Kurmanbek Bakiev, who is resolutely counting on winning the upcoming presidential elections in that country, acknowledges the possibility of setting up a military base near Osh in the south of Kyrgyzstan, under the auspices of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). He spoke about this with Interfax correspondents Vladimir Kulikov and Igor Porshnev especially for Kommersant. You are entering the elections with associations with Felix Kulikov, who will be prime minister if you win. Is that alliance tactical or strategic? That alliance can be seen as both tactical and strategic. Before you decided to ally with Kulikov, some political scientists were saying that the main fight in the upcoming election would be representatives of the north and south of the country. What can be said about that now? Felix Kulikov and I formed an alliance mainly so as not to divide Kyrgyzstan into North and South. My program is based on the wholeness of Kyrgyzstan, the unity of the Kyrgyz people, by which I mean all the nations and peoples living in Kyrgyzstan. I took that step to achieve that goal and everyone has reacted positively to it. God willing, all attempts to divide the republic will come to an end. How do you see the chances of the other candidates in the election? Can the new head of state be chosen in the first round? I do not want to understate the chances of the other candidates, but I have worked in Kyrgyzstan for a long time as an akim, the governor of two regions and prime minister, I was twice elected to parliament, and that people know me more. Nowhere I worked did I become entangled in financial machinations or corruption. Therefore, after my alliance with Felix Kulikov, I think the election can be decided in one round. Can the current authorities guarantee fair and open elections and prevent disorder caused bythose who won't be happy with the election results? Yes, it can. I am absolutely sure that the elections will proceed fairly and honestly, in accordance with the Election Code, without the unfair use of administrative resources. I am also certain that the disorder caused by the parliamentary elections will not happen again. If you win, will you be able to offer posts in the government or presidential administration to your current opponents? Everything will depend on who will run. And people need to meet certain basic requirements: management experience, analytical experience, an understanding of economic issues, an understanding of the domestic politics of Kyrgyzstan and an ability to lead it. It only looks like anyone who engages in politics can manage people and the state. It is very responsible and difficult work. Can the events in neighboring Uzbekistan have a negative influence on relations between Bishkek and Tashkent? Who, in your opinion, organized the disorder in Andijan? The events in Uzbekistan cannot influence our relations for the simple reason that, from the very beginning, the administration of Kyrgyzstan has been doing everything it can so that Uzbek citizens feel alright when they are in our territory. We provided first aid, help with food, that is, provided basic human care. Therefore, relations between Bishkek and Tashkent cannot be spoiled. I think that, most likely, religious extremism, which is rising in Central Asia, is behind the disorder. What efforts are the authorities prepared to make to counteract Islamic extremism in Kyrgyzstan? Yes, unfortunately, there are hotbeds in Kyrgyzstan, although they are not now as active or aggressive as in the neighboring state. Sometimes, unfortunately, Islam and the Koran are interpreted differently, especially by the ignorant. The special services have to work with those people, and our spiritual leaders, and highly educated spiritual people. Former Kyrgyz president Askar Akaev stated in an interview that among the organizers of the mass opposition at the end of March were drug lords. He said that the new leadership of the republic is âpractically a hostage of the narcotics mafiaâ and drug transport through Kyrgyzstan is ânow open.â What do you say? Drug trafficking existed before Akaev, during Akaev and it exists now. Narcotics came from Afghanistan through border states and they still do. It cannot be tied to the people's revolution. Will a military base be set up in the town of Osh? What will be the fate of the existing bases â" the Russian base at Kant and the American base at Manas Airport? If it is necessary, a military base can be set up at Osh under the auspices of the CSTO or the SCO. The airbase at Kant will exist as long as it is needed, under previous agreements. The American airbase at Manas Airport will fulfill its function under agreements previo
[osint] Karimov Shares Crude with China
http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=580609 Karimov Shares Crude with China Uzbekistan’ President Islam Karimov sealed in Beijing yesterday a long-term cooperation agreement for exploration and subsequent production of Uzbek crude. But in China, they are not willing to confine to the power industry, viewing Tashkent as the crucial component to ensure stability of its western frontier. Exactly this stance determines today's attitude of China to Uzbekistan and to all events happening there. China was the only country that had absolutely supported actions of Uzbek authorities in Andijan bloodshed. Before Karimov’s visit to Beijing, official spokesman of Chinese foreign ministry made it clear that the latest events in Uzbekistan are internal affair of the country and that China backs up all efforts against terrorism, extremism and separatism. China has been eyeing Uzbekistan for long. Beijing thinks that Islamic fundamentalists have entrenched their power in Uzbekistan and that the narrow strip of Kyrgyz territory couldn’t be counted on as an insurmountable obstacle for them. Therefore, for China it is vital that Uzbek authorities put an end to the Islamic underground and that the U.S. military bases established in Uzbekistan after September 11, 2001 wouldn’t remain there for long. China fears Uzbekistan disorder may result in expansion of the United States in any region that is front-line to China. In view of the above it is quite clear why a number of economic, political and safety agreements targeted at strengthening stability in Uzbekistan were sealed over Karimov’s visit to Beijing. No doubt, China is sure that it won't be possible to attain stability in the Central Asia without Uzbekistan. by www.kommersant.com Russian Article as of May 26, 2005 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for anyone who cares about public education! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Caspian Hydrocarbons Flow through the Corridor
http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=580585 Caspian Hydrocarbons Flow through the Corridor // Right past Russia Ceremony Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev received the Presidents of Turkey, Georgia and Kazakhstan on Wednesday to celebrate the opening of the Baku â" Tbilisi â" Ceyhan oil pipeline. Russia did not take part in the festivities. Aliyev, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer signed a declaration opening the Kars â" Akhalkalaki â" Tbilisi â" Baku oil corridor. The agreement foresees the construction of a 98- kilometer rail line between Akhalkalaki, Georgia, and Kars, Turkey, 68 km. of which will run through Georgia and 30 km. through Turkey. The preliminary cost is set at $400-450 million. The rail line transport up to 3 million metric tons of oil that now flows throw Azerbaijan from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to the Black Sea ports in Georgia. During the course of the ceremony, the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan, the Energy Minister of Turkey and the U.S. Energy Secretary signed the declaration, which effectively connects Kazakhstan to the Baku â" Tbilisi â" Ceyhan project. The 1770-kilometer pipeline bears the name of the late Azerbaijani president Heidar Aliyev, father of the current president, who said that the capacity of pipeline will be 1 million barrels of oil per day. Aliyev gave high praise to the role the U.S. government and the British company BP played in the project. âWithout the support of the U.S., this project could not have been carried out. We feel their support in all energy projects. We are partners and we approach all world processes from the same position,â he said, also calling BP an integral part of Azerbaijan. U.S. President George W. Bush sent a congratulatory letter to the participants in the ceremony, which was read by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. âBaku â" Tbilisi â" Ceyhan opens a new era in the development of the Caspian Basin. The project will allow Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to take part in the world economy,â Bodman read in the name of the U.S. president. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbaev stated that Baku â" Tbilisi â" Ceyhan is one of the most important paths for oil from his country to reach world markets. He said that, last year, Kazakhstan produced 60 million tons of oil, and that figure will be 100 million by 2010. That forces the country to create an energy corridor with its neighbors, Nazarbaev said. Saakashvili said that the Baku â" Tbilisi â" Ceyhan pipeline will allow a new level of development âafter the collapse of the great empire.â He noted in particular that he wants to have protected sources of hydrocarbons and stable export. âThat corridor is important for the diversification of our access to world markets and to eliminate Western countries' dependence on the Middle East,â he said. âEconomic growth and stability are impossible without increase oil exports. Demand for oil will grow by 60 percent by 2030. We will try to turn the port of Ceyhan into a center of energy export and trading,â the Turkish said. He spoke of the importance of developing and exporting oil and gas from the Shakh Deniz field and said that Turkey is already thinking about Turkey â" Bulgaria â" Romania â" Austria and Turkey â" Greece â" Italy lines. He said that the demand for gas will grow by 70 percent by 2030, which will make Turkey one of the world's main gas suppliers, along with Russia, Norway and Algeria. by Yusuf Osmanov, Baku Russian Article as of May 26, 2005 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for anyone who cares about public education! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted
[osint] Across Iran, Nuclear Power Is a Matter of Pride
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/middleeast/29nuke.html?ex=1275019200&en=7589d2a1adbbcc8e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss May 29, 2005 Across Iran, Nuclear Power Is a Matter of Pride By NEIL MacFARQUHAR TEHRAN, May 28 - From nuclear negotiators to student dissidents, from bazaar merchants to turbaned mullahs, Iranians agree: the right to develop nuclear power is a point of national pride. "For a country to have nuclear energy means that it has made progress in all other fields as well, so other countries have to respect its technology," said Nilufar, 29, a graduate student in energy management at the prestigious Sharif Industrial University. Nilufar, covered in black so only her face was showing, agreed to be interviewed on such a delicate topic only if her family name was not used. Ehsan Motaghi, a 26-year-old seminary student in Isfahan, cited a parable from Imam Ali, the Prophet Muhammad's son-in-law and the inspiration for the Shiite branch of Islam, which most Iranians follow. "They can offer me everything from the earth and heaven, but in exchange if they want me to so much as take the food from an ant's mouth that is his right to eat, I won't do it," he said. "Achieving the peaceful use of technology is really a matter of pride and we will not stop this for anything." Such passions were echoed in two weeks of conversations with Iranians across all walks of life. Virtually all supported Iran's defying the West and moving ahead with its uranium enrichment program, which carries the threat of further United Nations sanctions. This widespread sense of national pride complicates any attempt to persuade Iran's leaders to give up parts of the nuclear program, as European negotiators have been trying to prevail upon them to do in talks over the past few months, offering various incentives. A monthlong United Nations conference on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed, ended Friday, having failed to address the kinds of loopholes that the Americans and Europeans fear Iran is using to pursue nuclear weapons under cover of developing nuclear power. That issue aside, it is clear that Iran's attachment to nuclear development is rooted in its own tumultuous history. The Islamic republic is trying to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip to end the varying degrees of international isolation it has been forced to endure since the Islamic revolution in 1979. The nuclear standoff also echoes an older fight: Iran's colonial struggle to control its oil resources, which it eventually wrestled away from the British. Some reach further back, reflecting a desire to revive the glory of ancient Persia. Others want to claim Iran's future, to prove that the Islamic revolution can overcome its reputation for abysmal management. "It is a symbolic thing for Iranians," said Mohammad Saeidi, the vice president for planning and international affairs at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. "Our people are very clever, very smart and they want to use all the advanced technology in the world-nuclear technology, biotechnology, internet technology." But for all the passion in the air, there are many nuances in Iranian positions, according to Iranian officials, scholars and foreign diplomats. In fact, they say, Iranian backing for nuclear development indicates neither automatic support for the government nor hostility to the United States. Only a small group, mostly hard-core revolutionaries, wants Iran to resign from the treaty and try to develop nuclear weapons, they say. "It would be 100 percent better to have nuclear weapons, but only to use them against anyone who tried to attack us," said Reza Jaedi, a 24-year-old interviewed in Isfahan who has little sympathy for the government. "Iran should develop them as soon as possible." It is rare to hear such views voiced in Iran, since they contradict the official line that Iran wants the technology only for peaceful means. Another group opposes nuclear development as entirely too expensive, unnecessary given the vast oil or gas reserves and not worth the international political headache. In fact, say some scholars who have interviewed ordinary Iranians, some back off their support for nuclear development if they are told it might bring further economic hardship and international isolation to Iran. But most Iranians, the experts say, fall into two other groups. One believes Iran should use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Another wants Iran to master the nuclear enrichment cycle both to avoid depending on foreign suppliers for nuclear fuel and to be able to move quickly to weapons development if Iran were threatened, either by Israel, the United States or a regional rival. That group sees nuclear power as an insurance policy against a forced change in the government. Unquestionably most Iranians would like to find a way to end economic sanctions so the country could use its vast oil wealth - an estimated $10 billion surpl
[osint] Venezuela rallies over Cuba exile
The U.S. seems to be reluctant to act firmly when the terrorist has attacked targets that it tacitly approves of; regardless of the acts meeting the definition of terrorism in the U.S. Patriot Act. The extradition refusal on very shaky grounds (no doubt to mollify U.S. Cuban voters in Florida) is part and parcel of the administration's hypocritical stance of approving a life sentence for a terrorist who murdered persons at the Atlanta Olympics and tried to kill fire, medical and police personnel with a mousetrap bomb at an abortion clinic (an attack pleasing to religious right voters) while at the same time insisting on the death penalty instead of life imprisonment for an arab terrorist who was in FBI custody at the time 9/11 occurred and was not part of that particular attack group. Is the arab guilty of terrorism. Yes. Should he be treated any differently than a Cuban or American terrorist. No. Terrorist acts require punishment. If the Bush administration is unwilling to extradite Mr. Carilles, he should not roam scot free but should be arrested and tried in the U.S. courts in accordance with international agreements concerning aircraft terrorism. The war on terror is rapidly losing any credibility in the minds of most Muslims and a growing portion of the rest of the world because of perceived excesses. And this kind of variable treatment of terrorists by the U.S. will push us further down the credibility rathole. Guess we have the same problem that others, such as the Saudis, have: sorting out "freedom fighters" from terrorists. David Bier http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4590599.stm Venezuela rallies over Cuba exile Tens of thousands of Venezuelans have rallied in the capital Caracas to demand the US extradites a Cuban exile accused of bombing an airliner in 1976. The march comes a day after the US rejected Venezuela's request for it to arrest Cuban-born Luis Posada Carriles, saying there was not enough evidence. Mr Posada Carriles is in US custody on suspected immigration violations. The ex-CIA employee denies involvement in the bombing that killed 73 people on the flight from Caracas to Havana. The naturalised Venezuelan citizen is wanted by both Cuba and Venezuela in connection with the attack. 'Hypocrisy' Supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took to the streets of the capital, blowing whistles and chanting anti-US slogans. The BBC's Iain Bruce in Caracas says there was good humour and dancing, but despite the festive mood among protesters it is clear that many people feel strongly about the issue. Some accused US President George W Bush of double standards. "Bush is protecting a terrorist while he is supposedly fighting against terrorism - that's hypocrisy," Pedro Caldera said. Mr Posada Carriles was charged last week with illegal entry into the US. The 77-year-old faces a hearing at a US immigration court on 13 June, at which he is expected to apply for asylum. On Friday the US state department said it had rejected Venezuela's initial request for Mr Posada Carriles to be detained with a view to extradition, because this had not been backed up by adequate evidence. Now the government in Caracas has announced it will be handing over the full 700 page extradition request on Tuesday. Mr Posada Carriles was twice acquitted by Venezuelan courts of plotting to bomb the plane. He escaped from a Venezuelan prison in 1985 while awaiting a trial on appeal. The US says it will not deport Mr Posada Carriles to any country that would hand him over to Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba. Caracas says it will not hand Mr Posada Carriles over, and Mr Castro has said he will be happy to see him tried in Venezuela. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4590599.stm Published: 2005/05/29 02:45:27 GMT Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, the
[osint] State-led murder and rape of villagers in Darfur uncovered
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=594012005 Tue 31 May 2005 State-led murder and rape of villagers in Darfur uncovered GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN CHIEF NEWS CORRESPONDENT CONFIDENTIAL African Union (AU) reports have provided damning new evidence of the involvement of Sudanese government forces and their Janjaweed militia allies in the murder and rape of civilians in the Darfur region. AU monitors have collected photographic evidence of Sudanese helicopter gunships in action attacking villages, and their reports conclude that the Sudanese government has systematically breached the peace deals that it signed to placate the United Nations Security Council. Reports from Darfur indicate that air attacks on villages have continued amid defiance of UN resolutions calling on the Khartoum regime to disarm the Janjaweed, with the latest helicopter attack in south Darfur reported to have taken place on 13 May as the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, was preparing to visit the province. Pictures taken by AU monitors document attacks by a Sudanese helicopter gunship on the village of Labado in December, a month after the Sudanese government gave an assurance that there would be no more such attacks. The Sudanese government markings are clearly visible on the tailfin of the helicopter. The village was visited by Mr Annan last week as he toured the region to see for himself whether anything had changed a year after he first visited Darfur. The government in Khartoum has consistently denied using air attacks against villagers, insisting that they have only been used defensively against attacks by rebel forces. The US and British governments have accepted Sudanese assurances that there have been no air attacks since February, but the anti-genocide Aegis Trust - which is campaigning for an enlarged AU force to be sent to Darfur - claims it has received reports of a bombing raid involving an Antonov aircraft on 23 March and a helicopter attack in south Darfur on 13 May witnessed by AU monitors. Yesterday, Dr James Smith, Aegis's chief executive, said: "Reports of airstrikes against civilians in Darfur highlight the urgent need for a UN mandate for peace enforcement operations in the region. The British government should show leadership on this issue and table such a resolution at the Security Council immediately." The African Union currently has about 2,300 troops in Darfur, along with hundreds of police officers, and last week a conference of international donors pledged about $200 million in additional funding to pay for an enlargement of the force. However, there is still a significant shortfall on the $700 million the AU estimates it needs to fund a successful mission. Since last year, the AU's ceasefire monitors have been attempting to investigate reports of attacks by government, Janjaweed and rebel forces. Their confidential reports reveal in stark detail the scale of the attacks and provide conclusive proof that Sudanese government forces have carried out illegal attacks on civilians. A report into two attacks on the village of Marla on 8 and 16 December described how the AU team came upon Sudanese government forces in the process of attacking the village. "The GOS [government of Sudan] forces were fire-supported by helicopter gunships which bombarded the edges of the village and flew over the area for about 30 minutes thereafter," the report said. "The team also found some unexploded rockets in the village. During the team investigation on 16 December, the GOS soldiers were still burning houses, looting and harassing the citizens of Marla." Major Omar Bashir, the GOS commander, told the monitors that his company entered Marla on 17 December at 0800 hours escorted by helicopter gunships which were used to provide protection and direction to the area. He said he was deployed in the area to provide security and wait for the police who would be deployed there in a few days. He said that when he arrived, he saw that part of the village was burnt. There was no resistance to entering the village, he added. But a local citizen told a different story. Adam Juma Amar said the first attack on 8 December involved troops firing and burning houses. Eight days later, he said, a group of soldiers returned. He said: "On entering the village, they were escorted by two helicopter gunships firing at the edge of the village. They flew over the area for almost 30 minutes before they left." He said the soldiers set fire to houses and set up a base next to a water borehole to prevent the residents using it. "Some soldiers were within the village, looting, burning houses and stores," he added. The report - marked "AU confidential" - is accompanied by pictures of Sudanese soldiers involved in the act of looting. It also contains an interview with a man who was shot in the head The report concluded that Sudanese forces had attacked Marla. "This has led to looting, burning of houses and massive displacement of villa
[osint] The War on Terrorism in Action
http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=581346 The War on Terrorism in Action // Thanks to Russia and the United States The War on Terrorism The U.S.-Russian working group on terrorism met last week in Washington. At the end of the meeting, they made a number of optimistic statements, in which observers see the outlines of a coming demarcation between Russia and the United States. Kommersant Washington correspondent Dmitry Sidorov tried to discover exactly what had been discussed at that meeting. U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and Russian deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Kislyak spoke to reporters Friday afternoon at the end of two-week negotiations. It was the first meeting of the cochairmen at that level. Before, the working group had been headed by former deputy heads of the respective foreign relations offices Richard Armitage and Vyacheslav Trubnikov. This caused some talk of a lowering of the level of the negotiations, with references to the lack of results from the meetings. Kislyak, obviously aware of those ruminations, reminded journalists that he and Burns were both former representatives to NATO, as if to point out that they are engaged in their professional activities. Journalists were disappointed by the short opening speeches of the cochairman. Both made general comments, from which it was hard to gather what the negotiations had actually touched on. The main thought in their speeches was that the U.S. and Russia are fighting terrorism and drug trafficking practically everywhere in the world, from Central Asia and the Near East to North America. Burn's announcement of charges made against British citizen Hekmat Lakhani was not very fresh news on their activities either. He was arrested in 2003 by U.S. undercover agent in Newark, NJ, on a tip from Russian special services as he was trying to sell an Igla shoulder-held rocket launcher. The Kommersant correspondent asked if there were any other results from the group that the cochairmen would like to share. In response, Burns talked about the “successful work of the group” in cooperation with U.S. Treasury agents “to uncover channel for money to terrorists, some in North America.” Burns did not provide any concrete examples, citing the secrecy of the information. After the briefing, a member of the American delegation told the correspondent that “there is no need to expect big announcements until the work is finished.” The diplomat added that “no schedule for finishing has been set.” The dialog with reporters got livelier when the discussion turned to the recent events in Uzbekistan. The disagreement between the cochairmen was obvious. Burns repeated the U.S. position that “an independent investigation should be carried out in Uzbekistan” of the events in Andijan, where “it is possible that the use of force was immoderate.” Kislyak said that “nobody knows what exactly happened there.” Then he repeated the position of the Russian Foreign Ministry. “Uzbekistan is an independent state that is independently settling the issue” of the need for independent investigation. The Kommersant correspondent asked Kislyak to comment on Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's recent statement that outside forces that were connected to international terrorism were involved in the upheaval in Uzbekistan. “I agree with the minister's point of view,” Kislyak responded, but refused to elaborate, citing the sensitivity of the situation. Kislyak's and Burn's responses inspired Ariel Cohen, Heritage Foundation Russia and CIS expert, to comment to the Kommersant correspondent on “the lack of a coordinated position between Russia and the U.S. on the solution of issues with Uzbek President Islam Karimov.” A Kommersant source close to the U.S. administration agreed in large part with Cohen, saying that “the difference in views on the events in Uzbekistan, as well as Syria, Afghanistan and Iran, makes one think that Russia is heading for demarcation with the U.S.” The cochairmen made an effort to convince reporters that their activities were not a tentative demarcation. Speaking of Iran, Burns and Kislyak expressed satisfaction with the negotiations of the “European Trio” (Great Britain, France and Germany) with Teheran. “The moratorium on nuclear research in Iran was preserved, and that's good news,” Burns said. He added that “The U.S. has agreed to allow the WTO to begin negotiations on the admission of Iran to that organization.” Cohen told the Kommersant correspondent in relation to U.S.-Russia differences over Iran that “Moscow is still holding on to its nuclear collaboration with Teheran” and suggested that “the arrest of former Minister of Nuclear Energy Evgeny Adamov was Washington's tough response.” The topic of Iraq also arose in the discussions of the working group. The cochairmen did not want to talk about the details, but was Burns finally induced to say that it was a matter of “joint solution of security issues arising in the Iraqi admin
[osint] Georgia/Russia: Base Deal Seen As Mutually Acceptable Compromise
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/5/401C4C 6E-277A-4FF3-BD7A-3348D441E304.html Tuesday, 31 May 2005 Georgia/Russia: Base Deal Seen As Mutually Acceptable Compromise By Jean-Christophe Peuch Moscow and Tbilisi yesterday announced an agreement on the closure of Russia’s two remaining military bases in Georgia by the end of 2008. In theory at least, the deal puts an end to a dispute that started in December 1999, when the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe demanded that Moscow vacate all four former Soviet military bases it had been maintaining in that Southern Caucasus country. By 2001, Russia had vacated two bases. But the fate of the two remaining facilities -- in the Black Sea port of Batumi and the predominantly Armenian region of Samtskhe-Javakheti -- had remained in abeyance for nearly four years, triggering tensions between Moscow and Tbilisi. Prague, 31 May 2005 (RFE/RL) -- Addressing reporters last week on 23 May at the Moscow headquarters of the “Komsomolskaya Pravda” daily newspaper, Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly indicated he had abandoned all hope of maintaining military bases in Georgia. “Is it a good thing, or a bad thing that we’re leaving Georgia? From the standpoint of our security and strategic interests, [these bases] do not present any particular interest. This is not my personal opinion. This is the opinion of the Russian Army General Staff,” Putin said. At the same time Putin sounded regretful, saying the upcoming withdrawal would diminish further Moscow’s influence in the former Soviet Union. “Politically speaking is it good, or bad? I believe it is not very good because it means our military presence is no longer desirable to our neighbors -- and I don’t see anything good in this. Whether this is a right decision with regard to [our neighbors’] interests, it’s up to them to decide,” Putin said. "This is simply the usual way of negotiating. You start by placing the bar very high and then you reach a compromise, a medium-level solution." But, the Russian president added pragmatically that Russia’s insistence in maintaining troops in Georgia would eventually backfire. “It would be even worse if we tried at all costs to prevent [the Georgians] from implementing their sovereign rights. That would give rise to even greater mistrust toward our policies,” Putin said. In this context, the agreement reached yesterday came as no surprise. All the more because, when U.S. President George W. Bush was in Tbilisi earlier this month, he urged his Georgian allies to not antagonize the Kremlin and continue to negotiate the Russian withdrawal. Bush’s admonition followed Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s refusal to attend the Moscow ceremonies that marked the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. Saakashvili had cited the collapse of an earlier round of talks, during which Georgia had insisted that the two Russian bases be vacated by 1 January 2008, to justify his decision. Addressing reporters after he had signed with his visiting Georgian counterpart a joint declaration reaffirming Moscow’s commitment to vacate both bases, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday said the sides had agreed on a new timeframe that clearly meets some of Moscow’s requirement. “The final withdrawal will be completed in the course of the year 2008. The declaration outlines the [successive] stages of this withdrawal in utmost detail, be it the withdrawal of heavy weapons, equipment, other property and military personnel; or the transfer to the Georgian side of Russian military facilities that are not part of the Akhalkalaki and Batumi bases,” Lavrov said. The Russian military seems satisfied with the expanded timeframe, which roughly meets a demand made earlier this month by Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Colonel Vladimir Kuparadze, the deputy commander of the Russian Group of Forces in Transcaucasia, yesterday told the ITAR-TASS news agency would start pulling out military equipment in August. Konstantin Kosachev, who chairs the foreign affairs committee of the Russian lower house of parliament, or State Duma, yesterday welcomed the agreement. In comments made to Russia’s Interfax news agency, Kosachev said he was satisfied to see that “Georgia has eventually stopped politicizing the base issue to heed to common sense.” Georgian political leaders have expressed similar contentment, describing yesterday’s joint declaration as a “historical” document that paves the way for a significant breakthrough in bilateral ties. Anton Surikov is a political expert at the Institute of Globalization Studies in Moscow. He tells RFE/RL he views yesterday’s deal as equally beneficial to both sides. “I do believe this is a sensible compromise that one could equally describe as a victory for Russia and a personal victory for the Georgian president. On the one hand, it was obvious that one day or another we would have to vacate those bases to meet our international
[osint] Group on U.S. terror list lobbies hard
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050531-022253-5868r.htm Group on U.S. terror list lobbies hard By Angela Woodall UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL Washington, DC, May. 31 (UPI) -- U.S. lawmakers and former military officers are backing Mujahedin-e Khalq, an Iranian opposition group, despite its inclusion on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations and its role in the killing and wounding of U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970s. Supporters acknowledge the status of the group, once funded by deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, as well as its role in the killings of U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970s in Iran when it was allied with Ayatollah Khomeini, but say the MEK has shed its past activities and is a potential ally against the theocratic regime in Iran. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, responded in a written statement saying he supports the MEK because it is an "asset to U.S. intelligence" and "the most reliable source of information for the region." In recent years the MEK's political branch, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, has provided information about Iran's nuclear facilities, which the Bush administration contends are being used to secretly make nuclear weapons. Tancredo's press secretary, Carlos Espinosa, said it is not "too unusual" for members of Congress to support a group listed as a foreign terrorist organization, citing Sen. Ted Kennedy's support for the Irish Republican Army as an example. "Are these guys saints? No." Espinosa said. But, "if there's a problem, it's that the MEK is on the list." Other lawmakers who have expressed support for the MEK, including Robert Filner, D-Calif., did not return repeated calls for comment. The Council's Washington office has now been shut down and the organization is banned in the United States because of its affiliation with the MEK. MEK leader Maryam Rajavi has suggested her group as an alternative to Iran's revolutionary regime -- with Rajavi taking the place of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. She has offered to head a transition government for six months, after which elections will be held, according to news accounts. But, said Iran expert Mohamed Hadi Semati, the MEK has no support from Iranians inside the country. Semati, a political science professor at the University of Tehran and a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, said he had no doubt the MEK would be resisted if it tried to take over the government in Iran because the group had "killed a lot of innocent people." "They would be killed instantly if they tried to go inside Iran," he said, recalling that in 1987 the Iranian army and security forces fended off the MEK after its members tried to invade the country during the war with Iraq. At the time, the group was financed by Saddam. In contrast, the Iran Policy Committee, a Washington think tank of former U.S. officials that specializes in Iran policy and favors the removal of the group from the terror list, said the move would "send a signal to the Iranian rulers that their days are numbered." In a written statement to questions about the MEK, the IPC called the organization the "best organized, most credible Iranian opposition group" that stands for a democratic, secular republic in Iran. Meanwhile, Rajavi is confined to MEK's base in France after she and 150 supporters were arrested there on suspicion of plans to attack Iranian embassies and assassinate former members working with Iranian intelligence services in Europe, according to news and think-tank reports. The MEK has been on the European Union's list of terrorist organizations since 2002. Despite her confinement, Rajavi used a satellite link to address an April 15 convention in Washington, during which she called on all Iranians to unite toward achieving democratic change in Iran. At the same event, the Iranian-American National Convention, former military officials, Army Col. Kenneth Cantwell and Capt. Vivian Gembara praised the People's Mujahedin of Iran (another name for the MEK) and urged the Bush administration to remove it from the terrorist list, according to a news release from the event. It was not clear who sponsored the convention, however, and calls to the convention contact number were not returned. In the past, Washington has had mixed results with the strategy of relying on opposition groups for intelligence or assistance in thwarting a regime. Most recently, the U.S. reliance on intelligence from Iraqi exile and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi proved to be unwise. Chalabi and the INC were sources of intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability now widely believed to be false. Tancredo acknowledges the risk, according to Espinosa, who said everything the MEK has told Washington about Iran -- that Iran moved nuclear equipment to another undisclosed military location -- has been "100
[osint] Police force, military seek public's confidence
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050530-094032-8242r.htm Police force, military seek public's confidence By Levon Sevunts THE WASHINGTON TIMES JALALABAD, Afghanistan -- U.S. commanders in Afghanistan are upbeat about the national army, saying it demonstrated its growing effectiveness with its handling of recent riots sparked by an erroneous Newsweek item. But, they concede, the national police force still has a way to go. The Afghan National Army, or ANA, "has been a huge success," said Col. Gary Cheek, the outgoing commander of Regional Command East, which covers 16 provinces in eastern Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan. "To put it into professional baseball terms, last year the Taliban were playing against an AA league team. This year, it's against the New York Yankees." Lt. Col. Norm Cooling, commander of the 3rd Battalion 3rd Marine Regiment, said the biggest challenge facing the Afghan forces is to win public confidence in the face of attempts by Taliban-led insurgents and other enemies of the government to manipulate legitimate grievances into large-scale riots. He blamed forces affiliated with former mujahedeen commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar for inciting several days of riots in Jalalabad. The violence was sparked by the Newsweek item, later retracted, saying a U.S. interrogator at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. "To be perfectly honest, we were surprised," Col. Cooling said. "We walk in that city every day. Of all the people in Afghanistan, the people of Jalalabad know us the best. And on the tactical level, we didn't even know the [Newsweek] article existed until the demonstrations started." Poor training and planning by the Afghan National Police (ANP) allowed Mr. Hekmatyar's operatives to drive most humanitarian agencies out of the city, including most U.N. staff, whose offices were torched by rioters, Col. Cooling said. But after the initial difficulties, he said, both the ANP and the ANA proved they can handle such situations on their own. "A year ago, we would have had no option but to go there and put down the riot ourselves," Col. Cooling said. "That would have only inflamed passions even more and would have given anti-coalition militias a public relations victory." The coalition forces have drawn their lessons from the riots, he said, and both now are receiving training in crowd control. Col. Cheek said the ANA, which now has 23,000 men and is to scheduled to grow to 39,000, has reached the stage at which its troops are able to train routinely and operate alongside U.S. forces. "The ANA is a very disciplined force," he said. "It's been a huge plus, bringing security to Afghanistan. We gain a lot from their cultural perspective: They see things we don't see." But, the colonel said, more work is still needed in training the ANP, which has almost 38,000 officers and plans to grow to 62,000 by October 2006. Unlike the ANA, which is ethnically diverse and integrated, the ANP officers tend to serve near their homes, Col. Cooling said. "They are more likely to be biased in tribal disputes or have their own criminal affiliations," he said. Col. Cheek said he is confident that the increased capabilities of the ANA, ANP and the Afghan Border Police will eventually allow the government to assert control over the volatile area along the border with Pakistan. But first, they must win over a local population that is "uncertain which side they want be on," he said. "They are with us when we are there. And when insurgents come, they support them." Col. Cooling said the hope is to undermine support for the rebels by increasing the legitimacy of local governments while sustaining military pressure on midlevel insurgent leaders. "If we can eliminate local government corruption," he said, "if we can count on district chiefs to enforce laws, not their own laws, but the laws of the national government, then maybe we can really build Disneyland in downtown Khost, as the governor dreams." Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups membe
[osint] Cash-Poor USAF Cuts Flying Hours
Recently the Air Force ordered big cuts in maintenance and many other areas because its accounts are being starved to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This cut in flying hours is yet another slide down the slippery slope to a hollow force. David Bier http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=876917&C=america Posted 05/30/05 15:29 Cash-Poor USAF Cuts Flying Hours By LAURA M. COLARUSSO Budget deficits are compelling the U.S. Air Forceâs combat squadrons to absorb substantial cutbacks in training, leaving frontline units unprepared to go to war, according to service officials. Air Combat Command (ACC), the primary provider of combat airpower, is cutting 32,000 flying hours to help compensate for its $825 million operations and maintenance shortfall. The cuts come as Air Force aircrews are heavily worked, flying missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and over some U.S. cities in an attempt to prevent another terrorist attack. âStarting early this summer, units may have aviators unable to get required training to maintain full combat-ready status,â Col. Jim Dunn, deputy director of flight operations for ACC, said in a written statement. âOverall effectiveness will become a growing challenge.â With this cut, the command now has 21,000 flying hours left of the original 53,000-plus hours programmed for the rest of this fiscal year â" a 60 percent reduction. Still, officials estimate near-term readiness levels will only drop between 20 percent and 40 percent because aircrews will fly fewer than their required hours for only one month at a time. If a crew meets its requirements in June, for example, it can fly less than required in July. Dunn stressed that squadrons preparing to deploy would still be given enough flying hours to properly prepare to fight. Units that are not scheduled for deployment will share the remaining hours. Implementing the reductions will be left to wing commanders, but in some cases upgrade flights will be canceled and some aircrew members may find themselves in a flying blackout period, he said. âOur intent is to preserve minimal combat readiness in at least 60 percent of the force while keeping remaining aviators at basic qualification levels,â Dunn said. The cuts will not affect ACC testing units, the F/A-22 Raptor squadron or the Thunderbird aerial demonstration team for the time being. The Raptor, the Air Forceâs newest fighter jet, is on a tight schedule to achieve initial operational capability by December. Retired Gen. Hal Hornburg, former ACC commander, said the cuts are âa big dealâ and show the militaryâs grim financial situation. âTheyâre not cutting fat, theyâre cutting to the bone,â Hornburg said, noting the Pentagon has taken large sums of money away from the Air Force to pay for the Army in Iraq. Reducing flying hours will free up about $272 million, not quite a third of the commandâs shortfall, said Col. Dave Goossens, ACC comptroller. The command is taking other actions to rein in spending. Travel budgets have been slashed by $6.5 million. Supplies and vehicle maintenance are losing $59.8 million. Construction projects and facility maintenance are taking a $131.9 million hit. ACC will spend $200 million less than expected on depot maintenance because itâs deferring maintenance on 14 aircraft and 17 engines until next year. Fewer Photocopies Combat squadrons are not the only units facing budgetary strain. The rest of the Air Force has had to cut back spending on everything from flying hours to maintenance to photocopying. Air Education and Training Command must save $67 million to balance its finances, said comptroller Col. Dave Weinberg. Air Force Materiel Command is facing a shortfall of about $400 million. Air Force Special Operations Command must find savings of $18.5 million. Air Mobility Command, which transports military personnel and materiel around the globe, has slashed its training flights by 53 percent. Thatâs a reduction of 46,462 flight hours and a savings of $160 million. Pacific Air Forces had curtailed its flight training by about 9,000 hours. Gen. Paul Hester, commander of the Pacific Air Forces, said the reduction will save $50 million, roughly 9 percent of the commandâs 2005 flying budget. The financial pressure is a result of the high price tag for the war in Iraq, which is costing approximately $5 billion a month. The Air Force, in large part, attributes the shortfall to Operation Noble Eagle, the air patrols flown over U.S. cities. For the first time in three years, the Air Force has had to use its own money to pay for the missions. The flights previously had been financed through wartime supplemental funding requests separate from the serviceâs baseline budget. Service officials said they were not prepared to inherit Noble Eagle costs. Air Force officials at the Pentagon have recognized the serviceâs dire financial situation, estimating a $3 billion operations and ma
[osint] Readers speak out about Horsey's recent military cartoon
Sunday, May 29, 2005 Readers speak out about Horsey's recent military cartoon By MARK TRAHANT SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR Rufus King -- the one-time namesake of King County -- once complained that the words used in American political debates were useless. "The abuse of words," he said, "is as pernicious as the abuse of things." But what is an abuse of words? King and many 19th-century politicians argued against using words that were all-purpose, those that could be cited as code in a debate without really revealing anything specific. The words then might be: liberty, democracy, honor and love of country. Better arguments focused on words that were sharp and clear. Nothing in our political discourse -- then and now -- is as clear as a cartoon. Readers from across the country were offended by a Tuesday cartoon drawn by the Post-Intelligencer's David Horsey. Cartoon http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20050524/cartoon20050524.gif It's hard "to reply in a measured, polite way. I suppose it's easy for him to create such a drawing and then sit back and let all of us so-called brain-dead, red-state Americans slobber our outrage at him," said one e-mail. "I imagine he must joyfully see himself as quite the 'Agent Provocateur' (No? It pains him greatly to be forced to speak such uncomfortable 'truths?' But, of course!) What courage for him. The truth-seer speaking truth to power, come-what-may." Many of the offended readers were connected to the military. "I served over 21 years to make the world safe for you to spread your hate poison," wrote a retired Air Force major. "It was worth it. Each day we get another example of why journalists are rated as one of the least respected professions." This intense reaction -- that I know from the telephone calls -- ought to open a window about how different parts of America think. Why would this cartoon, above all others, incite such reaction? Horsey explained his thinking about the cartoon. He said it started rolling around in his mind when he saw The New York Times story about repeated instances of torture and details about the deaths of at least two inmates in Afghanistan. The reports were based on U.S. Army criminal investigations and it is similar to allegations raised by other agencies as well as the International Red Cross. "I am not making this stuff up," Horsey said. "The mainstream press is not making this stuff up. It is real and is of great concern to our military. I should think it would be of concern to anyone who cares about the image of America in the world. It is unfathomable to me that folks who claim to believe in American values get upset about a poorly sourced item in Newsweek or a cartoon that is almost a literal interpretation of the facts, yet seem to be unconcerned about torture being perpetrated in their name." But why call attention to this issue? This is where the debate gets interesting, Horsey's reason is "a true patriot is one who loves his country enough to call to account those who shame the flag by despicable actions that in no way reflect the guiding principles of this republic. This is not a liberal idea, a radical idea or a treasonous idea. It is, in fact, a rather traditional, all-American idea. Making excuses for torture is common practice in banana republics and authoritarian regimes, but it is alien and antithetical to our constitutional democracy." Several of those I talked to do not buy this reasoning. They said the cartoon made the military all "guilty" instead of reflecting the actions of only a few. Others went further and said any questioning of military misdeeds during a war should be considered treason. "I don't think half the nation (probably the liberal half) thinks we are at war," one reader told me in an e-mail. "Horsey is a wonderful artist and very clever, but you can't convince me he isn't full of hate for the president, the military and anyone associated with the administration. I don't see how anyone could interpret his work otherwise." We have an interpretation gap. There's a natural tension between freedom and sedition that is as old as this country (even during wars). One side has always argued that dissent makes this country stronger, while the other has claimed we should rally around our leaders and the military (sometimes even being willing to jail those who cannot agree). We may never bridge the gap. Some of us will look at such cartoons, get the point and think of ways U.S. institutions can be made stronger. Others will look at the same sketch, get angry and demand repudiation. This gap is so wide that it may never be bridged; maybe it's a divide that will always exist in this country. We value freedom too much, the very reason why the First Amendment is incorporated into our founding documents. We laugh, get angry, agree, disagree, write e-mails, make phone calls, cancel a newspaper subscription or find a new favorite cartoonist. It is this contradiction that's the
[osint] Iraq War: Drafting the dead
Wednesday, June 1, 2005 Iraq War: Drafting the dead SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD President Bush was among the 260,000 graves at Arlington National Cemetery when he said it. But it was clear Monday that the president was referring to the more than 1,650 Americans killed to date in Iraq when he said, "We must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives; by defeating the terrorists." Bush insists on clinging to the thoroughly discredited notion that there was any connection between the old Iraqi regime -- no matter how lawless and brutal -- and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. U.S. military action against an Afghan regime that harbored al-Qaida was a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. The invasion of Iraq was not. As of Memorial Day 2003, Bush had declared major combat operations at an end, predicted that weapons of mass destruction would be found and that U.S. forces were in the process of stabilizing Iraq. One hundred sixty U.S. troops had died. The U.S. death toll has grown more than tenfold. No weapons of mass destruction were found. More than 700 Iraqis have been killed since Iraq's new government was formed April 28. Bush said of the insurgents at a news conference yesterday, "I believe the Iraqi government is plenty capable of dealing with them." Of course, this is the same president that assured the world that military intervention in Iraq was a last resort and that the United States would make every effort to avoid war through diplomacy. Giving lie to that as well is the so-called Downing Street War Memo, which shows that as early as July 2002, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Perhaps all presidents' remarks in military graveyards are by nature self-serving. But few have been so callow as the president's using the deaths of U.S. troops in his unjustified war as justification for its continuance. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] U.S. Army officers cite lack of troops in key region
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11781484.htm Posted on Tue, May. 31, 2005 U.S. Army officers cite lack of troops in key region By Tom Lasseter Knight Ridder Newspapers TAL AFAR, Iraq - U.S. Army officers in the badland deserts of northwest Iraq, near the Syrian border, say they don't have enough troops to hold the ground they take from insurgents in this transit point for weapons, money and foreign fighters. >From last October to the end of April, there were about 400 soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division patrolling the northwest region, which covers about 10,000 square miles. "Resources are everything in combat . . . there's no way 400 people can cover that much ground," said Maj. John Wilwerding, of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is responsible for the northwest tract that includes Tal Afar. "Because there weren't enough troops on the ground to do what you needed to do, the (insurgency) was able to get a toehold." said Wilwerding, 37, of Chaska, Minn. During the past two months, Army commanders, trying to pacify the area, have had to move in some 4,000 Iraqi soldiers; about 2,000 more are on the way. About 3,500 troops from the 3rd ACR took control of the area this month, but officers said they were still understaffed for the mission. "There's simply not enough forces here," said a high-ranking U.S. Army officer with knowledge of the 3rd ACR. "There are not enough to do anything right; everybody's got their finger in a dike." The officer spoke on the condition of anonymity because of concern that he'd be reprimanded for questioning American military policy in Iraq. The Army has no difficulty in launching large-scale operations to catch fighters in "an insurgent Easter egg hunt," the officer said. "But when we're done, what comes next?" Control of the area is seen as key to stemming the insurgency in the rest of Iraq. More than 650 Iraqis have been killed since the nation's interim government took office April 28. May also is turning out to be the deadliest month since November for U.S. troops in Iraq, with 65 reported killed so far by insurgents, according to figures tabulated by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a group that tracks coalition troop deaths from Department of Defense releases. "This town is kind of like a staging point for the rest of the country," said Capt. Geoff Mangus, 25, of Milledgeville, Ga., an Army intelligence officer in Tal Afar. "They know that weapons and foreign fighters can filter through here unscathed." Army officials in northwest Iraq described a two-year cat-and-mouse game with insurgents who move from one outpost or town to the next, sustaining casualties but buoyed by an influx of fighters slipping across the Iraq-Syria border, which in many places isn't patrolled. >From their sanctuaries in the area, the fighters then spread across the country, some volunteering to be suicide bombers. They funnel cash, arms and recruits to the insurgency, Mangus said. Repeated efforts to secure the area have failed. In Tal Afar, the police - with only 150 officers left in what was a 600-man force - are holed up in the only remaining police station. Insurgents destroyed three others last year. To the west, the mayor and police have abandoned the town of Bi'aj. To the south, in Rawah, a recent patrol found no evidence of the mayor, police or "rule of law," said Maj. Bryan Denny, 38, of Oxford, N.C. Military commanders in the region said they planned to reinstall police squads and governmental leaders where possible to keep insurgents from overrunning the towns. On Wednesday some 1,600 U.S. and Iraqi troops swept through Bi'aj and other nearby towns with long columns of Bradleys and tanks. When they arrived, most of the town was empty, and there were few military-age men visible. American soldiers on the scene assumed they'd fled when they heard the tanks rumbling. A car had raced ahead of the convoy and fired an AK-47 in the air, presumably to warn of the impending American presence. "When the U.S. forces got to this country two years ago they did not stay in the cities on the border. . . . They left it for these guys to walk free. It allowed the Baathists (members of Saddam Hussein's party) and the foreign fighters to organize themselves," said the Iraqi army division commander for the region, Maj. Gen. Khursheed Saleem Hasan. "It's a city (Bi'aj) that has been taken over by insurgents." U.S. forces retook Tal Afar from insurgents last September after a two-week blockade, airstrikes and intense street combat. The top American officer in the area, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, predicted then that the some 250,000 residents of Tal Afar would be back on their feet soon. More than eight months later, insurgents still launch daily sniper and mortar attacks on U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. Car bombings in the town killed 40 people and wounded 80, at a minimum, in May. Two helicopters have been forced to land because of hostile fire during the past week. Sectar
[osint] U.S. death toll in Iraq surges amid rebel violence
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N31661115.htm U.S. death toll in Iraq surges amid rebel violence 31 May 2005 20:45:59 GMT Source: Reuters By Will Dunham WASHINGTON, May 31 (Reuters) - The death toll for American troops in Iraq rose in May to the highest level since January, with the U.S. military saying on Tuesday insurgents have doubled their number of daily attacks since April. This latest spree of violence by insurgents, who rose up after the American-led invasion in 2003 toppled President Saddam Hussein, put a dramatic end to a period when attacks on U.S. forces had waned after the historic Jan. 30 elections. At least 77 U.S. troops were killed in May, according to a count of deaths announced by the military. That is the highest toll since 107 Americans were killed in January. It marked the second straight monthly increase since 36 U.S. troops died in March, among the lowest tolls of the war. Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said insurgents are staging about 70 attacks nationwide per day. "There was a lull in attacks after the elections," Boylan said. "There was a period of time right after the election until the beginning of April or middle of April that we actually saw them (daily rebel attacks) dip into the low 30s." The latest Pentagon figures listed 1,658 U.S. military deaths since the war began, with another 12,630 wounded in combat. The United States has 139,000 troops in Iraq, with another 23,000 British and other foreign soldiers. In the recent spike in violence, insurgents also have aggressively targeted Iraqi security forces and civilians. Boylan said more than 600 Iraqis were killed or wounded in May. Boylan attributed the rise in U.S. deaths in May to several factors. May was a record month for car bombs used by insurgents in suicide attacks and with remote-controlled detonations, he said. Boylan added U.S. forces suffered losses in offensives against the rebels such as Operation New Market in the western town of Haditha and Operation Matador around the western town of Qaim, close to the Syrian border. 'DON'T KNOW' Asked if the insurgents, a mix of indigenous Sunni Muslim Arabs and foreign radical Islamic fighters, could sustain the current level of violence, Boylan said, "Don't know yet." Defense analysts said the recent violence was the latest evidence Iraq remains an uncertain project for America. "Those who believed that the elections would be a decisive turning point undermining the insurgency are disappointed yet again," Cato Institute defense analyst Ted Carpenter said. "The insurgency seems as capable as ever." U.S. generals in the weeks after the election had talked about a possible serious reduction in U.S. troop levels next year. Gen. George Casey, top U.S. commander in Iraq, has not completed his assessment of future troop levels, Boylan said, adding that the level of violence and the capabilities of U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces would be crucial factors. "The reality is we have discovered, despite all our propaganda, that we are facing a very tough, resilient and smart adversary," defense analyst Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute said. Goure said rebels have continuously changed, updated and modified tactics, dumping those that no longer worked. Goure also faulted U.S. forces for being slow to cut off the supply of bullets, bombs, money and recruits coming over the border from Syria. "I think we are in there at least for the next five years in significant numbers," Goure said. Boylan preached patience. "This is the hardest type of fight to be in," Boylan said. "If we get too impatient and decide to throw in the towel too soon, then we give up everything we've gained up to this point." Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for anyone who cares about public education! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We beli
[osint] US 'losing its grip' on Baghdad's political process
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9506bdfe-d1ff-11d9-8c82-0 e2511c8,ft_acl=,s01=1.html US 'losing its grip' on Baghdad's political process >By Guy Dinmore in Washington >Published: May 31 2005 19:27 | Last updated: May 31 2005 19:27 >> Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency has reached a “kind of peak”. The Sunni now realise they erred in boycotting last January's elections “and so, as Iraqis see their interests as represented in the political process, the insurgency will lose steam”. This sanguine view of the state of affairs in Iraq--as expressed by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, in a recent Bloomberg interview reflects the US administration's struggle to demonstrate that it remains in control and still has an exit strategy. In the more sombre assessment of others in the administration, however, the US has long lost its grip on Iraq's political process. “We are losing control,” said one veteran Arabist in the administration who requested anonymity. He described the US embassy in Baghdad, without an ambassador for about six months, as “out of the loop” and not involved in significant decisions taken by the new transitional government dominated by the Shia Arab majority. Geoff Porter, analyst with the Eurasia Group consultancy, said US interests had been “stymied on most fronts”, with US officials frustrated with, and ignorant of, Iraq's fractious politics. “There is an air of resignation, with people throwing up their hands that this will be a long-term process.” The US is not necessarily staring at defeat. The Iraqis may yet work out power-sharing arrangements. And to an extent the Bush administration consciously made an effort to let go before the January 30 legislative elections. Washington accepted the risk that Iyad Allawi, the prime minister and US favourite at that time, might not win a place in a new government and that his vision of a secular Iraq might be thrust aside. In the event, Mr Allawi was not included, while Ahmed Chalabi, who had fallen from grace with the US, returned to a senior position by aligning himself with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the Shia religious leader. “We are not picking the people,” Robert Zoellick, deputy secretary of state, said following his two recent visits to Baghdad. But the US did maintain a policy of encouraging an inclusive government, he said. The US, he reasoned, had passed from the phase of running Iraq, through encouraging self-government, to the present “very mutual phase” akin to the process of “moving along” a World Trade Organisation agreement. “The US still has enormous influence in terms of financial resources and obviously our military presence. The government knows it needs the support of the US and also our global reach,” said Mr Zoellick, formerly the US trade representative. “They have got to succeed on their own,” he said of the Iraqi government led by Ibrahim Jaafari, “but we have got to work closely with them and make our suggestions and prod and push.” Most US prodding is directed at the process of writing a new constitution acceptable to all the main ethnic groups: the majority Shia, minority Sunni and the Kurds. Already the US has failed to get more than two Sunni legislators aboard the 55-member parliamentary commission responsible for the project. The semblance of US control rests on sticking to the timetable laid out by Paul Bremer, Iraq's former US administrator, in the transitional administrative law, or mini-constitution, imposed in March 2004. That envisages a draft constitution completed by August 15, a referendum on the text by October 15, then parliamentary elections by December 15. Again, the US has decided not to involve itself in the detail but aims to uphold principles: a limit to the authority of Sharia law, protection and inclusion of minority groups and defence of women's rights. “The Shia may accept the break-up of Iraq as the price of a Shia-dominated Arab state,” said Peter Galbraith, a former US ambassador with close ties to the Kurds, estimating Iraq may hold together for five more years. The US, according to Mr Zoellick and other senior US officials, would be content to have Mr Bremer's TAL forming “the foundation stone” of the constitution, making Sharia law one source of authority but not the only one. Mr Galbraith said a restatement of the TAL would be acceptable to the Kurds as a continuation of “de facto independence”, although there needed to be clarification of sharing of natural resources, the status of Kirkuk and the scope of the national army. The US, he said, could not leave Iraq to its own devices now. Independent experts aiding the Iraqi government are concerned that the 11 weeks left to draft a constitution are not enough and that the US and Iraqi parties are rushing to complete the process. Neil Kritz and Jonathan Morrow of the congressionally funded US Institute of Peace said it would be very difficult to make the August 15 target date. There should be more time for public consultat
[osint] Jet Airways' US flights caught in Al-Qaeda storm
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1384636,00050001.htm Jet Airways' US flights caught in Al-Qaeda storm Lalit K Jha (HindustanTimes.com) Minneapolis, June 1, 2005 The plan of the Jet Airways to launch the Mumbai-Newark flight -- the first by any private Indian airline -- from June 23 seems to have received a major setback. A little known American airlines with the same name tag has challenged before the US Department of Transportation (DOT) the Jet Airways' application seeking a "foreign air carrier permit" under the open skies agreement signed between India and the US in mid-April. The Delaware-based Jet Airways Inc, which is yet to launch its commercial operations, in its objection on May 23 before DOT claimed that the Jet Airways (India), if given the permit, would threaten the US' national security as this would allegedly give Al-Qaeda "scope to fly and control aircraft" over American cities. Primarily based on media reports, published in India, the Jet Airways Inc in its objection has alleged that ever since the Jet Airways (India) was started and planned in 1991, it has been "funded by Al-Qaeda and Specially Designated Global Terrorist Dawood Ibrahim". Early this month, the UN had named Dawood in the "most -wanted" list of individuals having links with the Al-Qaeda. "No matter how wonderful the service and the (Jet) airline may be in India, it is still an enterprise which is used to launder money for Al-Qaeda and is still an Al-Qaeda airline," alleged Nancy M Heckerman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Jet Airways Inc. "It does not matter how much clean and non-criminal their passengers may be in India, the fact remains that such funds are commingled with the original black money from the Al-Qaeda and specified unlawful activity," he added. "The first dollar that would be made by Jet Airways (India) in the US would be criminally tainted in gross violation of the Laundering of Monetary Instruments (1956) and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity." The Jet Airways Inc further went on to say, "Secretary Mineta would never welcome Jet Airways (India) if he was made aware of Naresh Goyal and Dawood Ibrahim's plan to inflict real and imminent danger on the United States." Referring to the Jet Airways (India) statement in its May 2 application that it would soon be "designated and licensed by India to operate the services authorised under the bilateral agreement", the Jet Airways Inc claimed this means the Indian company could not legally fly to the US from India at this time, even if they are "granted" foreign air carrier permit because the Indian licenses have not been granted yet. "Is this the reason that other Indian airlines have not applied for this permit in the US?" the Jet Airways Inc asked. It pleaded before the Department of Transportation and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta not to issue the foreign air carrier permit to Jet Airways (India). However, Jet Airways (India) has said that the allegations of it having links with global terrorist network Al-Qaeda are not only sensational, unsupported and offensive but also scurrilous. Jet, in its reply to the DOT on May 27, categorically said that neither the company nor its chairman Naresh Goyal, "has or had at any time, any association, financial or otherwise with any underworld or terrorist groups or individuals, including Al-Qaeda and Dawood Ibrahim." "It has falsely accused the Jet Airways of being an "Al-Qaeda airline" and has otherwise attempted to besmirch the reputation of the company and its chairman," it claimed in its reply, a copy of which has been made available to the HindustanTimes.com. The company further asserted that since its inception, all equity contributions have been made through legitimate sources and with necessary approval from the Government of India. "All aircraft acquisitions and operations have been financed through the internationally accredited multilateral institutions and banks including the Export-Import Bank of the US, the International Finance Corporation and other prominent commercial banks and financial institutions in India and abroad," it said. May 23 was the last date for filing objections to the Jet's application of May 2 before the DOT. No other objection has been filed so far. Despite Jet Airways' refutation, the fact that US security agencies are "hyper sensitive" to anything even remotely related or linked to Al-Qaeda, has sent 'jitters' among the officials of this major private Indian airlines. It is now understood that DOT has sought the view of the US Department of Homeland Security, which is believed to be thoroughly verifying the allegations, Therefore, any decision on the issuance of "foreign air carrier permit" to Jet Airways (India) has been put on hold for the time being. "We are reviewing the application after the objections were raised and replies filed by the Indian company. It is hard to say when a
[osint] Trump, Investors Sell Property for $1.8B
Bush41 will be happy to hear the Carlyle Group is adding NYC real estate to its portfolio. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Trump-Land-Sale.html? June 1, 2005 Trump, Investors Sell Property for $1.8B By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 3:09 p.m. ET NEW YORK (AP) -- Donald Trump and a group of investors plan to sell a parcel of Manhattan riverfront land and three buildings for $1.8 billion, the biggest residential sale in city history, a source familiar with the matter said Wednesday. The land, the former site of a rail yard, will be sold to the Extell Development Corp. and Carlyle Group, said the source, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the deal is not final. Details of the transaction were reported in Wednesday editions of The New York Times. The 77-acre parcel of land stretches from 59th to 72nd streets on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, along the Hudson River. The area is known as Riverside South or Trump Place. Extell is buying the three rental buildings on the side, plus lots to build eight more apartment houses, the Times reported. Four condominium buildings at the site are not part of the deal, the newspaper said. Representatives of the Trump Organization, Extell and the Carlyle Group either could not immediately be reached or said they had no comment on the Times report. The rail yard property has a troubled past: Trump had gained control of it in 1974 and again in 1982, both times frustrated by intense community opposition to his plans to develop there. A group of Hong Kong and Chinese investors paid $82 million in 1994, when Trump was in debt, for a $300 million mortgage on the land. Development of the apartment buildings started in 1997. News of the sale brought expressions of relief from Trump's critics. ''Even though they're paying an exorbitant price in this overheated market, we hope the new owners will be more responsive to the community,'' Madeleine Polayes, a leader of the Coalition for a Livable West Side, told the Times. The deal reflects a red-hot real estate market in Manhattan. The average price of a condominium has soared to $1.2 million, the Times reported. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for anyone who cares about public education! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Testimony at an Oversight Hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18330&c=206 Testimony of Acting Director Gregory T. Nojeim and National Security Policy Counsel Timothy H. Edgar At An Oversight Hearing on Sections 505 and 804 of the USA PATRIOT Act May 26, 2005 American Civil Liberties Union Testimony at an Oversight Hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: Section 505 (National Security Letters) and Section 804 (Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction) and the Material Witness Statute Before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee Submitted by Gregory T. Nojeim Acting Director, Washington Legislative Office and Timothy H. Edgar National Security Policy Counsel Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union and its more than 400,000 members, dedicated to preserving the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is an oversight hearing on sections of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 expanding national security letter powers and extraterritorial jurisdiction for federal criminal prosecutions,[1] as well as the very important topic of the Justice Department�s use of the material witness statute.[2] This statement�s main focus is on national security letters and material witness detention. While these powers are not set to expire at the end of the year, their unrestricted use poses a serious threat to basic civil liberties and should be the subject of this subcommittee�s careful scrutiny. The statement also briefly addresses extraterritorial jurisdiction. Secret Records Searches Without Judicial Review, Probable Cause or an Ability to Challenge: National Security Letters Perhaps no sections of the Patriot Act have become more controversial than the sections allowing the government secretly to obtain confidential records in national security investigations � investigations �to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.� National security investigations are not limited to gathering information about criminal activity. Instead, they are intelligence investigations designed to collect information the government decides is needed to prevent � �to protect against� � the threat of terrorism or espionage. They pose greater risks for civil liberties because they potentially involve the secret gathering of information about lawful political or religious activities that federal agents believe may be relevant to the actions of a foreign government or foreign political organization (including a terrorist group). The traditional limit on national security investigations is the focus on investigating foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. Indeed, the �foreign power� standard is really the only meaningful substantive limit for non-criminal investigations given the astonishing breadth of information government officials might decide is needed for intelligence reasons. The Patriot Act eliminated this basic limit for records searches, including the FBI�s power to use a �national security letter� to obtain some records without any court review at all. Section 505 of the Patriot Act expanded the FBI�s power to obtain some records in national security investigations without any court review at all. These �national security letters� can be used to obtain financial records, credit reports, and telephone, Internet and other communications billing or transactional records. The letters can be issued simply on the FBI�s own assertion that they are needed for an investigation, and also contain an automatic and permanent nondisclosure requirement. Although national security letters never required probable cause, they did require, prior to the Patriot Act, �specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe� the records pertain to an �agent of a foreign power.� The Patriot Act removed that standard. As a result, a previously obscure and rarely used power can now be used far more widely to obtain many more records of American citizens and lawful residents. Because the requirement of individual suspicion has been repealed, records powers may now be used to obtain entire databases of private information for �data mining� purposes � using computer software to tag law abiding Americans as terrorist suspects based on a computer algorithm. In Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), a federal district court struck down a �national security letter� records power expanded by the Patriot Act, agreeing with the ACLU that the failure to provide any explicit right for a recipient to challenge a national security letter search order violated the Fourth Amendment and that the automatic secrecy rule violated the First Amendment. The case is now on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. There has been some confusion about whether Doe v. Ashcroft struck down a provision of the Patriot
[osint] Countering Bioterrorism - Can Europe and the U.S. Work Together?
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=860155&C=thisweek Posted 05/30/05 15:35 Countering Bioterrorism Can Europe and the U.S. Work Together? The recent Atlantic Storm simulation showed the United States and EU member states are not prepared for a bioterrorism attack. With U.S. and EU biodefense programs varying markedly, can the Atlantic alliance develop suitable defenses together? Are differences in EU and U.S. programs based purely on threat perception, or are other critical factors involved? If the EU should strengthen its homeland security infrastructure, does that mean developing something similar to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security�s National Response Plan? The Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, followed by the anthrax letter attacks, are often cited as a primary catalyst for European policy implementation on counterterrorism, bioterrorism awareness and a range of so-called homeland security initiatives. While both events affected international perceptions of security, the European debate was perhaps more directly influenced by the U.S. engagement in Iraq and the Madrid transit bombing of March 11, 2004. The Madrid bombings consolidated EU action, and while biological terrorism response is addressed under the RAS BISCHAT program, trans-Atlantic gaps in perception of threat and the capabilities to address it continue. Sept. 11 allowed all the trans-Atlantic partners to close ranks. The post-9/11 climate was one of solidarity. Pre-emptive engagement of the United States in Iraq significantly strained the trans-Atlantic relationship. The subsequent failure to find weapons of mass destruction [WMD] and the failure of intelligence has critically affected threat perceptions on both sides of the Atlantic. While the debate over WMD in Iraq often degenerates into politically charged accusations for valid reasons, the actual threat such weapons pose has not diminished. The advancement of biotechnology, the potential for abuse of science and conventional weapon proliferation remain central security issues. How do we create and sustain a viable partnership when variations in capability and the value placed on certain capabilities, mainly defense, influence response to shared problems? In order for Europe to fully engage as partners, diplomatic, police, intelligence and military capabilities to counter the new security threats are necessary. The European Security and Defence Policy has been created for precisely this purpose. • Have gaps in capabilities affected how we perceive the security environment? • What consequences are we likely to face from existing gaps? • What immediately needs to be addressed in terms of European security policy, capabilities and mechanisms for delegating specific action? • Would the trans-Atlantic relationship to counter bioterrorism gain from the United States strengthening its diplomatic ties and supporting multilateral approaches to international conventions? • Is the creation of a homeland security agency necessary for Europe? • Would nations object to situating such activity at the European level and the potential strengthening of third-pillar powers? • If there are differences in threat perception which affect how we develop policies for preparedness and response, can the EU and U.S. agree on an agenda for action? If a bioterror event were to occur today, are the EU, the U.S. and Canada prepared to act as equal partners to respond to such an event? Atlantic Storm, a war-game scenario run in January, demonstrated the inadequacies of international preparedness and response to a Class A biowarfare agent used in a catastrophic or mass destruction event. Atlantic Storm Atlantic Storm posits that a routine trans-Atlantic summit is under way in Washington when, suddenly, reports come in about a multicity bioterrorist attack under way on both sides of the Atlantic. The biological agent used is smallpox. In 1980, this disease was eradicated after a decade of vaccination and isolation in a global campaign led by the World Health Organization. Its appearance in several cities simultaneously clearly indicates a planned and orchestrated release is under way. The scenario stipulates that terrorists with microbiological training were able to acquire all the necessary lab equipment to grow and process the variola major seed stock into a relatively high-quality dry powder that�s then used in the attacks. Are the EU, U.S. and Canada creating coordinated policies to deny procurement? Are EU and U.S. dual-use export control lists consistent and applied consistently? The laboratory contained all the equipment required for a modern microbiology laboratory, including incubators, fermenters, freezers and biocontainment cabinets, as well as instruments and reagents required for modern molecular biology techniques and genetic engineering. All of this laboratory equipment is entirely dual-use; it�s commercially available. Turkey, a NATO ally, immediately reques
[osint] Re: DEEP THROAT
But that scumbag Nixon never stood trial for his numerous felonies because scumbag Ford pardoned him. And lost the next election because of that. Large numbers of voters, including many law enforcement types like myself, were unwilling to stomach Ford's betrayal of the rule of law in America, and said so in exit polls. Had Felt come forward publicly to expose Nixon's crimes, he would have been roasted, tossed out of government and become (as Nixon and Haldeman noted in their recording about Felt) virtually unhireable. That career and personal destruction is why potential whistleblowers, knowing full well that protection assurances are bogus, become informants instead. It may not fit the naive hero image of American manhood to inform, but it damn well allows justice to be done without destroying the messenger (or on Bush 43's watch, the messenger's wife). David Bier P.S. I was also disgusted with the special prosecutor letting Clinton off the hook as well. He lied and covered up and should have faced a jury of his peers...just the same as should have happened to Nixon. --- In osint@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Tefft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This about covers that scumbag Felt... > > > > Bruce > > > > > > = > > > > This will run someplace tomorrow - not sure where yet. It captures most of > > the issues, I think. Those who lump all bureau whistleblowers together are > > shallow minded and have a simplistic world view, in my opinion: Here's the > > oped: > > > > "Deep Throat" has at last come forward. Arguably the most notorious > > informant in recent history is former FBI official Mark Felt, and it's been > > confirmed > > by The Washington Post. Felt was second in command at the Federal Bureau > > of > > Investigation during Watergate, and is now 91 years of age. In stepping > > forward he not only destroys his reputation, but he takes a chunk out of the > > reputation of the agency that supported him and his family in a comfortable > > lifestyle for so many years. > > > > Had Felt used the lawful route to voice his concerns about the Nixon > > Administration he might be remembered with a modicum of respect, if not > > admiration. > > Some in the Nixon Administration were misusing their powers but not because > > they were feathering their own nests like Felt was. For their sins they got > > lengthy trials and prison sentences. Felt broke numerous federal laws, but > > received immunity from prosecution by hiding behind the skirts of two > > Washington > > > > Post reporters. They made their careers, and he made a clean getaway. > > > > Felt's whistleblowing didn't cost him the respect of his peers. He was not > > censored by his agency. He didn't lose his job. > > > > An informant for the Post, Felt avoided cross-examination. He appeared > > before no grand jury, gave no oath to congressional committees as legitimate > > whistleblowers often do, nor was he questioned or attacked by political > > opposition. > > No one in authority had a chance to examine his motives or credibility. No > > other media could interview Felt to look for inconsistencies, or probe > > critical > > > > data. No federal jury ever weighed his evidence. > > > > In fact, Felt's information was second and third hand. He was not > > collecting > > testimony through the examination of witnesses. He performed no search, > > made > > no arrests. He had read report summaries given to him by FBI agents who > > were > > doing the real work. > > > > Agents briefing Felt then must wonder today about the real reasons why he > > asked his questions. How many of his inquiries were based on his promise to > > a > > newspaper to keep the information flowing? His subordinates and his boss, > > the > > acting FBI Director, believed Felt was working for the FBI and that's why > > they > > gave him highly secret information. But Felt was serving two masters. > > > > Why did the Post believe Felt? Was it because he was an FBI agent? > > Contrast > > that with how the Post treated me, a 26-year veteran of the FBI when I came > > forward with political allegations against Bill Clinton. They attacked me > > in > > many articles, writing that I could not possibly be telling the truth. They > > accused me of using second and third hand information when in fact I worked > > in > > the White House day after day
[osint] See no evil
Bush43 is again trying to kill the messenger because the message is too factual to destroy. That is especially the case since a Federal judge has ruled in an ACLU case that photos and videos from Abu Ghraib must be released. David Bier http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/blumenthal-see-no-evil.html See no evil Cloaked in myopic self-righteousness, the Bush administration is trying to make its gulag problem disappear by attacking Amnesty International. This isn't just blind and arrogant, it's harming the national interest. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Sidney Blumenthal June 1, 2005 | President Bush's press conference on Tuesday, at which he denounced Amnesty International's annual report containing allegations of torture by the United States as "absurd" and dismissed all such allegations as inspired by terrorists, was the crescendo of a concerted administration campaign to stifle the rising clamor on its torture policy. Amnesty International released its report on human rights on May 25. Among other findings, it documents that some 500 detainees are being held at the Guantánamo military base. The Supreme Court ruled six months ago in Rasul vs. Bush that they are entitled to legal counsel and due process, but Amnesty noted that the detainees have not been provided with lawyers in secret administrative reviews to determine if they are "enemy combatants." And the more than 50,000 detainees being held in 25 prisons in Afghanistan and 17 prisons in Iraq are "routinely denied access to lawyers and families." An unknown number of people have disappeared into secret prisons -- having been "rendered" to U.S. allies like Uzbekistan, where torture is routine. The Amnesty report called this shrouded network "the gulag of our time," and concluded that the administration's methods are counterproductive: "The 'war on terror' appeared more effective in eroding international human rights principles than in countering international 'terrorism.'" The Amnesty report followed on the heels of the Bush administration's blame casting at Newsweek magazine for provoking anti-American riots in Afghanistan that resulted in 17 deaths by its publication of a story that a Quran had been flushed down a toilet at Guantánamo. After the anonymous Pentagon source for the item hesitated about his certainty, the Defense Department, through its spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, demanded that Newsweek apologize, and editor Mark Whitaker abased himself elaborately for its error. But a week afterward the Pentagon disclosed that there had indeed been five incidents involving abuse of the Quran, though not a toilet flushing. (Some further clarification may be helpful on this fine point: As it happens, the detainees don't have flush toilets but buckets.) At a press conference on the same day the Amnesty report was issued, Di Rita was asked, in light of the acknowledged Quran abuses and the apology he had insisted that Newsweek make, "Mr. Di Rita, as the Department of Defense, are you going to present your apologies to the Arab world?" Di Rita replied: "For what?" A day later, on May 26, in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking information about detainees, federal District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that 144 photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq must be publicly released. The judge stated that the "photographs present a different level of detail and are the best evidence the public can have of what occurred." Immediately, the Bush administration launched a ferocious counteroffensive to obscure any debate about its torture policy, discrediting Amnesty's report, which was largely based on previously released official documents. The seriousness with which the administration regards the torture issue -- as a political matter -- was reflected by the senior level of the deniers. Now, the questions were not left to the likes of press secretaries Di Rita or Scott McClellan. All the voices sang in a choir from a common book of talking points. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hit Amnesty's report as "absurd." Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Richard Myers called the report "absolutely irresponsible." And Vice President Cheney took umbrage at the insult: "Frankly, I was offended by it. For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously." He added that the "allegations of mistreatments" came from "somebody who had been inside and released to their home country and now are peddling lies." The Wurlitzer of the conservative media was playing from the same songbook, but in a higher octave. On May 27, before the administration heavyweights made their statements, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page dec
[osint] Videos and photos of Abu Ghraib prison abuse ordered released by New York judge
See No Evil... http://signonsandiego.printthis.clickability.com/p t/cpt?action=cpt&title=SignOnSanDiego.com+%3E+In+I raq+--+Videos+and+photos+of+Abu+Ghraib+prison+abus e+ordered+released+by+New+York+judge&expire=&urlID =14435116&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.signonsandiego .com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Firaq%2F20050602-1714-detaine erecords.html&partnerID=621 Videos and photos of Abu Ghraib prison abuse ordered released by New York judge By Larry Neumeister ASSOCIATED PRESS 5:14 p.m. June 2, 2005 NEW YORK â" A judge has ordered the government to release four videos from Abu Ghraib prison and dozens of photographs from the same collection as photos that touched off the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal a year ago. The federal judge issued the order late Wednesday requiring the Army to release the material to the American Civil Liberties Union to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. The ACLU said the material would show that the abuse was "more than the actions of a few rogue soldiers." Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the 144 pictures and videos can be turned over in redacted form to protect the victims' identities. He gave the Army one month to release them. The judge ordered the release after he viewed eight of the photos last week. They were given to the Army by a military policeman assigned to Abu Ghraib. In October 2003, the ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking information on treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture. The ACLU contends that prisoner abuse is systemic. "These images may be ugly and shocking ... (but) the American public deserves to know what is being done in our name," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. So far, 36,000 pages of documents and the reports of 130 investigations, mostly from the FBI and Army, have been turned over to the ACLU. The group is seeking documents from the CIA and the Department of Defense as well. The judge said last week that he believed photographs "are the best evidence the public can have of what occurred" at the prison. Government lawyer Sean Lane had argued that releasing pictures, even in redacted form, would violate Geneva Convention rules by subjecting the detainees to additional humiliation. Lane did not immediately return a telephone message for comment Thursday. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Finding Work Hard for Troops Back From War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/03/AR2005060300117_pf.html washingtonpost.com Finding Work Hard for Troops Back From War By KIMBERLY HEFLING The Associated Press Friday, June 3, 2005; 2:36 AM WASHINGTON -- Nearly every day he was in Iraq, Army Staff Sgt. Steven Cummings would get so shaken by mortar round explosions that, even now, a year after his return home, he drops to the ground at the crackle of lightning. Iraq had a big impact on Cummings in another way _ his finances. In his absence, his wife took out two mortgages on their home in Milan, Mich. They fell $15,000 in debt, as the pay Cummings earned during his 14 months overseas was less than he had made as a civilian electrical controls engineer. Looking back, those almost seem like the good times. Cummings has been laid off from two jobs in the year since he left Iraq. While other reasons were given for the layoffs, Cummings thinks both were related to his duty in the Michigan National Guard and the time off it requires. Like some other veterans who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq, he is struggling to find work. "I don't know what I'm going to do now. I'm in the exact position I was when I came back from Iraq," said Cummings, a father of two. "I'm 50 years old and I have a mortgage payment due. I'm tired of it." Although many employers take pride in hiring veterans and make up any pay an employee lost while deployed, some are reluctant to hire reservists and Guard members who might have to deploy again, said Bill Gaul, chief officer at Destiny Group, an online organization that seeks to match employers and veterans. Almost 490,000 troops from the Guard and reserve have mobilized since Sept. 11, 2001, overseas or for duty in-country. Of those, about 320,000 have completed their mobilization. The number of unemployed Guard members and reservists who served in Iraq is unclear because the Labor Department will not begin gathering data specifically on post-Sept. 11 veterans until August. The unemployment rate for veterans of all wars was 4.6 percent last year, the department said, compared with an overall unemployment rate of 5.5 percent. Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa., and Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Mich., are co-sponsoring legislation that would give companies up to $2,400 in tax credits for each veteran from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars they hire. That could be a "mini-windfall" for a small company, said Schwarz, a Vietnam veteran. "It will make a difference." The lawmakers said their proposed tax credit also would be extended to companies that hire dependents of soldiers who died in combat and the spouses of those in the Guard and Reserves who deployed longer than six months. "This is a way to give respect to our servicemen and women who have served," said Schwartz, daughter of a Korean War veteran. There are laws designed to protect the civilian jobs of deployed Guard and reserve troops, but some still come home unemployed if their companies skirt the law or cut jobs for other reasons, such as the closure of a business. Others looking for work were unemployed when they left or they are coming off active military duty and entering the civilian job market for the first time. Some are changed by war, and find their old civilian jobs have become less meaningful. That was the case with Army Cpl. Vicki Angell, 32, who gave up her job as a customer service supervisor for an equipment company to serve in Iraq with the 324th Military Police Battalion out of Chambersburg, Pa. Upon her return in 2004, it took a year for Angell to find satisfactory work. She is now an editor at The Sheridan Press in Hanover, Pa. "You send out a lot of resumes. You try to do everything you can do, but it's really hard to account for the time you are in Iraq, and really to try to make that, the things you were doing in Iraq, relevant to what an employer is looking for today," Angell said. Army Sgt. Benjamin Lewis, 36, a civilian chef in Ann Arbor, Mich., lost his job when the restaurant where he worked burned down while he was in Iraq with the Michigan National Guard. He said some potential employers told him they could not hire him because he might be deployed again and would need weekends and time off in the summer for drills. Others asked if he struggled mentally because of his time at war, Lewis said. He got so desperate he considered returning to Iraq with a new unit. Ultimately, he found work at a restaurant that is flexible and supportive of his military service. "I was pretty frantic in the end," Lewis said. "It was almost a year without a job." Cummings, a member of the 156th Signal Battalion who did telecommunications work in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Mosul, thought he was returning to Gentile Packaging Machinery Co., where he worked for 11 years in Bridgewater, Mich. However, the first day he was back at work, he was laid off, he said. Anthony Gentile, director of marketing for Xela Pack Inc., a sister compa
[osint] Pentagon details mishandling of Quran
Perhaps Newsweek was not far from reality with its Quran mistreatment coverage. David Bier http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8090656/ Pentagon details mishandling of Quran Detaineesâ copies of holy book kicked, splashed with urine The Associated Press Updated: 8:51 p.m. ET June 3, 2005 WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Friday released new details about mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later fired for âa pattern of unacceptable behavior.â In other confirmed incidents, water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; a guardâs urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran. The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening, are among the results of an investigation last month by Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the detention center in Cuba, that was triggered by a Newsweek magazine report â" later retracted â" that a U.S. soldier had flushed one Guantanamo Bay detaineeâs Quran down a toilet. The story stirred worldwide controversy and the Bush administration blamed it for deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan. âRespectful handling of the Quranâ Hood said in a written statement released Friday evening, along with the new details, that his investigation ârevealed a consistent, documented policy of respectful handling of the Quran dating back almost 2½ years.â Hood said that of nine mishandling cases that were studied in detail by reviewing thousands of pages of written records, five were confirmed to have happened. He could not determine conclusively whether the four others took place. In one of those four unconfirmed cases, a detainee in April 2003 complained to FBI and other interrogators that guards âconstantly defile the Quran.â The detainee alleged that in one instance a female military guard threw a Quran into a bag of wet towels to anger another detainee, and he also alleged that another guard said the Quran belonged in the toilet and that guards were ordered to do these things. Hood said he found no other record of this detainee mentioning any Quran mishandling. The detainee has since been released. Reprimand in urine splashing case In the most recent confirmed case, Hood said a detainee complained on March 25, 2005, of urine splashing on him and his Quran. An unidentified guard admitted at the time that âhe was at fault,â the Hood report said, although it did not say whether the act was deliberate. The guardâs supervisor reprimanded him and assigned him to gate guard duty, where he had no contact with detainees for the remainder of his assignment at Guantanamo Bay. As described in the Hood report, the guard had left his observation post and went outside to urinate. He urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine through the vent into the cell block. The incident was not further explained. In another of the confirmed cases, a contract interrogator stepped on a detaineeâs Quran in July 2003 and then apologized. âThe interrogator was later terminated for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership,â the Hood report said. Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Qurans. âThese included using a Quran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Quran, attempting to flush a Quran down the toilet and urinating on the Quran,â Hoodâs report said. It offered no possible explanation for those alleged abuses. In the most recent of those 15 cases, a detainee on Feb. 18, 2005, allegedly ripped up his Quran and handed it to a guard, stating that he had given up on being a Muslim. Several of the guards witnessed this, Hood reported. Last week, Hood disclosed that he had confirmed five cases of mishandling of the Quran, but he refused to provide details. Allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay have led to anti-American passions in many Muslim nations, although Pentagon officials have insisted that the problems were relatively minor and that U.S. commanders have gone to great lengths to enable detainees to practice their religion in captivity. Hood said last week that he found no credible evidence that a Quran was ever flushed down a toilet. He said a prisoner who was reported to have complained to an FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet has since told Hoodâs investigators that he never witnessed any form of Quran desecration. Desecration allegations Other prisoners who were returned to their home countries after serving time at Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects have alleged Quran desecration by U.S. guards, and some have said a Quran was placed in a toilet. There
[osint] Man Indicted in Phnom Penh Attacks Active in GOP Causes
A convicted terrorist contributing money to the National Republican Congressional Committee and invited to sit on the group's Business Advisory Council. WOW! Some kind of war on terror... David Bier http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cambodian3 jun03,0,6591613.story?coll=la-home-local Man Indicted in Phnom Penh Attacks Active in GOP Causes Long Beach accountant Yasith Chhun, whose group is labeled a terrorist organization, raised funds to elect Republicans. By David Pierson Times Staff Writer June 3, 2005 Yasith Chhun often boasted to newspapers and magazines about masterminding an attack on government buildings in Cambodia and his plans to overthrow the Southeast Asian country's communist regime. The U.S. State Department declared the group he headed, the Cambodian Freedom Fighters, a terrorist organization in 2001. But that label didn't stop Chhun, 48, from gaining friends among GOP stalwarts, such as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach and the National Republican Congressional Committee, which raises funds for electing Republicans to Congress. Before his federal indictment this week on charges of plotting to overthrow the Cambodian government, the Long Beach accountant had raised $6,550 for the National Republican Congressional Committee and was invited to sit on the group's Business Advisory Council, which has tens of thousands of members nationwide, said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the committee. Rohrabacher said he was aware of the State Department's concerns about the Cambodian Freedom Fighters but remained a supporter of Chhun and his allies because of their passionate efforts to topple the Cambodian government led by Prime Minister Hun Sen. "The State Department quite often will worship at the altar of stability and not consider liberty and justice as part of the equation," the congressman said in a phone interview. When "you talk about a dictator like Hun Sen, you don't want stability, you want change. Let's hope our State Department is not condemning anybody who would act to eliminate Hun Sen." But Rohrabacher said he would not support activities that cost civilian lives. Chhun attended the annual meeting of the National Republican Congressional Committee's business advisory council in Washington, D.C., last year. Forti said the committee did not know Chhun's group had been designated a terrorist organization, saying it was impossible to do background checks on all its members. "At this point, the gentleman hasn't been convicted of anything," Forti said. If he is a terrorist, "it's something we need to look at. Clearly, we wouldn't want any leader of a terrorist organization being members of our business advisory council." Chhun, a U.S. citizen, has never made a secret of his role in the 2000 attack on several government buildings in the capital, Phnom Penh. He spoke openly about it to newspapers and magazines, where he was portrayed as a would-be revolutionary who ran his resistance movement out of his tax office in Long Beach. Federal prosecutors allege that Chhun raised money in the U.S., then provided weapons to Cambodian Freedom Fighter members. The attacks killed three of Chhun's group members and injured at least eight government officials. He spoke to Time magazine from a hideout in Thailand shortly after the failed coup attempt, saying: "We're definitely going to try again. There will be more operations. It won't be long." He later repeated the assertion to the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times. He told the New York Times last year that the FBI had questioned him about the attacks but that he told the agents he planned more violence. "We won't stop. We'll have more plans in the future," he said. "Next time," he said, "we will attack the whole country." There is no indication that Cambodian Freedom Fighters carried out additional attacks. Chhun's lawyer, Leonard Matsuk, said Thursday that his client was a fundraiser for the organization and not its mastermind. Chhun and other members want to see freedom in their country "like Cubans wanted Fidel Castro out of their country," Matsuk said. Experts say it is not uncommon for staunch anti-communist immigrants to align themselves with the Republican Party, which has gained large support among the Vietnamese in Orange County and the Cubans in Florida. "It's strictly ideological. The Republicans are seen as anti-communist, mainly because of [President] Reagan," said Frank Gilliam, a professor of political science at UCLA. "The party's underlying themes of individualism, self-reliance, freedom from government intervention naturally plays to those victimized by state-sanctioned redistribution of property and limitations of individual freedoms." Sakphan Keam, an English-Khmer translator in Long B
[osint] Two Army Dog Handlers Charged in Abuse Scandal
"We always suspected that politicians and military higher-ups had ordered all these things to occur to get information from the detainees," Volzer said. "In the case of the dog handlers, we have irrefutable evidence that they were ordered to use the dogs." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-dogs3jun03,0,2319401.story?coll=la-home-nation Two Army Dog Handlers Charged in Abuse Scandal Soldiers say they were following orders and deny using the animals in a game to scare Abu Ghraib prisoners into soiling themselves. By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer June 3, 2005 WASHINGTON â" Army officials named two military dog handlers at Abu Ghraib prison in criminal charges Thursday, alleging that they used their unmuzzled animals to "threaten and harass detainees" and scare them into cooperating with interrogators. The two sergeants are the first dog handlers to be named as criminal defendants in the abuses at the prison outside Baghdad. Photos of dogs barking and growling at inmates, some of them naked, were among the scenes of detainee torture broadcast around the world. According to Army charge sheets obtained by the Los Angeles Times, Sgt. Santos A. Cardona and Sgt. Michael Smith "intentionally scared detainees to make them urinate on themselves as part of a game" at the prison from November 2003 to January 2004, during the height of the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. The charges also state that Cardona used his "unmuzzled barking and growling military working dog" to frighten detainees and make them defecate. The charge sheet names two detainees whom Cardona allegedly was involved in abusing, Mohammed Bollendia and Kamel Miza'l Nayil. Bollendia was allegedly attacked by a dog; his injuries were unknown. Nayil was allegedly harassed and threatened with injury. If convicted on all charges, Cardona could be sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison. Cardona's charge sheet states that he conspired with Smith to abuse detainees. Other specific charges against Smith were not immediately available. Harvey Volzer, a Washington lawyer representing Cardona, said his client was being made a scapegoat by a military system that had held no senior officers accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib. "We always suspected that politicians and military higher-ups had ordered all these things to occur to get information from the detainees," Volzer said. "In the case of the dog handlers, we have irrefutable evidence that they were ordered to use the dogs." He was referring to statements made by Army Col. Thomas M. Pappas, head of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade at Abu Ghraib, to his superiors last year. Pappas said that dogs were authorized for use for interrogation purposes at the prison, and Cardona and Smith told Army investigators that they were following those orders. Last month Pappas was reprimanded, fined $8,000 and cited for two counts of dereliction of duty, effectively ending his 24-year military career, but he was not criminally prosecuted. Army officials declined Thursday to discuss why the charges against the dog handlers were being filed now, a year after eight soldiers, including several military police officers, were accused of abusing and sexually humiliating detainees. Seven have received sentences ranging from no jail time to 10 years; the eighth case is pending. "As the investigations are ongoing, and as information is developed, we are holding soldiers accountable for their actions," an Army spokeswoman said. But Volzer contended that continuing to charge only low-ranking soldiers tended to shield superiors from being held responsible. "The Army works in strange ways," he said. "They need to keep the public thinking they are going after more people, and they hope that eventually everyone will forget that none of the high-ranking officers were charged." The charges against Cardona also accuse him of making a false statement to an Army criminal investigator by telling Special Agent Warren Worth that he and Smith never intended to harm anyone or use the dogs in a game to see which prisoners would urinate on themselves. "There is no game that Smitty and me play," Cardona reportedly told Worth in an official statement to the investigator. "It's just that we would go through and the detainees would get scared and urinate." But according to the charge sheet, Cardona "intentionally scared detainees to make them urinate on themselves as part of a game with Sgt. Michael Smith," and he knew his statement to Worth "to be false." The charges also allege that Cardona conspired with others â" specifically with Army Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr., Army Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II and Steve Stefanowicz, a civilian interrogator â" to harass and threaten detainees. Graner and Frederick, who have since been demoted to the rank of private, described as the ringleaders of the abuse, were prosecuted in military courts and are serving prison sentences. Stefanowicz, who was emplo
[osint] Reports of terrorists meeting in Syria were flawed, U.S. officials say
Bush43's folks still willing to generate intelligence from whole cloth...felt, no doubt. David Bier http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11810108.htm Posted on Fri, Jun. 03, 2005 Reports of terrorists meeting in Syria were flawed, U.S. officials say By Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence has no evidence that terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi visited Syria in recent months to plan bombings in Iraq, and experts don't believe the widely publicized meeting ever happened, according to U.S. officials. Two weeks ago, a top U.S. military official in Baghdad, Iraq, told reporters that Zarqawi had traveled to Syria in April and met with leaders of the Iraqi insurgency to plan the recent wave of bombings against American troops and the Iraqi government. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity. In the following days, top Bush administration and Iraqi officials increased their threats against Syria. The reassessment comes amid a debate within the U.S. intelligence community over how to fight the insurgency and over Syria's role in it, the officials said. Some analysts argue that, while Damascus has been unhelpful in stopping terrorists crossing its border, its importance is being exaggerated and that the key to defeating the insurgency is in Iraq, not in Syria or Iran. Three officials who said that the reports of Zarqawi's travels were apparently bogus spoke on condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified and because discussing the mistaken report could embarrass the White House and trigger retaliation against them. The allegation by the U.S. military official in Baghdad that Zarqawi and his lieutenants met in Syria suggests that, despite the controversy over the Bush administration's use of flimsy and bogus intelligence to make its case for war in Iraq, some officials are still quick to embrace dubious intelligence when it supports the administration's case - this time against Damascus. One of the U.S. officials said the initial report was based on a single human source, who has since changed his story significantly. Another official said the source and his information were quickly dismissed as unreliable by intelligence officials but caught the attention of some political appointees. These officials and two others said the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies were mystified by the reports of Zarqawi's visit because they had no such information. "We are not aware of any information that suggests that Zarqawi met in Syria with his lieutenants in April," a defense official said. "However, it doesn't preclude his having met with them most likely in al Anbar," a largely Sunni Muslim province in western Iraq. The Jordanian-born Zarqawi leads the al-Qaida in Iraq group, which has claimed responsibility for some of the country's deadliest bombings. U.S. military officials, confirming postings on a Web site used by Zarqawi's group, believe that he was wounded recently in a firefight in Ramadi, west of Baghdad. Syria has long supported Palestinian terror groups that attack Israel, and Syrian officials have said they're unable to police the long border with Iraq. France and the United States sponsored a U.N. Security Council resolution that forced Damascus to withdraw its troops from Lebanon following the February assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a thinly veiled warning Wednesday to Damascus against providing harbor to anyone allied with Osama bin Laden's network. "Any country that decides it wants to provide medical assistance or haven to a leading terrorist, al-Qaida terrorist, is obviously associating themselves with al-Qaida and contributing to a great many Iraqis being killed, as well as coalition forces in Iraq. And that is something that people would want to take note of," Rumsfeld said. But there are sharp differences within the U.S. government over the roles Syria and Iran are playing in the insurgency, which has claimed the lives of more than 800 Iraqis and 80 U.S. troops since Iraq's Shiite-led government was named April 28. A U.S. official said experts at the Pentagon believe "the keys to the insurgency are external to Iraq" and that closing the Syrian and Iranian borders to the transit of Islamic extremists, weapons and cash would cripple the guerrillas. But officials at other agencies see the insurgency - the bulk of which is being waged by former members of Saddam Hussein's regime and Sunnis opposed to the Shiite-led government and its U.S. allies - as "an internal Iraqi phenomenon," he said. Despite the charges that Syria is an important supporter of the insurgency, the U.S. Army has deployed only 400 U.S. soldiers to patrol a 10,000 square-mile area in northwest Iraq abutting Syria and Turkey, Knig
[osint] AFGHANISTAN: IS RECONCILIATION WITH THE NEO-TALIBAN WORKING?
http://www.eurasianet.net/departments/insight/articles/pp060205.shtml Friday, June 3, 2005 EURASIA INSIGHT AFGHANISTAN: IS RECONCILIATION WITH THE NEO-TALIBAN WORKING? Amin Tarzi 6/02/05 A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL Print this article Email this article The latest surge of violence associated and often claimed by the neo-Taliban brings into question Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s reconciliation policy with members of the ousted regime. However, the incidents, including the deadly suicide attack inside a mosque in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar on June 1, may involve more actors than the resurgent elements from the Taliban regime, or the neo-Taliban, and, as such, can be a destabilizing factor in Afghanistan’s future. THE RECONCILIATION POLICY In a little-noticed speech before a gathering of the ulema in Kabul in April 2003, Karzai said that a "clear line" has to be drawn between "the ordinary Taliban who are real and honest sons of this country" and those "who still use the Taliban cover to disturb peace and security in the country." No one has "the right to harass/persecute any one under the name of Talib/Taliban anymore," Karzai emphasized (see "RFE/RL Afghanistan Report," July 3, 2003). In some senses, Karzai speech was an announcement, albeit not formally at the time, of the launch of his reconciliation policy designed to weaken the resolve of the neo-Taliban by breaking their ranks into good and bad Talibs. Moreover, at the time Karzai -- who was leading a transitional administration in which he was not the dominant force -- needed the backing of his co-ethnic Pashtuns who were perceived to be -- or were actually -- marginalized from the Afghan political scene since the demise of the mostly-Pashtun Taliban regime in December 2001. The reconciliation policy, more articulated by Karzai since April 2003, essentially maintains that other than between 100 to 150 former members of the Taliban regime are known to have committed crimes against the Afghan people; all others, whether dormant or active within the ranks of the neo-Taliban, can begin living as normal citizens of Afghanistan by denouncing violence and renouncing their opposition to the central Afghan government. The list of the unpardonable former Taliban members has never been made public by Karzai despite requests for such an action by the Afghan media and politicians. Moreover, comments made in May by Sebghatullah Mojaddedi -- which were initially supported by Karzai -- has changed the issue of who cannot be pardoned into a contentious political problem. As the head of the Independent National Commission for Peace in Afghanistan, an organ established to facilitate the reconciliation process with the former Taliban members, Mojaddedi announced that the amnesty offer from Karzai’s government extended to all Taliban leaders, including the regime’s former head, Mullah Mohammad Omar (see "RFE/RL Afghanistan Report," May 17, 2005). Both Mojaddedi and Karzai have since backed off of those statements, but distrust has increased and the door of misuse of the reconciliation policy has opened wider. UPSURGE IN VIOLENCE In line with the expectations of Afghan authorities and U.S.-led coalition forces, disruptive activities and terrorist acts either committed by or in the name of the neo-Taliban and their allies has increased since the weather improved in southern and eastern Afghanistan. In April, U.S. Major General Eric Olson said that there "has been an increase in Taliban and enemy activity in the spring [compared to the winter months]. And we anticipate that the enemy has the intention of trying to raise the level of activity this spring." However, Olson predicted that these activities would lack cohesion and fade in traditional neo-Taliban strongholds (see "RFE/RL Afghanistan Report," March 11, 2005). While from a purely military perspective -- often no more than sporadic gun battles and launching of small rockets -- engagements between the neo-Taliban and the coalition forces and their Afghan National Army allies have not shown any significant cohesion or an increase that has not been expected, acts of terror have become more organized and, indeed, deadlier. The well-planned murder of Mawlawi Abdullah Fayyaz, head of the Council of Ulema of Kandahar on May 29 and an ardent opponent of the neo-Taliban, and the suicide blast inside a Kandahar mosque on June 1 which claimed at least 21 lives, are gruesome illustrations of the increase in terror activities in Afghanistan. DILEMMA FACING KABUL Following Fayyaz’s murder, the office of Karzai’s spokesman issued a statement in which the Afghan president strongly condemned the murder of the cleric, adding that Fayyaz was assassinated by "the enemies of Afghanistan’s peace and prosperity," without mentioning the neo-Taliban by name. Soon after Fayyaz’s assassination, Mufti Latifullah Hakimi, a spokesman for the neo-Taliban, claimed responsibility for the act, call
[osint]
http://www.eurasianet.net/departments/insight/articles/pp060305.shtml EURASIA INSIGHT UZBEKISTAN: BUSH ALLIES SEEK HARSHER US TREATMENT OF KARIMOV Andrew Tully 6/03/05 A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL A number of Bush supporters who once welcomed US military ties with Uzbekistan now say it is time to reassess those relations. One is Ariel Cohen, an analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a private policy center in Washington. Cohen wrote recently in "The Washington Times" that Karimov’s authoritarian rule only emboldens radical opponents who would turn Uzbekistan into what he calls a "militarized Muslim state: a caliphate." Another is William Kristol, the editor of "The Weekly Standard," a policy magazine that often reflects the thinking of the Bush administration. In the publication, Kristol -- with Stephen Schwartz -- recently wrote an article urging Bush to re-assess U.S. ties with Karimov’s government. In their conclusion, Kristol and Schwartz write that the administration must be prepared to consider what they call the "consequences for US aid and support for the regime." But in an interview with RFE/RL, Schwartz insisted that this does not mean breaking relations. Instead, Schwartz said, it’s time for the Bush administration to tell Karimov that he’s now regarded as being no different from leaders in other former communist countries who have been rejected by their people -- including former Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, former Kyrgyz President Askar Akaev, and former Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze. "If he [Karimov] doesn’t want to understand this, we’re going to have to make him understand this," Schwartz said. "I frankly think that with the war in Afghanistan essentially over, there’s no reason to maintain any base in Uzbekistan and they [the United States] should remove the base. I think they [the United States] should cut off any military or police training to Uzbek troops since we now have to face the scandalous fact that the troops in the Andijon incident apparently were trained in the United States." Further, Schwartz said, the Bush administration should begin shifting its attention to Uzbekistan’s much larger neighbor, Kazakhstan, as an ally in Central Asia. He called President Nursulatan Nazarbaev "a dictator." But he added that Kazakhstan also has a free press and a thriving civil society. Schwartz said the overall US policy decisions -- on Uzbekistan, at least -- are made not in the State Department, but in the Pentagon. And he said he understands Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is unhappy with the situation in Uzbekistan. Rumsfeld’s dismay, Schwartz said, comes not only from the violence in Andijon, but goes back to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in December. He said Andijon merely confirmed the administration’s concerns about the quality of Karimov’s rule and brought the problems in Uzbekistan to the attention of the wider public. Schwartz said that since the change in Ukraine, the Bush administration has become adamant that it can no longer regard all postcommunist governments as representative of their peoples. "The bottom line [the point] here is that the Bush administration, after Ukraine, is clearly not going to take the position that Uzbekistan is somehow different from Georgia, Ukraine, and Belarus -- and Russia itself," Schwartz said. But Marina Ottaway of the Rule of Law Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, another Washington think tank, said there is little evidence that the Bush administration is prepared to withdraw its troops from Uzbekistan. After all, Ottaway told RFE/RL, the United States needs that base more than Uzbekistan needs to provide it. And its location is based on geographical -- not ideological -- concerns. "We [the United States] put that base there because we thought we needed it. We did not put that base there because he [Karimov] was a nice guy," Ottaway said. "The lack of democracy in [Uzbekistan] is not going to change the Pentagon’s calculus on whether or not that base is needed. It seems to me extremely unlikely that the US government would implement a policy of that sort as long as it sees a military reason to have a base in Uzbekistan." Besides, Ottaway said, Uzbekistan is part of a longstanding Rumsfeld strategy that so far has overridden the more diplomatic approaches of the State Department. "The Pentagon certainly has a different set of concerns than the people [elsewhere in the Bush administration] who are talking about promoting new revolutions in these countries," Ottaway said. "From the beginning, Rumsfeld has been talking about moving American bases further east -- closing some of the bases in Europe and moving further east. So certainly Uzbekistan is part of that strategy." Ottaway said there is more evidence that Bush will maintain the status quo. She noted that in 2004, the State Department suspended $18 million in aid to Uzbekistan because of Tashkent’s poor human rights
[osint] THE WORLD'S FIRST TERRORIST AIR FORCE
http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers14%5Cpaper1398.html Paper no. 1398 02. 06. 2005 THE WORLD'S FIRST TERRORIST AIR FORCE by B.Raman Speaking at a meeting of the Foreign Correspondents' Association of Sri Lanka at Colombo on May 26,2005, Hagrup Haukland, the chief of the Norwegian-led military mission, which monitors the three-year-old ceasefire between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), confirmed the allegation of the Sri Lankan Government that the LTTE had constructed an airstrip near Iranamadu in the Wanni area under its control in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka, 2. He said: "We have seen the airstrip while flying in a Sri Lankan military helicopter." However, he did not comment on the other allegation of the Government that the LTTE has acquired at least two aircraft which looked like the Czech-built Zlin Z-143.He said that his mission had been denied access by the LTTE to verify the Government charges that the LTTE possessed at least two light aircraft. From his statement, it would appear that while his mission was able to see the airstrip from the Sri Lankan helicopter, it could not notice the presence of any aircraft on the ground on or in the vicinity of the airstrip. He did not give any other details as to whether the mission noticed any hangar or any other construction in which the LTTE might have kept the aircraft concealed.. 3. He warned that any move by the Government forces to bomb the airstrip could lead to a resumption of the war. Haukland said an air capability would "mean a hell of a lot" to the LTTE. "Those two aircraft, if they have any, represent a very serious threat," he said, and added that India had also expressed concern over the matter. 4. Asked what would happen if the Sri Lankan military were to bomb the airstrip, he said: "If the air force bombs the air strip, then it will be war. If bombs fall, we pull out... it is not a ceasefire anymore. If the Tigers fly, it will be a violation of Sri Lankan airspace and also of international law because the air space is a matter only for the Sri Lankan government." 5. The Sri Lankan authorities, who have been seriously concerned over the implications of the LTTE's success in clandestinely acquiring an air capability for terrorist operations, have for the present confined their reaction to bringing the matter to the notice of foreign governments, including reportedly those of India and Pakistan. President Chandrika Kumaratunga is expected to discuss this development with Indian leaders during her expected visit to New Delhi this week. 6. The LTTE's plans to acquire an air-mounted capability for suicide missions against Government personalities and ground infrastructure were known for nearly 15 years. The Western and Indian intelligence agencies had detected its instructions to its followers in countries such as the UK and Switzerland to join the local flying clubs and learn flying. They had also noticed that its cadres in West Europe and Canada were buying a large number of expensive technical books relating to flying and that they had been making enquiries in Europe about the availability of microlite aircraft and the price. They were closely monitoring its efforts in order to prevent it from acquiring any aircraft. 7. The fact that it had hoodwinked them and succeeded in acquiring some aircraft and having it smuggled to the areas under its control---possibly in a dismantled condition---became evident on November 27,1998, when its Voice of Tigers clandestine radio station, in a broadcast on a function held in the Wanni area in memory of its cadres killed in terrorist operations, claimed that aircraft of the "Air Tigers" had sprinkled flowers from the air on the memorial. It did not specify the number and whether they were fixed-wing planes or helicopters. 8. Since then, there were periodic reports that the LTTE had managed to acquire abroad and smuggle to the Wanni area at least one light aircraft, but the Sri Lankan authorities kept denying these reports. What is new now is not that the LTTE has acquired aircraft for its air wing, which is at least seven years old, but that the Sri Lankan Government has, for the first time, officially admitted it and taken up the matter with the international community. 9. While the LTTE's acquisition of an air-mounted capability for suicide terrorism is thus old news, it needs to be added that it has not so far used the aircraft, in a conventional or unconventional manner, either for suicide missions or in its operations against the Sri Lankan security forces before the ceasefire came into force in 2002. 10. During its various rounds of fighting against the Sri Lankan security forces before 2002, it was totally relying on conventional anti-aircraft weapons and surface-to-air missiles for bringing down aircraft of the Sri Lankan Air For
[osint] UZBEKISTAN: BUSH ALLIES SEEK HARSHER US TREATMENT OF KARIMOV
Repost of 55198. Subject not recorded even though shown on Preview. http://www.eurasianet.net/departments/insight/articles/pp060305.shtml EURASIA INSIGHT UZBEKISTAN: BUSH ALLIES SEEK HARSHER US TREATMENT OF KARIMOV Andrew Tully 6/03/05 A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL Print this article Email this article A number of Bush supporters who once welcomed US military ties with Uzbekistan now say it is time to reassess those relations. One is Ariel Cohen, an analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a private policy center in Washington. Cohen wrote recently in "The Washington Times" that Karimov's authoritarian rule only emboldens radical opponents who would turn Uzbekistan into what he calls a "militarized Muslim state: a caliphate." Another is William Kristol, the editor of "The Weekly Standard," a policy magazine that often reflects the thinking of the Bush administration. In the publication, Kristol -- with Stephen Schwartz -- recently wrote an article urging Bush to re-assess U.S. ties with Karimov's government. In their conclusion, Kristol and Schwartz write that the administration must be prepared to consider what they call the "consequences for US aid and support for the regime." But in an interview with RFE/RL, Schwartz insisted that this does not mean breaking relations. Instead, Schwartz said, it's time for the Bush administration to tell Karimov that he's now regarded as being no different from leaders in other former communist countries who have been rejected by their people -- including former Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, former Kyrgyz President Askar Akaev, and former Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze. "If he [Karimov] doesn't want to understand this, we're going to have to make him understand this," Schwartz said. "I frankly think that with the war in Afghanistan essentially over, there's no reason to maintain any base in Uzbekistan and they [the United States] should remove the base. I think they [the United States] should cut off any military or police training to Uzbek troops since we now have to face the scandalous fact that the troops in the Andijon incident apparently were trained in the United States." Further, Schwartz said, the Bush administration should begin shifting its attention to Uzbekistan's much larger neighbor, Kazakhstan, as an ally in Central Asia. He called President Nursulatan Nazarbaev "a dictator." But he added that Kazakhstan also has a free press and a thriving civil society. Schwartz said the overall US policy decisions -- on Uzbekistan, at least -- are made not in the State Department, but in the Pentagon. And he said he understands Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is unhappy with the situation in Uzbekistan. Rumsfeld's dismay, Schwartz said, comes not only from the violence in Andijon, but goes back to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in December. He said Andijon merely confirmed the administration's concerns about the quality of Karimov's rule and brought the problems in Uzbekistan to the attention of the wider public. Schwartz said that since the change in Ukraine, the Bush administration has become adamant that it can no longer regard all postcommunist governments as representative of their peoples. "The bottom line [the point] here is that the Bush administration, after Ukraine, is clearly not going to take the position that Uzbekistan is somehow different from Georgia, Ukraine, and Belarus -- and Russia itself," Schwartz said. But Marina Ottaway of the Rule of Law Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, another Washington think tank, said there is little evidence that the Bush administration is prepared to withdraw its troops from Uzbekistan. After all, Ottaway told RFE/RL, the United States needs that base more than Uzbekistan needs to provide it. And its location is based on geographical -- not ideological -- concerns. "We [the United States] put that base there because we thought we needed it. We did not put that base there because he [Karimov] was a nice guy," Ottaway said. "The lack of democracy in [Uzbekistan] is not going to change the Pentagon's calculus on whether or not that base is needed. It seems to me extremely unlikely that the US government would implement a policy of that sort as long as it sees a military reason to have a base in Uzbekistan." Besides, Ottaway said, Uzbekistan is part of a longstanding Rumsfeld strategy that so far has overridden the more diplomatic approaches of the State Department. "The Pentagon certainly has a different set of concerns than the people [elsewhere in the Bush administration] who are talking about promoting new revolutions in these countries," Ottaway said. "From the beginning, Rumsfeld has been talking about moving American bases further east -- closing some of the bases in Europe and moving further east. So certainly Uzbekistan is part of that strategy." Ottaway said there is more evidence that Bush will maintain the status quo. She noted that in
[osint] U.S. and Israel evacuate staff from Uzbekistan
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/04/news/uzbek.php U.S. and Israel evacuate staff from Uzbekistan By C.J. Chivers The New York Times SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 2005 MOSCOW Signs of instability deepened Friday in Uzbekistan after Israel swiftly evacuated most of its diplomats from the country amid fresh warnings of terror attacks, and the U.S. Embassy authorized much of its staff to leave as well. Only the Israeli ambassador and a senior official remained in Tashkent, the Uzbek capital, according to Mark Legev, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, who said that 13 other embassy employees and their families flew out of Uzbekistan on Thursday night. The evacuation came as the United States issued a warning saying that it had received new information that Islamic terror groups were planning attacks, perhaps against Americans. The warning mentioned four terror organizations - Al Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Islamic Jihad Union and the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement - that it said are active in the region. Diplomats from both countries declined to release details of the intelligence. Legev said in a telephone interview only that Israel had received "a specific threat against an Israeli target by an extremist element." After the threat was evaluated, he said, the decision was quickly made for most of the diplomatic corps to leave. The threats underscored the fresh difficulties in Uzbekistan for the United States, whose activities in the country are being restricted simultaneously by the risks of terror attacks and by diplomatic chill. The Uzbek government, stung by criticism of its bloody crackdown on a prison break and antigovernment demonstration last month, and increasingly isolated by its antidemocratic posture, has adopted a cooler position toward the United States, which has used a former Soviet air base near the Afghan border since late in 2001. This week, the Uzbek government refused to renew visas for 54 Peace Corps volunteers, who were forced to leave the country, according to Barbara Daly, the Peace Corps' spokeswoman in Washington. The nation's stability and direction are in question. An authoritarian state with a population deeply resentful of its central government's repression and corruption, it has been buffeted by terror attacks and wider public unrest and has suffered three waves of violence since early last year. In April 2004, several attacks, including ones by suicide bombers, were staged in Tashkent and Bukhara, an ancient Silk Road city in the country's west. Nearly 50 people were killed, according to official Uzbek reports. Three more suicide bombers struck nearly simultaneously last July, one each at the Israeli Embassy, the American Embassy and the Uzbek general prosecutor's office in Tashkent. In addition to the bombers, at least two more people died. The country, an ally of the United States in efforts against terrorists, has been enveloped by uncertainty since May 13, when Uzbek security forces used gunfire to put down a revolt, prison break and large antigovernment demonstration in Andijon, a city in the northeastern Fergana Valley. Witnesses say hundreds of unarmed people were killed when the authorities resorted to indiscriminate force. The Uzbek government says 36 soldiers and 137 others, mostly armed men, died. By either account, it was the worst violence of its sort in a post-Soviet region since the Soviet Union collapsed. With violence apparently fueled both by social disaffection and militant Islamists, it is not entirely clear who has been responsible for each outbreak - a subject of debate among diplomats, analysts, scholars and intelligence officials. The government of President Islam Karimov, who routinely blames Uzbekistan's ills on Islamic terrorists, has said the Andijon uprising was planned by international terror groups and a faction of Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Party of Liberation, a mostly underground organization that seeks to create governments ruled by its view of Islamic tradition. The party, which says it is peaceful, has denied any involvement. Demonstrators who survived the crackdown contend the uprising was organized by local men made desperate by the economic underdevelopment and repression that have become synonymous with Karimov's regime. MOSCOW Signs of instability deepened Friday in Uzbekistan after Israel swiftly evacuated most of its diplomats from the country amid fresh warnings of terror attacks, and the U.S. Embassy authorized much of its staff to leave as well. Only the Israeli ambassador and a senior official remained in Tashkent, the Uzbek capital, according to Mark Legev, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, who said that 13 other embassy employees and their families flew out of Uzbekistan on Thursday night. The evacuation came as the United States issued a warning saying that it had received new information that Islamic terror groups were planning attacks, perhaps against Amer
[osint] U.S. sets sights on nuclear detection
The machines don't reliably detect weapons grade uranium, nor explosives or chemicals. They approach being useless for any effective counterterrorism cargo container inspection purpose other than detection of arms and heavy munitions, but are definitely good for the economic health of government contractors. David Bier http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt? action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+U.S.+sets+sights+o n+nuclear+detection&expire=&urlID=14457629&fb=Y&ur l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashingto n%2F2005-06-05-nuclear-detection_x.htm%23&partnerID=1660 U.S. sets sights on nuclear detection By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY WASHINGTON The federal government is stepping up efforts to stop terrorists from smuggling nuclear or radiological material into the USA, even as critics fault it for poor planning and outdated equipment. The government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to screen more cargo at the nation's ports, test next-generation radiation detectors and develop intricate plans to track deadly weapons if they are brought across the borders. Just last week, the departments of Homeland Security and Energy broke ground on a $35 million nuclear and radiological countermeasures center at the Nevada Test Site, northwest of Las Vegas. Scientists will test the latest detectors to improve what's already being used at ports. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff also announced last week that the nation's busiest seaports, Los Angeles and Long Beach, will have enough drive-through radiation monitors to screen every container by year's end. Still, members of Congress and nuclear specialists say some of the efforts including creation of a new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office suffer from misplaced priorities and rely on detectors so primitive that they can't tell the difference between highly enriched uranium and naturally occurring radiation in cat litter. Homeland security expert Randall Larsen, a former National War College faculty member, says that by buying flawed technology the government is "wasting money with good intentions." White House science adviser John Marburger says the government must proceed with costly plans to thwart an attack with a nuclear bomb. Although it has long been considered unlikely, it would be "the most catastrophic thing that could happen to us." To better prepare the nation, President Bush this year instructed the Homeland Security Department to set up the nuclear prevention office. He asked Congress for $227 million to finance the office. It will deploy detection equipment at ports, border crossings, major transportation routes and in cities, and oversee research to build better detectors. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, says the office is a good idea. But he slashed $100 million from Bush's budget request last month because he complained the department didn't provide a solid plan for how the office would spend the full $227 million. Homeland Security also is buying hundreds of radiation detectors to screen 26,000 cargo containers from abroad as they are unloaded at 314 ports each day. More than 500 of the $250,000 machines are at ports around the country. The monitors are notorious for false alarms, set off by innocuous products. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for anyone who cares about public education! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
[osint] Israel bugged Syrian first ladys e-mails
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-52 4-1641307-524,00.html June 05, 2005 Israel bugged Syrian first lady's e-mails Uzi Mahnaimi- THE personal computer of Syria's British-born first lady was bugged by Israeli military intelligence to build up a profile of her husband,President Bashar al-Assad, it emerged last week. The Israelis used "Trojan horse" spy software to record her messages,including e-mail exchanges with her husband, and forward them to a server computer. Intelligence sources quoted in an Israeli newspaper admitted to the operation after police arrested 22 suspects in Israel's biggest industrial espionage scandal last week. The so-called Trojan Horse affair involved leading defence contractors stealing secrets from rivals by sending spy software to their computers disguised as a package of confidential documents. The programme recorded every keystroke and collected business documents and e-mails, which it then sent to a server computer registered in London. Intelligence sources claimed the Syrian leader and his wife had proved ideal targets. Assad is said to be addicted to computer games. Asma, his wife, is a computer science graduate from King's College London, and is known to spend long hours corresponding online with her friends and family. The sources claimed Assad was aware that Israeli intelligence experts had gained access to all his wife's e-mails and documents and had complained about it to "some European leaders". Another military intelligence expert said: "The wives of leaders are soft targets." Most leaders, including Assad, would have well- protected computers, he said, but those belonging to their spouses were less secure. "Sometimes they do not even have a basic firewall." Syria's first lady, the former Asma al-Akhras, now 29, graduated in 1996 and worked as an economist for Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan. She married Assad, who trained as an eye surgeon in London, in December 2000. The intelligence official said Asma's personal correspondence was of little value but the bugging provided an ideal method of monitoring the thoughts of the president. "Israel is, of course, interested in the husband, not the wife," he said. "Assad, even after five years in power, is an enigma." Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] President Bush, With the Candlestick...
Iraq overthrow planning at the Bush43 White House began in January 2001, according to Clarke and O'Neill. January 2001 was long before Bush43 focused on Islamic terrorism after 9/11/2001. Also, Cheney's energy policy planning group asked the Energy Department for Iraq oil infrastructure plans in March, 2001; again, long before 9/11. In the context of all of this prior planning about Iraq and its oil, it is apparent the war on terror had little to do with Bush43 intentions or intelligence about Iraq. David Bier http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2005/060605.html consortiumnews.com President Bush, With the Candlestick... By Robert Parry June 7, 2005 The clues are falling into place, pointing to the incontrovertible judgment that George W. Bush willfully misled the United States into invading Iraq, in part, by eliminating the possibility of the peaceful solution that he pretended to want. Many of the clues have been apparent for three years and some were reported in outlets such as our own Consortiumnews.com in real time but only recently have new revelations clarified this obvious reality for the slow-witted mainstream U.S. news media. The latest piece of the puzzle was reported by Charles J. Hanley of the Associated Press in an article on June 4 describing how Bush's Undersecretary of State John Bolton orchestrated the ouster of global arms control official Jose Bustani in early 2002 because Bustani's Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] was making progress toward getting arms inspectors back into Iraq. If Bustani had succeeded in gaining Iraq's compliance with international inspection demands, Bush would have been denied his chief rationale for war, even before U.S. military divisions were deployed to the Persian Gulf. Bustani had made himself an obstacle to war, so he had to go. `Red Herring' On the surface, the Bush administration needed other reasons for ousting Bustani. So the arms control official was accused of mismanagement and Washington threatened to withhold dues to the OPCW if Bustani remained. Even at the time, skeptics of Bush's motives charged that the real reason for Washington's bullying was the threat that Bustani posed to Bush's war plans. But a senior U.S. official dismissed those suspicions as "an atrocious red herring." [Christian Science Monitor, April 24, 2002] So, U.S. officials called an unprecedented special session of the OPCW to vote Bustani out, only a year after he had been unanimously reelected to a five-year term. A vote of just one-third of the member states was enough to boot Bustani on April 22, 2002. Three years later, former U.S. officials have stepped forward to tell the AP that Bustani's firing indeed was sparked by his insistence on pushing Iraq and other Arab states to accept a ban on chemical weapons, which would have opened those countries to international inspections. "It was that that made Bolton decide he [Bustani] had to go," said retired career diplomat Avis Bohlen, who served as Bolton's deputy. (Bolton is now Bush's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the UN.) "By dismissing me," Bustani told the UN-sponsored OPCW in a failed plea for his job, "an international precedent will have been established whereby any duly elected head of any international organization would at any point during his or her tenure remain vulnerable to the whims of one or a few major contributors." Bustani warned that "genuine multilateralism" then would succumb to "unilateralism in a multilateral disguise." Bustani's words proved prophetic. With Bustani and the OPCW out of the way, Bush and his advisers pressed ahead with their invasion plans based on assertions to the American people that Hussein was hiding dangerous weapons of mass destruction and defying international demands for inspections. Hanley noted that if Bustani's Iraq plan had worked out in 2002, "Bustani's inspectors would have found nothing, because Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s. That would have undercut the U.S. rationale for war." [AP, June 4, 2005] British Memo Another recent disclosure has added more new pieces to the puzzle of Bush's pre-war deceptions. According to the so-called Downing Street Memo, British Prime Minister Tony Blair two weeks before Bustani's firing secretly agreed to Bush's plan for invading Iraq. In other words, the die had already been cast for war, said the memo, which recounted a meeting on July 23, 2002, between Blair and his top national security officials. At that Downing Street meeting, Richard Dearlove, chief of the British intelligence agency MI6, also described his trip to Washington in July 2002 to discuss Iraq with Bush's National Security Council officials. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by t
[osint] Russert failed to correct Mehlman's claim that 9-11 Commission, Senate report
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506060008 Russert failed to correct Mehlman's claim that 9-11 Commission, Senate report "totally discredited" Downing Street Memo On the June 5 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, moderator Tim Russert questioned but failed to correct Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's claim that the "findings" of the Downing Street Memo, a secret British intelligence memo suggesting that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to support its case for war in Iraq, "have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it," including the 9-11 Commission and the Senate. In fact, neither the 9-11 Commission nor the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence addressed the Bush administration's use of pre-war intelligence. In the same appearance, Russert also failed to correct Mehlman when he made the misleading claim that the Bush administration "is the first administration ever that has funded with federal dollars embryonic stem cell research. In fact, Bush's stem cell policy replaced a less restrictive set of rules issued by the Clinton administration, though those rules had yet to take effect. When Russert raised the issue of the Downing Street Memo's contention that, in the Bush administration's push for war in Iraq, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," Mehlman replied: "Tim, that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then. Whether it's the 9-11 Commission, whether it's the Senate, whoever's looked at this has said there was no effort to change the intelligence at all." When Russert noted "I don't believe that the authenticity of this report has been discredited," Mehlman reiterated: "I believe that the findings of the report, the fact that the intelligence was somehow fixed, have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it." The Senate Intelligence committee's report examined the creation of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was the intelligence community's most comprehensive and authoritative statement about Iraq. But the committee decided at the outset not to investigate the Bush administration's use of intelligence, including public statements by administration officials, in the first phase of its investigation. Though the committee initially planned to conduct the second phase of its investigation following the 2004 election, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) indicated in March that the committee's investigation into whether the administration misrepresented intelligence judgments in its public statements would be indefinitely postponed, because of administration officials' insistence that "they believed the intelligence, and the intelligence was wrong." "[W]e sort of came to a crossroads, and that is basically on the back burner," Roberts said. The 9-11 Commission report said even less about the Bush administration's use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The 567-page report focuses entirely on issues surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks, addresses Iraq only in the context of Al Qaeda and September 11, and does not assess the accuracy or honesty of the Bush's public statements about the Iraqi threat. Other official reports have similarly avoided the question of whether the Bush administration politicized intelligence. The Robb-Silberman commission's report on intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction noted: "[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community." The Duelfer report presented the results of the Iraq Survey Group's hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq following the invasion but did not compare these findings either with Bush's prewar statements to the public or with the prewar assessments of the intelligence community. The British inquiry into prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons program, known as the Butler report, determined that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address claim that the "British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was "well-founded," but did not examine the administration's other uses of intelligence. But despite the report's findings, Bush's statement clearly contradicted the judgments of the U.S. intelligence community: in a statement released in July 2003, then-CIA Director George Tenet said agency officials "differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting." Beyond the Downing Street Memo, other evidence indicates that the Bush administration misused intelligence. For example, as Media Matters for America has documented, accounts by Bush administration and U.N. intelligence officials and consultants, documented by CBS News, the Associated Press, and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, indicate that the administration and CIA were aware at the time that much of the information provided in former Secretary of State Coli
[osint] After Downing Street
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050620&s=cobble After Downing Street by STEVE COBBLE [posted online on June 6, 2005] It's not exactly a news flash that the Bush Administration lied to the public before the invasion of Iraq. What should be on front pages, though, is new proof of the Bush Administration's lies brought to light by the previously unknown Downing Street Minutes, recently obtained and printed in the Times of London. (The Downing Street Memo is a transcript of minutes of a secret meeting chaired by Tomy Blair in Britain in July of 2002 to discuss preparations and propaganda before going to war. It was marked "Secret and strictly personal--UK eyes only.") The Downing Street Minutes are deserving, in the words of constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz, of an official "Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States." Bonifaz, who two years ago took the Bush Administration to court on behalf of a coalition of US soldiers, parents of soldiers and twelve Members of Congress (including John Conyers Jr., Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson Jr., Jim McDermott, José Serrano, Sheila Jackson Lee) to challenge the constitutionality of the Iraq war, adds: "The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Memo, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into a war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on 'preemptive' purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?" As in previous investigations of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," such a "Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation." Bonifaz's memorandum making the case for launching a Resolution of Inquiry is posted at www.afterdowningstreet.org/, a new website founded by David Swanson, Bob Fertik, Bonifaz and others (including this writer), together with a broad array of public interest groups that is posted on the web site. Our memo is written to Representative Conyers, both because he is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and because he has been a brave truth-seeker on this issue and so many others. We support his letter demanding answers from the Bush Administration, signed originally by eighty-eight of his House colleagues; his call for 100,000 signatures to back up that letter; and his plan to go to London to seek more answers. We have also made contact with several other members of Congress, and we believe that it will not be long before a group in Congress officially calls for an ROI. Unfortunately, as most Nation readers know, the Downing Street Minutes have only been a story in the rest of the world, especially in Britain. In the United States it is taking much longer for the mainstream to pick up on it, and the issue is still being treated far less seriously than the seriousness of the charges warrant. Fortunately, the blogosphere has found this new proof of George W. Bush's "misleadership" much more compelling than the mainstream press has; writers like Apian have posted incisive diaries on www.dailykos.com/, which regularly covers the story, as has Georgia10 and her friends, who founded the wonderful site www.downingstreetmemo.com/. Despite a slow start, the Downing Street Minutes may have a long life expectancy, and the Misleader of the Pack may yet have to confront the truth. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding o
[osint] The Other Bomb Drops
"Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers has called the latest revelations about these attacks "the smoking bullet in the smoking gun," irrefutable proof that President Bush misled Congress before the vote on Iraq. When Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq, he also said he would use it only as a last resort, after all other avenues had been exhausted. But the Downing Street memo reveals that the Administration had already decided to topple Saddam by force and was manipulating intelligence to justify the decision. That information puts the increase in unprovoked air attacks in the year prior to the war in an entirely new light: The Bush Administration was not only determined to wage war on Iraq, regardless of the evidence; it had already started that war months before it was put to a vote in Congress." This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill The Other Bomb Drops by JEREMY SCAHILL [posted online on June 1, 2005] It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war. But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began. At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq. The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun. The implications of this information for US lawmakers are profound. It was already well known in Washington and international diplomatic circles that the real aim of the US attacks in the no-fly zones was not to protect Shiites and Kurds. But the new disclosures prove that while Congress debated whether to grant Bush the authority to go to war, while Hans Blix had his UN weapons-inspection teams scrutinizing Iraq and while international diplomats scurried to broker an eleventh-hour peace deal, the Bush Administration was already in full combat mode--not just building the dossier of manipulated intelligence, as the Downing Street memo demonstrated, but acting on it by beginning the war itself. And according to the Sunday Times article, the Administration even hoped the attacks would push Saddam into a response that could be used to justify a war the Administration was struggling to sell. On the eve of the official invasion, on March 8, 2003, Bush said in his national radio address: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force." Bush said this after nearly a year of systematic, aggressive bombings of Iraq, during which Iraq was already being disarmed by force, in preparation for the invasion to come. By the Pentagon's own admission, it carried out seventy-eight individual, offensive airstrikes against Iraq in 2002 alone. "It reminded me of a boxing match in which one of the boxers is told not to move while the other is allowed to punch and only stop when he is convinced that he has weakened his opponent to the point where he is defeated before the fight begins," says former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Von Sponeck, a thirty-year career diplomat who was the top UN official in Iraq from 1998 to 2000. During both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Washington has consistently and falsely claimed these attacks were mandated by UN Resolution 688, passed after the Gulf War, which called for an end
[osint] E-Mails Detail Air Force Push for Boeing Deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601715_pf.html washingtonpost.com E-Mails Detail Air Force Push for Boeing Deal Pentagon Official Called Proposed Lease of Tankers a 'Bailout,' Report Finds By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 7, 2005; A01 For the past three years, the Air Force has described its $30 billion proposal to convert passenger planes into military refueling tankers and lease them from Boeing Co. as an efficient way to obtain aircraft the military urgently needs. But a very different account of the deal is shown in an August 2002 internal e-mail exchange among four senior Pentagon officials. "We all know that this is a bailout for Boeing," Ronald G. Garant, an official of the Pentagon comptroller's office, said in a message to two others in his office and then-Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Wayne A. Schroeder. "Why don't we just bite the bullet," he asked, and handle the acquisition like the procurement of a 1970s-era aircraft -- by squeezing the manufacturer to provide a better tanker at a decent cost? "We didn't need those aircraft either, but we didn't screw the taxpayer in the process," Garant added, referring to widespread sentiment at the Pentagon that the proposed lease of Boeing 767s would cost too much for a plane with serious shortcomings. Garant's candid advice, which top Air Force officials did not follow, is disclosed for the first time in a new 256-page report by the Pentagon's inspector general. It provides an extraordinary glimpse of how the Air Force worked hand-in-glove with one of its chief contractors -- the financially ailing Boeing -- to help it try to obtain the most costly government lease ever. The inspector general's report, slated for release today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, adds a new dimension to what Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) have already called one of the most significant military contracting abuses in several decades. Already, the scandal has resulted in prison terms for former Air Force principal deputy assistant secretary Darlene A. Druyun, and a senior Boeing official, Michael M. Sears. Besides documenting precisely who was responsible, the new report details the Air Force's vigorous efforts on Boeing's behalf. It also shows how Air Force leaders and Boeing officials jointly manipulated legislation to authorize the deal and later sought to suppress dissenting opinion throughout the Pentagon. After interviewing 88 people and reading hundreds of thousands of pages of e-mails, the inspector general's office concluded that four top Air Force officials and one of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's former top aides, Undersecretary of Defense Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge, violated Pentagon and government-wide procurement rules, failed to use "best business practices," ignored a legal requirement for weapons testing and failed to ensure that the tankers would meet the military's requirements. The report also connects Rumsfeld to policymaking on the lease, recounting a statement by former Air Force secretary James G. Roche that Rumsfeld had called him in Newport, R.I., in July 2003 to say "he did not want me to budge on the tanker lease proposal," despite criticism. Earlier, after Roche made what he acknowledged was a "special pleading" for the lease at a key meeting with Rumsfeld on Jan. 31, 2003, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita jokingly said "that my comments 'were brought to you by the Boeing Company,' " Roche later told Air Force Chief of Staff John P. Jumper in an e-mail. "I didn't rip his heart out," Roche added. Air Force spokesman Douglas Karas said he could not comment on the report in detail until it has been officially released. He said, however, that "we've learned from this experience" and will apply the lessons to future procurement of large weapons systems. Di Rita and Rumsfeld were in Thailand yesterday. A Boeing spokesman said the company could not comment on a report it has not read. The Pentagon and Congress ultimately killed the lease deal. Pentagon officials have noted that the department is now conducting special oversight of Air Force weapons-buying, in part because of the problems with the Boeing deal. In the copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post, 45 sections were deleted by the White House counsel's office to obscure what several sources described as references to White House involvement in the lease negotiations and its interaction with Boeing. The Pentagon separately blacked out 64 names and many e-mails. It also omitted the names of members of Congress, including some who pressured the Pentagon to back the deal. The report is nonetheless the most damning of the three reviews of the tanker deal completed by the inspector general since early 2004. It includes, for example, a statement from an unnamed cost analyst that "numbers were contorted a lot of different ways to se
[osint] Critics: Pentagon in blinders
"There's nothing that you can do in Iraq today that will work," said Lind, one of the original Fourth Generation Warfare authors. "That situation is irretrievably lost. http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/chtr19.htm Chicago Tribune Critics: Pentagon in blinders Long before 9/11, the military was warned about low-tech warfare, but it didn't listen By Stephen J. Hedges Washington Bureau June 6, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Nearly 16 years ago, a group of four military officers and a civilian predicted the rise of terrorism and anti-American insurgencies with chilling accuracy. The group said U.S. military technology was so advanced that foreign forces would be unlikely to challenge it directly, and it forecast that future foes would be non-state insurgents and terrorists whose weapons would be suicide car bombs, not precision-guided weapons. "Today, the United States is spending $500 million apiece for stealth bombers," the group wrote in a 1989 article that appeared in a professional military journal. "A terrorist stealth bomber is a car with a bomb in the trunk--a car that looks like every other car." The five men dubbed their theory "Fourth Generation Warfare" and warned that the U.S. military had to adapt. In the years since, the original group of officers, joined by a growing number of officers and scholars within the military, has pressed Pentagon leaders to acknowledge this emerging threat. But rather than adopting a new strategy, the generals and civilian leaders in the Defense Department have continued to support conventional, high-intensity conflict and the expensive weapons that go with it. That is happening, critics say, despite lethal insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. "They don't understand this kind of warfare," said Greg Wilcox, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, Vietnam veteran and critic of Pentagon policies. "They want to return to war as they envision it. That's not going to happen." Wilcox is just one of a number of maverick officers, active and retired, who have been agitating for change. Others include Marine Col. T.X. Hammes, whose recent book on the subject is required reading in some units, as well as Marine Col. G.I. Wilson, currently serving in Iraq, and H. John Poole, a retired Marine who has written extensively on insurgencies. Together they make up the public face of a much larger debate within the U.S. military over whether the Defense Department is doing enough to train troops to fight insurgents. It is a debate with enormous consequences. Though most of the more than 1,350 American combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan have been caused by low-tech insurgent weaponry such as roadside bombs, the Army plans to spend more than $120 billion in the next decade on a future combat system of digitally linked vehicles, weapons and unmanned aircraft. It is based largely on conventional warfare theory. The Army also is reorganizing its 10 divisions into 43 more flexible, 5,000-soldier brigades that can be plunked down in a war zone. But the weapons and training those forces receive still will lean heavily toward the traditional view of conflict, with heavy tanks, helicopters, close air support and terrain-holding troops. Soldiers take initiative The mavericks' Fourth Generation Warfare theory is about as far as one can get from current Pentagon doctrine. But many of the captains, corporals and privates fighting today have adopted the mavericks' theories and tactics. "So much of it was validated that it's theoretically right on the money," said Jim Roussell, a chief warrant officer in the Marine Reserves who focuses on gang crime in Chicago as a sergeant in the city's Police Department. He recently returned from Iraq after leading a Marine unit against insurgents. Army and Marine Corps officials in Washington declined to answer questions on the changes suggested by the mavericks. But in November, the Army issued a revised field manual on fighting insurgencies that had not been updated in more than a decade. It has received a mixed reception. "We really have a lot of institutional friction right now," said Lt. Col. Jan Horvath, the Army manual's primary author. "There are a number of junior officers who understand this." Senior officers, Horvath said, have been less accepting. Still, some units are adapting. The Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, for instance, last month began its second tour of Iraq after months of innovative training, including a requirement that all officers and soldiers receive basic Arabic language and culture training. "It's working," said Col. H.R. McMaster, the regiment's commander, who has lectured at U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., and written a book about the failures of the Vietnam War. "It's a hard problem. Nothing is easy over here. But I'm telling you we're getting after it, we're pursuing the enemy, we are totally on the offensive right now." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office has given irregular warfare a "higher pr
[osint] IraqÂs politically savvy insurgency proves its staying power
"...hopeful talk of significant troop reductions by year's end - that began circulating at Pentagon briefings shortly after the successful Jan. 30 elections - has disappeared." http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=1-292925-895732.php June 06, 2005 Iraq's politically savvy insurgency proves its staying power By John Yaukey Gannett News Service The insurgent stronghold of Fallujah fell in November. The parliamentary elections Jan. 30 came and went. Iraq's new elected government took power in April. Each was touted as a major victory against Iraq's insurgents. And yet Iraqi forces, backed by U.S. troops, are now conducting the largest offensive in Iraq since Baghdad fell two years ago. The mission is to root out what has become an insurgency with proven staying power and evolving sophistication especially capable of exploiting political vulnerabilities. May saw a bump in U.S. casualties the highest since January as insurgents ramped up a car bombing campaign largely responsible for killing 79 U.S. troops and hundreds of Iraqis. So far, more than 1,600 U.S. forces have been killed in Iraq, and American taxpayers have spent more than $190 billion - with no end in sight. Experts say the insurgents will get a major opportunity at creating political chaos this summer and fall as Iraq's recently assembled constitutional committee attempts to draft the document that will guide Iraq to a second round of elections at year's end. "The real struggle for power in Iraq is going to be over the constitution," said David Phillips, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "Power Sharing in Iraq." It will define the country's future for decades to come." The troops' view For the 138,000 American troops in Iraq, the rebounding insurgency and the looming constitutional drama raises once again the question of how much longer the campaign will last as some units are facing third tours of duty. But then, experts say, that's the question the insurgents want lingering. "The insurgents are trying to wage a protracted fight, because they know they can't win a short conflict," said Marine Corps Col. Thomas Hammes, author of an acclaimed book on modern insurgency warfare titled "The Sling and the Stone." "So that raises the question: Can we sustain the force long enough for our side to win?" President Bush and Pentagon officials have said they're determined to make sure Iraqis can secure their own country before U.S. troops leave. That might explain why hopeful talk of significant troop reductions by year's end - that began circulating at Pentagon briefings shortly after the successful Jan. 30 elections - has disappeared. Vice President Dick Cheney recently predicted on CNN that fighting in Iraq should end before the administration leaves in 2009. If U.S. forces leave that year, the war will have lasted six years. Dangerous summer Ever since the transfer of sovereignty from American civil authorities to the Iraqis on June 28, the insurgents have struck especially hard at political targets. The delay in forming the interim government in the late spring gave the insurgents the opening for the current wave of violence that has lasted weeks. For the upcoming constitutional process to succeed, Iraq's majority ruling Shiites must negotiate power sharing with the Sunni Arabs, now fueling much of the insurgency, and the Kurds who want to retain their autonomy. Not yet fully under way, the constitutional process could drag on for nine months if all the time-extension provisions are enacted. If the 101-member constitutional committee cannot produce a draft by August, it can seek a six-month extension. But American commanders clearly would prefer the Iraqis complete the task sooner rather than later. The sooner the post-constitutional elections can be held, the sooner the Sunnis, who stayed out of January's elections, can re-enter the political process with the hopeful result of a reduction in violence. If the constitutional process bogs down in debate, or worse, "it will serve as great stage on which to launch sectarian violence," said Thomas Sanderson, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently said he was encouraged by the political process so far. "The (Shiites) are reaching out to the Sunnis and allowing them to come into the constitutional drafting process in a very constructive and healthy way," Rumsfeld said. "So there's an awful lot good that's happening in that country." Initially, only one member of the 55-member constitutional committee was a Sunni, but the committee was expanded so 18 of the now 101 members are Sunnis. That said, noted Iraq war analyst Anthony Cordesman cautioned against trying to read too much into the early signs of anything in an insurgency. "Insurgencies involve patterns that can play out over years and sometimes decades," Cordesman writes in the early draft of his book, "Iraq's Evolving Insurgency." "
[osint] Bush's SEC Choice Hyped 'Chinagate'
http://consortiumnews.com/2005/060805.html Bush's SEC Choice Hyped 'Chinagate' By Robert Parry June 9, 2005 George W. Bush's nominee to oversee Wall Street produced a congressional report in 1999 that laid the principal blame for China's alleged theft of nuclear secrets on the Clinton administration when the primary rupture of secrets actually could be traced to the Reagan-Bush administration of the 1980s. Last week, Bush picked the report's author, Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., to become chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates stock trading in the United States.Bush's choice of Cox, a self-described "free market" advocate, is seen as a possible retreat from a period of aggressive SEC enforcement that followed scandals at Enron Corp., WorldCom Inc. and other major companies. During his 16 years in Congress, Cox's best-known investigation examined the politically sensitive issue of Chinese nuclear spying. In May 1999, Cox released an 872-page report in three glossy volumes accusing the Clinton administration of failing to protect the nation against China's theft of top-secret nuclear designs and other sensitive data. The Cox report dovetailed with allegations that a Chinese government front had funneled $30,000 in illegal "soft money" donations to the Democrats in 1996. Some conservative operatives even accused President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore of treason for supposedly trading nuclear secrets for campaign cash. In 2000, George W. Bush's campaign exploited these suspicions by running ads showing Gore meeting with saffron-robed monks at a Buddhist temple in California. Millions of Americans surely went to the polls thinking that Gore's temple appearance and the Chinese nuclear spying were somehow linked. Clinton Focus But the Cox report's emphasis on the Clinton years and protection of the Reagan-Bush administration looks, in retrospect, more like a partisan cheap shot than a fair and balanced investigation. One sleight of hand used in Cox's report was to leave out dates of alleged Chinese spying in the 1980s to obscure the fact that the floodgates of U.S. nuclear secrets to China including how to build a miniaturized W-88 nuclear warhead appeared to have been open during the Reagan-Bush years. While leaving out time elements for the Reagan-Bush era, Cox listed the years for alleged lapses during the Carter and Clinton administrations. For instance, the Cox report's "Overview" states that "the PRC (People's Republic of China) thefts from our National Laboratories began at least as early as the late 1970s, and significant secrets are known to have been stolen as recently as the mid-1990s." In other words, Cox started with the Democratic presidency of Jimmy Carter and then jumped over the 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to Bill Clinton's administration. In the report's "Overview" alone, there are three dozen references to dates from the Clinton years and only five mentions of dates from the Reagan-Bush years, with none of those citations related to alleged wrongdoing. In a two-page chronology of the scandal pages 74-75 the Cox report puts all the boxes about Chinese espionage suspicions into the Carter and Clinton years. Nothing sinister is attributed specifically to the Reagan-Bush era, other than a 1988 test of a neutron bomb built from secrets that the report says were believed stolen in the "late 1970s," the Carter years. Only a careful reading of the text inside the chronology's boxes makes clear that many of the worst national security breaches apparently occurred on the Reagan-Bush watch. For instance, a box for 1995 states that a purported Chinese defector walked into a U.S. government office in Taiwan that year and handed over incriminating Chinese documents. While that would seem to apply to a Clinton year, the documents actually showed that Chinese intelligence may have stolen the W-88 secrets "sometime between 1984 and 1992," Reagan-Bush years. The Chinese tested their miniaturized warhead in 1992 while George H.W. Bush was president. Spy Suspect Left out of the chronology also was the fact that suspicious meetings with Chinese scientists that made Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee an espionage suspect took place from 1985 to 1988, while Ronald Reagan was president. When released on May 25, 1999, the Cox report was greeted by conservative groups and the national news media as an indictment of the Clinton administration. By then, of course, the Washington press corps was obsessed with "Clinton scandals" and viewed almost any allegation through that prism. Yet, despite the intensity of the media spotlight, little attention was paid to the shallowness of the Cox report. Though filling three volumes and toting up 872 pages, the report had the look of a term paper written by a student trying to stretch the length by expanding the margins and triple-spacing. The Cox report certainly didn't resemble the typical
[osint] Will the PKK Become a Tool of the US?
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=12231 Will the PKK Become a Tool of the US? Source:US Ghosts of the past Evren Deger The New Anatolian/ Ankara Will the PKK become a tool of the US? Will the US use the PKK to create unrest in Syria and Iran before possible attacks against these two countries? The year is 1990. Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2. In the aftermath, the international community took action. Sanctions determined within the framework of the resolutions of the United Nations were implemented. First came economic sanctions and then the first Gulf War. But this was only the visible side of what has happened. Shortly after the invasion of Kuwait, a U.S. Army elite unit known as the Green Berets were deployed in northern Iraq. This unit, which was operational from Incirlik Airbase located in Turkey, served on different missions in northern Iraq. The Kurdish population of the region received theoretical and military training. The final goal was unrest within the country in the aftermath of the war. The first Gulf War began on Jan. 16, 1991, and lasted approximately two months. In the aftermath of the bombings that were watched by the whole world live on TV, Iraq took a step back and the war halted. It didn't end, but halted... Suddenly, Kurds trained by the Green Berets created tension in northern Iraq and in the aftermath, masses of people dramatically fled to the Turkish border. Thousands of Kurds migrated to Turkey. And, the U.S. was in charge. Tent cities were formed, security maintained for the Kurds. As a result, a no-fly zone to the north of the 36th parallel was declared, and the Kurds returned home. The year is 2005. Almost two years have passed since the toppling of the Saddam regime. Turkey has been involved in a series of efforts to end the presence of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), especially in northern Iraq, before and after the war. It received a series of pledges as a result of its every effort. But these pledges were never fulfilled. On Monday Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug, who is visiting the United States, listed Turkey's demands: "Time is up. We've been waiting patiently for more than two years. People on the street are waiting for the U.S. to take action. It's hard to tell the people to be patient for another two years." Turkey is running out of patience. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The U.S. is on good terms with the PKK in northern Iraq. They held meetings, but nothing concrete has emerged. Moreover, two parties have links with the PKK, Syria and Iran. The two countries that the U.S. stipulated as targets after the Iraq operation. Sudden clashes started to occur in both countries. News reports reveal the beginning of a new era: - Syrian police and nationalist Arabs in southwestern Kurdistan attacked houses and workplaces belonging to Kurds. Four died, and dozens of Kurds, 30 of them women, were wounded. According to local sources, hundreds of people were taken into custody and the majority of them were tortured. - Iran reportedly launched an operation against the Kandil Mountains area and city of Piransehir near the Iraqi border. They bombed the PKK camps located in the mountains and arrested a number of people on charges of providing aid and shelter to the organization. The U.S. seems to have found its new tool in the new order that it will establish in the Middle East. During this process, the PKK will be the tool used to create unrest in Iran and Syria. This is not a prediction, it is intelligence. Source: TNA, 8 June 2005 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 1
[osint] 6 Critical Fields Ankara Crosses with Washington
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=20443 INTERNATIONAL 06.09.2005 Thursday - ISTANBUL 05:28 [NEWS INVESTIGATION] 6 Critical Fields Ankara Crosses with Washington By ALI H. ASLAN Published: Wednesday 08, 2005 zaman.com Iraq Turkish-American relations are most problematic when the issue comes to Iraq. Turkey adapts a manner of criticism against the US on the subjects such as Iraq's territorial integrity, the status of Kerkuk (Kirkuk) and providing civilian security in the US military operations. The Americans on the other hand think Ankara has been of little help to Washington in Iraq and that Ankara sees Iraq in general through the northern Iraq perspective. Since Turkey did not approved the March 1 deployment motion and was not willing to accept Kurds in particular as the addressee caused reactions in the US. The bagging incident in Suleymaniye, the operation in Felluce (Fallujah) and no Sunni participation in the elections disturbed the Turkish side. The latest efforts of the new Iraqi government and Ankara to build new relations are appreciated by the Washington administration. Even if the official targets are the same, Iraq heads the topics on which the two capitals fail to trust each. Despite promises given, the US somehow continues not to take any action against the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) in northern Iraq and it does not entertain the idea of Turkey opening a new border gate in Ovakoy. "Security concerns" of the Pentagon are affective in particular for the failure to reach a conclusion in these issues. Regional reforms US President George W. Bush's Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, fails to create the amount of excitement in Ankara that Washington would like. Ankara would like, as much as possible, to make independent contributions to the process even though it supports the US initiatives in the region. Since Ankara views Washington's revolutionist approach in the region dangerous for regional stability, distancing itself from the US policies on regime changes, even more so, for the use of violence to achieve this purpose is loathed by Ankara. Upon these reactions, Washington, which wanted to show Turkey as a "model" country, gave up on the idea. Americans wanted to use Turkey as an example of a democratic Islamic country and to use this in its political discourse. While the AKP government does not object to this, secularist bureaucratic elitists do not want the utterance of the expression "Islamic country" for Turkey. These circles widely hold the opinion that the US wants to transform Turkey into a moderate Islamic regime. Syria One of the issues creating tension between Ankara and Washington is that the conflict that Turkey has the desire to establish good relations with Syria while the US attempts to bring down the regime in Syria. In a period in which international pressure intensified on Syria to pull out its troops from Lebanon, the visits of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan firstly, followed by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer to Damascus were preceded with concerns from Washington. Ankara in particular is willing to be on good terms with Syria. The US on the other hand, sees Damascus as a foe and claims the Syrian administration helps the insurgence in Iraq. While the US is trying to push for the overthrow of the oppressive Asad regime, the Turkish party does not believe that a better leader will fill Asad's position; believing that trying to encourage Syria to initiate reforms through friendly relations will be more affective, however, the US party finds this approach naive. Widespread opinion in Washington is that the AKP government acts with the Islamist reflexes. Iran Trying to prevent Iran's nuclear program, the Bush administration had had the expectations to observe Iran from Turkey using spy planes; however, Ankara signifying their relations with Tehran and their refusal to take any part in creating any kind of tension in the region, failed to fulfill Washington's expectations. Turkey has concerns about the possibility of Iran's nuclear armament as well; however, it does not want a war to break out for this reason. Turkey supports the notion that the issue should be solved through diplomatic means. The US also does not retract from the possibility of using the option to conduct military action. If the issue comes to the use of power against Iran, it will become an extremely controversial issue with regard to Turkish-US relations after Iraq. Cyprus Cyprus is among the issues in which relations are on good terms. Washington's support of the Annan Plan has greatly pleased Ankara and its pro-solution policy for Cyprus. When Turkish Cypriots said "yes" and Greek Cypriots said "no" in the referendum, the US began efforts to lift the economic and political isolation imposed on the Turkish Cypriots, albeit the symbolic and political gestures yielded few results. The two capital cities, however, are in consensus regarding the Cyprus issue. Turkey
[osint] The Turkey- U.S. Divide
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dumanli8jun08,0,3934903.story COMMENTARY The Turkey- U.S. Divide Lack of understanding strains a vital relationship. By Ekrem Dumanli Ekrem Dumanli is executive editor of Zaman, a national newspaper headquartered in Istanbul. June 8, 2005 What's gone wrong between the U.S. and Turkey? Plagued by misinformation and misperception, the two countries have seen significant deterioration in their relations over the last few years. Rising wrath against Turkey in Washington, especially at the Pentagon, is threatening what has long been a strong, important relationship. It seems to be a response, in turn, to a perceived rise in anti-Americanism in Turkey. But this is a mistake. The roots of the problem lay, for the most part, in misunderstanding. Just as the Iraq war was beginning in early 2003, Turkey rejected a U.S. effort to open a northern front. For many U.S. officials, this was an indication of growing anti-Americanism. Although it is true that the Turkish parliament rejected the motion, the context has been badly misunderstood. On that day March 1, 2003 533 lawmakers voted on the motion. Of those, 264 were in favor, 250 rejected it and 19 abstained. The motion required a simple majority, 267 votes; it was rejected for want of three votes. The vote was so close that for a few minutes after the voting it was believed that the motion had been approved. In short, much of the wrath against Turkey in Washington, especially in Pentagon circles, is based on just three votes. In October 2003, the parliament agreed to send as many as 10,000 troops to Iraq to help in reconstruction and peacekeeping. This time the vote was 358 to 183 in favor of deployment. But Turkey got little credit for its willingness to help because the plan fell apart when the Iraqi Governing Council announced that it did not want Turkish troops. In yet another effort to cooperate with Washington, Turkey subsequently agreed to send troops to Afghanistan, and the Turkish army has twice taken command of the International Security Assistance Force there. I'm not denying that the last two years have been a tense period for the two countries. There's no doubt that the Turkish people, in line with global public opinion, were worried about the occupation of Iraq. Although Turks hated Saddam Hussein and wished for an end to his rule, they were also concerned about a war in the region. Not just because it was becoming clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction and no link between Hussein and Al Qaeda, but because they were afraid the war would spread to neighboring countries such as Syria and Iran. And it is certainly true that the horrible images from Fallouja and Abu Ghraib shocked Turkish society, as they shocked the people of many nations. When one also considers that Iraqis are Muslims and that many mosques were in the war zone, the Turkish public's concern may be better understood. But Turkish reservations about Bush administration policies in the Middle East do not make us "anti-American." Yes, there was one Turkish member of parliament who said last year that the U.S. was conducting "genocide" in Fallouja but it must be remembered that routine pressure is put on Turkey regarding Armenian allegations of "genocide" after World War II. For many Turks, this is annually discussed, debated and forgotten they see the so-called genocide as a false accusation, and the word itself is viewed as an exaggeration. So when one parliamentarian accuses the U.S. of "genocide" in Iraq, it does not carry the harsh meaning that Americans have reacted to. After Sept. 11, many Muslims in the U.S. returned to their countries, Turks among them. This trend accelerated after the invasion of Iraq. But despite post-Sept. 11 anxiety and difficulty in obtaining visas, statistics indicate that Turkish families and their children still opt for a U.S. education when possible. The Turkish people believe that the U.S. helped Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. They haven't forgotten that the leader of the terrorist Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK), Abdullah Ocalan, was caught with U.S. assistance. Nor have they overlooked U.S. support for Turkey's membership in the European Union. Despite years of "strategic partnership," the policymakers of the two countries don't fully understand each other. Turkey asks the U.S. to take concrete action against the PKK militants in Iraq, but this is not a high priority for the Americans. Armenian genocide allegations are raised like clockwork in the U.S. Congress, but so far the Turkish government has not formally recognized that such a thing occurred. If that changes, the Turkish public will not react calmly. Each party tries to evaluate the other side within the framework of its own political culture and experience. This can cause confusion and ill will. But these two countries need each other. At a time when potential global conflicts exist in abundance along cultural and
[osint] A Reform Agenda for the New DNI
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=887913&C=thisweek Posted 06/06/05 09:12 A Reform Agenda for the New DNI By CHRIS MELLON The swearing in of John Negroponte culminated a lengthy examination of the intelligence failures associated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and inaccurate estimates of Iraq�s weapons of mass destruction. This led Congress and the White House to concentrate power in a new director of national intelligence (DNI) under the premise that greater accountability and authority produces better results. Now that we have a powerful intelligence �czar,� what should he do to make the intel community more effective and efficient? Above all, better intelligence requires more rigorous and systematic processes to plan, recruit and conduct operations. The taxpayer (and probably most members of Congress) would be shocked to learn that the DNI lacks the tools to independently and comprehensively evaluate the multibillion-dollar budgets of the agencies he is now responsible for. Although he has an able, hard-working staff, they do not have the necessary access or capabilities. For example, there is no means to quantitatively assess all proposed intelligence radar collection systems, regardless of agency or classification, against the full range of customer requirements. In fact, most detailed assessments today are performed by the very agencies (CIA, National Security Agency, National Reconnaissance Office) whose programs the DNI is supposed to independently evaluate. Some duplication is necessary, and some cost overruns are inevitable, but we have an excess of both. An even more glaring deficiency is the lack of rigorous, standardized procedures among intelligence analysts. Our analysts are dedicated ;public servants, but they operate without uniform methods. The very term �analytic tradecraft� is telling; the intelligence community needs to make analysis less like a trade or craft and more like a profession, with a common understanding of how to link logic and data, and how to make clear where there is irreducible uncertainty. No one can explain, for example, why analysts were prone to ignore so much credible reporting indicating Saddam�s weapon programs were defunct while accepting dubious intelligence to the contrary. Analysts and consumers will benefit enormously from a more transparent, uniform, objective methodology that consistently categorizes information and is fully exposed to alternative hypotheses. There also needs to be far greater use of open-source information. The creation of the DNI gives us an opportunity to do this across all analytic organizations within the intel community. Finally, the establishment of the DNI gives us an opportunity to reinvigorate intelligence collection. The DNI should be able to forge a better partnership between human source intelligence and intercepted communications, or signals intelligence. This is the only way we are likely to penetrate terrorist networks effectively before they strike, or obtain timely and deep insights into the intentions of closed, hostile nations such as North Korea. While he is at it, the new DNI can push the CIA and other agencies to leverage U.S. diversity by energetically reaching out to patriotic Americans from all walks of life, many of whom have extraordinary foreign language skills and access. A good start is being made, but this area requires continued strong emphasis. Addressing these issues depends less on additional funding, legislation or technology than on leadership and strategic direction � the main reasons for creating the DNI. Negroponte needs to keep his eye on the big changes that U.S. intelligence needs, not on the President�s Daily Brief. Otherwise the DNI will get bogged down and become just another bureaucratic layer. By contrast, if he prioritizes and delegates carefully, the DNI could transform the system in a manner that will make our country safer for generations. The DNI was not intended to provide additional oversight and he should not micromanage. Rather, he must provide sorely needed strategic leadership and direction. By Chris Mellon, a partner in Mellon Strategic Consulting, Washington, and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose u
[osint] Israel Accents Multimission Robotics for Anti-Terror Ops
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=886937&C=thisweek Posted 06/06/05 09:07Print-friendly version Israel Accents Multimission Robotics for Anti-Terror Ops By BARBARA OPALL-ROME, HERZLIYA, Israel Technological advances combined with lessons learned from nearly five years of continuous anti-terror urban warfare are providing a clearer picture of how the Israel Air Force will look and operate in the coming years. In the not-too-distant future, numerous unmanned aircraft of all sizes, operating as a single unit, will persistently patrol the skies � hunting and killing not only terrorists on the move but also mobile rocket launchers, weapon labs and illicit arms caches. At the same time, a reduced percentage of manned fighters, helicopters and special mission planes could be relegated to supporting unmanned counterterror operations while honing their ability to wage standoff, pre-emptive attacks against increasingly long-range threats. In a rare unclassified discussion here of doctrine, operational concepts and weapon system development trends, service officials and industry experts on May 30-31 painted a picture of a future force aspiring to omnipresence, omniscience and the ability to precisely deliver just the amount of force needed to destroy targets without inflicting damage on innocents nearby. In the process, officials and experts said they expected Israel�s deterrent capabilities to soar, as terrorists and terrorist-supporting countries and organizations realize they cannot hide from Israeli airpower. �The ability to strike lone terrorists, and not just buildings or locations, has already seeped into the consciousness of the other side,� said Avi Dichter, the recently retired director of Israel�s Shin Bet internal security service. Speaking at a May 31 confer-ence on the role of air power in counterterror warfare, sponsored by the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies, Dichter said Israel�s effective use of targeted killing operations � what critics assail as extrajudicial aerial assassinations � has prompted the majority of the Palestinian population and its leadership to turn away from terror as a means of achieving political goals. �Palestinian children today cannot draw a picture of the sky without a helicopter overhead. [A child] may not draw clouds, but he�ll draw helicopters. � Most have become sick and tired of seeing the sun only in photographs, and that�s thanks to the adaptation of air power for this anti-terror mission,� Dichter said. �They say big brother watches from above and that there is a god. But there is also the Israel Air Force.� Unmanned Power While the former Shin Bet chief emphasized the role of helicopters in successfully striking terrorists from the air, several current and former Air Force officers here noted the role unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) already are playing in such operations. In addition to gathering intelligence and transmitting it immediately to airborne gunships, Palestinian and foreign sources insist UAVs were used in the March 2004 assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, leader of the Hamas Palestinian terrorist organization, and numerous other so-called aerial liquidation operations. Although this Israeli-adapted combat UAV system has been widely reported around the world, Israel�s military censor still prohibits specific reporting on details and operational capabilities of the unmanned hunter-killer vehicle. �I don�t want to relate to the issue of whether it was or wasn�t a UAV,� Col. Ofer Haruvi, a former head of the Israel Air Force�s UAV Department, told conference participants after showing a television news clip citing sources attributing a Gaza Strip operation to UAV-launched missiles. �But the more important question is: How can we extend such pinpoint capabilities to a more global solution for fighting terror?� In his presentation, Haruvi, now director of the NetCentric Warfare Center at Israel Aircraft Industries, said Israel and other nations are constantly shifting the air power balance toward unmanned rather than manned aircraft, as a means of ensuring optimum operational efficiency. �We want to be there all the time in order to see every event. We need to collect all the information from a wide variety of sensors so that in the end, we�ll be able to say with certainty that we can employ air strikes [through unmanned means],� Haruvi said. In his notional future force structure, Haruvi said he envisioned a blend of platforms, from the relatively small tactical UAVs now used by the service to very large, long-endurance systems that could weigh nearly 5,000 kilograms and carry payloads of more than 1,000 kilograms. Underlying this concept of an expanded, all-capable unmanned force, Haruvi said, is the requirement that all aircraft be integrated through a command-and-control system that supports the same mission. �It shouldn�t matter who operates the shooters ... Tens of platforms should be above the area per
[osint] Lockheed Converts Antitank Missile
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=871327&C=thisweek Posted 06/06/05 12:00 Lockheed Converts Antitank Missile Responding to an urgent request from the U.S. Marine Corps, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin has expanded the capabilities of the company�s Predator antitank missile and delivered 400 to the Marines. The Marine Corps asked Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Orlando, Fla., to modify the shoulder-fired, short-range Predator into a direct-attack urban assault missile. Renamed the Short-Range Assault Weapon-Multiple Purpose Variant (SRAW-MPV), the new missile has a multipurpose blast warhead, enabling it to defeat a variety of targets such as buildings and bunkers. �The conversion ... was prompted by the need for fire-from-enclosure assault weapons, which has become paramount to support current actions,� said Andy Hawkins, the SRAW-MPV program manager at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, in a company statement. �Other current short-range assault weapon systems cannot meet the requirement.� �The SRAW-MPV ... can be safely fired from buildings with single hearing protection, which protects the gunner by minimizing exposure to enemy counterfire,� he said. �In addition, its point-and-shoot, fire-and-forget inertial guidance system minimizes gunner operations and corrects for in-flight disturbances such as crosswind.� The SRAW-MPV passed an acceptance test at the Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake, Calif., in November and other firings in December, the statement added. The flight tests included two rounds that breached a triple-brick target, leaving a gap wide enough for troop entry, and another round that disabled an armored personnel carrier. All of the shots were at a range of 200 meters. U.K. Muscle Machine Unveiled Lord Drayson, the U.K. minister for defense procurement, recently unveiled a prototype of the Terrier, a combat engineer vehicle under development for the British Army by BAE SYSTEMS. The Terrier is being designed to be entirely operated by remote control, should the area it needs to work in be initially too dangerous for troops to enter. The London company is building the Terrier under a 300 million pound ($374 million) contract with the U.K. Ministry of Defense, said an MoD statement. Built to withstand mine explosions, small-arms and artillery fire while digging trenches or clearing obstacles, the Terrier is expected to enter service toward the end of the decade. It will be equipped with a machine gun for self-defense. The vehicle is designed to be transported on the C-17 or A400M airlifter. ASC To Build Air Warfare Ships An Australian state-owned defense supplier, ASC Pty Ltd., has won a 6 billion Australian dollar ($4.5 billion) government contract to build three air warfare destroyers, Defence Minister Robert Hill said May 31. The contract is the biggest single domestic construction program under Australia�s 10-year, 50 billion Australian dollar defense acquisition plan. The first ships are due to start service in 2013. The contract, run through a subsidiary known as ASC Shipbuilder, should boost the value of government-owned ASC, previously known as the Australian Submarine Corp., ahead of the company�s privatization scheduled for next year. Hill said the ships would be built at ASC shipyards in Adelaide and would have the U.S.-made Aegis air warfare system at the core of their combat systems. New MEADS Contract Signed On May 31, MEADS International (MI), a U.S.-European partnership, signed a design and development contract for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). The United States, Germany and Italy are partners in the approximately $2 billion program. �The D&D contract extends the period of performance of a previous letter contract that was awarded to MI by the NATO MEADS Management Agency in September 2004,� MBDA, one of the industrial partners, said in a June 1 statement. MEADS is a mobile air and missile defense system designed to replace the Patriot in the United States and Germany and the Nike Hercules in Italy. The United States has 58 percent of the work share in MEADS; Germany holds 25 percent and Italy 17 percent. MEADS International is a joint venture of MBDA Italia, Rome; EADS/LFK, Unterschleissheim, Germany; and Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, Md. In September, the United States and Italy signed a contract to formally begin design and development, while Germany had a six-month transition period to obtain parliamentary approval. Germany�s parliament on April 20 signed onto the program. New Agency Turns to NATO The European Union�s fledgling European Defense Agency (EDA) has handed a small contract � its first � to NATO�s command, control and communications wing for an operational analysis of the union�s future peacekeeping force. Though the move is unprecedented, EDA officials stress that their agency acted only as the contracting authority for the EU military staff. �The military staff does not have the resour
[osint] Bush and Blair Deny 'Fixed' Iraq Reports
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/international/08prexy.html? June 8, 2005 Bush and Blair Deny 'Fixed' Iraq Reports By ELISABETH BUMILLER WASHINGTON, June 7 - President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain presented a united front on Tuesday against a recently disclosed British government memorandum that said in July 2002 that American intelligence was being "fixed" around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq. "There's nothing farther from the truth," Mr. Bush said in his first public comments about the so-called Downing Street memo, which has created anger among the administration's critics who see it as evidence that the president was intent to go to war with Iraq earlier than the White House has said. "Look, both of us didn't want to use our military," Mr. Bush added. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option." Mr. Blair, standing at Mr. Bush's side in a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House, said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all." The statements contradicted assertions in the memorandum, which was first disclosed by The Sunday Times of London on May 1 and which records the minutes of a meeting of Mr. Blair's senior policy advisers more than half a year before the war with Iraq began. The contents of the memo have dogged Mr. Blair, who has taken years of political criticism at home for joining Mr. Bush in the Iraq war and has come to Washington on his first trip since his re-election in May expressly to seek support on his plans for more aid to Africa and for fighting global warming. Mr. Blair, generally unsmiling through the 25-minute news conference, went home after dinner at the White House on Tuesday night with much less than he had wanted. The two leaders pledged to cancel the debts of 27 of the world's poorest nations to the World Bank and the African Development Bank, although no deal has yet been reached. And as expected, Mr. Bush announced that the White House would release $674 million in aid to Africa, mostly for food aid to Ethiopia and Eritrea, drawn from money already appropriated by Congress. But Mr. Blair failed to persuade Mr. Bush to agree to a doubling of aid to Africa, to $25 billion, from the world's richest nations, or to close the gap with the administration on policy toward climate change. Mr. Blair has cited the two areas as top foreign policy priorities. Mr. Bush defended his decision not to join with Mr. Blair by repeatedly saying that the United States has already tripled aid to Africa to $3.2 billion during his administration. But he promised, "We'll do more down the road." The United States has one of the lowest levels of aid among developed countries in the share of national income it gives, or 16 cents to each $100. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair also appeared far apart on the issue of global warming - "I think everyone knows there are different perspectives on this issues," the prime minister acknowledged - as the president sidestepped a question about whether climate change was man-made. Instead Mr. Bush reiterated his longstanding position that the development of new technology was the best way to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases. Such differences were pushed aside in the public formalities of the news conference, where the two leaders seemed happy to have survived their re-elections after the war in Iraq. "Glad you're here," Mr. Bush said to Mr. Blair. "Congratulations on your great victory. It was a landmark victory, and I'm really thrilled to be able to work with you to be able to spread freedom and peace over the next years." The two expressed common ground most emphatically on the Downing Street memo, which was written by Matthew Rycroft, a top aide to Mr. Blair. In particular, it reports that Sir Richard Dearlove, the chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, had been in talks in Washington and had told other senior British officials that Mr. Bush "wanted to remove" Mr. Hussein "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D.," or weapons of mass destruction. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," Sir Richard was reported in the memo to have told his colleagues. Since the disclosure by The Sunday Times, 89 Democrats in the House of Representatives have written to the White House to ask if the memorandum accurately reflected the administration's thinking at the time, eight months before the American-led invasion of Iraq began. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, has said there is "no need" to respond to the letter. In his comments at the news conference, Mr. Bush noted of the memorandum that "they dropped it out in the middle of his race," indicating that he thought it had been made public last month to hurt Mr. Blair's chances for re-election. Mr. Blair, who spoke frequently about the memorandum during his campaign, said it was written before the United States and Britain
[osint] Pre-9/11 Missteps By FBI Detailed
Naturally, no one was punished and at least one promoted who choked off field requests for search warants in the Moussaoui case. David Bier http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902000.html washingtonpost.com Pre-9/11 Missteps By FBI Detailed Report Tells of Missed Chances To Find Hijackers By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 10, 2005; A01 The inability to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking plot amounts to a "significant failure" by the FBI and was caused in large part by "widespread and longstanding deficiencies" in the way the agency handled terrorism and intelligence cases, according to a new report released yesterday. In one particularly notable finding, the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the FBI missed at least five chances to detect the presence of two of the suicide hijackers -- Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- after they first entered the United States in early 2000. "While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks," the report said. Although many of the missteps surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar have become well known, Fine's report adds significant new details about the FBI's role in fumbling the case. Previous reports, including the best-selling tome by the independent Sept. 11 commission, focused more heavily on the CIA's failure to track the men after a pivotal terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia. The FBI said in a statement that it agreed with many of Fine's conclusions but "has taken substantial steps to address the issues presented in the report." "Today, preventing terrorist attacks is the top priority in every FBI office and division, and no terrorism lead goes unaddressed," the FBI said. "Stronger centralized management has strengthened accountability, improved information sharing, facilitated coordination with outside partners and guided a national counterterrorism strategy." The 371-page report is the latest in a stream of assessments from Congress, the Sept. 11 panel and other investigators documenting serious shortcomings in the performance of various U.S. government agencies in the months leading up to the hijackings. It also comes amid a wave of criticism of the FBI in recent months over a scrapped $170 million software program and its continuing struggle to attract qualified analysts, translators and other intelligence personnel. "We believe that widespread and longstanding deficiencies in the FBI's operations and Counterterrorism Program caused the problems we described in this report," Fine's investigators wrote, including a shoddy analytical program, problems sharing intelligence information and "the lack of priority given to counterterrorism investigations by the FBI before September 11." Jamie S. Gorelick, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who served as a member of the Sept. 11 panel, said the "litany of reports" documenting FBI problems in recent months "has to be a wake-up call" for Director Robert S. Mueller III and other FBI officials. "I think they believe they have made significant progress, but there is still quite a bit of work to be done," she said. Fine's investigation was requested by Mueller shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it has been held up for 11 months over classification and legal issues. It focuses on three major episodes before the Sept. 11 attacks: the missteps in tracking Alhazmi and Almihdhar, the failure to connect al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui to the hijacking plot, and the handling of a July 2001 memo theorizing that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden might be sending operatives to U.S. flight schools. Although the memo from Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams was proposed as "a theory rather than a warning or a threat," the report concludes that the bureau "failed to fully evaluate, investigate, exploit and disseminate information related to" the memo because of shortcomings in the way its analysis and intelligence programs were set up and run. "Even though it did not contain an immediate warning and was marked routine, Williams's information and theory warranted strategic analysis from the FBI," the report says. Fine's conclusions about Moussaoui are less clear, because most references to the case have been blacked out by court order. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who is presiding over Moussaoui's prosecution in Alexandria, blocked release of the full report because of objections from defense attorneys. Some hints of Fine's conclusions are still evident in the censored version of the report, however. In one paragrap
[osint] Judges Are Seeking Cover on The Bench
Amidst Republican Congress cuts in judicial protection funding for the
Federal Marshal Service and vicious attacks, some bordering on
incitement, by Republican lawmakers and their religious conservative
allies, it is no wonder that judges are exhibiting a "bunker
mentality." The urge for survival is indemic.
David Bier
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
le/2005/06/04/AR2005060401507.html
washingtonpost.com
Judges Are Seeking Cover on The Bench
Safety Is Top Concern After Recent Attacks
By David Finkel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 5, 2005; A01
DANVILLE, Ky. -- An unprotected head, an exposed neck and the top few
inches of a judicial robe: That's all that can be seen of Judge Bruce
Petrie as he bunkered down on his bullet-resistant judge's bench,
panic button within reach, armed bailiffs nearby, taking on the first
case of the day.
Two sisters had gotten in a fight, first with words, then with
punches.
"Do you believe this is a fair and accurate representation of the
injuries you sustained?" Petrie asked one of the sisters as he studied
a photograph of some bruises.
It was an utterly routine question -- except this is the year that
being a judge has been anything but ordinary. The number of reported
threats against judges has been increasing. So have verbal and
physical attacks against judges and other court officials, in
courthouses and elsewhere. A judge in Atlanta was gunned down in his
courtroom. In Florida, the state court judge in the Terri Schiavo
right-to-die case had to be put under protective guard. In Chicago,
the husband and mother of a federal judge were gunned down by a man
who had broken into the judge's home to kill her.
"The madness in the shadows of modern life," is how that judge, Joan
H. Lefkow, described these times in a recent congressional hearing
about judicial safety.
Six months ago, Petrie's little courtroom in the center of this pretty
town, on the top floor of a courthouse with a gazebo in its lawn, was
as it always had been. "You would have walked in, taken the elevator
to the third floor and walked into the courtroom and not seen any law
enforcement until the bailiff came in and said, 'All rise,' " Petrie
said.
Then came the arrest of a man who is now charged with Petrie's
attempted murder, the day the shadows extended into Kentucky.
According to authorities, the man was on his way to a hearing in
Petrie's courtroom with an accordion file stuffed with papers, and
that the papers had been hollowed out to conceal two clips of
ammunition and a gun.
"It was just another case to me," Petrie said of the case he was to
hear that day. It was a case about a restraining order, just like the
case this day involving the two sisters, which is why, after asking a
routine question of a woman who has been glaring at her sister, Petrie
is watching carefully as she swivels her head toward him.
"Do what ?" she said, seething.
Petrie, 39, is a judge in Family Court, also known by those who work
in it as Hate Court, and Demonic Relations. The court for divorces and
domestic violence cases, it is a funneling point for such rawness and
heartbreak that when Petrie became a judge, he used part of his
acceptance speech to acknowledge the tenderness of those he would be
judging, saying with sympathy, "There is a lot of sadness that comes
through our courts."
Now, thousands of cases later, he would add anger, a litany of it as
the morning goes on:
"Nobody makes me angry and gets away with it."
"He does have a temper."
"I was gonna fistfight him."
"I was done dirty."
Case after case -- 729 times last year alone -- Petrie is the one to
make a decision that inevitably leaves someone upset. And although
that has always been part of being a judge, the increase in hostile
responses is changing the very nature of American courtrooms. Once
universally accessible, the modern courthouse now features not just
the Kevlar-reinforced benches and panic buttons, but camera monitors,
walk-through magnetometers, X-ray scanners and, just in case all of
those measures fail, "safe" rooms and detailed evacuation plans.
There are guides to making courthouses safer ("Are spectator seats
solidly built and fastened to the floor?" asks one checklist. "Are
public restrooms routinely searched?"), and there are measures to make
judges feel safer, including a recent $12 million congressional
appropriation for federal judges to install alarm systems in their
homes.
"Obviously, had the Lefkow family had such a system at home, this
horror could have been avoided," Joan Lefkow told the Senate Judiciary
Committee when she testified in May. "We judges are grateful beyond
words to this committee and the Congress for authorizing this
appropriation so quickly after this latest tragedy."
In D
[osint] Bush's Optimism On Iraq Debated
"We are just paying a heavy price for mistakes made before," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "It's dangerous when U.S. officials start to believe their own propaganda," said David L. Phillips, a former State Department consultant who worked on Iraq planning but quit in frustration in 2003 and has written a book called "Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco." "I have no doubt that they genuinely think that Iraq is a smashing success and a milestone in their forward freedom strategy. But if you ask Iraqis, they have a different opinion." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/04/AR2005060401506.html washingtonpost.com Bush's Optimism On Iraq Debated Rosy View in Time Of Rising Violence Revives Criticism By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, June 5, 2005; A01 President Bush's portrayal of a wilting insurgency in Iraq at a time of escalating violence and insecurity throughout the country is reviving the debate over the administration's Iraq strategy and the accuracy of its upbeat claims. While Bush and Vice President Cheney offer optimistic assessments of the situation, a fresh wave of car bombings and other attacks killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis last month alone and prompted Iraqi leaders to appeal to the administration for greater help. Privately, some administration officials have concluded the violence will not subside through this year. The disconnect between Rose Garden optimism and Baghdad pessimism, according to government officials and independent analysts, stems not only from Bush's focus on tentative signs of long-term progress but also from the shrinking range of policy options available to him if he is wrong. Having set out on a course of trying to stand up a new constitutional, elected government with the security firepower to defend itself, Bush finds himself locked into a strategy that, even if it proves successful, foreshadows many more deadly months to come first, analysts said. Military commanders in Iraq privately told a visiting congressional delegation last week that the United States is at least two years away from adequately training a viable Iraqi military but that it is no longer reasonable to consider augmenting U.S. troops already strained by the two-year operation, said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). "The idea that the insurgents are on the run and we are about to turn the corner, I did not hear that from anybody," Biden said in an interview. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who joined Biden for part of the trip, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others are misleading Americans about the number of functional Iraqi troops and warned the president to pay more attention to shutting off Syrian and Iranian assistance to the insurgency. "We don't want to raise the expectations of the American people prematurely," he said. After dialing down criticism of Bush's policy following the successful January elections in Iraq, congressional Democrats are increasingly challenging the president's decisions and public assessments, and developing alternative policy ideas. "The administration has failed to level with the American people," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "It's terrible because they refuse to provide a full picture of what is really happening there." Reid traveled to Iraq in April and was confined to heavily fortified zones in and around Baghdad and prohibited from visiting some of the most troubled areas where the insurgency is particularly strong. "The place is in turmoil," he said. Since then, Reid said, he has been meeting with former Clinton administration officials in an effort to devise a new Iraq plan, including the possibility of calling for more U.S. troops and requesting additional international assistance. The White House says the focus on recent killings overshadows substantial long-term progress in Iraq, where the January elections allowed the United States to turn over more control for security to the Iraqis and set the stage for a new constitution to be written and approved this fall. Once that happens, White House officials say, a democratically elected Iraqi government protected by a better trained and equipped Iraqi military will hold off what remains of the insurgency and gradually allow U.S. forces to withdraw. Iraq's recent decision to put 40,000 troops around Baghdad, the most ambitious military move yet by the two-month-old government, proves that the U.S. plan to eventually turn over peacekeeping duties is not only viable, but working, White House officials maintain. Bush and Cheney, however, continue to decline to set deadlines for how long U.S. troops will remain. "I am pleased that in less than a year's time, there's a democratically elected government in Iraq, there are thousands of Iraq soldiers trained and better equipped to fight for their own country [and] that our strategy is very clear," Bush said during a Rose Garden new
[osint] Baghdad And Bust
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/04/AR2005060400119.html washingtonpost.com Baghdad And Bust Small-Business Owners Defending America Are Losing Their Shirts By Amy Joyce Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 5, 2005; F01 Stanley Adams spent more than 30 years building up his business. But he had just days to decide what to do with his thriving livestock trailer companies when he was activated for duty in Iraq in April 2003. "My wife didn't have a clue. I had to cram-course her and my daughter in a day and a half," said Adams, 52, who had applied to retire from the National Guard six months before he was called up. While he was in Iraq, his wife had to shut down one of the Montgomery, Ala., companies, and the other one barely made it. Adams's revenue dwindled from $1.5 million in 2002 to just $250,000 in 2003. "I had over a million dollars' worth of trailers here. Everything came to a halt, and all this money still had to be paid," he said. Self-employed reservists and small-business owners who are called to duty run into problems other reservists don't. Most employees' jobs are protected by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) when they are called to duty. But small-business owners like Adams have little support to help them save companies they have labored to build. "When you get mobilized in the National Guard, they go through to make sure you have power of attorneys, all your affairs are in order, you have insurance, make sure your wife knows what to do. They tell you about the Soldiers' and Sailors' act [which protects reservists called up from eviction and provides some debt relief]. That's all real good if you're not an owner of a business," Adams said. "But it doesn't affect business credit cards or business loans or business notes." Many small-business owners who must leave their companies behind, often at a moment's notice, have no plan for managing the business, or for a partner to take over. As a result, they find themselves deeply in debt or forced to shut down while they serve their country. Some businesses never recover. "USERRA doesn't really cover self-employment, and so there is no protection per se," said Maj. Robert Palmer, Air Force Reservist and public affairs officer for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, a Department of Defense agency. "Obviously, mobilization can be catastrophic to someone who is self-employed or a small-business owner. There's no question that it's a huge challenge. A reservist who is self-employed or owns his or her own small business has to calculate the risk." Some lawmakers have attempted to bring attention to the situation. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) introduced a bill in the House in February -- a Senate version was introduced last month -- that would provide for tax credits for employers who lose key employees to active duty, including themselves. A small-business owner could be eligible for up to $42,000 in tax credits under the Lantos bill. But that's no help to those who have been called up during recent conflicts. Robert Kalb, an orthopedic surgeon in Toledo, has been a Navy reservist since 1999 and was called to duty about nine months ago. "I had a lot of friends injured and killed in Vietnam, and I thought, it's a huge sacrifice people make and you have to do your part," he said. However, he didn't expect his sacrifice to include the possibility of losing his medical practice. Kalb, deployed to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, was told he would be gone "for a year or two." "The experience has been extremely difficult," Kalb, 53, said. First he had to inform patients who had been waiting for surgery that he couldn't operate.Then he tried to find other surgeons to take over his patients' care. Kalb had 10 days to get everything in order. "When you are in the military, you have no relief from your obligations to continue to pay your lease for your office, your equipment, and you have to continue to maintain staff to complete the transfer of care, provide medical records and take care of the patients' business," he said. So far, Kalb estimates, he has lost more than $500,000 and is digging himself deeper into debt every day. Because he will be gone for longer than three months, he will have to reapply for reinstatement to the hospitals where he performed surgeries. It will take two to four months before he can receive credentials to practice again, while he continues to pay $70,000 a year for malpractice insurance. The experience has forced him to make a major decision about his future -- and it doesn't include the military. "When I get relieved of my activation status, I'm going to return to private practice and pick up and rebuild, because I have the loans to pay back and can't afford to pay those back if I stay in the military," he said. Deployments in the past few years have been longer than in previous eras because of the war on terrorism and the Iraq war. Tr
[osint] Trial to Reveal Reach Of U.S. Surveillance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/04/AR2005060401319.html washingtonpost.com Trial to Reveal Reach Of U.S. Surveillance Wiretaps to Be Used Against 4 Terrorism Suspects By John Mintz Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 5, 2005; A03 For a decade, FBI agents covertly monitored every telephone call and fax sent and received by Florida university professor Sami al-Arian as he communicated with alleged top leaders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group about its suicide bombings of Israelis, shaky finances and high-level turf struggles. Starting tomorrow, many of those 20,000 hours of phone calls and hundreds of faxes will be revealed in a federal courtroom in Tampa, where al-Arian and three other alleged members of the terrorist group will be tried on charges of conspiracy to commit murder through suicide attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The trial, expected to last at least six months, will provide a rare view of what the government contends are the clandestine operations of a terrorist group. It is the first case in which vast amounts of communications monitored under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will make up the bulk of the evidence in a criminal prosecution of alleged terrorists -- demonstrating the enormous power the government now wields under that counterterrorism law. The wiretaps, approved in 1993 through 2003 on as many as 10 phones by a secret FISA court, were originally intended for use only by FBI agents conducting open-ended "intelligence" probes, and not for use in criminal trials. But after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the enactment of the USA Patriot Act and a ruling by the supersecret FISA court of appeals allowed much greater use of intelligence material in investigations such as this one. Many civil liberties experts express grave concern about U.S. officials' introduction into criminal court of years of wiretaps approved by FISA judges under a lower standard of proof than that demanded by criminal-court judges. But U.S. District Judge James Moody has rejected defense attorneys' arguments that the information should not be heard in court. Using FISA wiretaps in court is "a serious problem" that puts defendants at a disadvantage, said David Cole, a Georgetown University expert on the law related to terrorism. "Unlike with criminal wiretaps, FISA doesn't give defendants any meaningful chance to challenge the validity of the tap." U.S. officials say al-Arian and three associates who worked with him at a cluster of institutes affiliated with the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa were secretly top leaders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, sharing duties with other leaders in Syria. Attorneys for al-Arian, a USF professor of computer engineering until he was fired in 2003, and the other defendants contend that their clients do not condone the terrorist group's violent tactics, and that U.S. prosecutors are criminalizing their opposition to Israeli policies. The U.S. government declared the Palestinian Islamic Jihad a terrorist organization in 1995, making any association with it illegal. Defense attorneys have said that any promotion of the organization by al-Arian and others before then was protected political speech. "The government has a major leap trying to connect people talking on the phone in Tampa, and doing fundraising, with bombs exploding in Israel 6,600 miles away," said lawyer Stephen Bernstein, who represents defendant Sameeh Taha Hammoudeh, a former USF student. "The government is trying to say, 'If you have an interest in a subject, and if you talk about it with other people, then you must have been involved in it.' " Moody has also ruled that he will limit defense attorneys' efforts to bring up during the trial the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in their bid to dramatize the Palestinians' plight and their right to resist what they see as Israeli oppression. The defense asserts that the U.S. government has embraced the Israeli government's intelligence findings on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and that the group represents no threat to the United States. Lawyer Kevin Beck, who represents defendant Hatim Naji Fariz, manager of an Illinois-based Muslim charity, said there will be clashes in court over "the context and meaning of some conversations," including some in which he said officials unfairly assert the defendants spoke in code about the terrorist group. The prosecutors' case "is built on assumption built on assumption built on assumption, with some hearsay," he said. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, founded in Egypt in 1979 and largely funded by Iran, has devoted itself to two missions: the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Muslim Palestinian state. The group is bitterly opposed to peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians and has often stepped up attacks when talks show promise. It has also targeted sites symbolic of coexistence, such as a Haifa
