[osint] US Realignment With Sunnis Is Far Advanced

[David Bier]

Now we have won over the Sunni political leadership. The next step is
to win over the insurgents.
As this sweeping definition of the U.S. political objective indicates,
these talks are no longer aimed at splitting off groups that are less
committed to the aim of U.S. withdrawal, as the Pentagon has favoured
since last summer. Instead, the administration now appears to be
prepared to make some kind of deal with all the major insurgent groups.
There is more concern [on both sides] about the domination by Iran of
Iraq.
Going that far would conflict with White House assurances only a few
weeks ago of U.S. victory in the Iraq war.
Shiite leaders believe the shift in U.S. policy is intended to
actually reinstall a Baathist government in Baghdad. Taki hinted
strongly to the Monitor that the SCIRI is planning to use force if
necessary to defend the present government. We are threatening that
maybe in the future we will use other means, he said, because we
have true fear.
Then he added, I am prepared to go down into the streets and take up
arms and fight to prevent the Baathist dictators and terrorists from
coming back to power.



So much for CICBush43's fighting on to victory in Iraq trumpeted at
his Grand Old Opery appearance Monday.
Instead of invading Iraq for ego and oil, the U.S. could have finished
the job of fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan by pouring in troops
sufficient to root out the Taliban and their al_Qaeda trainers and
shock units.  That would have led to a strong U.S. presence on the
Iran border at a time when the U.S. already knew of the joint
Iran-North Korea uranium enrichment program and associated Iranian
nuclear facilities.  With Hussein, who hated them, along with NATO
member Turkey, on their other borders, the Iranians would have been
under severe pressure to avoid an embargo on its oil and economy. Iran
might have let its nuclear program go if faced with the destruction of
its economy, an invasion force on its Eastern border and the
possibility of Hussein taking the opportunity to renew war in the West
if the U.S. started hostilities.  Of course, Halliburton, illegally
doing big business in Iran via a Mideast subsidiary would have been
caught in the middle, suffered mightily and impacted Cheney's stock.
THUS, CICBush43's ego urge to be bigger than Daddy and Cheney's oil
greed (his energy policy group in April 2001 requested Iraq oil
infrastructure documents from the Energy Dept) won out. Hussein is
gone; replaced by a vicious insurgency we now are suing for peace to
try and avoid Iran essentially taking over Iraq and becoming the
largest oil producer in the world.  Heck, we and the Sunnis, along
with the Kurds just might end up defending democracy and oil against
those pesky, election-winning Shiites and al-Qaeda too.  Maybe...but
al-Qaeda is already moving its cadres out of Iraq back to Afghanistan
to support the Taliban so their intelligence on this is probably
better than ours.

David Bier

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31965

 US Realignment With Sunnis Is Far Advanced

Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Jan 30 (IPS) - Two major revelations this past week show
how far the George W. Bush administration has already shifted its
policy toward realignment with Sunni forces to balance the influence
of pro-Iranian Shiites in Iraq.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad revealed in an interview with
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius that he has put the future of
military assistance to a Shiite-dominated government on the table in
the high-stakes U.S. effort to force Shiite party leaders to give up
control over key security ministries.

Khalilzad told Ignatius that, unless the security ministries in the
new Iraqi government are allocated to candidates who are not regarded
as sectarian, the United States would be forced to reevaluate its
assistance to the government.

We are saying, if you choose the wrong candidates, that will affect
U.S. aid, Khalilzad said.

Khalilzad had previously demanded that the Interior Ministry be given
to a non-sectarian candidate, but he had not backed up those demands
with the threat of withdrawal of assistance. He has also explicitly
added the Defence Ministry to that demand for the first time.

Implied in Khalilzad's position is the threat to stop funding units
that are identified as sectarian Shiite in their orientation. That
could affect the bulk of the Iraqi army as well as the elite Shiite
police commando units which are highly regarded by the U.S. military
command.

Khalilzad's decision to make the U.S. threat public was followed by
the revelation by Newsweek in its Feb. 6 issue that talks between the
United States and high level Sunni insurgent leaders have already
begun at a U.S. military base in Anbar province and in Jordan and
Syria. Khalilzad told Newsweek, Now we have won over the Sunni
political leadership. The next step is to win over the insurgents.

As this sweeping definition of the U.S. political objective indicates,
these talks

[osint] Iraqi militants active in Afghanistan

[David Bier]

There is a big group coming from Iraq, Azad said in a satellite
telephone interview with the Associated Press. They're linked to Al
Qaeda and have fought against US forces in Iraq. They have been
ordered to come here. Many are suicide attackers.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/02/03/top16.htm

February 3, 2006Friday  Muharram 4, 1427

Iraqi militants active in Afghanistan

KABUL, Feb 2: Several Al Qaeda militants are coming from Iraq to take
part in the insurgency in Afghanistan; a provincial governor said on
Thursday after interrogating an Iraqi caught sneaking into the country
illegally.

The warning came amid an upsurge in suicide attacks, with the latest
involving a bomber dressed as a woman who killed five Afghans at an
army checkpoint in eastern Afghanistan.

More militants were expected to be trying to enter the country, said
Ghulam Dusthaqir Azad, the governor of the south-western province of
Nimroz. He made the comment after interrogating an alleged Iraqi
member of Al Qaeda caught while sneaking into the country.

There is a big group coming from Iraq, Azad said in a satellite
telephone interview with the Associated Press. They're linked to Al
Qaeda and have fought against US forces in Iraq. They have been
ordered to come here. Many are suicide attackers.

It was not immediately possible to confirm the information from
officials in Kabul. The defence minister and a spokesman for the
Interior Ministry did not answer their phones.

A spokesman for the US military, Lt-Mike Cody, said: We don't discuss
detainees or intelligence matters.

Rise in suicide attacks in recent months has fuelled suspicion that
militants could be copying tactics of insurgents in Iraq. 





--
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] Bungled Peace-Building Opens Door to Terrorism

[David Bier]

There is a great fear that unstable states and post-war societies
provide an ideal breeding ground for terrorist training and activity,
said Albrecht Schnabel, a senior fellow with the Research Programme on
Human Security in Bern, Switzerland.
Yet almost three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is
characterised by chaos, violence and disintegration. The methods used
to rebuild Iraq's security sector are simply making matters worse,
Instead of stabilising places like Iraq, international efforts to
centralise power are creating a more fragile security environment than
ever before,
We weren't trying to pick on the U.S. here, said Schnabel. But they
did overestimate the difficulty of the peace-building process and
optimistically hoped for the best.



http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31987

 Bungled Peace-Building Opens Door to Terrorism

Stephen Leahy

BROOKLIN, Canada, Jan 31 (IPS) - Washington's attempts to bring
security to Iraq and Afghanistan are not only making life harder for
local people, they are breeding more terrorists, warn international
security experts.

Under its anti-terrorism agenda, the U.S. has centralised power and
security in post-conflict Iraq and Afghanistan, which ironically
creates perfect conditions for terrorists and criminals.

There is a great fear that unstable states and post-war societies
provide an ideal breeding ground for terrorist training and activity,
said Albrecht Schnabel, a senior fellow with the Research Programme on
Human Security in Bern, Switzerland.

Yet almost three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is
characterised by chaos, violence and disintegration. The methods used
to rebuild Iraq's security sector are simply making matters worse, he
told IPS.

Schnabel is co-editor of a new book, Security Sector Reform and
Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, published by United Nations University
press and written by an international group of academics and military
commanders who examine the record and challenges of security sector
reform in post-conflict societies.

Instead of stabilising places like Iraq, international efforts to
centralise power are creating a more fragile security environment than
ever before, Schnabel said.

The United States is avoiding widely recognised peace-building
processes that involve external military powers quickly creating a
basic security environment and then allowing domestic peace- and
nation-building efforts to succeed.

It takes several years to develop reliable internal security
institutions that have the support of the population, as was achieved
in Bosnia and East Timor, Schnabel acknowledged.

It's a difficult transition and countries and their people are
vulnerable to terrorism and exploitation, he said, adding however,
that by putting its own domestic security interests first, the U.S.
has created a lose-lose situation.

The overall objective of external military forces in post-conflict
societies is to eliminate violence in the society, said David
Carment, director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at
Canada's Carleton University.

The U.S. focus in Afghanistan is to eliminate terrorists and their
bases, Carment, who did not contribute to the book, said in an
interview. That different focus can compromise efforts by
international participants to bring peace, he said.

The recent U.S. tactic of rearming some warlords in parts of
Afghanistan and using them to fight the Taliban has angered rival
warlords who had turned in their weapons under a U.N.-sponsored
disarmament programme in 2003 and 2004.

You can't build a nation by supporting warlords, said Schnabel.

Carment calls recent U.S.-led efforts to target Afghanistan's opium
trade simplistic and predicted that violence in the region will
escalate and hurt local people. It will take a minimum of five to 10
years before there will be any signs of stability across Afghanistan,
he said.

Schnabel estimates that full democracy is at least 20 years in the future.

Meanwhile, the time frame for stability in Iraq is an open question.

What has happened in Iraq over the past three years violates many of
the recommendations in the book, which draw on experiences in the
post-conflict environments of Macedonia, Bosnia, Russia, Georgia,
Northern Ireland, El Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia, Chile, Haiti and
on the African continent.

Internal forces must be put under democratic control, restructured
and retrained to become an asset, not a liability, in the long-term
peace-building process, the authors state.

Security sector reform efforts are only successful when external
actors are able and willing to stay the course and support an
irrevocable process towards security consolidation and security sector
reform, and where national and local authorities are committed and
able to sustain such progress once external actors retreat.

We weren't trying to pick on the U.S. here, said Schnabel. But they
did overestimate the difficulty of the peace-building 

[osint] CIA Expands Use of Drones in Terror War

[David Bier]

Paradoxically, as a result of our success the target has become even
more decentralized, even more diffused and presents a more difficult
target — no question about that,
A U.N. report in the wake of the 2002 strike in Yemen called it an
alarming precedent [and] a clear case of extrajudicial killing in
violation of international laws and treaties.
The CIA's failed Jan. 13 attempt to assassinate Al Qaeda
second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri in Pakistan was the latest strike in
the targeted killing program, a highly classified initiative that
officials say has broadened as the network splintered and fled
Afghanistan.
I think [the] attack was a major screw-up, because so many kids died.
It raises questions about the entire process, said Guiora, who now a
professor at Case Western Law School and director of its Institute for
Global Security Law and Policy.


Those pesky international laws and those darn treaties that the U.S.
Constitution makes the supreme law of the land so that CICBush43 can
ignore them...just like Nixon.

David Bier


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-predator29jan29,0,5819230.story?coll=la-headlines-world
From the Los Angeles Times

THE NATION

CIA Expands Use of Drones in Terror War
'Targeted killing' with missile-firing Predators is a way to hit Al
Qaeda in remote areas, officials say. Host nations are not always
given notice.

By Josh Meyer
Times Staff Writer

January 29, 2006

WASHINGTON — Despite protests from other countries, the United States
is expanding a top-secret effort to kill suspected terrorists with
drone-fired missiles as it pursues an increasingly decentralized Al
Qaeda, U.S. officials say.

The CIA's failed Jan. 13 attempt to assassinate Al Qaeda
second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri in Pakistan was the latest strike in
the targeted killing program, a highly classified initiative that
officials say has broadened as the network splintered and fled
Afghanistan.

The strike against Zawahiri reportedly killed as many as 18 civilians,
many of them women and children, and triggered protests in Pakistan.
Similar U.S. attacks using unmanned Predator aircraft equipped with
Hellfire missiles have angered citizens and political leaders in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen.

Little is known about the targeted-killing program. The Bush
administration has refused to discuss how many strikes it has made,
how many people have died, or how it chooses targets. No U.S.
officials were willing to speak about it on the record because the
program is classified.

Several U.S. officials confirmed at least 19 occasions since Sept. 11
on which Predators successfully fired Hellfire missiles on terrorist
suspects overseas, including 10 in Iraq in one month last year. The
Predator strikes have killed at least four senior Al Qaeda leaders,
but also many civilians, and it is not known how many times they
missed their targets.

Critics of the program dispute its legality under U.S. and
international law, and say it is administered by the CIA with little
oversight. U.S. intelligence officials insist it is one of their most
tightly regulated, carefully vetted programs.

Lee Strickland, a former CIA counsel who retired in 2004 from the
agency's Senior Intelligence Service, confirmed that the Predator
program had grown to keep pace with the spread of Al Qaeda commanders.
The CIA believes they are branching out to gain recruits, financing
and influence.

Many groups of Islamic militants are believed to be operating in
lawless pockets of the Middle East, Asia and Africa where it is
perilous for U.S. troops to try to capture them, and difficult to
discern the leaders.

Paradoxically, as a result of our success the target has become even
more decentralized, even more diffused and presents a more difficult
target — no question about that, said Strickland, now director of the
Center for Information Policy at the University of Maryland.

It's clear that the U.S. is prepared to use and deploy these weapons
in a fairly wide theater, he said.

Current and former intelligence officials said they could not disclose
which countries could be subject to Predator strikes. But the presence
of Al Qaeda or its affiliates has been documented in dozens of
nations, including Somalia, Morocco and Indonesia.

High-ranking U.S. and allied counter-terrorism officials said the
program's expansion was not merely geographic. They said it had grown
from targeting a small number of senior Al Qaeda commanders after the
Sept. 11 attacks to a more loosely defined effort to kill possibly
scores of suspected terrorists, depending on where they were found and
what they were doing.

We have the plans in place to do them globally, said a former
counter-terrorism official who worked at the CIA and State Department,
which coordinates such efforts with other governments.

In most cases, we need the approval of the host country to do them.
However, there are a few countries where the president has decided
that we can whack someone without

[osint] Afghanistan battle leaves 25 dead

[David Bier]

Abdul Qoudoas, the district chief of Musa Qala, was killed by Taleban
fighters fleeing after a 12-hour battle in the neighbouring Sangeen
district.
Helmand's deputy governor told the BBC that at one point, he and 100
soldiers were surrounded by 200 Taleban.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4680260.stm

 Afghanistan battle leaves 25 dead

A district governor is among 25 people killed after a fierce battle
between Afghan troops and Taleban fighters in Afghanistan, officials say.

Abdul Qoudoas, the district chief of Musa Qala, was killed by Taleban
fighters fleeing after a 12-hour battle in the neighbouring Sangeen
district.

Helmand's deputy governor told the BBC that at one point, he and 100
soldiers were surrounded by 200 Taleban.

It is the most serious fighting between the two sides for two years.

Five police officers and some 20 Taleban fighters are said to have
been killed in the fighting in Helmand province.

Taleban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf denied reports of Taleban
deaths, saying only two fighters had been wounded.

Mirwais Afghan of the BBC Pashto service, who has been to the area,
says most of the villagers have fled.

The actual fighting is over in Sangeen but a search operation is
ongoing, Afghan interior ministry spokesman, Yousuf Stanizai, is
quoted as saying by AFP.

The area has been sealed off.

An estimated 600 Afghan government troops along with 200 policemen
have been rushed to the area, the deputy governor of Helmand province,
Haji Mullah Mir, told the BBC.

American soldiers are also present, he said.

Troops retreat

The deputy governor said he and the surrounded troops only managed to
break through the Taleban after 200 more soldiers arrived to help them.

He said the fighting started after a local police commander travelled
to Helmand's Sangeen district in pursuit of Taleban forces from the
provincial capital, Lashkar Gah.

Mr Mir and his detachment came to the police commander's aid, but
found themselves surrounded when the Taleban attacked from four
different points.

US military aircraft are also said to have dropped bombs on the area.

He said troops retreated because they said civilians could have been
killed if the fighting continued.

Earlier this month, an Afghan aid worker was killed in Helmand by
suspected Taleban members.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/4680260.stm

Published: 2006/02/04 11:42:57 GMT





--
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] Gun battle in Taliban stronghold

[David Bier]

The battle is the most serious fighting for two years and will raise
concerns over the situation in which British forces will find
themselves. Several thousand troops are to be deployed in the
poppy-growing province this year to expand Afghanistan's Nato-led
peacekeeping force.


Sounds like the Taliban, augmented by al-Qaeda small unit leaders, is
building up forces and establishing bases in the Helmand province and
surrounding areas in anticipation of the arrival of British troops.

David Bier

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1702514,00.html

 Gun battle in Taliban stronghold

Antony Barnett
Sunday February 5, 2006
The Observer

The volatile Afghan region where more than 3,000 British troops are
being deployed has erupted in violence, leading to the death of 25
people after a major battle between Taliban insurgents and US and
Afghan government forces, according to provincial sources yesterday.

Hundreds of villagers fled their homes on Friday after 200 Taliban
launched a series of attacks in the southern povince of Helmand. The
battle is the most serious fighting for two years and will raise
concerns over the situation in which British forces will find
themselves. Several thousand troops are to be deployed in the
poppy-growing province this year to expand Afghanistan's Nato-led
peacekeeping force.

US and Afghan troops had sealed off a village several miles from the
town of Josh Aali, where US aircraft dropped bombs on Friday.
Officials said the bombs hit Taliban positions, but several villagers
said there had been civilian casualties. According to local reports,
bullet casings littered the ground and bloodstains could be seen. The
deputy governor of Helmand, Mullah Mir, said an estimated 600
government troops along with 200 policemen had been rushed to the area.

Twenty Taliban were killed and 20 wounded, said Mir, while five
policemen were killed and 16 wounded. A Ministry of Defence spokesman
said: 'We have always said British troops are being sent to carry out
a different role to the US military. But they have the right equipment
to provide the necessary security.'



Full coverage
Special report: Afghanistan
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/afghanistan/0,,548335,00.html


Interactive guide
British troops in Afghanistan
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/flash/0,,1698844,00.html

News guide
Afghanistan: online media
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/worldnewsguide/asia/page/0,,622912,00.html


Links
Afghanistan Online
http://www.afghan-web.com/

US Library of Congress: Afghanistan resources
http://www.loc.gov/rr/international/amed/afghanistan/afghanistan.html

CIA factbook: Afghanistan
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html

Wikipedia: Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan





--
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] Good Hamas, Bad Hamas

[David Bier]

Their spokesmen issue reasonable-sounding statements like Mussa Abu
Marzuk, who Monday, Feb. 6, promised to honor previously signed
agreements, but then reversed himself with a qualifier - only if they
suit our interests.


Marzuk sounds just like CICBush43 signing legislation into law
requiring him to do (or not do as with torture) certain things, and
right afterward issuing a signing statement saying he would only
comply with the law he just signed if it was in his interest to do so.  

David Bier


http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1142

Good Hamas, Bad Hamas…

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

February 6, 2006, 7:49 PM (GMT+02:00)

Hamas leaders are laying down a smoke screen of contradictory
statements to lower resistance in the West and Israel to their
forthcoming formation of a new Palestinian government. Their spokesmen
issue reasonable-sounding statements like Mussa Abu Marzuk, who
Monday, Feb. 6, promised to honor previously signed agreements, but
then reversed himself with a qualifier - only if they suit our
interests.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is going along with this
tactic. While pretending to lay down conditions for Hamas to lead a
government, he is in fact giving way to Hamas demands. The concessions
he is in the process of making to the Islamic terrorists contradict
his pledges to US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, King Abdullah
of Jordan and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak last week to make Hamas
recognize Israel and disarm before entrusting the terrorist group with
government.

Palestinian and intelligence sources have revealed to DEBKAfile the
demands Abu Mazen faced when he met Hamas leaders Mahmoud a-Zahar and
Ismail Haniya in Gaza Saturday, Feb. 4.

They want the civil affairs portfolio held by Mohammad Dahlan because
it controls Palestinian exchanges with Israeli officials on a whole
gamut of issues from coordination on civic affairs to day-to-day
problems. They also want the interior ministry with the Palestinian
police and the preventive intelligence services.

A-Zahar said Hamas would merge the two ministries.

The handover of Dahlan's functions and management of Palestinian
relations with Israel would place Jerusalem in the position of
willy-nilly dealing with Hamas, laying out funds to meet Palestinian
needs and cutting out any other Palestinian contacts. Even Abu Mazen
would find himself upstaged.

The two amalgamated ministries would be the most powerful body in the
Palestinian Authority, which is why Hamas is willing to forego control
of all other Palestinian security and intelligence services and leave
them to Abu Mazen. Once all the Palestinian police stations and every
branch of Preventive Security are in Hamas hands, the Islamic group
will attain two objectives: direct control of the Palestinian and the
breakup of the power bases supporting the two Fatah strongmen, Dahlan
and Jibril Rajoub. The plan is to finish these two long-ruling
officials for good.

The new rulers will also have the tools for controlling West Bank
traffic arteries in the areas under Palestinian rule and the C zones
where Israel has the say on security. It will be in Hamas's power to
create daily friction with Israel military and police forces on the
spot and Israel inhabitants. All three will have no choice but to do
business with Hamas in order to make life bearable.

The Gaza-based Hamas leaders fly to Cairo to meet their Damascus-based
superiors to plot their next steps.





--
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

[osint] Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee

[David Bier]

Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism
and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether
it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a
political context, said Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm

Issue Date: February 6-12, 2006, Posted On: 2/6/2006

Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee

Presidential adviser Karl Rove carried his files and luggage after
arriving with President Bush in Dallas on Feb. 3. (L.M. Otero/AP)
 

The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican
member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary
Committee#65533;s investigation of the administration's unauthorized
wiretapping.

Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has
threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the
president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any
White House political or financial support of senators running for
re-election in November.

It's hardball all the way, a senior GOP congressional aide said.

The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage
that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday,
Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican
committee members could result in a determination that the president
violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a
determination could lead to impeachment proceedings.

Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every
Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in
Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove's message has been that a vote
against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections.

He's [Rove] lining them up one by one, another congressional source
said.

Mr. Rove is leading the White House campaign to help the GOP in
November#65533;s congressional elections. The sources said the White House
has offered to help loyalists with money and free publicity, such as
appearances and photo-ops with the president.

Those deemed disloyal to Mr. Rove would appear on his blacklist. The
sources said dozens of GOP members in the House and Senate are on that
list.

So far, only a handful of GOP senators have questioned Mr. Rove's tactics.

Some have raised doubts about Mr. Rove's strategy of painting the
Democrats, who have opposed unwarranted surveillance, as being
dismissive of the threat posed by al Qaeda terrorists.

Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism
and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether
it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a
political context, said Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican.





--
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] Your Taboo, Not Mine

[David Bier]

...the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were
designed to reveal Islamic intolerance--and they have now done so, in
abundance. The West's principles are clear enough. Tolerance? Yes.
Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech? Nonnegotiable.

Blasphemy, moreover, is common in the Muslim world, and sanctioned by
Arab governments. The Arab media run cartoons depicting Jews and the
symbols of the Jewish faith with imagery indistinguishable from that
used in the Third Reich. But I have yet to see Jews or Israelis
threaten the lives of Muslims because of it.



Although there are some cracks in the non-negotiability of freedom of
speech in the U.S. (as a dead soldier's mother and a Congressman's
wife found out at the State of the Union speech last week), nothing
here is remotely like the Muslim urge to kill or destroy anything they
deem offends Muhammad.  Definitely not a religion of peace, when its
founder advised Smite the infidel about the neck and his adherents,
however moderate they might claim to be in quiet moments, still take
that exhortation literally.  When upset there seems, for them, to be
no middle ground or tolerance built in to the Koran.  At least as it
is interpreted and taught by the vast majority of imams and ayatollahs
today.  Absent that middle ground for negotiation and tolerance, with
only cartoons despising God, Christ and Jews permitted in Muslim lands
without equal time for those critical of Muhammad, it appears we are
indeed headed for a collision of civilizations.

David Bier

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156609,00.html

Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006

Your Taboo, Not Mine

The furor over cartoons of Muhammad reveals the zealot's double standard

By ANDREW SULLIVAN

The iconic image of last week was in the Gaza Strip. It was of a
Palestinian gunman astride the local office of the European Union. All
the diplomatic staff had fled, tipped off ahead of time. The source of
the militant's ire? A series of satirical cartoons originally
published in Denmark. Yes, cartoons.

A Danish paper, a while back, had commissioned a set of cartoons
depicting the fear that many writers and artists in Europe feel when
dealing with the subject of Islam. To Western eyes, the cartoons were
not in any way remarkable. In fact, they were rather tame. One showed
Muhammad with his turban depicted as a bomb--not exactly a fresh image
to describe Islamic terrorism. Another used a simple graphic device:
it showed Muhammad surrounded by two women in full Muslim garb, their
eyes peering out from an oblong space in their black chadors. And on
Muhammad's face there was an oblong too, blacking out his eyes. The
point was that Islam has a blind spot when it comes to women's
freedom. Crude but powerful: exactly what a political cartoon is
supposed to be.

The result was an astonishing uproar in the Muslim world, one of those
revealing moments when the gulf between our world and theirs seems
unbridgeable. Boycotts of European goods are in force; demonstrators
in London held up signs proclaiming EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO MOCK ISLAM
and BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST; the editor of the French
newspaper France-Soir was fired for reprinting the drawings; Afghan
President Hamid Karzai condemned the publication; and protesters set
fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus. The Egyptian
ambassador to Denmark expressed disbelief that the government would
not prevent further reprinting. Freedom of the press, the Egyptian
explained, means the whole story will continue and that we are back
to square one again. The government of Denmark has to do something to
appease the Muslim world.

Excuse me? In fact, the opposite is the case. The Muslim world needs
to do something to appease the West. Since Ayatullah Khomeini declared
a death sentence against Salman Rushdie for how he depicted Muhammad
in his book The Satanic Verses, Islamic radicals have been essentially
threatening the free discussion of their religion and politics in the
West. Rushdie escaped with his life. But Pim Fortuyn, a Dutch
politician who stood up against Muslim immigrant hostility to equality
for women and gays, was murdered on the street. Theo van Gogh, a Dutch
filmmaker who offended strict Muslims, was killed thereafter. Several
other Dutch politicians who have dared to criticize the intolerance of
many Muslims live with police protection.

Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're
blasphemy--the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids
any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should
non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a
religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an
anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect
before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a
political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning
to deal with being offended.

Blasphemy, after all

[osint] Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy

[David Bier]

Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020, said Mona Sahlin,
minister of sustainable development. There shall always be better
alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating,
and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline.


Sadly, the US will probably be oil dependent until it runs out.  The
CICBush43 budget proposal in 2007 for alternative energy research
merely restores the cuts he made from Clinton funding levels which
were miniscule to start with.  It amounts to about one fifth the cost
of building ONE nuclear power plant whose fuel wastes will require
millions in yearly costs to store...for virtually forever.  Aside from
the new law that permits tax credits for installation of solar and
energy saving equipment by homeowners starting this year, CICBush43 is
not dedicated, on a realistic national level, to alternative energy.
He is most focused on industrialists who build nuclear power plants
and his oil patch buddies who will continue to earn gigantic profits
out of our pockets for many decades.

David Bier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.html

Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy

· 15-year limit set for switch to renewable energy
· Biofuels favoured over further nuclear power

John Vidal, environment editor
Wednesday February 8, 2006

Guardian

Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western
economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years -
without building a new generation of nuclear power stations.

The attempt by the country of 9 million people to become the world's
first practically oil-free economy is being planned by a committee of
industrialists, academics, farmers, car makers, civil servants and
others, who will report to parliament in several months.

The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace
all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys
economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises.

Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020, said Mona Sahlin,
minister of sustainable development. There shall always be better
alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating,
and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline.

According to the energy committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences, there is growing concern that global oil supplies are
peaking and will shortly dwindle, and that a global economic recession
could result from high oil prices.

Ms Sahlin has described oil dependency as one of the greatest problems
facing the world. A Sweden free of fossil fuels would give us
enormous advantages, not least by reducing the impact from
fluctuations in oil prices, she said. The price of oil has tripled
since 1996.

A government official said: We want to be both mentally and
technically prepared for a world without oil. The plan is a response
to global climate change, rising petroleum prices and warnings by some
experts that the world may soon be running out of oil.

Sweden, which was badly hit by the oil price rises in the 1970s, now
gets almost all its electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric power,
and relies on fossil fuels mainly for transport. Almost all its
heating has been converted in the past decade to schemes which
distribute steam or hot water generated by geothermal energy or waste
heat. A 1980 referendum decided that nuclear power should be phased
out, but this has still not been finalised.

The decision to abandon oil puts Sweden at the top of the world green
league table. Iceland hopes by 2050 to power all its cars and boats
with hydrogen made from electricity drawn from renewable resources,
and Brazil intends to power 80% of its transport fleet with ethanol
derived mainly from sugar cane within five years.

Last week George Bush surprised analysts by saying that the US was
addicted to oil and should greatly reduce imports from the Middle
East. The US now plans a large increase in nuclear power.

The British government, which is committed to generating 10% of its
electricity from renewable sources by 2012, last month launched an
energy review which has a specific remit to consider a large increase
in nuclear power. But a report by accountants Ernst  Young yesterday
said that the UK was falling behind in its attempt to meet its
renewables target.

The UK has Europe's best wind, wave and tidal resources yet it
continues to miss out on its economic potential, said Jonathan Johns,
head of renewable energy at Ernst  Young.

Energy ministry officials in Sweden said they expected the oil
committee to recommend further development of biofuels derived from
its massive forests, and by expanding other renewable energies such as
wind and wave power.

Sweden has a head start over most countries. In 2003, 26% of all the
energy consumed came from renewable sources - the EU average is 6%.
Only 32% of the energy came from oil - down from 77% in 1970.

The Swedish government is working with carmakers Saab

[osint] Unrest in Nigeria's Delta region could fuel rise in oil prices

[David Bier]

...a spokesman for Asari's militant faction, the Niger Delta People's
Volunteer Service, said more attacks were certain if the government
and oil companies didn't address people's concerns.
If the Nigerian government thinks this is all a joke, Onegiya
Erekosima said, I cannot predict what will happen tomorrow. 
If down the line there are a few more attacks, you can go from 10 to
20 percent off in a matter of days, said Sebastian Spio-Garbrah, a
West Africa analyst with the Eurasia Group. Thirty percent is not
entirely unlikely.
If that were to happen, it would send shock waves through a world oil
market that's already stretched by rapidly rising demand and fears
that Iran will cut oil exports because of global condemnation of its
nuclear program. Nigeria is the world's eighth-biggest oil exporter
and the fifth-biggest supplier to the United States.


Nigeria oil production drops could push oil to over $75 a barrel.
Nigeria, coupled with an inevitable conflict between the U.S. and
Iran, would translate here to oil over $100 a barrel...possibly even
up to $150 a barrel with gasoline climbing into the $4 a gallon range.
Yes sir, it is definitely going to be a difficult Global War on
Terror, or as the Pentagon now calls it: The Long War.  Had CICBush43
actually focused on winning the GWOT by completely pacifying
Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaeda as he was required, and limited
to doing, by the Congressional 9/11 resolution, the U.S. would have
had thousands of troops there on the Iranian border, free to heavily
pressure that Axis of Evil member into giving up its nuclear
program.  Instead, he invaded Iraq which was zero threat and did not
(according to the 9/11 Commission) support the al-Qaeda attack on the
U.S. Now, we have an entire field army bottled up in the Iraq quagmire
with Persian Gulf supply lines, and the troops themselves, vulnerable
to Iran blockade or even attack. And CICBush43 with little real
leverage or ability to pressure Iran, with its mostly underground
bunkered nuclear program, to do anything...except hate.
Better plan your driving for efficiency and get ready for lower home
thermostat settings here in Bushworld.
 
David Bier

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/world/13786888.htm

Posted on Fri, Feb. 03, 2006

Unrest in Nigeria's Delta region could fuel rise in oil prices

By Shashank Bengali
Knight Ridder Newspapers

PORT HARCOURT, Nigeria - The militia commander wanted to be very
clear: January's attacks on Western oil companies in Nigeria's
crude-rich Delta region - including one in which four Westerners were
held hostage for 19 days - were only the beginning.

Trust me, he said by phone from a hideout somewhere in the Delta's
maze of creeks, by the end of this month you will see serious action.

An idle threat? In the swampy Delta, home to some of the world's most
productive oil fields but also to millions of people living in extreme
poverty, no one is willing to say so.

Anger at the lack of access to oil wealth long has fueled militant
attacks in Nigeria's main oil-producing region, but January saw the
worst spate of violence in several years. Oil companies withdrew
hundreds of employees from the region during the well-orchestrated
campaign of robberies, pipeline explosions and kidnappings, which cut
Nigeria's daily production of 2.4 million barrels by 10 percent.

The primary target was the Anglo-Dutch giant Royal Dutch Shell, which
controls nearly half of Nigeria's output. Company officials said half
the reduced production had been restored.

But the militant group that claimed responsibility for January's
campaign is promising that February will be worse. In a phone
interview Friday, a man who identified himself as one of the
commanders of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta
repeated threats to throw off Nigeria's oil production by 30 percent
this month.

If that were to happen, it would send shock waves through a world oil
market that's already stretched by rapidly rising demand and fears
that Iran will cut oil exports because of global condemnation of its
nuclear program. Nigeria is the world's eighth-biggest oil exporter
and the fifth-biggest supplier to the United States.

The commander declined to be identified, citing security. But people
who are acquainted with the militants, who have sympathizers
throughout Port Harcourt, vouched for his position.

Analysts said it wouldn't take much to sink Nigeria's production well
below last month's 10 percent shortfall.

If down the line there are a few more attacks, you can go from 10 to
20 percent off in a matter of days, said Sebastian Spio-Garbrah, a
West Africa analyst with the Eurasia Group. Thirty percent is not
entirely unlikely.

The militants, said to number in the tens of thousands, have amassed
more automatic weaponry than government soldiers. They hide in the
labyrinthine creeks and backwaters of the Delta, where the Niger River
empties into the Gulf of Guinea and the Atlantic Ocean

[osint] Boehner Rents Apartment Owned by Lobbyist in D.C.

[David Bier]

John Milne does not lobby John Boehner on any issue and has not
lobbied him on any issue during the time period in which John has been
renting the property, he said.

Seymour added that he does not know if other members of Milne's
mCapitol Management firm have lobbied Boehner. We really have no idea
on this one, he said. We'd have to know who else works for those
firms, which we don't offhand. It's possible the answer is yes, but we
don't know.



An incredible response from a senior staffer for a Congressman who at
one point eight years ago, was reprimanded for handing out tobacco
lobbyist checks to other members on the House Floor.  A worthy
replacement for DeLay...at least as far as lobbying firms are
concerned.  Reform will be interesting; especially since Boehner has
already frowned on forbidding members to accept travel from lobbying
firms.  Business as usual in Bushworld...

David Bier

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701913_pf.html

Boehner Rents Apartment Owned by Lobbyist in D.C.

By Thomas B. Edsall and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; A03

Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who was elected House majority leader
last week, is renting his Capitol Hill apartment from a veteran
lobbyist whose clients have direct stakes in legislation Boehner has
co-written and that he has overseen as chairman of the Education and
the Workforce Committee.

The relationship between Boehner, John D. Milne and Milne's wife,
Debra R. Anderson, underscores how intertwined senior lawmakers have
become with the lobbyists paid to influence legislation. Boehner's
primary residence is in West Chester, Ohio, but for $1,600 a month, he
rents a two-bedroom basement apartment near the House office buildings
on Capitol Hill owned by Milne, Boehner spokesman Don Seymour said
yesterday. Boehner's monthly rent appears to be similar to other
rentals of two-bedroom English basement apartments close to the House
side of the Capitol in Southeast, based on a review of apartment listings.

Milne's clients -- including restaurant chains and health insurance
companies -- hired him to lobby on issues at the heart of Boehner's
work, including minimum-wage increases, small-business tax breaks and
tax-free savings accounts to help cover insurance costs, congressional
lobbying records show.

In the weeks preceding last week's GOP leadership elections, Boehner
acknowledged his close ties to the lobbying community, but he assured
Republican lawmakers that all of his relationships were ethical and he
campaigned on a platform of change and reform. Seymour reiterated that
message last night.

John Milne does not lobby John Boehner on any issue and has not
lobbied him on any issue during the time period in which John has been
renting the property, he said.

Seymour added that he does not know if other members of Milne's
mCapitol Management firm have lobbied Boehner. We really have no idea
on this one, he said. We'd have to know who else works for those
firms, which we don't offhand. It's possible the answer is yes, but we
don't know.

House members may not accept anything from lobbyists worth more than
$50. If Boehner is paying market-rate rent, it would appear he is not
violating that rule.

Boehner's work closely coincides with the interests of Milne. In 2002,
the House approved the Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act, a
tax measure originally drafted by Boehner, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.)
and Rep. Howard P. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) as the Back to Work Act.
The measure eventually was signed into law.

Lobbying disclosure forms indicate that one of Milne's clients, Fortis
Health Plans, hired him to lobby the Economic Security and Worker
Assistance Act.

Another client, the Buca di Beppo chain of Italian restaurants, hired
Milne to push the Small Business Tax Fairness Act, which would allow
restaurants to deduct the cost of investments at a faster pace. The
measure was introduced by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.) in 2003, with
Boehner as one of 15 co-sponsors. Many of its provisions have since
become law.

Fortis, now called Assurant Health, also asked Milne to push Health
Savings Accounts, the tax-free savings accounts established by
Congress to help with health care costs not covered by high-deductible
plans. Boehner is a proponent of such accounts, which President Bush
is targeting for a major expansion.

Buca di Beppo and another restaurant chain, Parasole Restaurant
Holdings Inc., also hired Milne to lobby on the minimum wage and tax
credits for tips, issues directly under the Education and the
Workforce Committee's purview.

The restaurant industry has long fought minimum-wage increases,
seeking instead to augment restaurant wages with tips that become more
valuable if they can avoid taxation. Despite numerous attempts by
Democrats and some pro-labor Republicans, the minimum wage has not
been raised since 1997, when it was lifted from $4.75 to $5.15. Since

[osint] Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry

[David Bier]

Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the
administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on
either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for
a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the
N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international
communications of people inside the United States believed to have
links with terrorists.
The congresswoman's discomfort with the operation appears to reflect
deepening fissures among Republicans over the program's legal basis
and political liabilities. Many Republicans have strongly backed
President Bush's power to use every tool at his disposal to fight
terrorism, but 4 of the 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary
Committee voiced concerns about the program at a hearing where
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Monday.


You can bet Wilson is real concerned about the political liability
factor as she is facing a dead heat at this point for re-election.
(http://www.madridforcongress.com/node/513) and is having to deal with
charges that she speaks out against pornography but accepted $47,000
in campaign contributions from firms that profit from it. 
(http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=34).  Oh
well, Republicans have a 16 seat margin in the House and Boehner is
reforming lobbying rules, so one less Republican incumbent won't
matter...or will it?  Anyway, it is likely Wilson to take a hard line
against NSA, regardless of Rove's threats to blacklist Republicans who
do that because she is probably already on it from opposing other
Bushworld proposals. It is Darwin's rules after all...and impeachment
actions do
start in the House.

David Bier

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nsa.html

February 8, 2006

Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — A House Republican whose subcommittee oversees
the National Security Agency broke ranks with the White House on
Tuesday and called for a full Congressional inquiry into the Bush
administration's domestic eavesdropping program.

The lawmaker, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico,
chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and
Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had serious
concerns about the surveillance program. By withholding information
about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration
has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why.

Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the
administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on
either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for
a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the
N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international
communications of people inside the United States believed to have
links with terrorists.

The congresswoman's discomfort with the operation appears to reflect
deepening fissures among Republicans over the program's legal basis
and political liabilities. Many Republicans have strongly backed
President Bush's power to use every tool at his disposal to fight
terrorism, but 4 of the 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary
Committee voiced concerns about the program at a hearing where
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Monday.

A growing number of Republicans have called in recent days for
Congress to consider amending federal wiretap law to address the
constitutional issues raised by the N.S.A. operation.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for one, said he considered
some of the administration's legal justifications for the program
dangerous in their implications, and he told Mr. Gonzales that he
wanted to work on new legislation that would help those tracking
terrorism know what they can and can't do.

But the administration has said repeatedly since the program was
disclosed in December that it considers further legislation
unnecessary, believing that the president already has the legal
authority to authorize the operation.

Vice President Dick Cheney reasserted that position Tuesday in an
interview on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.

Members of Congress have the right and the responsibility to suggest
whatever they want to suggest about changing wiretap law, Mr. Cheney
said. But we have all the legal authority we need already, he said,
and a public debate over changes in the law could alert Al Qaeda to
tactics used by American intelligence officials.

It's important for us, if we're going to proceed legislatively, to
keep in mind there's a price to be paid for that, and it might well in
fact do irreparable damage to our capacity to collect information,
Mr. Cheney said.

The administration, backed by Republican leaders in both houses, has
also resisted calls for inquiries by either Congress or an independent
investigator.

As for the politics, some Republicans say

[osint] Gonzales on warrantless wiretaps: we wanted something even worse

[David Bier]

...Senator Lindsey Graham, who yesterday called the justification
very dangerous in terms of its application for the future, and When
I voted for it [the joint resolution], I never envisioned that I was
giving to this president or any other president the ability to go
around FISA carte blanche
And, if Bush is so eager to attack judges who legislate from the
bench, can't the Senate go after him for judging from the Oval Office?


Definitely, opposition to the NSA spying is not confined to those
pesky liberals.

David Bier

http://www.stephensonstrategies.com/2006/02/07.html#a709


Gonzales on warrantless wiretaps: we wanted something even worse
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020600195.html?sub=AR)

We should accept the Bush Administration's warrant-less wiretaping
program -- because what they really wanted to do was even worse.

That seems to have been the logic (?) behind Atty. General Gonzales'
testimony yesterday (remember, folks, this guy's still on the short
list if there's another vacancy on the Supreme Court. Take your
vitamins, Justice Stevens!) before the Judiciary Committee. Here's the
guy's justification, as reported by the WaPo:

Gonzales also suggested in testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee that the administration had considered a broader effort that
would include purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail but abandoned
the idea in part due to fears of the negative public reaction.

'Think about the reaction, the public reaction that has arisen in some
quarters about this program,' Gonzales told Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.).
'If the president had authorized domestic surveillance as well, even
though we're talking about al Qaeda-to-al Qaeda, I think the reaction
would have been twice as great. And so there was a judgment made that
this was the appropriate line to draw in ensuring the security of our
country and the protection of the privacy interests of Americans.'

So bad PR was the deterrent? How about, Mr. Attorney General (who
swore to uphold it) the Constitution as a reason why either scheme was
flat out wrong?

As a public service to those public officials who seem to have never
studied it, we reprint here the Fourth Amendment (and handy hyperlinks
to the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution
(http://www.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=132const=11_amd_04)
discussion thereof, which some Executive Branch employees might want
to explore at length):

 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 
 papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized. 


Is that wording ambiguous? Doesn't seem so to me. And, if Bush is so
eager to attack judges who legislate from the bench, can't the
Senate go after him for judging from the Oval Office?

Back to the substance.

Gonzales refused to answer dozens of questions about the program or --
get this -- whether President Bush has authorized other types of
warrantless searches or surveillance in the United States. When will
the other shoe drop about any other un-authorized programs -- and
what's in that shoe? (http://www.cia.gov/spy_fi/item15.html)

Gonzales again fell back on the Administration's 42-page justification
for the program, and cited Joint Resolution 23 
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html)
as the justification. I went back and re-read the Resolution,
especially the key phrase, ... the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attacks. I can't for the life of me see how, by any means,
this program constitutes necessary and appropriate force, especially
if Bush gets to act as judge and jury without judicial or
Congressional review.

Here's the deal, folks. As heinous, IMHO, this program is in its own
right as a violation of the 4th Amendment, history will judge that if
it goes unchecked, the far bigger problem is the precedent it creates
for future presidents of any party or ideology to ignore
Constitutional limits on their authority and the balance of powers.
That's why it's also opposed by conservatives such as Bob Barr, 
(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/16/sitroom.03.html)
David Keene of the American Conservative Union, 
(http://www.conservative.org/) and Senator Lindsey Graham, who
yesterday called the justification very dangerous in terms of its
application for the future, and When I voted for it [the joint
resolution], I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or
any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche (and
don't forget, as Keene points out, the war on terrorism

[osint] Fatah gunmen abducted the Egyptian naval attachéto put Hamas leaders on the spot

[David Bier]

The day after the Hamas election victory last month, 50 Egyptian
military instructors departed the Gaza Strip as a safety precaution
and because they judged hopeless any chance of training or setting up
any Palestinian unit that they could control.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1868

Fatah gunmen abducted the Egyptian naval attaché to put Hamas leaders
on the spot and derail their Cairo talks for a new government

February 9, 2006, 1:47 PM (GMT+02:00)

The kidnapped envoy, Husam al-Musali, is liaison officer between the
Egyptian Embassy and armed Palestinian groups.

In Cairo, Egyptian intelligence minister Omar Suleiman is conducting
intensive negotiations with Hamas leader on an acceptable format for
the next Palestinian government. He will no doubt demand Hamas show
its authority by obtaining the captured Egyptian officer's release.
This Hamas is in no position to do.

The Hebrew daily Ma'ariv reported Thursday, Feb. 9, that Cairo had
withdrawn the large Egyptian military mission stationed in the Gaza
Strip since late last year. This is partly confirmed. The day after
the Hamas election victory last month, 50 Egyptian military
instructors departed the Gaza Strip as a safety precaution and because
they judged hopeless any chance of training or setting up any
Palestinian unit that they could control. Left in place were only
three Egyptian generals and security guards to protect them and the
Egyptian Embassy staff.






--
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] Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen suddenly throws open Jericho lock-up

[David Bier]

Abu Mazen thus renews Yasser Arafat's revolving-door policy for
terrorists...

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1869

Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen suddenly throws open Jericho
lock-up and frees 56 convicted terrorists

February 9, 2006, 3:11 PM (GMT+02:00)

Among the men freed without prior notice are 26 Islamic Jihad members
from northern and central Samaria, who plotted and masterminded
suicide bombings in Hadera, Netanya, and Kfar Saba in 2005.

Also released were 13 members of the PA General Intelligence Service,
loyal to Col. Tewfik Tirawri, and 17 members of the PA Military Police
– all of whom participated in terrorist attacks.

Abu Mazen thus renews Yasser Arafat's revolving-door policy for
terrorists, while Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign
Minister Tzipi Livni call Hamas a terrorist organization and speak
about the need to call Hamas a terrorist organization and fight terrorism.






--
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] Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information

[David Bier]

...Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified
information, including details of the NIE, to defend the
administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.
A defendant can make a claim that he is just a victim of Washington
politics or doing the bidding for someone else, said Richman, the
former prosecutor, But there may be limits to a jury's sympathy when
that defendant himself was so high-ranking. Given Libby's position in
the White House, the jury is less likely to view him as a sacrificial
lamb than as a sacrificial ram.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm#

Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information

By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.

Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter)
Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been authorized
by Cheney and other White House superiors in the summer of 2003 to
disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush
administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go
to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and
to court records.


According to sources with firsthand knowledge, Cheney authorized
Libby to release additional classified information, including details
of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence
in making the case for war.




Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized
to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National
Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to
develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in
federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand
knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a
broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President
Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier
encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with
journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the
war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional
classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the
administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.

Previous coverage of the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas
(http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/waas.htm)

Libby testified to the grand jury that he had been authorized to share
parts of the NIE with journalists in the summer of 2003 as part of an
effort to rebut charges then being made by former U.S. Ambassador
Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration had misrepresented
intelligence information to make a public case for war.

Wilson had been sent on a CIA-sponsored mission to investigate
allegations that the African nation of Niger had sold uranium to Iraq
to develop a nuclear weapon. Despite the fact that Wilson reported
back that the information was most likely baseless, it was still used
in the President's 2003 State of the Union speech to make the case for
war.

But besides sharing details of the NIE with reporters during the
effort to rebut Wilson, Libby is also accused of telling journalists
that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had worked for the CIA. Libby and
other Bush administration officials believed that if Plame played a
role in the selection of her husband for the Niger mission, that fact
might discredit him.

A federal grand jury indicted Libby on October 28, 2005, on five
counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of
justice, alleging that he concealed his role in leaking information
about Plame to the media. He resigned his positions as chief of staff
and national security adviser to Cheney the same day. Libby has never
claimed that Cheney encouraged him to disclose information about Plame
to the media.

In a January 23 letter, related to discovery issues for Libby's
upcoming trial, Fitzgerald wrote to Libby's attorneys: Mr. Libby
testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in
which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate
(NIE) … in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and
July 2003.… We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby
testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE
to the press by his superiors.

Although it is not known if Cheney had told the special prosecutor
that he had authorized Libby to leak classified information to
reporters, Dan Richman, a professor of law at Fordham University and a
former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, said,
One certainly would not expect Libby, as part of his defense, to
claim some sort of clear authorization from Cheney where none existed,
because that would clearly risk the government's calling 

[osint] IRAQ: Suspected bird flu case appears in south

[David Bier]

The boy developed symptoms on 1 February and died four days later
after being hospitalised for severe pneumonia.
Our team has already reached Kurdistan [in northern Iraq] to help
with prevention programmes and evaluate the situation in the area,
said Maria Cheng, a spokeswoman for the WHO in Geneva. This new case
in the south of Iraq is going to be analysed in UK laboratories.


The Bird Flu is spreading in the hard to quarantine Iraq war zone just
brimming with insurgents, terrorists, smugglers and displaced persons.
 It keeps getting closer to U.S. and British troops in Iraq.
Hopefully, the strain will not mutate into a human-to-human version
any time soon as it would be all to easy to reach America and Western
Europe via returning military personnel.  Then we will all be fighting
a war.

David Bier

http://web.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleNr=9258LangNr=12LNNr=28RNNr=70

8 Feb 2006
IRAQ: Suspected bird flu case appears in south
 
BAGHDAD, 8 February (IRIN) - Laboratory tests are to be carried out on
blood samples from a 13-year-old boy from the southern city of
Ammarah, who died from bird flu-like symptoms on 5 February.

Our team has already reached Kurdistan [in northern Iraq] to help
with prevention programmes and evaluate the situation in the area,
said Maria Cheng, a spokeswoman for the WHO in Geneva. This new case
in the south of Iraq is going to be analysed in UK laboratories.

Ammarah is some 360 km southeast of the capital, Baghdad,

The boy developed symptoms on 1 February and died four days later
after being hospitalised for severe pneumonia.

Although no poultry deaths had been reported in the area, pet birds
kept by the family reportedly died when the symptoms first emerged,
the WHO reported.

After unofficial laboratory tests, we confirmed the case and
requested urgent help from the Ministry of Health and the WHO, said
Dr Ali Abdullah of Ammarah's main hospital.

In northern Iraq, a 15-year-old girl died of bird flu on 17 January in
the town of Raniya, along with two other suspected cases of the H5N1
virus, including the girl's uncle, according to a statement from the WHO.

Samples from the girl's uncle are currently being tested at WHO
facilities in the UK, although the specimens already tested positive
for H5N1 infection in a local laboratory.

The WHO has confirmed that seven patients are now being treated for
similar symptoms in hospitals in Sulaimaniyah, in northern Iraq. Most
of the patients reported a history of direct contact with poultry, the
health organisation stated.

Local medical workers say that many more cases are suspected in the north.

Dr Ahmed Talbiti, an infections specialist in Sulaimaniyah, said there
had been concern about a total of 26 suspected cases in the north, but
that 15 had already been confirmed as negative. The rest, he added,
are currently being tested in local laboratories.

Prevention procedures, meanwhile, have been ongoing. About one million
birds and chickens have been culled so far, according to local
officials, which have led to requests by local farmers for compensation.

We're taking all the required procedures to protect ourselves, using
masks, gloves and special clothes when culling birds, said Avan Awaz,
a senior official in northern Iraq's prevention programme.

Additional supplies were sent by the US government to aid prevention
programmes and are expected to reach the north by the end of the week,
Awaz added.

A team from the WHO is also analysing samples to investigate the
possibility of a virus mutation, which could lead to human-to-human
transmission of the disease.

Direct contact with infected poultry, or objects contaminated by their
faeces, is presently considered the primary route of human infection,
according to the WHO. To date, most human cases have occurred in rural
areas where many households keep poultry.






--
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

[osint] Mehlis Report on the Hariri assassination II

[David Bier]

In late October 2005, the commission was approached by another new
witness, who has submitted a comprehensive and coherent statement
regarding plans to assassinate Mr. Hariri. The witness has been
assessed to be credible and the  information he has submitted to be
reliable. The information is detailed and has undergone cross-checking
measures, which, so far, have confirmed the information in the
statement. -- The statement from the witness strengthens the evidence
confirmed to date against the Lebanese officers in custody, as well as
high-ranked Syrian officers.

http://www.mideastweb.org/mehlis_report2.htm

Mehlis Report on the Hariri assassination II:

REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION
ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1595 (2005) -
December 10, 2005

Introduction

On February 14, 2005, former Lebanese Premiere Rafiq Hariri was
assassinated in a huge bomb explosion in Beirut. Suspicion fell on the
Syrians, who had occupied Lebanon for 30 years, and who were refusing
to leave despite UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which called for
Syrian withdrawal.  Hariri was a very wealthy man who had used his
wealth to rebuild Lebanon after the Lebanese civil war. Initially he
cooperated with the Syrian occupiers, but he had become an opponent of
continued Syrian occupation.  A Mr Abu Adass from an unknown group
called al nasra wal-jihad fee bilad Al-Sham  took credit for the
assassination, but nobody had ever heard of this group and the man's
story was not believable. It appeared to be part of a plot to turn
suspicion away from Syria.

Anti-Zionists blamed Israel. However, it seemed that the explosion,
which took place in downtown Beirut in the midst of a well-protected
motorcade, could not have been done without the collusion of Lebanese
and Syrian authorities. It would be difficult to acquire and conceal
large quantities of explosives under the watchful eyes of Syrian
intelligence. Following extensive demonstrations in Lebanon, the
Syrian government agreed to end the occupation of Lebanon. However, it
was apparent that number of Syrian intelligence personnel remained in
Lebanon. A number of prominent Lebanese personalities whose opinions
and positions were inconvenient for the Syrian government were killed
in various explosions. A large number of armed Palestinians belonging
to groups sympathetic to Syria infiltrated the Lebanese refugee camps,
causing alarm in the Lebanese government and in the Palestinian
National Authority. Lebanese army tanks surrounded the camps. 

The UN was called upon to investigate and began doing so a relatively
long time after the fact, establishing UNIIIC - The UN Independent
Investigative Commission. As expected, much of the evidence was
obscured or removed from the seen. Nonetheless, the preliminary report 
(http://www.mideastweb.org/mehlis_report.htm) of investigator Detlev
Mehlis was able to reach some tentative conclusions regarding Syrian
involvement in the assassination.  Mehlis asked for an extension,
until December. He has now recommended an additional extension and
resigned his commission. Meanwhile, the Syrians have reportedly burned
every document associated with the assassination of Hariri. They also
staged a televised recantation of testimony by one of the witnesses, a
Mr Husam Taher Husam. The UNIIIC report states that apparently Mr.
Hussam's relatives were arrested and threatened in order to produce
the recantation.  As the report was being released, a prominent
Lebanese newspaper editor, Gebran Tueni, whose opposition to Syria was
outspoken, was murdered in other assassination.

The current report reinforces the evidence of the first report, but
asks for more time to complete the investigation. The report found
that a high Syrian official had ensured that pro-Syrian forces in
Lebanon had a plentiful supply of weapons to begin violence as a
distraction from any outcry caused by the murder of Hariri. Two vital
witnesses connected with the disappearance of Mr Addas have also
disappeared into Syria apparently, and the Syrians refuse to produce
them, according to the report. Syria has also failed to produce vital
documents requested by the commission.

Key points of the report:

-- UNIIC has been approached by a number of witnesses with potentially
critical information about the assassination ... Given that their
information is still in the process of being evaluated and the need to
protect their identities to ensure  their safety, this report does not
detail the information they have provided.

-- In late October 2005, the commission was approached by another new
witness, who has submitted a comprehensive and coherent statement
regarding plans to assassinate Mr. Hariri. The witness has been
assessed to be credible and the  information he has submitted to be
reliable. The information is detailed and has undergone cross-checking
measures, which, so far, have confirmed the information in the
statement. -- The statement 

[osint] Cheney Spearheaded Effort to Discredit Wilson

[David Bier]

I don't know Joe Wilson, Cheney said, in response to Russert, who
quoted Wilson as saying there was no truth to the Niger uranium
claims. I've never met Joe Wilson. And Joe Wilson - I don't who sent
Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came
back ... I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I
have no idea who hired him.


Given the facts that have come out, much to Cheney's chagrin, that
statement is just simply incredible.

David Bier

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020906J.shtml

Cheney Spearheaded Effort to Discredit Wilson
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Thursday 09 February 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Deputy National Security
Adviser Stephen Hadley led a campaign beginning in March 2003 to
discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for publicly criticizing the
Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, according to current and
former administration officials.

The officials work or had worked in the State Department, the CIA
and the National Security Council in a senior capacity and had direct
knowledge of the Vice President's campaign to discredit Wilson.

In interviews over the course of two days this week, these
officials were urged to speak on the record for this story. But they
resisted, saying they had already testified before a grand jury
investigating the leak of Wilson's wife, covert CIA operative Valerie
Plame Wilson, and added that speaking out against the administration
and specifically Vice President Cheney would cause them to lose their
jobs and subject their families to vitriolic attacks by the White House.

The officials said they decided to speak out now because they have
become disillusioned with the Bush administration's policies regarding
Iraq and the flawed intelligence that led to the war.

They said their roles, along with several others at the CIA and
State Department, included digging up or inventing embarrassing
information on the former Ambassador that could be used against him,
preparing memos and classified material on Wilson for Cheney and the
National Security Council, and attending meetings in Cheney's office
to discuss with Cheney, Hadley, and others the efforts that would be
taken to discredit Wilson.

A former CIA official who has worked in the counter-proliferation
division, and is familiar with the undercover work Wilson's wife did
for the agency, said Cheney and Hadley visited CIA headquarters a day
or two after Joseph Wilson was interviewed on CNN.

These were the first public comments Wilson had made about Iraq.
He said the administration was more interested in redrawing the map of
the Middle East to pursue its own foreign policy objectives than in
dealing with the so-called terrorist threat.

The underlying objective, as I see it, the more I look at this,
is less and less disarmament, and it really has little to do with
terrorism, because everybody knows that a war to invade and conquer
and occupy Iraq is going to spawn a new generation of terrorists,
Wilson said in a March 2, 2003, interview with CNN.

So you look at what's underpinning this, and you go back and you
take a look at who's been influencing the process. And it's been those
who really believe that our objective must be far grander, and that is
to redraw the political map of the Middle East, Wilson added.

This was the first time that Wilson had spoken out publicly
against the administration's policies. It was two and a half weeks
before the start of the Iraq war.

But it wasn't Wilson who Cheney was so upset about when he visited
the CIA in March 2003.

During the same CNN segment in which Wilson was interviewed,
former United Nations weapons inspector David Albright made similar
comments about the rationale for the Iraq war and added that he
believed UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to search the
country for weapons of mass destruction.

The National Security Council and CIA officials said Cheney had
visited CIA headquarters and asked several CIA officials to dig up
dirt on Albright, and to put together a dossier that would discredit
his work that could be distributed to the media.

Vice President Cheney was more concerned with Mr. Albright, the
CIA official said. The international community had been saying that
inspectors should have more time, that the US should not set a
deadline. The Vice President felt Mr. Albright's remarks would fuel
the debate.

The officials said a binder was sent to the Vice President's
office that contained material that could be used by the White House
to discredit Albright if he continued to comment on the
administration's war plans. However, it's unclear whether Cheney or
other White House officials used the information against Albright.

A week later, Wilson was interviewed on CNN again. This was the
first time Wilson ridiculed the Bush administration's intelligence
that claimed Iraq tried to purchase

[osint] DeLay Rejoins House Appropriations Committee

[David Bier]

Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out
money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA,
Mr. DeLay was also given a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the
Justice Department, which is investigating an influence-peddling
scandal involving the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his
dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over
NASA, a top priority for Mr. DeLay because the Johnson Space Center in
Houston is in his district.


My how dedicated the Republican leadership is to lobbying reform and
ethics in government.  A more cynical set of appointments would be
hard to uncover, short of finding out a bank robber was put on a
banking regulatory commission.  They are doing everything possible to
ensure DeLay gets reelected; conviction or no conviction in his Texas
trial.

David Bier

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/politics/09delay.html?_r=2oref=sloginpagewanted=print

February 9, 2006

DeLay Rejoins House Appropriations Committee

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 (AP) — Representative Tom DeLay, forced to step
down as the No. 2 Republican in the House after being indicted in
Texas on campaign fund-raising charges, was rewarded by party leaders
Wednesday with a seat on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. DeLay, who was a member of the powerful committee until becoming
majority leader in 2003, was able to rejoin the panel because of a
vacancy created after the resignation of Representative Randy
Cunningham, Republican of California. Mr. Cunningham pleaded guilty in
November to charges relating to accepting $2.4 million in bribes for
government business and other favors.

Mr. DeLay was also given a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the
Justice Department, which is investigating an influence-peddling
scandal involving the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his
dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over
NASA, a top priority for Mr. DeLay because the Johnson Space Center in
Houston is in his district.

Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out
money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA, said Bill
Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
referring to the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
who resigned after the flawed federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Burton added, Republicans in Congress just can't seem to resist
standing by their man.

Republican leaders named Representative Howard P. McKeon of California
as chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee. The majority
leader, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, vacated that post after
winning a campaign to succeed Mr. DeLay.

Mr. McKeon is a seven-term conservative who has a generally good
relationship with educators. He wrote a 2001 law to remove
disincentives for workers who would have lost part of their Social
Security benefits when switching jobs to become public school teachers.





--
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] Bush Offers Details of 2002 Plot in Defense of Terror Strategy

[David Bier]

Their plot was derailed in early 2002, when a Southeast Asian nation
arrested a key Al Qaeda operative, he said. Subsequent debriefings
and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target and
how Al Qaeda hoped to execute it.


Please note that the NSA domestic spying and the CIA had nothing to do
with detecting the plot.  Had a foreign nation's intelligence service
not detected it, an airplane might have indeed crashed into an LA
skyscraper.  Especially since the AF general that was in charge of
NORAD on 9/11 was still there and presumably no more skilled at
directing the intercept of hijacked aircraft in early 2002 than in
September, 2001.  Although CICBush43 later deemed him fully qualified
to be promoted up one star and put in command of NORTHCOM which is
responsible for Homeland Security.  Another day in Bushland.

David Bier

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/politics/09cnd-bush.html

February 9, 2006
Bush Offers Details of 2002 Plot in Defense of Terror Strategy
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — President Bush defended his anti-terrorist
policies anew today, asserting that the United States and its allies
had foiled a terrorist plot meant to bring down a Los Angeles building
that is the tallest in the United States west of the Mississippi River.

Mr. Bush said that just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks,
terrorists planned to hijack another airplane by using shoe bombs to
breach the cockpit door. Their target, had the hijacking been carried
out, would have been the U.S. Bank Tower, the president said.
(Government counterterrorism officials have acknowledged before that
the tower would be a particularly inviting target.)

Osama bin Laden himself was involved in the plot, which was to be
carried out by Southeast Asian men on the assumption that they would
not arouse as much suspicion as Middle Easterners, Mr. Bush told the
National Guard Association here. Their plot was derailed in early
2002, when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key Al Qaeda
operative, he said. Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence
operations made clear the intended target and how Al Qaeda hoped to
execute it.

This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the
ringleaders and other known operatives who had been recruited for this
plot, Mr. Bush said.

The U.S. Bank Tower, formerly named the Library Tower after the nearby
Los Angeles Central Library, is 1,018 feet tall and topped by a glass
crown that is illuminated at night. The building, completed in 1989,
was destroyed by alien invaders in the 1996 movie Independence Day.

The independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks said
in its 2004 report that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of the
9/11 assaults on New York City and Washington, had originally
envisioned an even broader assault on America, with as many as 10
hijacked aircraft flying into buildings on both coasts.

And last October, government counterterrorism officials provided
further details, saying that Mr. Mohammed and a terrorist ally, Riduan
Isamuddin (better known as Hambali), had planned a new spate of
attacks after Sept. 11 and that Los Angeles was in their sights.

Counterterrorism officials said months ago that the Los Angeles
skyscraper (Mr. Bush mistakenly called it the Liberty Tower) would
be a logical target for a West Coast attack, although Mr. Bush had not
spoken in detail before about the officials' suspicions. Given the
building's iconic status, it is easy to see why America-haters would
rejoice at seeing it fall — as some rejoiced when the Twin Towers in
New York collapsed.

The president's national security adviser, Frances Townsend, told
reporters later today that the West Coast plot was originally to have
been part of the Sept. 11 attacks, but that Al Qaeda could not train
enough agents by that deadline. She said investigators did not known
what flight or kind of plane the plotters were zeroing in on — or even
if their planning had reached that stage.

Ms. Townsend, who spoke to reporters on a conference call, declined to
say whether the secret surveillance of electronic communications
between people in the United States and terror suspects abroad had
played a role in finding the terror cell involved. We use all
available sources and methods in the intelligence community, but we
have to protect them, and so I'm not going to talk about what we did
or did not use in this particular case, she said.

The president did not use the National Guard speech to defend the
surveillance program undertaken by the National Security Agency since
he took office. But he did defend his general anti-terrorist policies
in several ways.

He said, for example, that his aggressive strategy of bringing the
war to the terrorists had not cost the United States international
support but, rather, had enhanced America's standing. A shining
example is Pakistan, he said.

A little over four years ago, Pakistan was only one of three
countries in the world

[osint] Italy may put CIA agents on trial in absentia

[David Bier]

If no helpful action has been taken by early March -- as appears
increasingly likely -- then prosecutors will close their
investigation, the well-placed source said.
The next step will be to go to trial, he said.
The European Parliament and the Council of Europe are watching the
Italian case carefully as they move ahead with their own
investigations into suspected U.S. anti-terrorism operations,
including running secret prisons in eastern Europe.


The risk the CIA operatives face is that, if convicted in absentia,
they would still be convicted criminals and thus fugitives from
justice subject to arrest and extradition if they travel to any
nation, probably including Canada and certainly Mexico, other than the
U.S.  Their days of traveling anywhere, or even taking a cruise, would
definitely be over as they could never be certain that cruise or
vacation they just won is not a honey trap set by the Italian
courts.  Even their status here might change, depending on who gets
elected or appointed to what. And, depending on what the other
european authorities do, the operatives might have lots of company in
that limbo.

David Bier

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNewsstoryID=2006-02-09T134356Z_01_L09730143_RTRUKOC_0_US-ITALY-CIA-KIDNAP.xmlarchived=False

Italy may put CIA agents on trial in absentia
Thu Feb 9, 2006 8:43 AM ET

By Phil Stewart

MILAN (Reuters) - Milan prosecutors expect to launch procedures within
a month that could put 22 CIA agents accused of kidnapping a Muslim
cleric in Milan on trial in absentia, a senior judicial source said.

The source, who asked not to be named, said prosecutors were growing
tired of perceived foot-dragging by Washington and Rome over requests
that would advance their investigation -- one of several European
probes into suspected U.S. covert operations.

The United States has still not responded to a request in January by
Italy for judicial assistance in the case, which could potentially
allow Italian prosecutors to travel there to question suspects and
gather evidence.

Neither has Italy's government responded to a request in November from
prosecutors to seek the extradition of the agents from the United States.

If no helpful action has been taken by early March -- as appears
increasingly likely -- then prosecutors will close their
investigation, the well-placed source said.

The next step will be to go to trial, he said.

The European Parliament and the Council of Europe are watching the
Italian case carefully as they move ahead with their own
investigations into suspected U.S. anti-terrorism operations,
including running secret prisons in eastern Europe.

German and Swiss prosecutors are also looking into other accusations
of U.S. covert transport of detainees, a process known as rendition.

An Italian trial of the 22 agents could potentially open a wealth of
evidence in the case to the public, showing how terrorism suspect
Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr was grabbed off a Milan street in 2003 in
broad daylight.

Prosecutors will count on the de facto testimony of Nasr himself, who
briefly recounted the ordeal in conversations picked up in an Italian
phone-tap. He has said he was flown to Egypt and tortured during
interrogation.

Italian investigators have accused Nasr of ties to al Qaeda and a
Milan judge has issued a warrant for his arrest. He has been held by
Egyptian authorities, his lawyer has said.

Even if the 22 CIA agents are tried, investigations into the
kidnapping will continue. More CIA accomplices in the kidnapping will
be identified, the source said, thanks to evidence they left behind.

At the heart of the prosecutors' case are cell phone records.
Following the web of conversations, the investigators were able to
identify a network they say planned the kidnapping.

Not all of the telephones used have yet been identified to specific
people, so the investigations continue, he said.

All of the 22 CIA agents are likely to have left Europe since Italy
issued arrest warrants against them last year which are valid across
the entire 25-nation European Union.





--
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

[osint] Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data

[David Bier]

Mueller and Justice officials went to Lamberth, who agreed that day
to expedited procedures to issue FISA warrants for eavesdropping, a
government official said.
The requirement for detailed paperwork was greatly eased, allowing the
NSA to begin eavesdropping the next day on anyone suspected of a link
to al Qaeda, every person who had ever been a member or supporter of
militant Islamic groups, and everyone ever linked to a terrorist watch
list in the United States or abroad, the official said.


Wow!  That is a huge list they started with and includes lots of
American people on the lists in error, including news reporters,
Senators, government officials and just plain Americans.  And that is
only the starting list that the FISA court set up expedited procedures
for.  We can only wonder how big the later NSA domestic spying list
has grown. Although the FBI grousing about thousands of dead end leads
they had to chase down every month, certainly gives us a clue it is
pretty gigantic and probably, because of the data mining of primary,
secondary and tertiary people on the list, well beyond the scope of
the basic wiretapping authorized under the FISA statute.  No wonder
CICBush43 went around the FISA judges...and Congress...and us. 
Congressman Wilson has demanded an NSA inquiry, but doubtful she will
get one going before she gets dumped out of her subcommittee (oversees
NSA) chairmanship by the Republican leadership.  Meanwhile, defense
attorneys for terror suspects are filing lawsuits and motions like
crazy to overturn verdicts and throw out evidence that might be
tainted by illegal wiretaps.

David Bier

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html

Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data
Program May Have Led Improperly to Warrants

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 9, 2006; A01

Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned
the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information
overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been
improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to
two sources with knowledge of those events.

The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
-- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious
doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and
e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no
information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their
court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by
administration officials it would never happen.

The two heads of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court were the
only judges in the country briefed by the administration on Bush's
program. The president's secret order, issued sometime after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks, allows the National Security Agency to monitor
telephone calls and e-mails between people in the United States and
contacts overseas.

James A. Baker, the counsel for intelligence policy in the Justice
Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, discovered in
2004 that the government's failure to share information about its
spying program had rendered useless a federal screening system that
the judges had insisted upon to shield the court from tainted
information. He alerted Kollar-Kotelly, who complained to Justice,
prompting a temporary suspension of the NSA spying program, the
sources said.

Yet another problem in a 2005 warrant application prompted
Kollar-Kotelly to issue a stern order to government lawyers to create
a better firewall or face more difficulty obtaining warrants.

The two judges' discomfort with the NSA spying program was previously
known. But this new account reveals the depth of their doubts about
its legality and their behind-the-scenes efforts to protect the court
from what they considered potentially tainted evidence. The new
accounts also show the degree to which Baker, a top intelligence
expert at Justice, shared their reservations and aided the judges.

Both judges expressed concern to senior officials that the president's
program, if ever made public and challenged in court, ran a
significant risk of being declared unconstitutional, according to
sources familiar with their actions. Yet the judges believed they did
not have the authority to rule on the president's power to order the
eavesdropping, government sources said, and focused instead on
protecting the integrity of the FISA process.

It was an odd position for the presiding judges of the FISA court, the
secret panel created in 1978 in response to a public outcry over
warrantless domestic spying by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. The court's
appointees, chosen by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, were
generally veteran jurists with a pro-government bent, and their
classified work is considered a powerful tool for catching spies and
terrorists.

The FISA court secretly

[osint] US plans massive data sweep

[David Bier]

Little-known data-collection system could troll news, blogs, even
e-mails. Will it go too far?
The core of this effort is a little-known system called Analysis,
Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement
(ADVISE). Only a few public documents mention it. ADVISE is a research
and development program within the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), part of its three-year-old Threat and Vulnerability, Testing
and Assessment portfolio. The TVTA received nearly $50 million in
federal funding this year.
One element of the NSA's domestic spying program that has gotten too
little attention is the government's reportedly widespread use of
data-mining technology to analyze the communications of ordinary
Americans, said Sen. Russell Feingold (D) of Wisconsin in a Jan. 23
statement.
There has to be more and better congressional oversight, says Rep.
Curt Weldon (R) of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the House
committee overseeing the Department of Homeland Security. But there
can't be oversight till Congress understands what data-mining is.
There needs to be a broad look at this because they [intelligence
agencies] are obviously seeing the value of this.


Yet another agency in the act besides NSA to mount a massive data
mining program to monitor you and me; not just terrorists.  Guess they
have to be ready in case one of us common folk go postal.

David Bier


from the February 09, 2006 edition - 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.html

US plans massive data sweep
Little-known data-collection system could troll news, blogs, even
e-mails. Will it go too far?

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

The US government is developing a massive computer system that can
collect huge amounts of data and, by linking far-flung information
from blogs and e-mail to government records and intelligence reports,
search for patterns of terrorist activity.

The system - parts of which are operational, parts of which are still
under development - is already credited with helping to foil some
plots. It is the federal government's latest attempt to use broad
data-collection and powerful analysis in the fight against terrorism.
But by delving deeply into the digital minutiae of American life, the
program is also raising concerns that the government is intruding too
deeply into citizens' privacy.

We don't realize that, as we live our lives and make little choices,
like buying groceries, buying on Amazon, Googling, we're leaving
traces everywhere, says Lee Tien, a staff attorney with the
Electronic Frontier Foundation. We have an attitude that no one will
connect all those dots. But these programs are about connecting those
dots - analyzing and aggregating them - in a way that we haven't
thought about. It's one of the underlying fundamental issues we have
yet to come to grips with.

The core of this effort is a little-known system called Analysis,
Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement
(ADVISE). Only a few public documents mention it. ADVISE is a research
and development program within the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), part of its three-year-old Threat and Vulnerability, Testing
and Assessment portfolio. The TVTA received nearly $50 million in
federal funding this year.

DHS officials are circumspect when talking about ADVISE. I've heard
of it, says Peter Sand, director of privacy technology. I don't know
the actual status right now. But if it's a system that's been
discussed, then it's something we're involved in at some level.
Data-mining is a key technology

A major part of ADVISE involves data-mining - or dataveillance, as
some call it. It means sifting through data to look for patterns. If a
supermarket finds that customers who buy cider also tend to buy
fresh-baked bread, it might group the two together. To prevent fraud,
credit-card issuers use data-mining to look for patterns of suspicious
activity.

What sets ADVISE apart is its scope. It would collect a vast array of
corporate and public online information - from financial records to
CNN news stories - and cross-reference it against US intelligence and
law-enforcement records. The system would then store it as entities
- linked data about people, places, things, organizations, and events,
according to a report summarizing a 2004 DHS conference in Alexandria,
Va. The storage requirements alone are huge - enough to retain
information about 1 quadrillion entities, the report estimated. If
each entity were a penny, they would collectively form a cube a
half-mile high - roughly double the height of the Empire State Building.

But ADVISE and related DHS technologies aim to do much more, according
to Joseph Kielman, manager of the TVTA portfolio. The key is not
merely to identify terrorists, or sift for key words, but to identify
critical patterns in data that illumine their motives and intentions,
he wrote in a presentation at a November conference in Richland, Wash.

For example: Is a burst

[osint] What if we promise not to show the records to Karl Rove?

[David Bier]

It's interesting and disappointing that other search engines would
provide this material. It's what we've been worried about all along.
The fact that Google is refusing the subpoena...my initial reaction is
three cheers for Google. But there is a sidebar to this. Part of the
reason these problems come up is because this data is being retained
in the first place.''

http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/01/what_if_we_prom.html

January 18, 2006

What if we promise not to show the records to Karl Rove?

If you don't regularly anonymize your Google cookie 
(http://www.imilly.com/google-cookie.htm) and purge your personalized
search history, now might be a good time to start (then again, in this
day and age, why bother?). 
(http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13647591.htm)
The Department of Justice on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order
Google  to comply with a subpoena issued last year for search records
stored in its databases. 
(http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/13657386.htm) The DOJ
argues that the information it has requested, which includes one
million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from a
one-week period, is essential to its upcoming defense of the
constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (think of the
children!). 
(http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=12789)
Google has so far refused to comply with the subpoena, saying the
release of such information would violate the privacy of its users.
Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the
information is overreaching,'' Nicole Wong, an associate general
counsel for Google, told The Mercury News. [We plan to fight the
government's effort] vigorously.'' 

Here's hoping the company prevails.  The release of such records sets
a truly unsettling precedent. And if the goverment's claim that other,
unspecified search engines have already agreed to release similar
information proves true, we have already lost our footing on a very
slippery, very dangerous slope. Said privacy advocate Lauren Weinstein, 
(http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2006/01/18/googles_privacy_fight_with_the_government.html#more)
It's interesting and disappointing that other search engines would
provide this material. It's what we've been worried about all along.
The fact that Google is refusing the subpoena...my initial reaction is
three cheers for Google. But there is a sidebar to this. Part of the
reason these problems come up is because this data is being retained
in the first place.''



UPDATE: Here's the federal government's motion to compel Google to
turn over user search data to the Justice Department: Motion to Compel
(Gonzales v. Google, Inc.) 
(http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/gonzgoog11806m.html)





--
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] “We come to power with gun in hand!”

[David Bier]

The Palestinian rifle proved its power to evict the Jews from the
Gaza Strip when Israel carried out its evacuation, Meshaal declared.
Unless we use force, no one will talk to us. At this moment,
Palestinian government belongs to the force whose platform pledges
warfare.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1879

We come to power with gun in hand! Hamas political leader Khaled
Mashaal declared at a rally in Qatar Friday night, Feb. 10

February 10, 2006, 11:41 PM (GMT+02:00)

The Palestinian rifle proved its power to evict the Jews from the
Gaza Strip when Israel carried out its evacuation, Meshaal declared.
Unless we use force, no one will talk to us. At this moment,
Palestinian government belongs to the force whose platform pledges
warfare.

DEBKAfile's political sources describe the rush of events Friday as
blowing away the last remnants of the Middle East policies charted in
Washington and Jerusalem.

Our Moscow sources report Meshaal made his speech after Russia's
special Middle East envoy Alexander Kalugin personally handed him
President Putin's invitation to visit the Russian capital. He then
received a pile of invitations from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait
and Syria. Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan said he justified the
Russian-French position. I too invite Hamas leaders to Ankara, he said. 





--
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] Three more lawmakers linked to Abramoff

[David Bier]

We can't ask the most vulnerable Republican incumbent member of
Congress in the House to put something in writing that can be made
public, Volz wrote. The congresswoman's office has already put the
request in and you would think that would be enough!!!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Lobbyist_Probe.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Lobbyist_Probe.html

Saturday, February 11, 2006 · Last updated 4:28 a.m. PT

Three more lawmakers linked to Abramoff

By TONI LOCY AND PETE YOST
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITERS

photo
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff leaves Federal Court in Washington Jan. 3,
2006, after pleading guilty to federal charges of conspiracy, tax
evasion and mail fraud, and agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors
investigating the influence peddling that has threatened powerful
members of the U.S. Congress. At right, his attorney Abbe Lowell. 
(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/aponline/8481.765ABRAMOFF-REID.sff.jpg


WASHINGTON -- Three members of Congress have been linked to efforts by
lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a former General Services Administration
official to secure leases of government property for Abramoff's
clients, according to court filings by federal prosecutors on Friday.

The filings in U.S. District Court do not allege any wrongdoing by the
elected officials but list them in documents portraying David
Safavian, a former GSA chief of staff, as an active adviser to
Abramoff, giving the lobbyists tips on how to use members of Congress
to navigate the agency's bureaucracy.

Abramoff is cooperating with federal investigators in a wide-ranging
probe of corruption on Capitol Hill that threatens several powerful
members of Congress and their staff members. Last month, he pleaded
guilty to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud.

Safavian is charged with lying to a GSA ethics officer when he said
Abramoff was not seeking business with the agency at the time the
lobbyist paid for Safavian and several others to go on a golf outing
to Scotland in August 2002.

At the time of the trip, prosecutors said, Abramoff was trying to get
GSA approval for leases of the Old Post Office Pavilion in Washington
for an Indian tribe to develop and for federal property in Silver
Spring, Md., for use by a Jewish school.

Two of the elected officials referred to in Friday's filings have been
identified in published reports as Reps. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio,
and Don Young, R-Alaska. According to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill
newspaper, the two representatives wrote to the GSA in September 2002,
urging the agency to give preferential treatment to groups such as
Indian tribes when evaluating development proposals for the Old Post
Office.

LaTourette maintains he did nothing improper by advocating special
opportunities for certain small businesses in areas known as HUBzones,
or Historically Underutilized Business zones. His spokeswoman, Deborah
Setliff, said that the letter was reviewed by Young's chief of staff
and counsel and that it did not advocate any particular business over
another.

A spokesman for Young did not return telephone calls.

Friday's filings by prosecutors refer to a third member of Congress,
Rep. Shelly Moore Capito, R-W.Va. Her name appears in e-mails that
suggest she was trying to help Abramoff secure a GSA lease for land in
Silver Spring for a religious school.

Capito claims to know nothing about the effort. The action taken by
her former chief of staff was done without her knowledge, approval or
consent, said her spokesman, Joel Brubaker. She was not aware of any
contact with GSA of any type on this matter.

Mark Johnson, Capito's former chief of staff, said he did not bring
the issue to Capito's attention. He said he was contacted by Neil
Volz, a colleague of Abramoff's and a former chief of staff for Rep.
Bob Ney, R-Ohio.

Johnson said Volz asked him to check on the status of a project
involving the GSA. Johnson said he believes he called a friend at the
GSA but doesn't recall the outcome.

Prosecutors included the e-mails in documents filed in response to a
request by Safavian's lawyers to dismiss the indictment against him.
Safavian's lawyers want a federal judge to throw out the charges on
grounds there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

In their filing, prosecutors laid out a series of contacts between
Abramoff and Safavian that show the former GSA official gave inside
information and advice to the lobbyist.

Safavian used his personal e-mail during business hours to communicate
with Abramoff several times, according to prosecutors. He also edited
the draft of a letter that was probably sent under LaTourette and
Young's names.

And Safavian advised Abramoff to tell his wife to use her maiden name
during a meeting with GSA officials so she wouldn't draw attention to
her politically connected husband's involvement in the project.

In a July 23, 2002, e-mail to a GSA official, Safavian 

[osint] Abramoff's Charity Began at Home

[David Bier]

One of the most disturbing elements of this whole sordid story is the
blatant misuse of charities in a scheme to peddle political
influence, said Mark Everson, commissioner of the Internal Revenue
Service.
Abramoff and a partner, Michael P.S. Scanlon, a onetime aide to
former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), admitted bilking
Indian tribes out of tens of millions of dollars and attempting to
bribe public officials. They used a network of charities and other
nonprofits — some existing, some they created — to forge a
full-service influence-peddling operation.
There was the time he laundered money through a religious group's
accounts to try to bribe a congressional aide. He diverted funds from
a youth athletic foundation to bankroll a golf junket for a
congressman and to bolster the bank account of his Washington
restaurant. He used two other nonprofits to line his own pockets with
millions of dollars defrauded from clients.


Guess who else has been using a charity for political purposes?  Yes,
Tom DeLay.  Hey, why wouldn't he...it was working for Jack and Mike, a
former DeLay aide as was Mr. Rudy who got greased and his wife who got
hired.  And DeLay gets rewarded this week by the Republican
gang...oops, House leaders with committee seats on Appropriations (a
seat vacated by convicted criminal Cunningham (also a Republican))and
the subcommittees that oversee NASA in his home district and the
Department of Justice which is investigating him.  What's wrong with
that picture?  Looks like a real Boehner to me...

David Bier

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-charities11feb11,0,5568579.story?coll=la-home-headlines

From the Los Angeles Times

Abramoff's Charity Began at Home
The lobbyist admits he used nonprofits to evade taxes, pad his pockets
and bribe officials.
By Chuck Neubauer and Richard B. Schmitt
Times Staff Writers

February 11, 2006

WASHINGTON — In his own way, disgraced super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff
engaged in many charitable endeavors over the course of his
decade-long career as a Washington insider.

There was the time he laundered money through a religious group's
accounts to try to bribe a congressional aide. He diverted funds from
a youth athletic foundation to bankroll a golf junket for a
congressman and to bolster the bank account of his Washington
restaurant. He used two other nonprofits to line his own pockets with
millions of dollars defrauded from clients.

Charities are supposed to advance the public interest, which is why
they aren't taxed. But Abramoff, by his own admission, used them to
evade taxes, enrich himself and bribe public officials, according to a
plea agreement he signed with federal prosecutors in January.

One of the most disturbing elements of this whole sordid story is the
blatant misuse of charities in a scheme to peddle political
influence, said Mark Everson, commissioner of the Internal Revenue
Service.

Abramoff's use and misuse of nonprofits played a key role in each of
the three counts of his indictment: conspiracy, mail fraud and tax
evasion. He admitted evading $1.7 million in income taxes over three
years, in part by using nonprofits to conceal personal income from the
IRS.

The fast-growing ranks of tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations are
tailor-made for operators like Abramoff.

The number of tax-exempt groups in the United States has tripled over
the last three decades, but nonprofit groups usually pay no tax, so
there is little incentive for the IRS to keep an eye on them.

The lack of oversight is especially meaningful in Washington, where
trade associations, public-interest groups and grass-roots lobbying
organizations all have tax-exempt status under generous IRS rules
designed to foster public debate. Members of Congress are also getting
into the act and forming their own charities.

Abramoff and a partner, Michael P.S. Scanlon, a onetime aide to former
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), admitted bilking Indian
tribes out of tens of millions of dollars and attempting to bribe
public officials. They used a network of charities and other
nonprofits — some existing, some they created — to forge a
full-service influence-peddling operation.

They included:

•  The Capital Athletic Foundation, created by Abramoff as a
sports-oriented youth charity. He funded it with millions improperly
diverted from his lobbying clients and treated it as his personal
piggy bank, a lawmaker said, spending money on pet projects that had
nothing to do with its stated purpose.

•  The American International Center, a bogus international think
tank at a beach house near Rehoboth Beach, Del. Abramoff and Scanlon
used the center to collect millions from their lobbying clients and
then send it to their personal bank accounts.

•  Toward Tradition, a nonprofit in Mercer Island, Wash., that
promotes traditional Judeo Christian values and was used to help
Abramoff funnel an alleged $50,000 bribe of an aide to DeLay.

•  The National Center for Public

[osint] Bush Reveals Rationale Behind Surveillance

[David Bier]

I wake up every morning thinking about a future attack, and
therefore, a lot of my thinking, and a lot of the decisions I make are
based upon the attack that hurt us,
I take my oath of office seriously. I swear to uphold the
Constitution and laws of the United States, Bush said.


Nice words about his oath, but actions speak louder than lip service.

David Bier

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1603961

Bush Reveals Rationale Behind Surveillance
In Candid Remarks to Fellow Republicans, Bush Talks About Rationale
Behind Surveillance
By JENNIFER LOVEN
The Associated Press

CAMBRIDGE, Md. - President Bush defended his warrantless eavesdropping
program Friday, saying during what he thought were private remarks
that he concluded that spying on Americans was necessary to fill a gap
in the United States' security.

I wake up every morning thinking about a future attack, and
therefore, a lot of my thinking, and a lot of the decisions I make are
based upon the attack that hurt us, Bush told the House Republican
Caucus, which was in retreat at a luxury resort along the Choptank
River on Maryland's Eastern Shore.

The president said he asked the National Security Agency to devise a
way to gather intelligence on terrorists' potential activities, and
the result was the super-secret spy outfit's program to monitor the
international e-mails and phone calls of people inside the United
States with suspected ties to terrorists overseas. Bush said lawyers
in the White House and at the Justice Department signed off on the
program's legality, and we put constant checks on the program.

I take my oath of office seriously. I swear to uphold the
Constitution and laws of the United States, Bush said.

The president's comments on the NSA eavesdropping came after six
minutes of remarks intended for public consumption. In them, Bush
stroked lawmakers with thanks and gave a gentle push for his 2006
priorities in a scaled-back version of last month's State of the Union
address.

I'm looking forward to working with you. And I'm confident we'll
continue the success we have had together, he said. So I've come to
say thanks for your hard work in the past and thanks for what we're
going to do to make this country continue to be the greatest country
on the face of the Earth.

He indirectly pressed his call difficult in an election year for
Congress to approve $70 billion in savings from benefit programs such
as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and payments to farmers over the
next five years, and to cut dozens of other programs that the White
House has determined don't produce results.

It's hard work, to cut out and cut back on programs that don't work,
Bush said. Every program sounds beautiful in Washington, D.C. until
you start analyzing the results.

Reporters then were ushered out I support the free press, let's just
get them out of the room, Bush said so the president could speak
privately to his fellow Republicans.

I want to share some thoughts with you before I answer your
questions, said Bush, unaware that microphones were still on and were
allowing those back in the White House press room to eavesdrop on his
eavesdropping defense. First of all, I expect this conversation we're
about to have to stay in the room. I know that's impossible in
Washington.

That was not to be and it was telling that the president chose the
controversial NSA program as the first topic to raise out of
reporters' earshot. Even so, there was no substantive difference
between those statements and the series of public speeches he has
given recently on the program.

The eavesdropping program has come under fire from Republicans as well
as Democrats. They argue that Bush already has the authority to
monitor such communications through existing law that requires a
warrant from a secret court set up to act quickly, or even after the
fact. Bush has argued that the system isn't nimble enough.

The titular head of the Republican Party faced a House GOP Caucus in
turmoil.

With most of Congress up for re-election in November, the House GOP is
just off a bruising fight to replace former Majority Leader Tom DeLay,
R-Texas, is grappling with reforming the time-honored congressional
tradition of funding individual pet projects known as earmarks, and
faces potentially damaging revelations in an ongoing public corruption
investigation centered on a high-flying lobbyist with extensive ties
to Republicans.

Though the lawmakers gave Bush a standing ovation and interrupted his
remarks several times with applause, questions in the private setting
typically are sharper than in public get-togethers.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said that Bush kept his
prepared remarks brief so that he would have extra time for the more
freewheeling portion of the discussion, which went on for one hour and
40 minutes. Only the first few minutes of that before any lawmakers'
questions were heard by reporters.





--
Want to discuss this topic

[osint] General faults U.S. on Iraqi military

[David Bier]

I was very surprised to receive a mission so vital to our exit
strategy so late, Eaton said. I would have expected this to have
been done well before troops crossed the line of departure. That was
my first reaction: We're a little late here.
We set out to man, train and equip an army for a country of 25
million - with six men, Eaton said. He worked into the autumn with a
revolving door of individual loaned talent that would spend between
two weeks and two months, and never received even half the 250
professional staff members he had been promised.
Eaton's broad assessment of the problems he confronted was seconded by
Walter Slocombe, sent by the Bush administration to Baghdad for six
months to serve as the senior civilian adviser on national security
and defense.
Slocombe, an under secretary of defense in the Clinton administration,
said, I have to agree with General Eaton, that it was hard to get the
resources we needed out there. There was not a broad enough sense of
urgency in Washington.



Problem was, CICBush43, Cheney and the Bushworld gang were delusional.
 Since the two top guys had never spent a day in a combat zone, they
had no concept of what it meant to not just invade a nation, defeat
its army and subjugate its people, but then have to OCCUPY and RUN the
nation while at the same time abolishing ALL of its political,
governmental and military infrastructures.  Thus our chickenhawk
leader sent no forces skilled in either local pacification and control
or nationbuilding, other than Bremer's feeble Green Zone crew and a
scattering of folks like Eaton, to actually replace the abolished
infrastructures. Without local civil and political direction, chaos
resulted everywhere. Criminal gangs rampant. Embryonic insurgent
groups free to loot unguarded Iraqi ammo dumps of  arms, ammunition
and the makings of IEDs (that kill at least half of all U.S.
casualties) in such large quantities that the insurgent groups, now
grown huge and highly skilled, will be able to kill Americans (and
each other) efficiently in Iraq for decades with most of the
disillusioned Iraqis cheering them on.  
And that new Iraqi army?  It is finally growing now but is so
sectarian that its primary fate will be to provide the U.S. trained
and armed cadres for the Shiite and Kurd forces in the slowly arriving
civil war.  Another day in Bushworld...

David Bier

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/10/news/army.php

  General faults U.S. on Iraqi military

By Thom Shanker The New York Times

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2006

WASHINGTON The American general in charge of training the new Iraqi
military after Baghdad fell says the Bush administration's strategy to
use those forces to replace departing U.S. soldiers was hobbled from
its belated start by poor pre-war planning and insufficient staff and
equipment.

The account of Major General Paul Eaton, who retired on Jan. 1 after
33 years in the U.S. Army, suggests that commanders in Iraq might by
now have been much closer to President George W. Bush's goal of
withdrawing American forces if they had not lost much of the first
year's chance to begin building a capable force.

Eaton's views, drawn from an essay he is preparing for publication and
from interviews in which he spoke out publicly for the first time,
were broadly affirmed by Pentagon and other civilian officials
involved at the time. They agreed that the mission also was slowed by
conflicting visions from senior Pentagon and administration officials,
civilian administrators in Baghdad and the former top commander of the
military's Central Command, which carried out the invasion.

While he criticized others for decisions that led to what he called a
false start, Eaton accepted responsibility for the most visible
setback in the training, when a battalion of the new Iraqi Army
dissolved in April 2004 as it was sent into its first major battle.

After that embarrassment, which Eaton said he might have headed off,
Pentagon officials sent Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who had
commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion and the
early occupation, to review the program and then to take over the
training mission after Eaton completed his yearlong tour.

Paul Eaton and his team did an extraordinary amount for the Iraqi
Security Force mission, said Petraeus, now commander of the army's
Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. They established a
solid foundation on which we were able to build as the effort was
expanded very substantially and resourced at a much higher level.

Eaton was commander of all army infantry training at Fort Benning,
Georgia, when he was told on May 9, 2003 - just over a week after
Bush's mission accomplished speech - to hurry to Baghdad, where he
was to set up and then command an organization to rebuild Iraq's military.

I was very surprised to receive a mission so vital to our exit
strategy so late, Eaton said. I would have expected this to have
been done well before troops crossed the line

[osint] UAE Co. Poised to Oversee Six U.S. Ports

[David Bier]

The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had
no objection, the company said in a statement to The Associated Press.
America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the
international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist
targets, Schumer said. Just as we would not outsource military
operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before
we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties.
When you have a foreign government involved, you are injecting
foreign national interests, Kreitzer said. A country that may be a
friend of ours today may not be on the same side tomorrow. You don't
know in advance what the politics of that country will be in the future.
Last month, the White House appointed a senior DP World executive,
David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the
Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn
worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.


Politics will win out over actual on the ground security of ports
every time.  Here it is, over four years after 9/11 and virtually all
of the ports do not even have a completed security risk assessment
package, much less significantly upgraded physical security.  And
screening of cargo containers is still about five percent of the
incoming containers.  Add on-site ability to collect intelligence and
manipulate records, containers and cargo and you have a recipe for a
whopper of a port attack or the capability to ease terrorists and
their equipment or WMD into the U.S. undetected.  Wonder how much DP
World contributed to political campaigns CICBush43 is interested in?
Also, wonder who sits on that committee and their connections to DP
World or UAE?

David Bier

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060211/ports_security.html?.v=2

UAE Co. Poised to Oversee Six U.S. Ports

Saturday February 11, 9:41 am ET

By Ted Bridis, Associated Press Writer

Company From United Arab Emirates Poised to Oversee Six American Ports
Due to Sale

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to
take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a
corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers
with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to
terrorism.

The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the
fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not
objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular
and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The $6.8 billion sale is expected to be approved Monday. The British
company is the fourth largest ports company in the world and its sale
would affect commercial U.S. port operations in New York, New Jersey,
Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel
that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing
in American industry.

The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had
no objection, the company said in a statement to The Associated Press.

The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as
expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller  Co., according to Eller's
lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British
shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company.

The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block
the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of
Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight
against terrorism. But the UAE, a loose federation of seven emirates
on the Saudi peninsula, was an important operational and financial
base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York
and Washington, the FBI concluded.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat whose district includes the New York
port, urged the administration to consider the sale carefully.

America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the
international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist
targets, Schumer said. Just as we would not outsource military
operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before
we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties.

Last month, the White House appointed a senior DP World executive,
David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the
Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn
worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

Critics of the proposed purchase said a port operator complicit in
smuggling or terrorism could manipulate manifests and other records to
frustrate Homeland Security's already limited scrutiny of shipping
containers and slip contraband past U.S. Customs

[osint] Made-in-Canada threat worries CSIS

[David Bier]

The perception that the West is attacking Islam on multiple fronts
continues to anger the Muslim world and contributes to support for
radical views. Converts in particular are prone to extreme views
because of their new-found zeal,
Iraq would provide a training ground, and those coming home would be
well-trained, highly effective, dangerous people, Judd said.


Yes indeed, CICBush43 invading Iraq has certainly made Americans safer
and less vulnerable to al-Qaeda.  Unless, of course, you add in
countless fanatic combat veterans of Iraq, well-versed in, and fully
capable of countering, U.S. military tactics as demonstrated daily in
Iraq.  

David Bier

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1c=Articlecid=1139611813114call_pageid=968332188854col=968350060724

Made-in-Canada threat worries CSIS

Feb. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM

MICHELLE SHEPHARD
STAFF REPORTER

The head of Canada's spy service has called Iraq a post-graduate
faculty for terrorism, but it's the threat from what are known as
home-grown terrorists that most worries Canadian security services.

Jim Judd, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told
the Toronto Star in an interview last year the spy agency was aware of
Canadians who had gone to Iraq to join the insurgency and was
concerned about their eventual return to Canada.

Iraq would provide a training ground, and those coming home would be
well-trained, highly effective, dangerous people, Judd said.

However, CSIS believes fewer than 10 Canadians have gone to fight in Iraq.

A far more disturbing trend, security officials say, is what is
developing inside Canada's borders — citizens who may never have
travelled abroad but have been motivated to extremism through radical
websites and Internet chat rooms.

Prisons have become a worry for Canadian security services trying to
root out home-grown radicalism.

An internal 2004 CSIS report entitled Canadian Converts to Radical
Islam says such home-grown converts are particularly dangerous because
of their familiarity with Western society.

The perception that the West is attacking Islam on multiple fronts
continues to anger the Muslim world and contributes to support for
radical views. Converts in particular are prone to extreme views
because of their new-found zeal, states the report, obtained under
access-to-information legislation.

The case most often cited as an example of this phenomenon involves
Mohamed Jabarah, a former St. Catharines, Ont., Catholic school
student who is now in a New York jail after reportedly pleading guilty
to terrorism charges at a secret hearing. Jabarah reportedly confessed
to acting as an intermediary between Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah, a
group believed responsible for bombings in Southeast Asia, including
the Oct. 12, 2002, Bali blast that killed 202 people.

Saudi Arabian security forces killed Jabarah's older brother, Abdul
Rahman Jabarah, in 2003. The 23-year-old was accused of being one of
the key organizers of a May 2003 bombing that attacked a Riyadh
residential complex that mainly housed foreigners.

Prisons have also become a worry for security services trying to root
out radicals.

John MacLaughlan, the director of Canada's Integrated Terrorism
Assessment Centre, said in a recent interview that the captive
audience in prisons provides fertile ground for recruiters because of
inmates' sense of wanting to belong to something that is bigger.

A CSIS report on the issue discusses the phenomenon in the United
States and Europe, citing the example of the so-called shoe bomber
Richard Reid, who converted to radical Islam while in a youth
detention facility. A section in the report, entitled Radical Islam in
Canadian Prisons, was censored before being released to the Star.






--
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

[osint] The Shoe (Bomb) on the Other Foot

[David Bier]

For crass political reasons—namely to advance his position on the
National Security Agency spying story—the president chose to use a
speech to the National Guard Association to disclose details of a 2002
shoe bomb plot to blow up the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building
in Los Angeles. While the plot had been revealed in general terms in
the past, the White House this week arranged for Bush's
counterterrorism adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, to explain to
reporters in a conference call exactly the kind of details that Goss
claimed on the op-ed page helped the enemy. We are at risk of losing
a key battle, Goss wrote. The battle to protect our classification
system.
Let's get this straight. The president and administration officials
will suddenly talk about details of the foiled plot—details that were
highly classified until now. But they won't say if the controversial
NSA program was involved. Given their new willingness to talk at
length about the case, can anyone seriously doubt that had the NSA
eavesdropping cracked this case, they would have mentioned that?
Simply saying that the NSA helped foil the plot—if it had—would not
have compromised sources and methods. You can bet that if this were
an NSA case, we'd know it.
The president is allowed to declassify whatever he wants; that's one
of the privileges of being president. So in this case—unlike the NSA's
warrantless eavesdropping—there is no issue of Bush breaking the law.
But let's be clear on what this was: a deliberate effort to use
declassification for partisan purposes, in this case, defending the
administration's policy on NSA surveillance, which Karl Rove says
publicly will be a big part of the 2006 midterm campaign.
Feeling some pressure three quarters into his op-ed piece to offer
even one example of how media coverage has jeopardized an intelligence
operation, Goss hauls out the same chestnut Bush used in a press
conference last month—the revelation that Osama bin Laden's satellite
phone had been tapped. The implication was that once the evil American
media revealed this fact, bin Laden stopped using the phone and was
harder to catch. In fact, bin Laden gave up his satphone after
President Bill Clinton used coordinates from the phone to bomb him in
1998. It was Clinton's missiles, not the media, that convinced the Al
Qaeda leader he needed a more secure way to communicate.


It is obvious from court documents in the Libby case about Plame's
outing, that he will fall back on CICBush43's, and to a lesser extent,
Cheny's authority to declassify.  But that won't make the obstruction
of justice and false statements items go away.  Plus it raises the
issue of his superiors commiting treason or other high misdemeanors
(especially if CIA operatives or the agents they run died or were
tortured because of the disclosures) by such declassification.  No
wonder CIA has not conducted a formal damage assessment of the Plame
outing as you can bet Porter Goss was ordered not to comply with the
law requiring one.

David Bier

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11279032/site/newsweek/

The Shoe (Bomb) on the Other Foot
President Bush's revelation about a foiled bomb plot shows the dangers
of declassification for purely partisan purposes.
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 6:37 p.m. ET Feb. 10, 2006

Feb. 10, 2006 - Poor Porter Goss. First, the longtime Florida
congressman leaves his safe seat to become director of the CIA, only
to find that he's been neutered by a new bureaucratic setup where he
reports to John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.
Then he writes an op-ed piece decrying intelligence leaks in The New
York Times on Friday, the exact same day as a story appears
identifying today's biggest leaker of antiterrorism secrets in
Washington—President George W. Bush.

For crass political reasons—namely to advance his position on the
National Security Agency spying story—the president chose to use a
speech to the National Guard Association to disclose details of a 2002
shoe bomb plot to blow up the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building
in Los Angeles. While the plot had been revealed in general terms in
the past, the White House this week arranged for Bush's
counterterrorism adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, to explain to
reporters in a conference call exactly the kind of details that Goss
claimed on the op-ed page helped the enemy. We are at risk of losing
a key battle, Goss wrote. The battle to protect our classification
system.

That system is at particular risk when it is exploited for political
purposes. The president is allowed to declassify whatever he wants;
that's one of the privileges of being president. So in this
case—unlike the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping—there is no issue of
Bush breaking the law. But let's be clear on what this was: a
deliberate effort to use declassification for partisan purposes, in
this case, defending the administration's policy on NSA surveillance,
which Karl Rove says publicly

[osint] Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq

[David Bier]

In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official
intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most
significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused
publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will
developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the
intelligence community's own work was politicized. As the national
intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to
2005, I witnessed all of these disturbing developments.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq

By Paul R. Pillar

From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006
Summary: During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, writes the
intelligence community's former senior analyst for the Middle East,
the Bush administration disregarded the community's expertise,
politicized the intelligence process, and selected unrepresentative
raw intelligence to make its public case.

PAUL R. PILLAR is on the faculty of the Security Studies Program at
Georgetown University. Concluding a long career in the Central
Intelligence Agency, he served as National Intelligence Officer for
the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.

A DYSFUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP

The most serious problem with U.S. intelligence today is that its
relationship with the policymaking process is broken and badly needs
repair. In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official
intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most
significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused
publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will
developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the
intelligence community's own work was politicized. As the national
intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to
2005, I witnessed all of these disturbing developments.

Public discussion of prewar intelligence on Iraq has focused on the
errors made in assessing Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons
programs. A commission chaired by Judge Laurence Silberman and former
Senator Charles Robb usefully documented the intelligence community's
mistakes in a solid and comprehensive report released in March 2005.
Corrections were indeed in order, and the intelligence community has
begun to make them.

At the same time, an acrimonious and highly partisan debate broke out
over whether the Bush administration manipulated and misused
intelligence in making its case for war. The administration defended
itself by pointing out that it was not alone in its view that Saddam
had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and active weapons programs,
however mistaken that view may have been.

In this regard, the Bush administration was quite right: its
perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton
administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western
governments and intelligence services. But in making this defense, the
White House also inadvertently pointed out the real problem:
intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs did not drive its decision to
go to war. A view broadly held in the United States and even more so
overseas was that deterrence of Iraq was working, that Saddam was
being kept in his box, and that the best way to deal with the
weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections program to
supplement the sanctions already in place. That the administration
arrived at so different a policy solution indicates that its decision
to topple Saddam was driven by other factors -- namely, the desire to
shake up the sclerotic power structures of the Middle East and hasten
the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region.

If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a
policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be
launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable
about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong
and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role
in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades.

A MODEL UPENDED

The proper relationship between intelligence gathering and
policymaking sharply separates the two functions. The intelligence
community collects information, evaluates its credibility, and
combines it with other information to help make sense of situations
abroad that could affect U.S. interests. Intelligence officers decide
which topics should get their limited collection and analytic
resources according to both their own judgments and the concerns of
policymakers. Policymakers thus influence which topics intelligence
agencies address but not the conclusions that they reach. The
intelligence community, meanwhile, limits its judgments to what is
happening or what might happen overseas, avoiding policy judgments
about what the United States should do in 

[osint] Republican Speaks Up, Leading Others to Challenge Wiretaps

[David Bier]

I think the argument that somehow, in passing the use-of-force
resolution, that that was authorizing the president and the
administration free rein to do whatever they wanted to do, so long as
they tied it to the war on terror, was a bit of a stretch, she said.
And I don't think that's what most members of Congress felt they were
doing.
Ms. Wilson and at least six other Republican lawmakers are openly
skeptical about Mr. Bush's assertion that he has the inherent
authority to order the wiretaps and that Congress gave him the power
to do so when it authorized him to use military force after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks.
At the age of 45, Ms. Wilson has considerable credentials in national
security. She is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and a former Air
Force officer. A Rhodes Scholar, Ms. Wilson obtained a master's degree
and doctorate in international relations. She also worked as an arms
control negotiator for the National Security Council under the first
President Bush.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/politics/11wilson.html?_r=1th=adxnnl=1oref=sloginemc=thadxnnlx=1139711672-FdkrgkYtj7QZIH9uVr2R4A

February 11, 2006

Republican Speaks Up, Leading Others to Challenge Wiretaps

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 — When Representative Heather A. Wilson broke
ranks with President Bush on Tuesday to declare her serious concerns
about domestic eavesdropping, she gave voice to what some fellow
Republicans were thinking, if not saying.

Now they are speaking up — and growing louder.

In interviews over several days, Congressional Republicans have
expressed growing doubts about the National Security Agency program to
intercept international communications inside the United States
without court warrants. A growing number of Republicans say the
program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and
are calling for revamping the FISA law.

Ms. Wilson and at least six other Republican lawmakers are openly
skeptical about Mr. Bush's assertion that he has the inherent
authority to order the wiretaps and that Congress gave him the power
to do so when it authorized him to use military force after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks.

The White House, in a turnabout, briefed the full House and Senate
Intelligence Committee on the program this week, after Ms. Wilson,
chairwoman of the subcommittee that oversees the N.S.A., had called
for a full-scale Congressional investigation. But some Republicans say
that is not enough.

I don't think that's sufficient, Senator Susan Collins, Republican
of Maine, said. There is considerable concern about the
administration's just citing the president's inherent authority or the
authorization to go to war with Iraq as grounds for conducting this
program. It's a stretch.

The criticism became apparent on Monday, when Attorney General Alberto
R. Gonzales was the sole witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee
in a hearing on the legality of the eavesdropping. Mr. Gonzales faced
tough questioning from 4 of the 10 Republicans on the panel, including
its chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

By week's end, after Ms. Wilson became the first Republican on either
the House or the Senate Intelligence Committees to call for a
Congressional inquiry, the critics had become a chorus. Senator Lisa
Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said the more she learned about the
program, the more its gray areas concerned her.

Mr. Specter said he would draft legislation to put the issue in the
hands of the intelligence surveillance court by having its judges rule
on the constitutionality of the program.

Even Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican and Judiciary
Committee member who has been a staunch supporter of the
eavesdropping, said that although he did not think the law needed
revising, Congress had to have more oversight.

The administration has gone a long way in the last couple of days to
assure people that this highly classified program is critical to the
protection of the nation, Mr. Hatch said. I think they've more than
made a persuasive case. The real question is how do we have oversight?

In part, the backlash is a symptom of Congressional muscle flexing; a
sort of mutiny on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have been frustrated
by the way Mr. Bush boldly exercises his executive authority.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who has also
criticized the program, said Ms. Wilson's comments were a sign of a
growing movement by lawmakers to reassert the power of the legislature.

This is sort of a Marbury v. Madison moment between the executive and
the legislative branch, Mr. Graham said in a reference to the 1803
Supreme Court decision in which the court granted itself the power to
declare laws unconstitutional.

I think there's two things going on, said Mr. Graham, a Judiciary
Committee member. There's an abandonment of you-broke-the-law
rhetoric by the Democrats and a more 

[osint] CIA chief sacked for opposing torture

[David Bier]

...he opposed detaining Al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad,
sending them to other countries for interrogation and using forms of
torture such as water boarding, intelligence sources have claimed.
Since the appointment of Goss, the CIA has lost almost all its
high-level directors amid considerable turmoil.
AB Buzzy Krongard, a former executive director of the CIA who
resigned shortly after Goss's arrival, said the leaks were unlikely to
stop soon, despite proposals to subject officers to more lie detector
tests.
History will judge how good an idea it was to destroy the teams and
the programmes that were in place.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036182,00.html

The Sunday TimesFebruary 12, 2006

CIA chief sacked for opposing torture

Sarah Baxter and Michael Smith, Washington

The CIA's top counter-terrorism official was fired last week because
he opposed detaining Al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad,
sending them to other countries for interrogation and using forms of
torture such as water boarding, intelligence sources have claimed.

Robert Grenier, head of the CIA counter-terrorism centre, was relieved
of his post after a year in the job. One intelligence official said he
was not quite as aggressive as he might have been in pursuing
Al-Qaeda leaders and networks.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counter-terrorism at the agency,
said: It is not that Grenier wasn't aggressive enough, it is that he
wasn't `with the programme'. He expressed misgivings about the secret
prisons in Europe and the rendition of terrorists.

Grenier also opposed excessive interrogation, such as strapping
suspects to boards and dunking them in water, according to Cannistraro.

Porter Goss, who was appointed head of the CIA in August 2004 with a
mission to clean house, has been angered by a series of leaks from
CIA insiders, including revelations about black sites in Europe
where top Al-Qaeda detainees were said to have been held.

In last Friday's New York Times, Goss wrote that leakers within the
CIA were damaging the agency's ability to fight terrorism and causing
foreign intelligence organisations to lose confidence. Too many of my
counterparts from other countries have told me, `You Americans can't
keep a secret'.

Goss is believed to have blamed Grenier for allowing leaks to occur on
his watch.

Since the appointment of Goss, the CIA has lost almost all its
high-level directors amid considerable turmoil.

AB Buzzy Krongard, a former executive director of the CIA who
resigned shortly after Goss's arrival, said the leaks were unlikely to
stop soon, despite proposals to subject officers to more lie detector
tests.

Krongard said it was up to President George Bush to stop the rot. The
agency has only one client: the president of the United States, he
said. The reorganisation is the way this president wanted it. If he
is unwilling to reform it, the agency will go on as it is.

History will judge how good an idea it was to destroy the teams and
the programmes that were in place.





--
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] Revealed: the terror prison US is helping build in Morocco

[David Bier]

The construction of the new compound, run by the Direction de la
Securité du Territoire (DST), the Moroccan secret police, adds to a
substantial body of evidence that Morocco is one of America's
principal partners in the secret rendition programme in which the
CIA flies prisoners to third countries for interrogation.
A recent inquiry into rendition by the Council of Europe, led by Dick
Marty, the Swiss MP, highlighted a pattern of flights between
Washington, Guantanamo Bay and Rabat's military airport at Sale.
French intelligence and diplomatic sources said the most recent such
flight was in the first week in December, when four suspects were seen
being led blindfolded and handcuffed from a Boeing 737 at Sale and
transferred into a fleet of American vehicles.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036185,00.html

The Sunday TimesFebruary 12, 2006

Revealed: the terror prison US is helping build in Morocco

Tom Walker Rabat and Sarah Baxter

THE United States is helping Morocco to build a new interrogation and
detention facility for Al-Qaeda suspects near its capital, Rabat,
according to western intelligence sources.

The sources confirmed last week that building was under way at Ain
Aouda, above a wooded gorge south of Rabat's diplomatic district.
Locals said they had often seen American vehicles with diplomatic
plates in the area.

The construction of the new compound, run by the Direction de la
Securité du Territoire (DST), the Moroccan secret police, adds to a
substantial body of evidence that Morocco is one of America's
principal partners in the secret rendition programme in which the
CIA flies prisoners to third countries for interrogation.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other groups critical of
the policy have compiled dossiers detailing the detention and apparent
torture of radical Islamists at the DST's current headquarters, at
Temara, near Rabat.

A recent inquiry into rendition by the Council of Europe, led by Dick
Marty, the Swiss MP, highlighted a pattern of flights between
Washington, Guantanamo Bay and Rabat's military airport at Sale.

French intelligence and diplomatic sources said the most recent such
flight was in the first week in December, when four suspects were seen
being led blindfolded and handcuffed from a Boeing 737 at Sale and
transferred into a fleet of American vehicles.

Morocco's membership of a so-called coalition of the willing has led
to tension within the kingdom, where Mohammed VI, 42, is trying to
suppress a wave of Islamic fundamentalism, most powerfully expressed
in the Casablanca bombings of May 2003, in which 12 suicide bombers —
all of them Moroccan — killed more than 40 people.

More than 3,000 suspected radical Islamists have been arrested since,
but some of the country's higher-profile Al-Qaeda sympathisers have
been released, including Abdallah Tabarak, a former bodyguard of Osama
Bin Laden.

While much of the media is said to have been infiltrated by the DST, a
few publications that dare to question official policy have accused
the government of allowing Morocco to become the CIA's dustbin.

Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary — who described
Morocco and Tunisia yesterday as long-standing friends and
constructive partners in the fight against terrorism — is due to
visit today. Among the topics expected to be discussed with officials
is the opening of a new FBI office in Morocco.

Last Friday the country witnessed its first protests against the
Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. They were highly organised
and controlled but created a sense of apprehension in the capital
before Rumsfeld's talks.

Morocco has an estimated 30,000 policemen for a population of 30m and
many people seem scared of speaking to strangers. A Sunday Times
reporter was photographed by men with mobile phone cameras at least
three times last week but was never directly challenged.

It's like a web — they let you spin away and like that they believe
they get more information, said the French intelligence source.

The presence of minders made asking questions around Ain Aouda almost
impossible, but at a restaurant adjoining a newly built mosque nearby,
elderly men supping mint tea while they watched the African Nations
Cup were clearly angry about the project.

We've seen nothing but Americans for five months, complained one
wizened figure before being told by his friends to be quiet.





--
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 

[osint] First Photo of Bush and Abramoff

[David Bier]

Abramoff has told friends, I was standing right next to the window
and after the picture was taken, the President came over and shook
hands with me, and we chatted and joked.
White House had initially said there was no record of disgraced
lobbyist at 2001 meeting

Abramoff did lobbying work for CICBush43 when he was the governor of
Texas so it would be surprising if he did not know Abramoff.  A photo
gallery including the subject photo is available at the Time orginal
story URL for those wishing to view the photo.

David Bier

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1158908,00.html

Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 

First Photo of Bush and Abramoff 

White House had initially said there was no record of disgraced
lobbyist at 2001 meeting

By ADAM ZAGORIN AND MATTHEW COOPER/WASHINGTON

Just how close was the relationship between the White House and
disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff? The Bush Administration again faced
questions about those ties after an e-mail Abramoff sent a journalist
friend surfaced last week in which Abramoff wrote that he had met
President Bush almost a dozen times over the past five years, and even
received an invitation to the President's Crawford, Texas ranch along
with other large political donors. Bush has one of the best memories
of any politician I have ever met, Abramoff mused in the e-mail last
month, adding that, He saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked
with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. The
White House, however, has continued to assert that the President had
no recollection of ever meeting Abramoff. When TIME reported in
January that it had viewed unpublished photographs of Abramoff with
Bush, aides responded that the pictures meant nothing since the
President is photographed with thousands of supporters and White House
visitors every year.

Now, finally, the first such photo has come to light. It shows a
bearded Abramoff in the background as Bush greets an Abramoff client,
Raul Garza, who was then the chairman of the Kickapoo Traditional
Tribe of Texas; Bush senior advisor Karl Rove looks on. The photograph
was provided to TIME by Mr. Garza. The meeting took place in the
Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House on
May 9, 2001. Told about the photograph in January, the White House
said it had no record that Abramoff was present at the meeting. Shown
the photograph today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said
the White House had still found no record of Abramoff's presence but
confirmed that it is Abramoff in the picture. McClellan told TIME:
The president has taken countless, tens of thousands of pictures at
home and abroad over the last five years. As we've said previously a
photo like this has no relevance to the Justice Department's
investigation (of Abramoff).

This meeting, however, was a relatively small gathering attended by
some two dozen people, including Garza and another Indian tribal
leader who was Abramoff's client. At least two tribes, the Coushatta
of Louisiana and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw, contributed $25,000
each to the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed
by Grover Norquist, a well-known conservative ally of the White House.
Garza, who is also known by his Indian name, Makateonenodua.com,
meaning black buffalo, is under federal indictment for allegedly
embezzling more than $300,000 from his tribe.

Talking about the photo, Abramoff has told friends, I was standing
right next to the window and after the picture was taken, the
President came over and shook hands with me, and we chatted and
joked. A photograph of that scene as described by Abramoff was shown
to TIME two weeks ago. Abramoff's lawyers have said that their client
has long had photographs of himself with Bush, but that he has no
intention of releasing any of them. Abramoff would not comment on the
matter.

Benigno Fitial, the governor of the Northern Mariana Islands, told
TIME he attended the 2001 meeting as well. Then an Abramoff client,
the governor recalled asking the President a question about tax policy
as part of a discussion among the small group after Bush had given a
short speech on the subject. Fitial was seeking low-tax and relaxed
labor regulations for the Northern Marianas at the time. Fitial said
he used a photograph of himself with President Bush taken at the
meeting in his campaign for governor.

Fitial recalled that the President was very gracious at the session.
He knew quite a few of the people in the room; I know that because he
called them by their first name. The responses showed that the
President was no stranger to these people, he said. And the response
was very warm on both sides. 





--
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

[osint] Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn

[David Bier]

Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret
commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in
retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities,
according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/02/12/iran_is_prepared_to_retaliate_experts_warn/

Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff  |  February 12, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range
missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around
the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear
facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military
specialists.

US and Israeli officials have not ruled out military action against
Iran if diplomacy fails to thwart its nuclear ambitions. Among the
options are airstrikes on suspected nuclear installations or covert
action to sabotage the Iranian program.

But military and intelligence analysts warn that Iran -- which a
recent US intelligence report described as ''more confident and
assertive than it has been since the early days of the 1979 Islamic
revolution -- could unleash reprisals across the region, and perhaps
even inside the United States, if the hard-line regime came under attack.

''When the Americans or Israelis are thinking about [military force],
I hope they will sit down and think about everything the ayatollahs
could do to make our lives miserable and what we will do to discourage
them, said John Pike, director of the think tank GlobalSecurity.org,
referring to Iran's religious leaders.

''There could be a cycle of escalation.

President Bush has said military force should be the last resort in
international efforts to deter Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Yet
Bush has stated unequivocally that the United States would not
tolerate an Iranian nuclear arsenal, which the CIA estimates could be
in place in three to 10 years. Iran maintains its nuclear program is
solely aimed at producing electricity, not weapons.

Israel, which Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has
threatened to annihilate, asserts that Tehran is much closer to going
nuclear and has been far more direct with its counter-threats.

The Israel Defense Forces, which destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in
1981, has said it is perfecting ways to launch a preventative strike
against Iranian nuclear sites, including outfitting its Air Force with
American-made, bunker-busting munitions.

US intelligence officials have said that Iran, which fought a war with
Iraq from 1980-1988 that cost one million lives, still has the most
threatening armed forces in the immediate region. Its combined ground
forces are estimated at about 800,000 personnel. The CIA has concluded
that Iran is steadily enhancing its ability to project its military
power, including by threatening international shipping.

But it is Iran's unconventional weapons and tactics -- rather than its
conventional military -- that would pose the greatest threat,
according to the intelligence officials.

Bush's new intelligence chief, John D. Negroponte, outlining the
conclusions reached by a variety of US spy agencies, warned in his
first overall annual threat assessment this month to Congress that
Iran is capable of sparking a much wider conflict it comes under threat.

A major worry: newly acquired long-range missiles. Obtained with the
assistance of North Korea, the Shahab 3 could strike Israel and
perhaps even hit the periphery of Europe, according to a recent report
by the Pentagon's National Air and Space Intelligence Center.

The missiles could also be tipped with chemical warheads and threaten
US military bases in the region.

Iran is believed to have at least 20 launchers that are frequently
moved around the country to avoid detection.

''Iran has an extensive missile-development program and has received
support from entities in Russia, China, and North Korea, the Pentagon
report said, estimating their range to be at least 800 miles.

New missile designs under development could travel 400 miles farther,
it said, while Iran purchased at least a dozen X-55 cruise missiles
from Ukraine in 2001 that are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead as
far as Italy.

Meanwhile, Iranian agents and members of the Revolutionary Guard
Corps, widely believed to have a large presence in Iraq, could attempt
to foment an uprising by the their fellow Shi'ite majority in Iraq or
join insurgents in directly attacking US troops there, Negroponte warned.

He reported that Tehran has ''constrained itself in Iraq because it
is generally satisfied with the political trends in favor of the
Shi'ite majority and to avoid giving the United States another excuse
to attack Iran. But that could change if Iran were targeted militarily.

A leading Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr, whose militia has
clashed with US troops and rival Shi'ite groups, vowed in a visit 

[osint] Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say

[David Bier]

It slowly dawned on them that the collaboration between Pakistan,
North Korea and Iran was an ongoing and serious problem, Pike said.
It was starting to sink in on them that it was one program doing
business in three locations and that anything one of these countries
had they all had.


All the more astounding because Debkafile, using Israeli sources, was
reporting a joint North Korea-Iran nuclear program with Pakistan
technical support in late 2002, long before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
 Could it be that, instead of simple irritation at Wilson by Cheney,
the real primary reason Plame was outed, was that Cheney and
CICBush43, aside from his Axis of Evil SOTU speech, did not want
Iran's nuclear program exposed because it would interfere with their
desires to invade Iraq?  Any public leak of an advanced Iranian
nuclear effort would have mandated U.S. focus on Iran instead of Iraq,
eliminating any attempt to control its oil or get CICBush43 one up on
his dad by completing the task, CICBush43 thought his dad failed to do
and burnishing the younger Bush's reputation he sought as a warrior
President. 
Plame's program, now set back at least ten years, was apparently about
to connect the dots concerning the Iran program and its attempts to
obtain Niger uranium.  Interesting that there WAS an internal damage
assessment but it was never provided to Congress as required.  Porter
Goss appears to be covering for either Cheney, CICBush43, or both.

David Bier 

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say

02/13/2006 @ 10:25 am
Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna

Iran
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/02/03/iran.weapons/story.iran.revolution.gif


The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White
House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national
security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW
STORY has learned.

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson,
who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of
Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an
operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction technology to and from Iran.

Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed
heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest
that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported
and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its
ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.

While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the
nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation
activities of Pakistan's nuclear father, A.Q. Khan, intelligence
sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area,
focusing almost entirely on Iran.

Plame declined to comment through her husband, Joseph Wilson.

Valerie Plame first became a household name when her identity was
disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. The
column came only a week after her husband, former ambassador Joseph
Wilson, had written an op-ed for the New York Times asserting that
White House officials twisted pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Her outing
was seen as political retaliation for Wilson's criticism of the
Administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger for a
nuclear weapons program.

Her case has drawn international attention and resulted in the
indictment of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's
former chief of staff, on five counts of perjury, obstruction of
justice, and making false statements. Special Prosecutor Patrick J.
Fitzgerald, who is leading the probe, is still pursuing Deputy Chief
of Staff and Special Advisor to President Bush, Karl Rove. His
investigation remains open.

The damages

Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame's work.
They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in severe
damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to
monitor nuclear proliferation.

Plame's team, they added, would have come in contact with A.Q. Khan's
network in the course of her work on Iran.

While Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss has not submitted a
formal damage assessment to Congressional oversight committees, the
CIA's Directorate of Operations did conduct a serious and aggressive
investigation, sources say.

Intelligence sources familiar with the damage assessment say that what
is called a counter intelligence assessment to agency operations was
conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the
Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt.

Former CIA counterintelligence officer Larry Johnson believes that
such an assessment would have had to be done for the CIA to have
referred the case to the Justice Department.

An exposure like that required an immediate

[osint] Senators concerned over CIA leak report

[David Bier]

I don't think anybody should be releasing classified information,
period, whether in the Congress, executive branch or some underling in
some bureaucracy, said Allen, who appeared with Reed on Fox News
Sunday.
I think this calls into question in terms of Fitzgerald's
investigation of the conduct of the vice president and others, Reed
said. I think he has to look closely at their behavior.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_CIA_Leak.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_CIA_Leak.html

Sunday, February 12, 2006 · Last updated 8:19 p.m. PT

Senators concerned over CIA leak report


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
photo
Vice President Dick Cheney, center, accepts a rifle from National
Rifle Association President Kayne Robinson, right, and NRA Vice
President Wayne R. LaPierre, after concluding his keynote address to
the 133rd annuanl NRA convention in this April 17, 2004 file photo in
Pittsburgh. Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a
weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday Feb.
12, 2006. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/aponline/46821.39CHENEY-HUNTING-ACCIDENT.sff.jpg


WASHINGTON -- Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald should investigate
Vice President Dick Cheney and others in the CIA leak probe if they
authorized an aide to give secret information to reporters, Democratic
and Republican senators said Sunday.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., called the leak of intelligence information
inappropriate if it is true that unnamed superiors instructed
Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Scooter Libby, to divulge
the material on Iraq.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., said a full investigation is necessary.

I don't think anybody should be releasing classified information,
period, whether in the Congress, executive branch or some underling in
some bureaucracy, said Allen, who appeared with Reed on Fox News
Sunday.

According to court documents disclosed last week, Libby told a federal
grand jury that he disclosed in July 2003 the contents of a classified
National Intelligence Estimate as part of the Bush administration's
defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the documents it was his understanding that Mr.
Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about
the NIE to the press by his superiors.

The White House has refused to comment on the case.

I think this calls into question in terms of Fitzgerald's
investigation of the conduct of the vice president and others, Reed
said. I think he has to look closely at their behavior.

Allen expressed confidence in Fitzgerald, whom he called a very
articulate, professional prosecutor.

And I think the facts will lead wherever they lead, and I think he
will prosecute as appropriate, Allen said.

Libby, 55, was indicted on charges that he lied to FBI agents and the
grand jury about how he learned CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity
and when he told reporters. He is not charged with leaking classified
information.






--
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] Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over Inherent Presidential Powers:

[David Bier]

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate
Judiciary Committee to offer what may have been the weakest legal
argument for presidential power to conduct warrantless electronic
surveillance since Nixon's Justice Department invoked the views of
King George III.
King George III's take on the matter did not carry any weight either.
Indeed, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals could barely believe the
Nixon Justice Department was serious. The panel reminded the
government's lawyers that warrantless searches were among the very
reasons the colonies fought for their independence.
As for the reaction to the Gonzales testimony, a New York Times
editorial described it as a daylong display of cynical
hair-splitting, obfuscation, disinformation and stonewalling. The
Times also noted committee chairman Arlen Specter's analysis of the
Attorney General's legal position: It just defies logic.
Warrantless wiretapping, moreover, is not just a separation-of-powers
violation; it is also a federal crime. I suspect we will hear more
from Chairman Specter on this issue, for he has great respect for the
rule of law.



http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20060210.html

Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over Inherent Presidential
Powers: His Attempt to Swing the Pendulum Back Began Long Before 9/11

By JOHN W. DEAN

Friday, Feb. 10, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney has stirred up an old fight in Washington.
He sent a rookie, however, to make his case publicly. It did not work.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary
Committee to offer what may have been the weakest legal argument for
presidential power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance
since Nixon's Justice Department invoked the views of King George III.

King George III's take on the matter did not carry any weight either.
Indeed, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals could barely believe the
Nixon Justice Department was serious. The panel reminded the
government's lawyers that warrantless searches were among the very
reasons the colonies fought for their independence.

As for the reaction to the Gonzales testimony, a New York Times
editorial described it as a daylong display of cynical
hair-splitting, obfuscation, disinformation and stonewalling. The
Times also noted committee chairman Arlen Specter's analysis of the
Attorney General's legal position: It just defies logic.

The Illogic Of the Bush Administration's Position on Congress' Law and
Views

Chairman Specter is correct. Gonzales' position is that the President
can make his own rules, notwithstanding the existence of a federal
statute - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) - that is
directly on point, expressly prohibiting warrantless electronic
surveillance. For the Attorney General to defend such a view defies
the equilibrium of our constitutional system to use Chairman
Specter's words - treating Congress' clear word on the matter, as if
had never been spoken at all.

Warrantless wiretapping, moreover, is not just a separation-of-powers
violation; it is also a federal crime. I suspect we will hear more
from Chairman Specter on this issue, for he has great respect for the
rule of law.

Equally illogical is Vice President Dick Cheney's position -- and if
anyone does not believe that Cheney is not behind this ruckus, they do
not know Cheney or his history. Let me start by describing his
give-no-quarter stance.

After the Attorney General's testimony concluded, and given the doubts
expressed about it by both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, PBS newsman Jim Lehrer asked Cheney if President
Bush would cooperate with Congress to settle some of the legal
disputes about the NSA surveillance program? Cheney responded with a
polite, hell no. (Incidentally, this was Cheney's first interview with
other than a conservative news person.) We believe, Jim, that we have
all the legal authority we need, Cheney said. [The President]
indicated the other day he's willing to listen to ideas from the
Congress, and certainly they have the right and the responsibility to
suggest whatever they want to suggest.
Column continues below #8595;

The President will listen to ideas and suggestions from the Congress,
but he will not follow a law it has written (and a prior President has
signed into law) on the subject? This is not exactly a logical stance.

Congresswoman Wilson's Call For Details: Initially Resisted, Finally
Addressed

Nor is the on-again/off-again stance the administration has taken
regarding whether it will even share with Congress the details of the
NSA surveillance program.

The off-again stance was simply absurd. With every indication
suggesting that the President directed the NSA to violate federal law,
the Administration seemed to maintain that Congress somehow lacked
even the authority to investigate the most basic facts relating to the
illegality: Who, what, when, where and how.

At first, the Administration refused even to 

[osint] Inquiry Into Wiretapping Article Widens

[David Bier]

...a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances
surrounding a New York Times article published in December that
disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping
program,
What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate
about the proper balance between security and liberty — a debate that
many government officials of both parties, and in all three branches
of government, seem to regard as in the national interest.
...conservatives have attacked the disclosure of classified
information as an illegal act, demanding a vigorous investigative
effort to find and prosecute whoever disclosed classified information.
An outgrowth of the Fitzgerald investigation is that the gloves are
off in leak cases, said George J. Terwilliger III, former deputy
attorney general in the administration of the first President Bush.
New rules apply.


Interesting the Plame case should be mentioned as it appears from
recent reports, that either Cheney or CICBush43, or both, sent Libby,
and possibly Rove and others, to deliberately out Plame.  One wonders
if those conservatives include that disclosure of classfied
information as an illegal act?  Especially since it destroyed the U.S.
surveillance program on the Iranian nuclear program.  A program that
might have been easily squashed earlier, will probably require
military force and resultant economic and military warfare that will
impact us all significantly.  And probably require going to a declared
war against Iran with suspension of Americans' civil rights by what
will then (at present there is NO Constitutionally declared war and
thus no wartime powers) be a legitimately wartime president.

David Bier

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/politics/12inquire.html?_r=2adxnnl=1oref=sloginpagewanted=printadxnnlx=1139866307-+559dwedYc79oEiw9/+LKw

February 12, 2006

Inquiry Into Wiretapping Article Widens

By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — Federal agents have interviewed officials at
several of the country's law enforcement and national security
agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the
circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in
December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic
eavesdropping program, according to government officials.

The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the
newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with
criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said.
People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have
been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seemed to lay
the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal
charges.

The inquiry is progressing as a debate about the eavesdropping rages
in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush has condemned the leak as a
shameful act. Others, like Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, have
expressed the hope that reporters will be summoned before a grand jury
and asked to reveal the identities of those who provided them
classified information.

Mr. Goss, speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Feb.
2, said: It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand
jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is
leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the
people of this country deserve nothing less.

The case is viewed as potentially far reaching because it places on a
collision course constitutional principles that each side regards as
paramount. For the government, the investigation represents an effort
to punish those responsible for a serious security breach and enforce
legal sanctions against leaks of classified information at a time of
heightened terrorist threats. For news organizations, the inquiry
threatens the confidentiality of sources and the ability to report on
controversial national security issues free of government interference.

Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said no one at the paper
had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and he
defended the paper's reporting.

Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the
administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage
the country's counterterrorism efforts, Mr. Keller said. We were not
convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting
compromised national security.

What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate
about the proper balance between security and liberty — a debate that
many government officials of both parties, and in all three branches
of government, seem to regard as in the national interest.

Civil liberties groups and Democratic lawmakers as well as some
Republicans have called for an inquiry into the eavesdropping program
as an improper and possibly illegal intrusion on the privacy rights of
innocent Americans. These critics have noted

[osint] For one Marine, torture came home

[David Bier]

...young Afghans — some visible in blue jumpsuits in his photos — had
been rounded up and brought to the site by a CIA special operations
team. The CIA officers made no great secret of what they were doing,
he said, but were dismissive of the Marines and pulled rank when
challenged.
Jeff said he had been told by soldiers who had been present that the
detainees were being interrogated and tortured, and that they were
sometimes given psychotropic drugs. Some, he believed, had died in
custody. What disturbed him most, he said, was that the detainees were
not Taliban fighters or associates of Osama bin Laden. By the time we
got there, Jeff said, the serious fighters were long gone.
Jeff had other stories to tell as well. He said the CIA team had put
detainees in cargo containers aboard planes and interrogated them
while circling in the air. He'd been on board some of these flights,
he said, and was deeply disturbed by what he'd seen.

 
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-bardach12feb12,0,7968152.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

From the Los Angeles Times

For one Marine, torture came home

By Ann Louise Bardach

February 12, 2006

ABOUT A YEAR and a half ago, a 40-year-old former Marine sergeant
named Jeffrey Lehner, recently returned from Afghanistan, phoned and
asked to meet with me. Since his return he had been living with his
father, a retired pharmacist, in the Santa Barbara home where he was
raised. I first heard about Jeff from an acquaintance of mine who was
dating him and who told me that he was deeply distressed about what he
had seen on his tours in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East.

We met for lunch at a restaurant on Canon Perdido in downtown Santa
Barbara. Jeff was focused, articulate and as handsome as a movie star.
He was quite wound-up, but utterly lucid.

There was no way I could have known that day the depths of Jeff's
unhappiness, no way I could have predicted the tragedy that would
follow. I listened closely to his story and, while I was surprised by
what I heard, I had no particular reason to disbelieve him.

He had joined the Marines enthusiastically, he told me, and served as
a flight mechanic for eight years. Not long after 9/11, he began
helping to fly materials into Afghanistan with the first wave of U.S.
troops.

In the beginning, Jeff supported the administration's policies in the
region. But over time, that began to change. As we talked, Jeff
brought out an album of photos from Afghanistan. He pointed to a
series of photographs of a trailer and several huts behind a
barbed-wire fence; these were taken, he said, outside a U.S. military
camp not far from the Kandahar airport. He told me that young Afghans
— some visible in blue jumpsuits in his photos — had been rounded up
and brought to the site by a CIA special operations team. The CIA
officers made no great secret of what they were doing, he said, but
were dismissive of the Marines and pulled rank when challenged.

Jeff said he had been told by soldiers who had been present that the
detainees were being interrogated and tortured, and that they were
sometimes given psychotropic drugs. Some, he believed, had died in
custody. What disturbed him most, he said, was that the detainees were
not Taliban fighters or associates of Osama bin Laden. By the time we
got there, Jeff said, the serious fighters were long gone.

Jeff had other stories to tell as well. He said the CIA team had put
detainees in cargo containers aboard planes and interrogated them
while circling in the air. He'd been on board some of these flights,
he said, and was deeply disturbed by what he'd seen.

Was Jeff telling me the truth? As a reporter who writes investigative
articles, I get calls frequently from people with unusual stories —
sometimes spot-on accurate ones, sometimes personal vendettas and
sometimes paranoid, crazy stories. Jeff seemed truthful, and he had
told the same stories almost verbatim to several friends and family
members. But I was worried because at the time, I hadn't heard about
such abuses in Afghanistan, and Jeff's stories were hard to verify.

More worrisome, Jeff was seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress
disorder, and I wondered whether he could withstand the scrutiny his
allegations would generate.

PTSD's symptoms can include anxiety, deeply frightening thoughts, a
sense of helplessness or flashbacks. Jeff's case apparently stemmed,
according to Jim Nolan, a fellow veteran and a friend from Jeff's PTSD
support group, from witnessing the unspeakable, and from his
inability to stop what he knew to be morally wrong.

His case was compounded, his friends said, by strong feelings of
survivor's guilt involving the crash of a KC-130 transport plane
into a mountain in January 2002 — killing eight men in his unit. He'd
been scheduled to be on the flight and had been reassigned at the last
minute. As part of the ground crew that attended to the plane's
maintenance, he blamed himself. Afterward, he went to the 

[osint] The Fallen Legion

[David Bier]

Casualties of the Bush Administrationthe casualties of the Bush
administration are legion. The numbers of government careers wrecked,
disrupted, adversely affected, or tossed into turmoil as a result of
this administration's wars, budgets, policies, and programs is
impossible to determine. Although every administration leaves bodies
strewn in its wake, none in recent memory has come close to the Bush
administration in producing so many public statements of resignation,
dissatisfaction, or anger over treatment or policies. The
aforementioned list of casualties includes among the best known of
those who have resigned or left the administration under pressure
(although not necessarily those who have suffered most from their
acts). Perhaps no one knows exactly how many government workers, at
all levels, have fallen in the face of the Bush administration. Those
mentioned above are just a few of the highest profile members of this
as yet uncounted legion, just a few of the names we know.


Actual quotes by the individuals listed are included and are worth
reading to get a sense of what has been happening behind the scenes in
 CICBush43's administration.  Comments about the invasion of Iraq and
its adverse impact on the war on terror are particularly enlightening.
 This is the first of what now amounts to a three part, but open ended
series.

David Bier

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=28817

Tomgram: Nick Turse, Casualties of the Bush Administration

As the American toll in Iraq climbs toward 2,000 dead and 15,000
wounded, and the horror of those shortened or constricted lives
continues to sink deep into American communities, various memorials to
the fallen -- American soldiers, journalists, contractors, and
sometimes Iraqis as well -- have sprung to life. Arrays of combat
boots; labyrinths and candlelit displays for the dead; actual walls
and walls on-line; newspaper walls as well as walls of words; not
to speak of websites with ever-growing military and civilian casualty
counts. The American Friends Service Committee, for example, has an
exhibit, Eyes Wide Open, that has long traveled the country,
featuring a pair of boots honoring each U.S. military casualty, a
field of shoes and a Wall of Remembrance to memorialize the Iraqis
killed in the conflict, and a multimedia display exploring the
history, cost and consequences of the war. The exhibit began with
just over 500 combat boots and now features almost 2,000.

Informal memorials and citizens' efforts are part of the growing
movement against George Bush's Iraq War. Walls of every sort are being
built. In Asheville, North Carolina, for example, as part of a peace
park, townspeople have been building their own Iraq Wall with each
sponsored stone representing one American who has died there.
Planned also is a memorial to the Iraqi dead, presently estimated at
over 100,000. Sometimes these projects are very personal, even
individual, ranging from spontaneous displays of candles on beaches
to, in the case of one reader who wrote in to Tomdispatch, a
garden/labyrinth of the American dead built in her own backyard.

These walls, each with its own character, all influenced by
architect Maya Lin's Vietnam Wall in Washington (which movingly
reflected a grim American disaster and defeat), are signs of a growing
sense that this war is a horror and a dishonor to which the honorable
have fallen (a sense backed strongly by the latest opinion polls).

But the particular dishonor this administration has brought down on
our country calls out for other walls as well. Perhaps, for
instance, we need some negative walls built, stone by miserable stone,
to cronyism, corruption, and incompetence. In the next few weeks (as
in the last few), we seem certain to see the dishonor of this
administration spread around widely. In addition to the Iraq
situation, ever devolving into further chaos and anarchy, there was,
of course, the recent catastrophic failure of FEMA; then the squalid
fall of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as the Hammer got hammered.
There is the ongoing fiasco of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's
sale of family stock in a blind trust just before its price
plummeted. He's now under investigation for possible violations of
insider trading laws and the SEC has just subpoenaed his personal
records and documents. Soon, it seems, there will be dishonor to go
around as the expected Fitzgerald indictments in the Plame case come
down. (Caught in the crosshairs of Plame case scandal is the New York
Times, a paper tied in knots and at war with itself, which managed to
loose both former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's famed op-ed on Saddam's
nonexistent Niger yellowcake and Judith Miller, the near-neocon
journalist whose reporting helped bring us to the edge of the Iraq
War. To catch up on this aspect of things, make sure to read Jay
Rosen's remarkable recent columns at his PressThink blog.)

With all this in mind, it seems a worthwhile endeavor to remind the
world

[osint] Re: Declaration of War (a reminder)

[David Bier]

The Congressional authorization was NOT a Declaration of War under the
U.S. Constitution but merely a bill authorizing force against al Qaeda
and anyone who supported their attack on the United States.

David Bier

--- In osint@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 _President  Signs Authorization for Use of Military Force bill_ 
 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010918-10.html)  
  
  
  _Home_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/index.html)   _News  
 Policies_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/)_September  2001_ 
 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/)  
 
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010918-10.html)
  
 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010918-10.html#) 
 
 For Immediate Release
 Office of the  Press Secretary
 September 18, 2001  
 President Signs Authorization for Use of Military Force  bill 
 Statement by the President  
 Today I am signing Senate Joint  Resolution 23, the Authorization
for Use of 
 Military Force.  
 On September 11, 2001, terrorists  committed treacherous and
horrific acts of 
 violence against innocent  Americans and individuals from other
countries.  
 Civilized  nations and people around the world have expressed
outrage at, and  
 have unequivocally condemned, these attacks.  Those who  plan,
authorize, 
 commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United  States and its
interests -- 
 including those who harbor terrorists --  threaten the national
security of the 
 United States.  It  is, therefore, necessary and appropriate that
the United 
 States  exercise its rights to defend itself and protect United States  
 citizens both at home and abroad.  
 In adopting this resolution  in response to the latest terrorist acts 
 committed against the  United States and the continuing threat to
the United States 
 and its  citizens from terrorist activities, both Houses of Congress
have  
 acted wisely, decisively, and in the finest traditions of our 
country.  I thank 
 the leadership of both Houses for their  role in expeditiously
passing this 
 historic joint  resolution.  I have had the benefit of meaningful 
consultations 
 with members of the Congress since the attacks of  September 11,
2001, and I 
 will continue to consult closely with them  as our Nation responds
to this 
 threat to our peace and security.  
 Senate Joint Resolution 23  recognizes the seriousness of the terrorist 
 threat to our Nation and  the authority of the President under the
Constitution to 
 take action  to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United  
 States.  In signing this resolution, I maintain the  longstanding
position of the 
 executive branch regarding the  President's constitutional authority
to use 
 force, including the  Armed Forces of the United States and
regarding the  
 constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.  
 Our whole Nation is  unalterably committed to a direct, forceful, and 
 comprehensive  response to these terrorist attacks and the scourge
of terrorism  
 directed against the United States and its interests.  
 GEORGE W. BUSH  
 THE WHITE HOUSE,  
 September 18, 2001.  
 
 *
 *
 *
 Rev. Jim Sutter (a/k/a  Groandalf) 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio USA
 _http://revjimsutter.blogspot.com_ (http://revjimsutter.blogspot.com/)  
 (frequently updated)
 
 Fair winds and following seas to our lost  sailors and Marines.
 
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







--
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

[osint] Re: Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry

[David Bier]

In the comments concerning the article, I pointed out Ms. Wilson is
having re-election problems, partially because of campaign
contributions from corporations with connections to pornography.  
In Ms. Wilson's defense (and that of Senators McCain and Lieberman
among others) I would like to note that at least some of those
donations came from a high executive of a major news organization who
is a born-again Christian that virtually no one would assume was
profiting from pornography. The details are in the article at
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?StoryID=B224C88D-3D13-4652-9D22-33FD2D80FD2CSectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE
 
Ms. Wilson et al could rightfully say:  How was I supposed to know?,

David Bier

--- In osint@yahoogroups.com, David Bier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the
 administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on
 either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for
 a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the
 N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international
 communications of people inside the United States believed to have
 links with terrorists.
 The congresswoman's discomfort with the operation appears to reflect
 deepening fissures among Republicans over the program's legal basis
 and political liabilities. Many Republicans have strongly backed
 President Bush's power to use every tool at his disposal to fight
 terrorism, but 4 of the 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary
 Committee voiced concerns about the program at a hearing where
 Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Monday.
 
 
 You can bet Wilson is real concerned about the political liability
 factor as she is facing a dead heat at this point for re-election.
 (http://www.madridforcongress.com/node/513) and is having to deal with
 charges that she speaks out against pornography but accepted $47,000
 in campaign contributions from firms that profit from it. 
 (http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=34).  Oh
 well, Republicans have a 16 seat margin in the House and Boehner is
 reforming lobbying rules, so one less Republican incumbent won't
 matter...or will it?  Anyway, it is likely Wilson to take a hard line
 against NSA, regardless of Rove's threats to blacklist Republicans who
 do that because she is probably already on it from opposing other
 Bushworld proposals. It is Darwin's rules after all...and impeachment
 actions do
 start in the House.
 
 David Bier
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nsa.html
 
 February 8, 2006
 
 Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry
 
 By ERIC LICHTBLAU
 
 WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — A House Republican whose subcommittee oversees
 the National Security Agency broke ranks with the White House on
 Tuesday and called for a full Congressional inquiry into the Bush
 administration's domestic eavesdropping program.
 
 The lawmaker, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico,
 chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and
 Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had serious
 concerns about the surveillance program. By withholding information
 about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration
 has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring
and why.
 
 Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the
 administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on
 either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for
 a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the
 N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international
 communications of people inside the United States believed to have
 links with terrorists.
 
 The congresswoman's discomfort with the operation appears to reflect
 deepening fissures among Republicans over the program's legal basis
 and political liabilities. Many Republicans have strongly backed
 President Bush's power to use every tool at his disposal to fight
 terrorism, but 4 of the 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary
 Committee voiced concerns about the program at a hearing where
 Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Monday.
 
 A growing number of Republicans have called in recent days for
 Congress to consider amending federal wiretap law to address the
 constitutional issues raised by the N.S.A. operation.
 
 Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for one, said he considered
 some of the administration's legal justifications for the program
 dangerous in their implications, and he told Mr. Gonzales that he
 wanted to work on new legislation that would help those tracking
 terrorism know what they can and can't do.
 
 But the administration has said repeatedly since the program was
 disclosed in December that it considers further legislation
 unnecessary, believing that the president already has the legal

[osint] Re: definition of declaration of war

[David Bier]

Nice easy general layman definition of Declaration of War.  But it
misses the point that only a formal enactment by Congress so entitled
is in fact a Declaration of War.

The most recent Congressional interpretation of their Constitutional
authority, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 makes a careful
distinction between a declaration of war by Congress, a Congressional
resolution authorizing force or a response to an invasion of the
United States or attack on its forces. Read the resolution at:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm

In part, it reads:

SEC 2(c):  The constitutional powers of the President as
Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into
hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised
only pursuant to 
(1) a declaration of war, 
(2) specific statutory authorization, or 
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Right now U.S. forces involved in the War on Terror do it based on
(2) specific statutory authorization  NOT a declaration of war.

Technical?  Yes.  But in law, as in artillery, accuracy counts...

David Bier


--- In osint@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 _Legal Definition of  'Declaration Of War'_ 
 (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d108.htm)  
  
 DECLARATION OF WAR - An act of the national legislature, in which a
state  of 
 war is declared to exist between the United States and some other
nation.  
 This power is vested in Congress by the Constitution, Art. I.
**There is no form 
  or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act.** (emphasis 
added)
 
 The public proclamation of the government of a state, by which it 
declares 
 itself to be at war with a foreign power, and which forbids all and
 every one 
 to aid or assist the common enemy. A manifesto stating the causes of
 the war 
 is usually published, but war exists as soon as the act takes  effect.
 
 It was formerly usual to precede hostilities by a public  declaration 
 communicated to the enemy, and to send a herald to demand 
satisfaction, but that is 
 not the practice of modern times. In some countries,  e.g., England,
the power 
 of declaring war is vested in the king, but he has no  power to
raise men or 
 money to carry it on, which renders the right almost  nugatory.
 
 
 *
 *
 *
 Rev. Jim Sutter (a/k/a  Groandalf) 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio USA
 _http://revjimsutter.blogspot.com_ (http://revjimsutter.blogspot.com/)  
 (frequently updated)
 
 Fair winds and following seas to our lost  sailors and Marines.
 
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







--
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] The Taliban's bloody foothold in Pakistan

[David Bier]

If this military strategy is implemented it would have serious
consequences for the allied forces in Afghanistan, especially at a
time when they are mounting pressure on Iran, commented an
intelligence analyst. However, the Taliban made tall claims about
winter suicide attacks, but barring a few events they failed to
inflict major losses on allied forces.
That was before the Taliban secured a base in North Waziristan,
though. This time around could see a very different outcome.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HB08Df01.html

Feb 8, 2006


The Taliban's bloody foothold in Pakistan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - By taking control of virtually all of Pakistan's North
Waziristan tribal area on the border with Afghanistan, the Taliban
have gained a significant base from which to wage their resistance
against US-led forces in Afghanistan. At the same time, the
development solidifies the anti-US resistance groups in Iraq, Iran and
Afghanistan, which will now fight under a single strategy.

The Taliban recently declared the establishment of an Islamic state
in North Waziristan, and they now, through the brutal elimination of
the criminal elements who previously held sway, in effect rule in the
rugged territory.

As a tribal area, North Waziristan has always enjoyed significant
independence from Islamabad, and even on the occasions when the
Pakistani army has ventured into the area to root out foreign fighters
or Afghan resistance figures, it has received fierce opposition, and
in effect been forced to back off.

The Taliban and their supporters plant roadside bombs on the routes
used by the Pakistani paramilitary forces, and virtually every day one
or two vehicles are blown up. This measure is aimed to keep the
security forces away from the actual tribal areas of Waziristan. In
short, the writ of the Pakistani political agent (the central
government's representative) barely extends beyond Miramshah Bazaar
and Wana Bazaar (the official headquarters). Everywhere else, the
Taliban are calling the shots.

Asia Times Online has viewed a video disc released by the Taliban that
illustrates their control in North Waziristan. The footage includes
their bases, where thousands of youths are present, preparations for
an attack into Afghanistan, and shots of criminals executed at a
public rally staged by the Taliban.

The government of Pakistan has termed the executions tyranny.

The video opens with pictures of the headless bodies of criminals
strung up in Miramshah Bazaar, executed by the Taliban.

The next segment showcases the establishment of strong bases in which
thousands of turban-clad youths can be seen with guns. Commanders scan
the ranks and select a squad to launch a guerrilla attack on a US base
in Khost province in Afghanistan. They put on headbands with the
wording There is no God but the one God; Mohammed is the messenger of
God.

The fighters emerge from their base at night and head for Khost. After
a 30-minute battle, flames can be seen rising from within the US base.
The squad returns before dawn.

The video also includes the official announcement of the
establishment of an Islamic state in Waziristan (which includes the
tribal area of South Waziristan) and a declaration of the Taliban's
rule in North Waziristan.

This development confirms an Asia Times Online article describing how
al-Qaeda and its allies - in this case the Taliban - would establish
bases from which to coordinate and strengthen its global war against
the United States (Al-Qaeda goes back to base, November 4, 2005).

This announcement of an Islamic state is interpreted as a prelude to
the Taliban's summer offensive, precisely at a time when Iran's
nuclear dossier will be submitted to the United Nations Security
Council, and both Europe and the US will be mounting pressure on
Tehran to abandon its nuclear program.

The US and Iran being at loggerheads sits very well with al-Qaeda's
plans to establish bases and a unified command system of anti-US
resistance from Iraq to Afghanistan. Iran is at present the only
missing link in this strategy.

Despite little love being lost between the Taliban and Iran, al-
Qaeda's Egyptian camp has retained its traditional decades-old ties
with the Iranian regime. The real ideologue of the Iranian revolution
of 1979 was Dr Ali Shariati, who was inspired by the Muslim
Brotherhood's Syed Qutub. Similarly, the Islamic Jihad of Palestine
officially claims its inspiration from the Shi'ite Iranian revolution,
despite being a completely Sunni Islamic group.

Al-Qaeda's link with Iran, although at a very low level, could prove
critical in the coming months. Should Iran find itself sanctioned, or
even attacked by the US, few states would dare to support Tehran.

Al-Qaeda, however, would seize the opportunity, asking in return that
it be given its desperately needed corridor through Iran to link
Afghanistan and Pakistan with Iraq and the Arab world.

A silent revolution

The Taliban video 

[osint] Department of Justice concedes it can begin to release internal warrantless surv

[David Bier]

...the Justice Department on February 10 conceded in federal court
that it could begin releasing as early as March 3 the internal legal
memos relied on by the Bush administration in setting up the
controversial National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping program.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060213/index.htm

Department of Justice concedes it can begin to release
internal warrantless surveillance records on March 3

For more information contact: Thomas Blanton or Meredith Fuchs
202/994-7000

Washington, D.C., February 13, 2006 - Under pressure from a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit, the Justice Department on February 10
conceded in federal court that it could begin releasing as early as
March 3 the internal legal memos relied on by the Bush administration
in setting up the controversial National Security Agency warrantless
wiretapping program.

The National Security Archive, along with the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), this week joined the Electronic Privacy Information
Center in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department
of Justice seeking to compel the immediate disclosure of the internal
legal justifications for the surveillance program. The filing this
week (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060213/Complaint.pdf) by the
Archive and the ACLU was consolidated 
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060213/Motion.Consolidate.pdf)
with a suit filed on January 19, 2006, by the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) 
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060213/EPIC_complaint_doj.pdf)
that requested the federal court in Washington to issue a preliminary
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060213/EPIC_pi_motion_doj.pdf)
injunction requiring the release of relevant documents within 20
days-which Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. considered at a formal hearing
today.

The response of the news media to the revelation that the National
Security Agency (NSA) has engaged in warrantless domestic
surveillance was immediate and dramatic, as was the response of
Congress which just this week held the first hearing examining the
legality of the program. News reporting and Administration statements
over the last six weeks have disclosed that NSA began warrantless
eavesdropping prior to receiving formal approval from President Bush;
that the operation involves cooperation from American
telecommunication companies, which allowed the agency to tap directly
into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries;
that the information gathered was turned over to other agencies,
including the Defense Intelligence Agency; and that some purely
domestic communications (which both originated and terminated in the
United States) were accidentally intercepted.

The Archive's General Counsel Meredith Fuchs commented, There are
real secrets and convenient secrets. It may be convenient for the NSA
to run this program in secret, but that policy debate, and
consideration of the legality of the program, should be open.

The Archive submitted the FOIA request to the Department of Justice on
December 22, 2005. The Department of Justice agreed with the Archive's
contention that the request merits speedy processing, but has failed
to meet FOIA's statutory 20-day deadline for responses.

The Archive has published an extensive chronicle of the key historic 
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB178/index.htm) documents
about domestic intelligence policy, including many brought to light by
the Church Committee investigations of intelligence abuses, and a
series of National Security Agency documents from the 1990s released
under the Freedom of Information Act that describe the limits imposed
by FISA and the Fourth Amendment on surveilling U.S. persons.




Background:

* FISA Was Passed in 1978 to Prescribe Procedures for Physical and
Electronic Surveillance.
  o The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA) of 1978
prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and
collection of foreign intelligence information between or among
foreign powers.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html)
  o The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s
to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects
within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the
Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are
foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include
emergency provisions that allow warrant-less eavesdropping for up to
72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to
get the information. (Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on
Spy Program, Washington Post, 12/22/05)

* According to the New York Times, Bush Authorized a Secret Spying
Program Outside the FISA Systems.
  o Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush
secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on
Americans and others without the 

[osint] Bomb Kills Four U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

[David Bier]

The bombing raised the death toll of U.S. personnel in the Afghan
conflict to 214 since the U.S. invaded the country in late 2001.
Violence spiked across southern and eastern Afghanistan last year as
militants stepped up their campaign against the country's U.S.-backed
government. Some 1,600 people — including 91 U.S. troops — were
killed, more than double the number in 2004.
Fighting in Afghanistan has not let up this winter, unlike in
previous years when the violence declined as heavy snowfall made
mountain paths unusable by the rebels.



Roadside bombs (coupled with subsequent crossfire on stalled convoys)
and suicide bombers becoming the Taliban tactics of choice...sounds
like Iraq tactics are being exported to Afghanistan from Iraq. Sure
wish we had taken the time and military resources which would have
been sufficient to stamp out al Qaeda and the Taliban completely in
2002. Instead CICBush43 diverted those resources to Iraq where they
were not enough to both win the war and pacify the defeated nation. 
Now, the al Qaeda segment of the insurgent forces appears to be
sending combat veteran terrorists back to aid/train/lead a resurgent
Taliban fully armed from its deals with the Tamil Tigers arms network.

David Bier


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060213/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan;_ylt=ApvmsGPNw0wliKu6l9yoRhus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

 Bomb Kills Four U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

By DANIEL COONEY, Associated Press WriterMon Feb 13, 4:11 PM ET

A bomb killed four U.S. troops when it hit their armored vehicle
Monday in a volatile mountainous region in Afghanistan, the deadliest
loss for the U.S. military in the country in four months.

Officials also said five Afghan members of a U.S.-backed militia also
were killed in a firefight in the southern province of Helmand.

The violence was a reminder of the dangers thousands of British,
Canadian and Dutch troops will face when they take over from U.S.
forces in southern Afghanistan by midyear.

The four American troops were patrolling with Afghan soldiers along a
valley road in Uruzgan province's Dihrawud district, a hotbed of the
insurgency, when they were attacked, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Mike
Cody said.

Shortly after the blast, militants opened fire with guns and
rocket-propelled grenades. The troops fought back and called in attack
helicopters and fighter planes to pound the militants' positions, a
military statement said.

An assessment of insurgent casualties is ongoing, the military said.

This is a sad and tragic day for us all, Brig. Gen. John Sterling, a
U.S. commander, said in the statement.

The names of the troops were withheld pending notification of their
families.

The bombing raised the death toll of U.S. personnel in the Afghan
conflict to 214 since the U.S. invaded the country in late 2001. The
blast was the biggest loss of life for the U.S. military since late
September, when five troops were killed in a helicopter crash.

Violence spiked across southern and eastern Afghanistan last year as
militants stepped up their campaign against the country's U.S.-backed
government. Some 1,600 people — including 91 U.S. troops — were
killed, more than double the number in 2004.

In addition, the past four months have seen a spate of more than 20
suicide bombings, raising fears of Iraq-style bloodshed.

The five pro-government Afghan militiamen were killed when suspected
Taliban rebels ambushed them Sunday, said Gen. Abdulrahman, the
provincial police chief, who uses only one name.

Two were killed in the initial attack, while the other three fled the
battle but were tracked down and shot dead, he said. Two other
militiamen managed to escape and were found unhurt.

The militia force was set up by the provincial government and the U.S.
military to tackle drug traffickers and other militants, the commander
said. Similar forces have been established in other volatile provinces.

Meanwhile, five Afghan soldiers were wounded when a roadside bomb hit
their vehicle in eastern Kunar province Monday, Defense Ministry
spokesman Gen. Mohammed Zahir Azimi said.

Another roadside bomb Monday hurt two Afghan soldiers in the capital,
Kabul, while a rocket attack on a security post in northern Baghlan
city wounded two other troops, he said.

Fighting in Afghanistan has not let up this winter, unlike in previous
years when the violence declined as heavy snowfall made mountain paths
unusable by the rebels.

Despite this, U.S. military commanders and President Hamid Karzai say
they believe heavy rebel losses in recent battles have reduced the
insurgents' ability to carry out major assaults, pointing to the spike
in suicide attacks and roadside bombings as evidence.





--
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

[osint] Lawyers group slams Bush on eavesdropping

[David Bier]

We hope the President will listen, association president Michael
Grecco told reporters after the more than 500 members of its
policy-setting body passed a resolution saying that both national
security and constitutional freedoms needed to be protected.

We do not say surveillance should be stopped, only that it comply
with the law,
The resolution also called on the U.S. Congress to affirm that the
post September 11 law on the authorization of military force did not
give the White House an exemption from the requirements of the 1978 law.


http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060213/2006-02-13T220526Z_01_N13390900_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING-POLL-DC.html

Lawyers group slams Bush on eavesdropping

Feb 13, 5:05 PM (ET)

By Michael Conlon

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The American Bar Association told President George
W. Bush on Monday to either stop domestic eavesdropping without a
warrant or get the law changed to make it legal.

We hope the President will listen, association president Michael
Grecco told reporters after the more than 500 members of its
policy-setting body passed a resolution saying that both national
security and constitutional freedoms needed to be protected.

We do not say surveillance should be stopped, only that it comply
with the law, said Neal Sonnett, a Miami lawyer who headed the task
force formed to look at the issue not long after the spying program
came to light in December.

Authorized by Bush in 2001, the program allows the National Security
Agency to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S.
citizens to track people with ties to al Qaeda and other militant groups.

The White House has said warrantless eavesdropping is legal under
Bush's constitutional powers as commander-in-chief and a congressional
authorization for the use of military force adopted days after the
September 11 attacks.

The program bypassed secret courts created under the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, that grant warrants.

We are not trying to limit the President's ability to go after
terrorists, Sonnett told the group's House of Delegates before it
passed his task force's resolution with relatively little debate.

Nobody wants to hamstring the President, he added, But we cannot
allow the U.S. Constitution and our rights to become a victim of
terrorism, he added.

Grecco told the group the issue is not whether the President can
conduct surveillance but whether he can do it unilaterally.

The association's resolution calls on Bush to abide by the
limitations which the Constitution imposes on a President to make
sure national security is protected in a way that is consistent with
constitutional guarantees.

It opposes any future electronic surveillance inside the United
States by any U.S. government agency for foreign intelligence purposes
that does not comply with provisions of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act.

If Bush believes that law is inadequate, then he should ask Congress
to change it or enact new legislation, it added.

The resolution also called on the U.S. Congress to affirm that the
post September 11 law on the authorization of military force did not
give the White House an exemption from the requirements of the 1978 law.






--
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] Why U.S. Intelligence Failed, Redux

[David Bier]

After the Downing Street Memo was revealed in Great Britain in
2005, Bush's spokesmen heatedly denied its claims and major  U.S. news
outlets dismissed its significance. But in the upcoming issue of
Foreign Affairs magazine, Pillar offers a matching account. He wrote
that the administration didn't just play games with the traditional
notion that objective analysis should inform responsible policy, but
turned the entire model upside down.
The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making,
but to justify a decision already made, Pillar wrote. The Bush
administration deviated from the professional standard not only in
using policy to drive intelligence, but also in aggressively using
intelligence to win public support for its decision to go to war. This
meant selectively adducing data -- 'cherry-picking' -- rather than
using the intelligence community's own analytic judgments.
These two accounts -- which are further bolstered by first-hand
statements from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, former
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Colin Powell's former chief of
staff Lawrence Wilkerson -- reveal an administration long determined
to invade Iraq and assembling reasons that would scare the American
people into supporting an unprovoked war.
Time and again, Bush and his administration have replaced the
principle that good intelligence makes for good policy with the
near-opposite approach: you start with a conclusion and then distort
all available information to sell the pre-ordained policy to a
gullible, ill-informed or frightened public.


The first meeting in the White House to discuss Iraq regime change
occurred the first Tuesday in January, 2001 less than a week after
CICBush43's inauguration. Cheney's energy policy group requested all
Energy Dept documents concerning Iraq's oil reserves and oil
infrastructure in April, 2001, according to Judicial Watch, a
conservative law firm that sued to have the group's membership
revealed.  Thus 9/11 was not the catalyst that generated CICBush43's
determination to invade Iraq, it was merely an excuse.  Intelligence
did not make any strong case for Iraq being an imminent danger to the
U.S. because of WMD and Hussein let UN inspectors return several
months before our invasion forced them to evacuate to avoid being
bombed...by us. Nor did Hussein support al Qaeda while Iran provided
sanctuary for al Qaeda fleeing Afghanistan and was ignored by
CICBush43 even though the 2001 Congressional authorization for use of
force addressed al Qaeda and nations or groups that supported it.  And
the lame CICBush43 excuse that invasion of Iraq was necessary because
Hussein had an ideology of hatred is directed at the more gullible
of his true believers constituency who fail to note that vague concept
is a wonderful, if bogus, excuse for invading almost every Muslim
nation since they hate infidels. CICBush43 wanted to invade Iraq for
oil and ego, not to block any Hussein threat or stamp out ideological
hatred; which has certainly blossomed, along with al Qaeda, in Iraq
since 2003...fully focused...at us.

David Bier

 Why U.S. Intelligence Failed, Redux

By Robert Parry
February 13, 2006

Paul Pillar, the CIA's senior intelligence analyst for the Middle East
from 2000 to 2005, has written a critique of the Bush administration's
handling of pre-war intelligence on Iraq that, in effect, corroborates
the British Downing Street Memo in accusing the Bush administration
of rigging the evidence to justify the invasion.

The British memo recounted a July 23, 2002, meeting in which Richard
Dearlove, chief of the British intelligence agency MI6, told Prime
Minister Tony Blair about discussions in Washington with George W.
Bush's top national security 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, Dearlove said, according to the minutes.

After the Downing Street Memo was revealed in Great Britain in 2005,
Bush's spokesmen heatedly denied its claims and major  U.S. news
outlets dismissed its significance. But in the upcoming issue of
Foreign Affairs magazine, Pillar offers a matching account. He wrote
that the administration didn't just play games with the traditional
notion that objective analysis should inform responsible policy, but
turned the entire model upside down.

The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making,
but to justify a decision already made, Pillar wrote. The Bush
administration deviated from the professional standard not only in
using policy to drive intelligence, but also in aggressively using
intelligence to win public support for its decision to go to war. This
meant selectively adducing data -- 'cherry-picking' -- rather than
using the intelligence community's own analytic judgments.

These two accounts -- which are further bolstered by first-hand
statements from former counterterrorism chief

[osint] Editorial: Was this sale a con job?

[David Bier]

Pillar coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last
year and has had a 28-year distinguished career in intelligence.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=401223

Editorial: Was this sale a con job?

From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Feb. 13, 2006

Paul Pillar's bombshell last week that the administration
cherry-picked the intelligence it used to justify its invasion of Iraq
will likely be chalked up as just more partisan chatter.

It doesn't wash. Pillar coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle
East until last year and has had a 28-year distinguished career in
intelligence.

His words illustrate once again the need for the Senate Intelligence
Committee to complete and release its inquiry into whether the Bush
White House manipulated intelligence to make the case for war. The
committee had promised two phases of its investigation. The first,
released in mid-2004, showed just how flawed the intelligence was, a
point with which Pillar concurs.

But the second phase is long past due. It was to probe whether the
administration manipulated what intelligence there was to sell the
idea that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and direct
links to al-Qaida.

To Pillar, at least, the jury's in. Yes, the intelligence was flawed,
Pillar said, but it didn't matter.

It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in
making even the most significant national security decisions, that
intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made,
he said. The administration, he added, didn't heed the consensus of
the intelligence community that Hussein could be contained short of war.

No, the administration likely did not directly pressure intelligence
analysts to provide it with the ammo needed to make the case for
imminent threat. The pressure, Pillar said, amounted to the
administration signaling its intentions and asking the same questions
over and over until it got the answers it sought. The pressure was
subtle but no less effective.

Pillar's account is in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs. An
early version is on the periodical's Web site at www.foreignaffairs.org

Partisan infighting is likely why the second phase of the Intelligence
Committee's report is overdue. Pillar recommends that Congress avoid
the infighting by forming an entity patterned after the Government
Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office to monitor
the intelligence-policy relationship.

It's a worthy proposal. In the interim, however, the American public
needs to know whether the Senate Intelligence Committee can rise above
partisanship to tell the unvarnished truth about the selling of a war.

From the Feb. 14, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 





--
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] New Palestinian Authority now in 'axis of evil': Mofaz

[David Bier]

Mofaz said the so-called axis began with 'Iran, moving to Hezbollah
in Lebanon, then on to Hamas in the Palestinian areas.'

The Israeli defence minister appropriated the term coined by US
President George Bush in 2002 that he originally used to denote Iraq,
Iran and North Korea.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1097475.php


Middle East 

New Palestinian Authority now in 'axis of evil': Mofaz

By DPA
Feb 14, 2006, 19:00 GMT

Cairo - Hamas' control over the Palestinian Authority (PA) makes it
part of the 'axis of evil,' Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said
Tuesday in Cairo after talks with Egyptian President Hosny Mubarak,
the official MENA news agency reported.

Mofaz said the so-called axis began with 'Iran, moving to Hezbollah in
Lebanon, then on to Hamas in the Palestinian areas.'

The Israeli defence minister appropriated the term coined by US
President George Bush in 2002 that he originally used to denote Iraq,
Iran and North Korea.

Mofaz and Mubarak discussed regional peace efforts in the light of the
victory of the radical Islamist organization Hamas in the recent
Palestinian elections.

Mofaz described the talks as 'positive and fruitful,' adding that
there would be conditions attached to any Israeli talks with Hamas.

'Israel's policy towards dialogue with Hamas requires Hamas to
recognize Israel and accept all agreements signed by the Palestinian
side. In addition, Hamas should stop being a terrorist organization,'
he said.

Mofaz was accompanied by Israel's Ambassador to Egypt Shalom Cohen.
Egyptian Minister of Defence and Military Production Mohammed Hussein
Tantawi was also in attendance.

During the talks, Mofaz accused Syria and Iran of using Hezbollah to
stage what he called 'terrorist activities' against Israel along its
borders with Lebanon. He said he had briefed Mubarak on recent
cross-border attacks by Hezbollah against Israeli soldiers.

Asked by a reporter about Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian
leaders, Mofaz said the attacks were 'aimed at preventing terrorist
operations inside Israel.'

The Egyptian leader and the Israeli defence minister also discussed
cooperation in fighting international terrorism. 





--
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] The Wrath About Khan

[David Bier]

Nearly three years after 9-11, after all the shake-ups and pledges to
reform, we finally were inside Al Qaeda. Then the White House steps in
and wrecks the operation. All in the interest of Bush's re-election.

So there is the real answer to the Bush43 placement of priority on the
war on terror.  Reelection came in higher priority than successfully
exploiting a turned Al Qaeda HUMINT resource to track down Bin Laden
and his chief lieutenants.

David Bier

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0531,mondo1,66448,6.html

Mondo Washington
The Wrath About Khan
Plame's not the first spy outed by the Bush team. Remember the case of
the Pakistani computer tech?
 
by James Ridgeway
August 2nd, 2005 12:03 PM 
 
Last month's bombing of the London subways brought back memories of a
botched spy plot in August 2004 in which the Bush administration
unaccountably outed the only double agent we ever had inside Al Qaeda. 
Working with British and Pakistani intelligence, this man was sending
e-mails back and forth to the Al Qaeda network in Britain. He was a
highly placed, trusted lieutenant who had been turned. Once his name
was revealed by the White House, Al Qaeda people disappeared into the
woodwork. The outing infuriated the Brit cops who had been working to
nail down the Al Qaeda network in the U.K. before it could launch an
attack. 

Like the Plame-Wilson saga, last year's plot was entangled in
politics. The story goes like this: Around the time of the Democratic
National Convention, the Bush campaign was trying to upstage new
Democratic nominee John Kerry and show the president to be a
fearlessâ€and successfulâ€fighter against terrorism. In early August,
just as Kerry was setting off on his campaign, U.S. officials leaked
news of the arrest in Lahore, Pakistan, of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a
young Pakistani computer expert. 

Pakistani officials told the Associated Press that reports in the
Western media about Khan's capture let other Al Qaeda operatives
flee. Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and
some al-Qaida suspects ran away, said one official. Khan was arrested
July 13, 2004; his arrest was reported in American papers on August 2,
a day after reporters in D.C. learned of it. Pakistani intelligence
officials told the Associated Press at the time, Khan led authorities
to Ahmed Khalfan Ghailaniâ€a Tanzanian with a $25 million American
bounty on his head for his suspected involvement in the 1998 bombings
of U.S. embassies in East Africaâ€and the capture of about 20 other
al-Qaida suspects. The arrests were followed by raids in Britain. 

The Pakistanis diplomatically attributed the source of the leak to
coalition partners. However, after New York senator Charles Schumer
asked the White House to explain why Khan's name was given to
reporters, Condoleezza Rice, at the time the national security
adviser, explained that Khan was outed on background, which means
the information could be published but not attributed. The AP reported
at the time: Officials say Ghailani and Khan's computer contained
photographs of potential targets in the United States and Britain,
including London's Heathrow Airport and underpasses beneath London
buildings. 

In its investigation of the intelligence community's operations
leading up to 9-11, the congressional joint inquiry led by then
senator Bob Graham concluded that the U.S. never had penetrated Al
Qaeda. This was surprising, because John Walker Lindh and several
other young American recruits walked right in and mixed with the Al
Qaeda leadership with little trouble. 

Nearly three years after 9-11, after all the shake-ups and pledges to
reform, we finally were inside Al Qaeda. Then the White House steps in
and wrecks the operation. All in the interest of Bush's re-election. 




GLOWING REPORT ON THE NEW BILL 

Last week's energy legislation is unlikely to reduce prices or
increase production. But it will take another step in jump-starting
the moribund nuclear power industry and give the government authority
to override local opposition to dangerous liquefied natural-gas
processing plants on both coasts. The measure sidesteps mandatory fuel
emissions standards and opens the way for greater fuel monopoly. And
it is a barrel of pork. 

Three outstanding rip-offs: 

Allows U.S.-produced plutonium on the world market. That opens the
door to more nuclear weapon production around the globe. Current U.S.
policy bans export of weapons-grade uranium unless and until the
buyers start to convert their nuclear power plants to a less dangerous
form of uranium. The new bill's changed provisions are largely due to
lobbyists for a trade organization called the Alpine Group, which is
promoting nuclear medicine. The chief beneficiary, reports The
Washington Post, is the world's largest producer of medical isotopes,
a Canadian company called MDS Nordion, which makes isotopes for
treating cancer, heart

[osint] Dating Cheney's Nuclear Drumbeat - Framing the Plame Case

[David Bier]

What still remains to be fully grasped, however, is the wider pattern
of propaganda that underlay the administration's war effort -- in
particular, the overlapping networks of relationships that tied
together so many key figures in the administration, the
neoconservatives and their allies on the outside, and parts of the
media in what became a seamless, boundary-less operation to persuade
the American people that Saddam Hussein represented an intolerable
threat to their national security.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=9301

Tomgram: Jim Lobe on Timing the Cheney Nuclear Drumbeat

In a recent piece, The Media's Roving Eye, trying to establish a
timeline that would offer context for the Plame case, I wrote the
following:

Vice President Cheney started the administration's atomic
drumbeat to war in Iraq with a series of speeches on Saddam's supposed
nuclear capabilities and desires beginning in August of 2002. (The
crucial role of Cheney, whose eye was first caught by a Defense
Intelligence Agency report on the Niger uranium documents back in
February 2002, in the events that would become the Plame case, has
been poorly covered...) 
(http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=8592)

As I soon found out, I did not stand apart from most others in poor
coverage of Cheney's role. Jim Lobe, whose pieces for Inter Press
Service I've quoted from, linked to, and recommended endlessly over
the last years, sent a few lines my way to tell me that I, too, was
off in my Cheney timeline, that the Vice President had started in on
the subject of Saddam Hussein's supposed nuclear program significantly
earlier than I realized, and that this mattered greatly in
understanding the nature of the events to follow. I asked him for a
bit of clarification and the next thing I knew I had a piece in hand
-- Lobe's first appearance at Tomdispatch -- an exercise, as he put
it, in the sorts of connections that begin to appear when you pull a
single string in the tangled ball of yarn that is the history of the
Plame case. It's a reminder, as he points out below, of how a powerful
web of neocon insiders and outsiders (and their allies) set the U.S.
on the path to war in Iraq.

What follows then, from the man who has, in my opinion, done better
reportorial work (http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/neo-cons/index.asp)
on the neoconservatives and the Bush administration than any other
reporter around, is a disquisition on timing -- on Vice President
Cheney's behaviour immediately before and after former ambassador
Joseph Wilson's report on Saddam's supposed search for Niger
yellowcake. Tom


Dating Cheney's Nuclear Drumbeat
Framing the Plame Case
By Jim Lobe

In the wake of the release of the Downing Street Memo, there has
been much talk about how the Bush administration fixed its
intelligence to create a war fever in the U.S. in the many months
leading up to the invasion of Iraq. What still remains to be fully
grasped, however, is the wider pattern of propaganda that underlay the
administration's war effort -- in particular, the overlapping networks
of relationships that tied together so many key figures in the
administration, the neoconservatives and their allies on the outside,
and parts of the media in what became a seamless, boundary-less
operation to persuade the American people that Saddam Hussein
represented an intolerable threat to their national security.

Vice President Cheney, for instance, is widely credited with
having launched the administration's nuclear drumbeat to war in Iraq
via a series of speeches he gave, beginning in August 2002, vividly
accusing Saddam of having an active nuclear weapons program. As it
happens though, he started beating the nuclear drum with vigor
significantly earlier than most remember; indeed at a time that was
particularly curious given its proximity to the famous mission former
Ambassador Joseph Wilson took on behalf of the CIA.

Cheney's initial public attempts to raise the nuclear nightmare
did not in fact begin with his August 2002 barrage of nuclear
speeches, but rather five months before that, just after his return
from a tour of Arab capitals where he had tried in vain to gin up
local support for military action against Iraq. Indeed, the specific
date on which his campaign was launched was March 24, 2002, when, on
return from the Middle East, he appeared on three major Sunday
public-affairs television programs bearing similar messages on each.
On CNN's Late Edition, he offered the following comment on Saddam:

This is a man of great evil, as the President said. And he is
actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time. 
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20020324-2.html)

On NBC's Meet the Press, he said:

[T]here's good reason to believe that he continues to
aggressively pursue the development of a nuclear weapon. Now will he
have one in a year, five years? I can't be that precise.

[osint] Novak Recycles Gannon on 'Plame-gate'

[David Bier]

Right-wing columnist Robert Novak’s new attack on former Ambassador
Joseph Wilson †that he was “discarded a year ago by the Kerry
presidential campaign” †recycled a disputed report from Talon News
correspondent Jeff Gannon, who was unmasked earlier this year as a
pro-Republican operative working under an assumed name.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/080205.html

Novak Recycles Gannon on 'Plame-gate'

By Robert Parry
August 2, 2005

Right-wing columnist Robert Novak’s new attack on former Ambassador
Joseph Wilson †that he was “discarded a year ago by the Kerry
presidential campaign” †recycled a disputed report from Talon News
correspondent Jeff Gannon, who was unmasked earlier this year as a
pro-Republican operative working under an assumed name.

In an Aug. 1 column, Novak cited the Kerry campaign’s supposed
rejection of Wilson to further denigrate the former ambassador, who
has become a bete noire to Republicans since he charged in an opinion
article on July 6, 2003, that the Bush administration “twisted”
intelligence on Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.

Eight days later, on July 14, 2003, Novak exposed the fact that
Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the Central Intelligence
Agency, an outing of a covert officer that has sparked a two-year
investigation into whether Bush administration officials violated
legal prohibitions against disclosing the identity of a CIA officer.

Novak has refused publicly to answer questions about his role in the
case †including what he may have told a federal grand jury about his
administration sources †but he penned the Aug. 1 column to challenge
former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow for claiming that he warned Novak
about the potential danger in naming Plame.

Assault on Wilson

Novak’s column also resumed the Right’s long-running assault on
Wilson’s credibility. Near the end of the column, Novak wrote that
“Joseph Wilson was discarded a year ago by the Kerry presidential
campaign after the Senate [intelligence] committee reported that much
of what he [Wilson] said ‘had no basis in fact.’”

However, Novak’s sentence appears to be wrong on both its points. The
Senate Intelligence Committee did not conclude that Wilson’s
statements about the Iraqi intelligence “had no basis in fact.” That
was a phrase that Novak culled from “additional views” of three
Republican senators.

The full committee refused to accept that opinion written by Sen. Pat
Roberts and backed by two other conservative Republicans †Christopher
Bond and Orrin Hatch †yet Novak left the impression that the phrase
was part of what he called “a unanimous Senate intelligence committee
report” released in July 2004.

The other part of Novak’s attack on Wilson †about his supposed
repudiation by Sen. John Kerry’s Democratic campaign †can be traced
back to a story by Talon News’ former White House correspondent Jeff
Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert.

On July 27, 2004, just over a year ago, a Talon News story under
Gannon’s byline reported that Wilson “has apparently been jettisoned
from the Kerry campaign.” The article based its assumption on the fact
that “all traces” of Wilson “had disappeared from the Kerry Web site.”

The Talon News article reported that “Wilson had appeared on a Web
site www.restorehonesty.com where he restated his criticism of the
Bush administration. The link now goes directly to the main page of
www.johnkerry.com and no reference to Wilson can be found on the
entire site.”

A Web Redesign

But Peter Daou, who headed the Kerry campaign’s online rapid response,
said the disappearance of Wilson’s link †along with many other Web
pages †resulted from a redesign of Kerry’s Web site at the start of
the general election campaign, not a repudiation of Wilson.

“I wasn’t aware of any directive from senior Kerry staff to ‘discard’
Joe Wilson or do anything to Joe Wilson for that matter,” said Daou,
who now publishes the “Daou Report” at Salon.com. “It just got lost in
the redesign of the Web site, as did dozens and dozens of other pages.”

Gannon/Guckert, who wrote frequently about the Wilson-Plame case in
2003-2004, came under suspicion as a covert Republican operative in
January 2005 when he put a question to George W. Bush at a
presidential news conference that contained a false assertion about
Democrats and prompted concerns that Gannon/Guckert was a plant.

Later, liberal Web sites discovered that Gannon was a pseudonym for
Guckert, who had posted nude photos of himself on gay-male escort
sites. It also turned out that Talon News was owned by GOPUSA, whose
president Robert Eberle is a prominent Texas Republican activist.

Though Gannon/Guckert had been refused a congressional press pass, he
secured daily passes to the White House press briefing under his real
name, Guckert. As a controversy built over the Bush administration
paying for favorable news stories, 

[osint] Void at Justice

[David Bier]

“In my weekly meetings with DOJ [the Department of Justice] we often
discussed DOD [Department of Defense] techniques and how they were not
effective or producing [intelligence] that was reliable,” the e-mail
reads. The agent then listed a number of Justice Department Criminal
Division officials who attended the meetings, including Fisher, who
between July 2001 and September 2003, was deputy assistant attorney
general in charge of the division. “We all agreed DOD tactics were
going to be an issue in the military commission cases. I know [senior
Criminal Division lawyer Bruce Swartz] brought this to the attention
of DOD OGC [Office of General Counsel].”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8815853/site/newsweek/?rf=nwnewsletter

Void at Justice

Does a Senate Democrat’s desire for answers about alleged Gitmo abuse
trump the Justice Department’s need to fill an important post?

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 5:49 p.m. ET Aug. 3, 2005

Aug. 3, 2005 - A last-minute lobbying push by Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales last week failed to dislodge a senator’s “hold” on the
nominee to take over the Justice Department’s Criminal Division,
leaving what some department officials say is a decision-making void
during a critical period in major international terror investigations.

Gonzales aides had been counting on Alice Fisher, President George W.
Bush’s pick to head the Criminal Division, getting confirmed before
the Senate went out of town last week for summer recess. But Michigan
Democratic Sen. Carl Levin rebuffed a personal plea from the attorney
general last Friday night to permit a vote on Fisher’s confirmation.
His reason: continued questions about what Fisher knew regarding FBI
complaints about allegedly abusive interrogation techniques by the
U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Levin’s refusal to lift his hold on Fisher, which sources say had
support from at least one and possibly two other Democratic senators,
upset Gonzales aides. They say that at a time when the Justice
Department must deal with the fallout from the London subway and bus
bombings, the attack in Egypt and heightened anxiety about another
terror incident, there is now about to be a serious vacuum at the
upper levels of the department. Not only is there no confirmed chief
of the Criminal Division to make major decisions for the rest of the
summer, department officials note that Deputy Attorney General James
Comey, who had previously announced his resignation, is due to leave
office at the end of next week. President Bush’s nominee to replace
Comey, former deputy White House counsel Tim Flanigan, just had his
confirmation hearing last week and won’t be voted on until after the
Senate returns on Sept. 6â€and only then when the Judiciary Committee
can find the time in the midst of its the far more intense hearings
for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

“We feel like this is playing politics with national security,” said
one senior Justice Department official, about the Senate’s failure to
vote on Fisher’s confirmation. The official, who asked not to be
identified because of the political sensitivity of the issue, noted
that Fisher, who had previously served as the chief deputy to Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff when he was chief of the Criminal
Division, had easily cleared the Judiciary Committee without serious
objection.

Moreover, some Justice officials say they have sought to address
Levin’s concerns by releasing additional information about the
Guantanamo issueâ€all to no avail. “We’ve bent over backward to make
information available to the Senate,” said the department official.

But apparently not enough, at least for Levin. The senator has raised
questions about Fisher ever since he obtained a more complete copy of
a May 10, 2004, internal FBI e-mail outlining bureau concerns about
interrogation practices at Guantanamo. The e-mail to senior FBI
counterterrorism official T. J. Harringtonâ€sent by an agent whose name
remains redactedâ€reported on earlier disputes between FBI agents and
top generals overseeing Guantanamo about “the effectiveness (or lack
thereof)” of aggressive Defense Department interrogation techniques
being used at the U.S. detention facility.

“In my weekly meetings with DOJ [the Department of Justice] we often
discussed DOD [Department of Defense] techniques and how they were not
effective or producing [intelligence] that was reliable,” the e-mail
reads. The agent then listed a number of Justice Department Criminal
Division officials who attended the meetings, including Fisher, who
between July 2001 and September 2003, was deputy assistant attorney
general in charge of the division. “We all agreed DOD tactics were
going to be an issue in the military commission cases. I know [senior
Criminal Division lawyer Bruce Swartz] brought this to the attention
of DOD OGC [Office of General Counsel].”



To some Senate Democrats, the 

[osint] When They Knew

[David Bier]

...sources tell TIME some White House officials may have learned she
was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson weeks before his July
6, 2003, Op-Ed piece criticizing the Administration. That prospect
increases the chances that White House official Karl Rove and others
learned about Plame from within the Administration rather than from
media contacts.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1088709,00.html

Sunday, Jul. 31, 2005

When They Knew

By MASSIMO CALABRESI

As the investigation tightens into the leak of the identity of covert
CIA operative Valerie Plame, sources tell TIME some White House
officials may have learned she was married to former ambassador Joseph
Wilson weeks before his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed piece criticizing the
Administration. That prospect increases the chances that White House
official Karl Rove and others learned about Plame from within the
Administration rather than from media contacts. Rove has told
investigators he believes he learned of her directly or indirectly
from reporters, according to his lawyer.

The previously undisclosed fact gathering began in the first week of
June 2003 at the CIA, when its public-affairs office received an
inquiry about Wilson's trip to Africa from veteran Washington Post
reporter Walter Pincus. That office then contacted Plame's unit, which
had sent Wilson to Niger, but stopped short of drafting an internal
report. The same week, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman asked
for and received a memo on the Wilson trip from Carl Ford, head of the
State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Sources
familiar with the memo, which disclosed Plame's relationship to
Wilson, say Secretary of State Colin Powell read it in mid-June.
Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage may have received a copy then too.

When Pincus' article ran on June 12, the circle of senior officials
who knew about the identity of Wilson's wife expanded. After Pincus,
a former intelligence officer says, there was general discussion with
the National Security Council and the White House and State Department
and others about Wilson's trip and its origins. A source familiar
with the memo says neither Powell nor Armitage spoke to the White
House about it until after July 6. John McLaughlin, then deputy head
of the CIA, confirms that the White House asked about the Wilson trip,
but can't remember exactly when. One thing he's sure of, says
McLaughlin, who has been interviewed by prosecutors, is that we
looked into it and found the facts of it, and passed it on. 

--By Massimo Calabresi. With reporting by Timothy J. Burger, Michael
Duffy and Viveca Novak




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h4hj0it/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123206846/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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] Insurgents Using Bigger, More Lethal Bombs, U.S. Officers Say

[David Bier]

Bomb-making techniques used by the anti-Israeli militant group
Hezbollah in Lebanon have increasingly begun appearing in roadside
bombs in Iraq. A senior American commander said bombs using shaped
charges closely matched the bombs that Hezbollah used against Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/international/middleeast/04bomb.html?themc=th

August 4, 2005
Insurgents Using Bigger, More Lethal Bombs, U.S. Officers Say
By DAVID S. CLOUD

The explosion that killed 14 marines in Haditha yesterday was powerful
enough to flip the 25-ton amphibious assault vehicle they were riding
in, in keeping with an increasingly deadly trend, American military
officers say.

In recent months the roadside bombs favored by insurgents in Iraq have
grown significantly in size and sophistication, the officers say,
adding to their deadliness and defeating efforts to increase troops'
safety by adding armor to vehicles.

The new problems facing the military were displayed more than a week
earlier, on July 23, when a huge bomb buried on a road southwest of
Baghdad Airport detonated an hour before dark underneath a Humvee
carrying four American soldiers.

The explosive device was constructed from a bomb weighing 500 pounds
or more that was meant to be dropped from an aircraft, according to
military explosives experts, and was probably Russian in origin.

The blast left a crater 6 feet deep and nearly 17 feet wide. All that
remained of the armored vehicle afterward was the twisted wreckage of
the front end, a photograph taken by American officers at the scene
showed. The four soldiers were killed.

And what happened in the aftermath of the July 23 attack provided
further cause for alarm.

A British explosives expert, part of a special squad formed to
investigate major insurgent bomb attacks, stepped on a second, smaller
bomb buried near the first and was badly wounded, two American
officers said. He later had an arm and a leg amputated. A third
device, hidden a few yards away, was found and defused.

This was a catastrophic event, said Sgt. Jason Knapp, an Air Force
bomb technician who arrived at the scene of the multiple attacks the
next morning. He found a foot from one of the American soldiers in the
shallow water of a nearby canal. It was pretty disturbing, he said.

Military personnel involved said the attack last month indicated to
them that a new and deadly bomb-making cell singling out American
patrols was operating near the large allied military base at the
airport, an area that two officers said had seen little insurgent
activity in months.

There was further evidence for that on Saturday. Less than a mile from
the July 23 attack, four more American soldiers were killed when their
Humvee was struck by another hidden bomb.

From the earliest days of the insurgency there has been a constantly
evolving battle of wits between insurgent bombers and soldiers trying
to stop the roadside bombs and suicide attacks.

As the threat from bombs and suicide attacks has grown, the Pentagon
has rushed 24,000 armored Humvees to Iraq since late 2003. But the
insurgents have responded by building bombs powerful enough to
penetrate the vehicles' steel plating.

Senior American commanders say they have also seen evidence that
insurgents are making increased use of shaped charges, which
concentrate the blast and give it a better chance of penetrating
armored vehicles, causing higher casualties.

Bomb-making techniques used by the anti-Israeli militant group
Hezbollah in Lebanon have increasingly begun appearing in roadside
bombs in Iraq. A senior American commander said bombs using shaped
charges closely matched the bombs that Hezbollah used against Israel.

Our assessment is that they are probably going off to school to
learn how to make bombs that can destroy armored vehicles, the officer
said.

As the military has begun conducting post-bombing investigations,
insurgents have increasingly been planting multiple devices at the
same location, apparently to disrupt investigative teams sent to the
blast site, or at least delay their work while they clear the site of
any secondary bombs.

The British officer wounded investigating the site, whose name has not
been released, was a member of the Combined Exploitation Cell, an
American-led organization charged with identifying the insurgent
bomb-makers, using clues recovered at bomb sites.

The organization is composed of specialists from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, as well
as from Britain and Australia.

The commander of the unit, Lt. Cmdr. Brian Kelly of the Navy, declined
to comment on the incident, except to say that there was evidence that
those who had set the first and the second bombs were thought to be
connected.

In addition to the recent attacks in Haditha and near the airport, 10
marines were killed in two separate incidents in western Iraq in June
when their armored Humvees were destroyed by roadside bombs, officials
said.

[osint] Trading Cricket for Jihad

[David Bier]

Ideologically, Islamic neofundamentalism occupies the same militant
space that was once occupied by Marxism. It draws the same sorts of
recruits (educated second-generation immigrants, for example), uses
some of the same symbols and vilifies some of the same enemies
(imperialism and capitalism).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/opinion/04brooks.html?themc=th

August 4, 2005
Trading Cricket for Jihad
By DAVID BROOKS

Nothing has changed during the war on terror as much as our definition
of the enemy.

In the days after Sept. 11, it was commonly believed that the conflict
between the jihadists and the West was a conflict between medievalism
and modernism. Terrorists, it was said, emerge from cultures that are
isolated from the Enlightenment ideas of the West. They feel
disoriented by the pluralism of the modern age and humiliated by the
relative backwardness of the Arab world. They are trapped in stagnant,
dysfunctional regimes, amid mass unemployment, with little hope of
leading productive lives.

Humiliated and oppressed, they lash out against America, the symbol of
threatening modernity. Off they go to seek martyrdom, dreaming of
virgins who await them in the afterlife.

Now we know that story line doesn't fit the facts.

We have learned a lot about the jihadists, from Osama bin Laden down
to the Europeans who attacked the London subways last month. We know,
thanks to a database gathered by Marc Sageman, formerly of the C.I.A.,
that about 75 percent of anti-Western terrorists come from
middle-class or upper-middle-class homes. An amazing 65 percent have
gone to college, and three-quarters have professional or
semiprofessional jobs, particularly in engineering and science.

Whether they have moved to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, England or France,
these men are, far from being medieval, drawn from the ranks of the
educated, the mobile and the multilingual.

The jihadists are modern psychologically as well as demographically
because they are self-made men (in traditional societies there are no
self-made men). Rather than deferring to custom, many of them have
rebelled against local authority figures, rejecting their parents'
bourgeois striving and moderate versions of Islam, and their
comfortable lives.

They have sought instead some utopian cause to give them an identity
and their lives meaning. They find that cause in a brand of Salafism
that is not traditional Islam but a modern fantasy version of it, an
invented tradition. They give up cricket and medical school and take
up jihad.

In other words, the conflict between the jihadists and the West is a
conflict within the modern, globalized world. The extremists are the
sort of utopian rebels modern societies have long produced.

In his book Globalized Islam, the French scholar Olivier Roy points
out that today's jihadists have a lot in common with the left-wing
extremists of the 1930's and 1960's. Ideologically, Islamic
neofundamentalism occupies the same militant space that was once
occupied by Marxism. It draws the same sorts of recruits (educated
second-generation immigrants, for example), uses some of the same
symbols and vilifies some of the same enemies (imperialism and
capitalism).

Roy emphasizes that the jihadists are the products of globalization,
and its enemies. They are detached from any specific country or
culture, he says, and take up jihad because it attaches them to
something. They are generally not politically active before they take
up jihad. They are looking to strike a vague blow against the system
and so give their lives (and deaths) shape and meaning.

In short, the Arab world is maintaining its nearly perfect record of
absorbing every bad idea coming from the West. Western ideas infuse
the radicals who flood into Iraq to blow up Muslims and Americans alike.

This new definition of the enemy has seeped into popular culture (in
Over There, the FX show about the Iraq war, the insurgent leaders
are shown as educated, multilingual radicals), but its implications
have only slowly dawned on the policy world.

The first implication, clearly, is that democratizing the Middle East,
while worthy in itself, may not stem terrorism. Terrorists are bred in
London and Paris as much as anywhere else.

Second, the jihadists' weakness is that they do not spring organically
from the Arab or Muslim world. They claim to speak for the Muslim
masses, as earlier radicals claimed to speak for the proletariat. But
they don't. Surely a key goal for U.S. policy should be to isolate the
nationalists from the jihadists.

Third, terrorism is an immigration problem. Terrorists are spawned
when educated, successful Muslims still have trouble sinking roots
into their adopted homelands. Countries that do not encourage
assimilation are not only causing themselves trouble, but endangering
others around the world as well.

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 

[osint] Iraq’s Anbar Province Becomes al Qaeda’s Springboard against Middle East and Eur

[David Bier]

...Zarqawi’s claim to Anbar, which ranges from the environs of
Baghdad to the Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi borders, as al Qaeda’s
first solid territorial base since the loss of Afghanistan in 2001.

Since the Jordanian terrorist planted his following there, al Qaeda
has sent suicide killers for strikes in London and Sharm el-Sheikh.
Teams identified with the terror group are now turning up in Jordan,
Syria, the Sinai Peninsula and, this week too, the Gaza Strip.
Zarqawi’s overall thrust aims at engulfing additional territories in
the Middle East and toppling regimes. The onset of this new al Qaeda
offensive in Europe and the Middle East indicates that Zarqawi’s
superiors in the organization have endorsed his ambitious master plan.


http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1066

Iraq’s Anbar Province Becomes al Qaeda’s Springboard against Middle
East and Europe

From DEBKA-Net-Weekly July 15 Updated by DEBKAfile

August 3, 2005, 9:26 PM (GMT+02:00)

(Map of Iraq: http://www.debka.com/photos/1066.jpg)

Thirty-eight US troops have died in Iraq in ten days.

Wednesday, August 3 was the worst. A Marine amphibious assault vehicle
struck a roadside bomb outside Haditha, killing 14 members of
Regimental Combat Team 2, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine
Expeditionary Force (Forward) and an interpreter. One Marine was
injured. Two days earlier, 7 members of the same unit were killed in
the same part of the Euphrates Valley, 140 miles northwest of Baghdad.
The attack was claimed by the al Qaeda-linked Ansar al Sunna.

In this part of the sprawling Anbar Province of northwest Iraq †a
territory about the size of Texas - US troops are fighting some of
their bitterest battles to seal the route from Syria that feeds the
Sunni insurgency and its close ally, al Qaeda’s Iraq wing under the
command of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, with a steady supply of fighters,
weapons and cash. In one counter-insurgency operation after another,
US forces have beaten at the iron grip Zarqawi has clamped on the
strategic Anbar province. But his jihadists have not been dislodged,
fortified as they are by the logistical backing provided by Syria and
the free egress the Assad regime allows foreign fighters crossing into
Iraq.

This deadly showdown in the torrid Anbar desert is exacting a grim
price in American military casualties.

On July 15, DEBKA-Net-Weekly 214 revealed for the first time Zarqawi’s
claim to Anbar, which ranges from the environs of Baghdad to the
Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi borders, as al Qaeda’s first solid
territorial base since the loss of Afghanistan in 2001.

Since the Jordanian terrorist planted his following there, al Qaeda
has sent suicide killers for strikes in London and Sharm el-Sheikh.
Teams identified with the terror group are now turning up in Jordan,
Syria, the Sinai Peninsula and, this week too, the Gaza Strip.
Zarqawi’s overall thrust aims at engulfing additional territories in
the Middle East and toppling regimes. The onset of this new al Qaeda
offensive in Europe and the Middle East indicates that Zarqawi’s
superiors in the organization have endorsed his ambitious master plan.

According to intelligence estimates, Zarqawi holds on to the area with
a little more than 5,000 men, of whom roughly 1,000 are Saudi and
Yemeni zealots, 300 Jordanian and an unknown number is Syrian,
Moroccan and Palestinian. His firm grip on Anbar persuaded the al
Qaeda hierarchy in Pakistan and Afghanistan that 1,000 seasoned
fighters could be spared from other parts of Iraq and diverted to the
new terror offensive outside. A new recruiting drive would meanwhile
replenish the ranks in Iraq with fresh suicide fodder.

In a message to his superiors, revealed here for the first time,
Zarqawi offered the estimate that after three years of joint combat,
Iraqi insurgents ought to be able to conduct their guerrilla war
against the Americans henceforth unaided. He said they were
experienced enough to dispense with al Qaeda’s aid and instruction and
charged with the main brunt of fighting US and government forces.

The terrorist organization could then focus on its two prime objectives:

1. Preserving the Iraqi wing of al Qaeda’s control of Anbar Province.

2. The province’s adaptation as a springboard and territorial base for
launching attacks in other parts of the Middle East and Europe. 




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h4r0bgv/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123294030/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[osint] Out of Necessity and in Style, Iraqis Connect to Cellular Age

[David Bier]

After the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, the Iraqi infrastructure
was shattered. Few land lines worked, and less than 2% of the
population owned a phone. American and Middle Eastern companies soon
jostled for lucrative contracts to provide cellular networks, but the
contracts were delayed almost a year amid allegations of corruption.

Officials eventually divided the country into four segments †Baghdad
and environs, the south and two areas in the north †and the cellular
network contracts were awarded.

Because foreign providers operate the cell phone system in Iraq, cell
phones used by U.S. forces work at least some of the time.  From an
OPSEC point of view that is VERY bad because of discussions about
locations, movements, timing, logistics, convoy composition,
operations and tactics.  Especially in areas where only analog
service, easily interceptible, is used (or insurgent moles in the
phone services remotely switch soldiers' phones from digital to analog).  

Those same moles can observe (or set up remote transmissions to an
insurgent base) the GPS location and movements of GPS-capable phones
(most are now set up for GPS) carried by soldiers.  They could then
alert insurgents to either flee or prepare ambushes/IED's along
specific routes taken by U.S. forces.  That may be sometimes why it
appears the insurgents are everywhere and numerous when in fact they
might be few but efficiently targeted.

Another OPSEC item.  It is possible to remotely turn on many cell
phones so just telling troops not to turn them on when they carry them
on an operation is not enough.  Cell phones should be left at base
camp with each soldier's locker. If pilferage is a problem, keep the
phones in a shielded area or container so that there is no indication
they are bunched up (an indicator the unit is on the move). Time
enough for troops to use the phones (gingerly and carefully) when they
return from an operation.

David Bier



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cellphones5aug05,0,3580717.story?coll=la-home-world

Out of Necessity and in Style, Iraqis Connect to Cellular Age

Banned under Saddam Hussein, mobile phones have already become an
indispensable part of life in a land torn by war yet fixated on fashion.

By Louise Roug
Times Staff Writer

August 5, 2005

BASRA, Iraq †Just before dusk, the setting sun illuminates in golden
hues a scene of bustling commerce. Vendors crowd the sidewalks here,
their produce stacked in appealing but fickle pyramids. Families shop
for apples, dates and saffron-colored marsh candy.

And cellphones.

Almost every store on Al Jazair Street in this southern Iraqi city
sells mobile telephones, and business is brisk.

Banned during Saddam Hussein's reign and introduced only last year,
cellphones are an obsession in this country. Iraqis give them
nicknames and spend inordinate amounts of money on the latest models,
accessories and ring tones.

Cellphones have become an indispensable part of everyday life, crucial
for families negotiating commutes to school and work amid bombings and
bloodshed. They also have a status function. In Iraq, they are a
fashion symbol nonpareil.

If there's a new style, everybody wants it, said salesman Mohammed
Rayad, 24.

Fancy some miniature denim jeans tailored for your phone? Rayad at the
Orange store on Al Jazair Street offers those, and just about every
other imaginable telephonic trinket.

Looking for the Nokia 7260, with its sleek, Art Deco-inspired design,
with VGA camera and camcorder, flash messaging and MMS, Java, XHTML
browser and downloadable themes, as one ad puts it?

Try a few blocks down the street at the Kanary store, where the window
display has goldfish swimming in an aquarium filled with cellphones.

Inside the marble-and-glass store, shoppers eyed a Nokia model
popularly known as the Yawer after the country's Sunni Arab vice
president, Ghazi Ajil Yawer, because it's fat like him, said Ayad
Ali, the manager. Rather than saying, 'Do you have a Nokia
such-and-such?' they say, 'Do you have a Yawer?' 

Customers have nicknamed the newest, most expensive phone in his store
(a $675 Nokia) the Sahaf after Hussein's notorious information
minister, Mohammed Said Sahaf. Among its features, of course, is a
built-in camera.

Ali, whose cousin owns the store, fondly remembers the good old days â€
two years ago †when his family was alone in the business on Al Jazair
Street. Then they sold mostly satellite phones in a largely cell-free
society.

We were the last country in the world to receive this service, said
Seerwan Moosa, a technician in the Education Ministry. Saddam was
trying his best to isolate Iraq.

The cellphone had Moosa at hello.

A year ago, he borrowed a friend's phone. Today, he said, life
without a mobile would be like living on a deserted island.

The country has changed, and so has this Basra neighborhood.

First Orbit opened kitty-corner to Kanary, and overnight [the street]
was filled with shops, Ali said. His

[osint] Al Qaeda terror threat diverts four Israeli cruise ships

[David Bier]

The Turkish authorities reported that local cells linked to al Qaeda
had planned car bomb attacks on the Israeli tourists when they
disembarked at the harbor terminal and boarded the buses picking them
up for trips.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=478

Al Qaeda terror threat diverts four Israeli cruise ships with 3,500
tourists from S. Turkish port of Alanya to Cyprus

August 6, 2005, 12:32 AM (GMT+02:00)

The alert was transmitted by Ankara which has imposed a blackout on
the investigation. Two vessels anchored Friday night, August 5, under
heavy Cypriot guard at Limassol and Larnaca. The location of the
fourth has not been revealed.

DEBKAfile adds: The Turkish authorities reported that local cells
linked to al Qaeda had planned car bomb attacks on the Israeli
tourists when they disembarked at the harbor terminal and boarded the
buses picking them up for trips.

They said al Qaeda and its affiliates had prepared a new offensive
against Israeli, Jewish, American and British targets on a scale
comparable to the 2003 Istanbul synagogue and British consulate bombings.

The Turkish police report 1,000 people in Istanbul alone are on their
watch list for suspected al Qaeda connections.









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hhg7euo/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123384827/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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] Al Qaeda to West: It's about policies

[David Bier]

By linking the bombings to Iraq, he basically sent the message that
no matter what Blair says, Iraq is the reason, says Bob Ayers, a
counterterrorism expert at Chatham House, a think tank in London.
He's calling Blair a liar.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0805/p01s02-woiq.html


Specials  Iraq in Transition
from the August 05, 2005 edition

Al Qaeda to West: It's about policies

In a broadcast Thursday, Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri blamed Tony
Blair for the 7/7 attacks.

By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD †With an AK-47 at his side, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's No.
2, appeared in a videotape broadcast Thursday and claimed that the 7/7
bombings were payback for British participation in America's policy
of aggression against Muslims.

The video is another Al Qaeda message apparently intended to turn
Western democracies against their leaders by explaining acts of
terrorism as rational decisions from a group with specific political
goals. It challenges the position of British Prime Minister Tony Blair
and Bush administration officials, who have insisted that the London
attacks have nothing to do with Iraq and that terror attacks will
continue regardless of policy.

By linking the bombings to Iraq, he basically sent the message that
no matter what Blair says, Iraq is the reason, says Bob Ayers, a
counterterrorism expert at Chatham House, a think tank in London.
He's calling Blair a liar.

This latest tape was released on a day when an unprecedented police
security operation was under way in London.

While Mr. Zawahiri didn't directly take credit for the London attacks,
he promised more attacks on Britain, the US, and other allies, saying
tens of thousands more American troops will be killed in Iraq if
there isn't an immediate withdrawal.

It was one of three taped statements, all aired on Al Jazeera, that
Zawahiri has made since the end of February, a pattern of rising
communication from the Al Qaeda leaders that appears to belie
statements from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that Osama bin
Laden and his aides are on the run.

Zawahiri, an Egyptian exile whose terrorist career began at home and
who hates the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak, did not mention the
terrorist attack on Egypt's resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh on July 23.
The omission, analysts speculate, suggests the tape was made before
the Sharm attacks, and the second subway attacks in London.

While some of his audio and video tapes seem generally targeted at
mobilizing Al Qaeda's base, filled with Islamic illusions and
glorification of martyrs designed to reassure adherents and draw new
members, this communication from Al Qaeda's chief ideologue falls into
a category of tapes that targets primarily a Western audience.

Rather than casting his jihad as an inevitable clash of civilizations,
he frames acts of terrorism as justified by the US-led wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and offers to end attacks on the West if a full
withdrawal is made from Muslim lands.

Blair has brought to you destruction in central London, and he will
bring you more destruction, God willing,'' Zawahiri said, addressing
the British people.

As for you Americans, what you have seen in New York and Washington,
what losses you see in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the media
blackout, are merely the losses of the initial clashes, he said. If
you go on with the same policy of aggression against Muslims, you will
see, God willing, things that will make you forget the horrors of
Vietnam and Afghanistan.

To the people of the crusader coalition ... our blessed Sheikh Osama
has offered you a truce so that you leave Muslim land. As he said you
will not dream of security until we live it as a reality in
Palestine,'' he said. Our message to you is clear, strong and final:
There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop
stealing our oil and resources and end support for infidel [Arab] rulers.

Analysts cautioned that Zawahiri's statement is not evidence of direct
Al Qaeda knowledge of the London attacks, and said it probably fits
into Al Qaeda's evolution into an ideological motivator, rather than
organizer, of attacks.

Such messages are usually a call-to-arms, sort of top-down guidance
to go forth and do your thing, says Ayers. He says while Al Qaeda was
tightly organized before the invasion of Afghanistan, the dispersal
of members since has left a confederation of groups that adhere to
the same fundamental principles essentially they are functionally
autonomous groups.

Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at St. Andrews University in
Scotland, agrees. This is more of him rallying the troops - giving
the green light to carry out attacks Here we have a clarion call
to action. It is serving as an inspiration for like-minded extremists.

Some analysts, though, see it as an oblique claim of responsibility.
In many ways, this videotape can almost be seen as a claim of
responsibility, bin Laden style,'' says Evan 

[osint] Al-Qaeda 'blames Blair for bombs'

[David Bier]

They're terrorists and they're killers and they will kill innocent
people... so they can impose their dark vision on the world,

Blair has brought you destruction to the heart of London, and he will
bring more destruction, God willing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4745639.stm

 Al-Qaeda 'blames Blair for bombs'

Osama Bin Laden's lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahri has warned London will
face more attacks because of Tony Blair's foreign policy decisions.

His comments were made in a videotape which was broadcast on Arab
satellite channel al-Jazeera.

The al-Qaeda deputy said: Blair has brought you destruction to the
heart of London, and he will bring more destruction, God willing.

Mr Blair denies his policies provoked the 7 July bombs, which killed 56.

Al-Zawahri also warned the US that Iraq would be worse than Vietnam.

Downing Street refused to comment on the latest al-Qaeda tape.

Some critics, including MP George Galloway, said the war in Iraq had
helped to spark the attacks on London.


This is the biggest threat London has faced in peacetime and we have
to throw all our resources into it
Detective Chief Constable Andy Trotter


But Mr Blair has said the Iraq war is merely an excuse for those who
want to attack the UK.

He has acknowledged Iraq is being used to recruit terrorists, but
insisted the roots of extremism were much deeper.

In the tape al-Zawahri - who wore a white tunic with black turban and
posed next to a rifle - also warned other nations to leave Muslim
lands to avoid further violence.

And he said: What you have seen, O Americans, in New York and
Washington and the losses you are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, in
spite of all the media blackout, are only the losses of the initial
clashes.

If you continue the same policy of aggression against Muslims, God
willing, you will see the horror that will make you forget what you
had seen in Vietnam.

'Dark vision'

President Bush said al-Zawahri's comments would not prompt the US to
withdraw from Iraq.

We will stay on the offense against these people.

They're terrorists and they're killers and they will kill innocent
people... so they can impose their dark vision on the world, he said.

Police are still investigating the bombings on Tube trains at Aldgate,
Russell Square and Edgware Road, as well as a bus in Tavistock Square,
and are also holding 15 people over the failed 21 July attacks.

Police presence

There is a massive police presence on London's streets, with 6,000
officers watching for a repeat of the attacks two and four weeks ago.

A high-visibility police presence in the capital is aimed at making
the public feel safe, while undercover officers are mingling with
passengers on Tubes and buses trying to spot would-be bombers.

Although police have received no intelligence about another attack,
all leave has been cancelled and detectives drafted into uniform.

Extra officers have also been brought in from outside the capital and
retired officers persuaded to return to help with the anti-terror work.

Thursday also saw the first person charged over the 21 July attacks
appear in court. Ismael Abdurahman, 23, of Kennington, London, is
charged with failing to disclose information about suspected
Shepherd's Bush bomber Hussain Osman.

He has been remanded in custody for a week.

Al-Zawahri last appeared in a video in June, saying Muslims should not
rely on peaceful protests but should also use violence. He also
appeared in a video in February.

Born in Egypt, he is thought to be Bin Laden's deputy and to have been
hiding in the rugged border areas of either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/4745639.stm




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h1gkspi/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123386312/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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 

[osint] Rumsfeld: London Attacks Not Retaliation

[David Bier]

``Some people seem confused about the motivations and intentions of
terrorists and about our coalition's defense of the still young
democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq,'' Rumsfeld said in a speech to
the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

``They seem to cling to the discredited theory that the recent attacks
in London and elsewhere, for example, are really in retaliation for
the war in Iraq or for the so-called occupation of Afghanistan,'' he
added. ``That is nonsense.''

Some people like al-Zawahiri?  What planet has Rumsfeld been hiding
on? Is he in denial or smoking the contraband?

David Bier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5190211,00.html

Rumsfeld: London Attacks Not Retaliation


Thursday August 4, 2005 8:46 PM

By RYAN PEARSON

Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday
rejected as ``nonsense'' the notion that recent terrorist attacks in
London were retaliation for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

``Some people seem confused about the motivations and intentions of
terrorists and about our coalition's defense of the still young
democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq,'' Rumsfeld said in a speech to
the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

``They seem to cling to the discredited theory that the recent attacks
in London and elsewhere, for example, are really in retaliation for
the war in Iraq or for the so-called occupation of Afghanistan,'' he
added. ``That is nonsense.''

Rumsfeld also paid tribute to the 21 Marines killed this week in Iraq,
including the 14 killed Wednesday by a single roadside bomb near the
city of Haditha in western Iraq.

``Patriots, they were determined to stop the terrorists from
reclaiming Iraq and from launching more attacks on our people,'' he
said. ``Our nation needed them, called on them in battle, and mourns
them now in death.''

Rumsfeld spoke broadly about President Bush's rationale for fighting
in Iraq and Afghanistan - ``the only way to defeat terrorism is to go
after them where they are'' - but said little about the
administration's plan for turning over the security mission in Iraq to
the Iraqis. He did suggest that the goal is within reach.

``Once Iraq is safely in the hands of the Iraqi people, and a
government that they elected under a new constitution ... , our troops
will be able to ... come home with the honor they will have earned,''
he said, without elaborating. 




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12huk496t/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123386893/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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] Mideast-bound commanders in Germany get advice from Iraqi officials

[David Bier]

“The Iraqi army is not just personnel and weapons, it is actually
different systems,” he said. Some of those systems are active and
running smoothly, some are still in their infancy, he said. But even
though there has been frustration and plodding progress in some areas,
Kadir said, the Iraqi force is improving.

“We’re going in the right direction,” he said.

Kadir said the Iraqi contingent benefited from viewing American
training techniques and facilities.

“We learned from the newest technology and the [U.S.] capabilities,
from the lowest private to the most senior general officer,” 


http://www.estripes.com/articleprint.asp?section=104article=30776

Mideast-bound commanders in Germany get advice from Iraqi officials


By Ben Murray, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Friday, August 5, 2005

GRAFENWÖHR, Germany †In an unprecedented move by the U.S. military to
prepare top commanders for duty in Iraq, about a dozen high-ranking
Iraqi officials recently spent nearly three weeks at this isolated
base in Germany to help train American officers.

A group that included the commander of Iraq’s ground forces, its top
police official and members of the ministries of interior and defense,
the Iraqis were brought in to work with the Army’s V Corps as it
trains to take control of Multinational Corps Iraq, said Bob Young, an
International Operations Division officer for U.S. Army Europe.

Two smaller groups of Iraqi officials were also sent to U.S. bases to
take part via satellite in the Germany-based exercises Urgent Victory
and Unified Endeavor, back-to-back mission rehearsals for the corps
that ended Tuesday, Young said.

Invited to advise American commanders on conditions on the ground in
Iraq and offer tips for tweaking the training, the high-ranking
Iraqis’ presence at an American training run is a first for both
armies, Young said.

“[It’s the] first time we’ve ever had this early level of
involvement,” he said. The last time an American group prepared to
command MNC-I, he said, “there wasn’t an Iraqi security force.”

The unique collaboration allowed American and Iraqi commanders to meet
face to face months ahead of V Corps’ deployment, and gave the two
sides practice at working together, Young said.

For the Iraqi officers, the mission to Germany over the past several
weeks had several overreaching aims, said Lt. Gen. Abdul Kadir,
commander of Iraqi army ground forces.

The first goal was to establish contact with the incoming commanders
and discuss how Iraqi forces have been working with the XVIII Airborne
Corps, currently in command of MNC-I, Kadir said through an interpreter.

“We … have given them a clear picture of how we coordinate and how our
relationship is right now with the XVIII Airborne Corps,” he said.

Kadir †who spent more than 30 years in the Iraqi army before the
Americans’ arrival †also gave U.S. commanders a frank assessment of
the Iraqi forces they will encounter when they arrive.

Though Kadir did not discuss the details of that assessment Tuesday,
he said he prefers to measure the force piece by piece, rather than in
sweeping generalities.

“The Iraqi army is not just personnel and weapons, it is actually
different systems,” he said. Some of those systems are active and
running smoothly, some are still in their infancy, he said. But even
though there has been frustration and plodding progress in some areas,
Kadir said, the Iraqi force is improving.

“We’re going in the right direction,” he said.

As to whether that progress will allow the U.S. to begin pulling
troops out of Iraq as early as next spring, hinted at last week by
Gen. George Casey, the ranking military commander in Baghdad, Kadir
said, “Yes, I am in perfect agreement with him.”

“We’re not just there for show, we are actually working,” said Kadir,
who, like the other Iraqi officials, requested his picture not be
taken. “We will continue to fight terrorism and kill them until they
are all gone.”

But besides building relationships with the incoming coalition
commanders, Kadir said the Iraqi contingent benefited from viewing
American training techniques and facilities.

“We learned from the newest technology and the [U.S.] capabilities,
from the lowest private to the most senior general officer,” he said.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h8o97kt/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123387235/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

[osint] Afghanistan Agrees To Accept Detainees

[David Bier]

Gets them out of U.S. hands before Congress and the courts step in
because of the scandals arising from violent and abusive interrogation
techniques.  With such interventions looming, every prisoner sent to
another nation is one less who can be called to testify in legal
proceedings.  That could be important for some U.S. officials and
personnel from the military and CIA.

David Bier

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080402125_pf.html

washingtonpost.com

Afghanistan Agrees To Accept Detainees

U.S. Negotiating Guantanamo Transfers

By Josh White and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 5, 2005; A01

The Bush administration is negotiating the transfer of nearly 70
percent of the detainees at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to three countries as part of a plan, officials said, to
share the burden of keeping suspected terrorists behind bars.

U.S. officials announced yesterday that they have reached an agreement
with the government of Afghanistan to transfer most of its nationals
to Kabul's exclusive control and custody. There are 110 Afghan
detainees at Guantanamo and 350 more at the Bagram airfield near
Kabul. Their transfers could begin in the next six months.

Pierre-Richard Prosper, ambassador at large for war crimes, who led a
U.S. delegation to the Middle East this week, said similar agreements
are being pursued with Saudi Arabia and Yemen, whose nationals make up
a significant percentage of the Guantanamo population. Prosper held
talks in Saudi Arabia on Sunday and Monday, but negotiations were cut
off after the announcement of King Fahd's death.

The decision to move more than 20 percent of the detainees at
Guantanamo to Afghanistan and to largely clear out the detention
center at Bagram is part of a broader plan to significantly reduce the
population of enemy combatants in U.S. custody. Senior U.S.
officials said yesterday's agreement is the first major step toward
whittling down the Guantanamo population to a core group of people the
United States expects to hold indefinitely.

This is not an effort to shut down Guantanamo. Rather, the
arrangement we have reached with the government of Afghanistan is the
latest step in what has long been our policy -- that we need to keep
dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield, Matthew Waxman,
deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said
shortly after leaving Kabul with Prosper. We, the U.S., don't want to
be the world's jailer. We think a more prudent course is to shift that
burden onto our coalition partners.

The negotiations come amid intense international and domestic pressure
on U.S. detention operations, with allegations of mistreatment and
abuse as well as concern that detainees have been held for years
without being prosecuted for their alleged crimes. Legal problems have
also plagued the prosecutorial process at Guantanamo, which has been
blocked for months as detainees' attorneys present challenges in U.S.
federal courts.

The Guantanamo issue is clearly a liability for the Bush
administration, and emptying it has become a priority, said John
Sifton, a specialist on Afghanistan and detainee issues at Human
Rights Watch, an international monitoring group. It's not a victory
for human rights if a whole set of people deprived of their liberty
are then moved to another place and continued to be deprived of their
liberty unlawfully.

The agreement with Afghanistan is the largest of its kind so far.
Prosper said yesterday that the U.S. government is working to send 129
Saudis and 107 Yemenis from Guantanamo to the custody of their home
countries. If the U.S. government is able to arrange the transfer of
detainees who came from all three countries, the population at the
U.S. facility will drop by 68 percent, from 510 to 164.

Because the United States could hold on to those detainees who are
considered by officials to pose the greatest terrorist threat, the
numbers could change slightly. Negotiations depend on the cooperation
of the other nations.

We're now engaging the countries with the largest populations, so we
expect to see the largest potential movement from Guantanamo, Prosper
said in an interview from Dubai. So if we can reach an understanding
with these countries that will allow us to return them with the
greatest assurances, then this will be the biggest movement yet out of
Guantanamo.

Prosper and Waxman said that before such transfers can occur, the
detainees' home countries must commit to taking steps that will
prevent enemy combatants from re-engaging in hostile activity, and
commit to treating the detainees humanely.

A major obstacle to the transfer of detainees to Afghanistan is
infrastructure. U.S. officials have agreed to help Afghanistan build
an appropriate prison and to train its guards.

One possible interim solution under consideration is that Afghan
detainees at Guantanamo could be transferred to Bagram until permanent

[osint] Saudis alerted Britain to looming London attacks: Sunday papers

[David Bier]

There were reports passed on to your authorities several months ago
(in April-May) in general terms of a heightened expectancy of attacks
on London, said the ambassador, a former chief of Saudi intelligence

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyu=/afp/20050806/wl_mideast_afp/britainattackssaudi_050806232547

 Saudis alerted Britain to looming London attacks: Sunday papers

2 hours, 59 minutes ago

Saudi officials alerted Britain several weeks before the deadly July 7
bombings in London that a terror attack was being planned, two Sunday
newspapers reported.

The Observer quoted a security official in the Saudi capital Riyadh as
saying that information was passed to MI5 and MI6, Britain's domestic
and foreign intelligence agencies respectively.

The Sunday Telegraph quoted the Saudi ambassador to Britain, Prince
Turki al-Faisal, as saying that details of a possible conspiracy to
attack London -- apparently extracted from terrorism suspects in Saudi
Arabia -- had been given to British intelligence.

There were reports passed on to your authorities several months ago
(in April-May) in general terms of a heightened expectancy of attacks
on London, said the ambassador, a former chief of Saudi intelligence.

Security sources played down the reports. The Observer quoted one
source as categorically denying that any specific information had
been received that could have averted the July 7 attacks.

The source said they did not recognize the details of the Saudi
claims, which came to light one month to the day after the attacks.

There was no immediate comment from the Foreign Office or the Home
Office, but Prime Minister Tony Blair has previously rejected
suggestions of an intelligence failure.

Fifty-six people were killed, including four apparent suicide bombers,
in the July 7 morning rush-hour bombing of three Underground subway
trains and a double-decker bus.

It was the deadliest attack ever in the British capital, and was
followed two weeks later by an attempted copycat attack in which the
explosives, stuffed into rucksacks, failed to go off.

Saudi security sources were reported Sunday to be investigating
whether two al-Qaeda operatives were in phone contact with a British
ringleader of the plotters of the July 7 bombings.

Money transfers were thought to have been made from Saudi Arabia to
Britain in the first six months of the year through businesses in the
two countries, it was reported.

The Observer and the Sunday Telegraph said the investigations revolve
around two Moroccans, identified as Kareem al-Majati and Younes
al-Hayari, both alleged to have been senior figures in Osama bin
Laden's al-Qaeda network.

The two were killed in separate shoot-outs in Saudi Arabia in the
weeks before July 7.

The Observer quoted a Saudi official as saying: It was clear to us
that there was a terror group planning an attack in the United
Kingdom. We passed on all this information to both MI5 and MI6.

The official was quoted as saying that investigations were underway
into whether calls made by the two Moroccans to Britain were directly
to the London bombers.

It is our conclusion that either these were linked or that a
completely different terror network is still at large in Britain, he
added.

Prince Turki was quoted in The Observer as saying in a statement:
There was certainly close liaison between the Saudi Arabian
intelligence authorities and the British intelligence authorities some
time ago, when information was passed to Britain about a heightened
terrorist threat to London.

To the Sunday Telegraph, he said: In the course of an exchange of
information between the kingdom and the UK, there were reports passed
on to your authorities several months ago (in April-May) in general
terms of a heightened expectancy of attacks on London.

This information came in the form of statements made under
interrogation from terrorists who had been arrested in the kingdom and
other places, he said, without indicating where the other places were.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h5pffid/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123388866/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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 

[osint] Novak Apologizes for Swearing on CNN Air

[David Bier]

Appears Mr. Novak is feeling the heat of the Plame investigation. 
Perhaps the special prosecutor has not let him entirely off the hook
after all. Nor was he getting any relief during the CNN program with a
copy of Who's Who on the table ready for Carville to quiz Novak about.


David Bier

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050805/ap_en_tv/tv_cnn_novak_18

 Novak Apologizes for Swearing on CNN Air

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television WriterFri Aug 5, 1:23 PM ET

Robert Novak apologized Friday for swearing on the air and walking off
a CNN set, but said it had nothing to do with the federal probe
sparked by his revelation of a CIA officer's name in a 2003 column.

I apologize for my conduct and I'm sorry I did it, he said in an
interview.

CNN has pulled him off the air indefinitely. Novak said I'll follow
their guidance on when he returns.

CNN correspondent Ed Henry said afterward that he had been about to
ask Novak about his role in the investigation of the leak of Valerie
Plame's identity, which Novak has repeatedly refused to comment on
aside from some references in his column.

That had nothing to do with it, absolutely nothing, Novak said. I
was sorry he said that.

The incident occurred Thursday as Novak and Democratic operative James
Carville were handicapping the Senate candidacy of former Florida
Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Novak said the opposition of the
Republican establishment in Florida might not be fatal for her.

Let me just finish, James, please, Novak continued. I know you hate
to hear me, but you have to.

Carville, addressing the camera, said: He's got to show these right
wingers that he's got a backbone, you know. It's why The Wall Street
Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em that you're tough.

Well, I think that's bull and I hate that, Novak replied. Just
let it go.

As moderator Henry stepped in to ask Carville a question, Novak walked
off the set.

A CNN spokeswoman, Edie Emery, called Novak's behavior inexcusable
and unacceptable. She said we've asked Mr. Novak to take some time
off, she said.

Only two weeks ago, CNN executives defended their decision to keep
Novak on the air during the investigation into the leak. Novak
identified Plame in July 2003 as the wife of Bush administration
critic and former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson.

In his syndicated column Monday, Novak provided some details after
having been largely silent about his role. He did not dispute that a
former CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, told him he should not print
Plame's name during conversations they had before the column was
published.

But Novak reasserted that no CIA official ever told him in advance
that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger her or anybody
else.

Wilson has said the leak of his wife's name was an attempt by the
administration to discredit him. Two other reporters connected to the
case openly fought the revelation of their sources, and Judith Miller
of The New York Times has been jailed for refusing to cooperate with
prosecutors.

Henry said Thursday that Novak had been told before the Inside
Politics segment that he was going to be asked on air about the CIA case.

I'm hoping that we will be able to ask him about that in the future,
Henry said.

Novak has been a longtime contributor to CNN, taking the conservative
point of view during the just-canceled Crossfire show.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hq98uso/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123389315/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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

[osint] Chechen Siloviki Become Allah’s Warriors

[David Bier]

“We made it clear for the heads of defense and law enforcement
agencies [representatives of the Chechen Interior Ministry and
commanders of special units were present at the session] that those
who kill innocent people must be stopped †either lagged or eliminated
by any possible means. We have adopted the fatwa which says that the
one whose hands are in blood must be eliminated,”

http://www.kommersant.com/doc.asp?idr=527id=598827

Chechen Siloviki Become Allah’s Warriors
// They will fight Wahhabi by Shariat laws
War on Extremism
The Council of Imams of Chechnya blessed Chechen defense and law
enforcement officers to fight Wahhabi saying one can and must kill
people of the same religion if they are engaged in criminal
activities. The fatwa accepted by the theologians must not be regarded
as the declaring of jihad on radical Islamites, the republic’s mufti
Sultan Mirzaev told Kommersant. Nonetheless, the decision of Chechen
imams drew criticism of the Council of Russia’s Muftis.
Wahhabi appeared in Chechnya not a long time ago. The first Chechen
war, which ended up in Dudaev’s advocates regaining the power,
attracted preachers from Saudi Arabia and adjacent Dagestan where
radical Islamites are traditionally influential. In summer 1997,
Grozny hosted the Congress of Peoples of Chechnya and Dagestan. The
congress’s co-chairmen Chechen minister of press Movladi Udugov and
the leader of Chechen Wahhabi Magomed Tagaev announced the territories
of the two republics a caliphate with the notorious Shamil Basayev as
its imam. Chechnya’s then mufti Akhmat Kadyrov vehemently opposed the
ideas of Wahhabism and convened the Congress of Muslims of the North
Caucasus to appeal to the Russian Justice Ministry to recognize
Wahhabism an extremist movement and prohibit it. The minister Pavel
Krasheninnikov did not share the mufti’s apprehension. “We do not view
Wahhabism as an extremist movement,” he concluded. Thus the inspired
Dagestani Wahhabi declared the sovereignty of two Dagestani villages
of Karamakhi and Chabanmakhi, which meant that norms of Shariat acted
alongside Russian laws there. The federal troops had to overthrow the
Shariat authorities in Karamakhi and Chabanmakhi summer 1999 by the
air force and artillery. The following Wahhabi’s campaign headed by
Hattab and Shamil Basayev in Dagestan triggered the second Chechen war.

The federal authorities have tried to crack down on radical Islamites
since then. The Russian Assistant Prosecutor General Vladimir
Kolesnikov called for instituting criminal proceedings against Wahhabi
followers in April 2004. He suggested that radical Islamist beginners
be sentenced to a year, while repeated Wahhabi be convicted to “the
maximum possible punishment”. Muslim clergy described the proposal as
“religious discrimination”. The idea to outlaw Wahhabism did not win
backing with Russian lawmakers either.

The prosecutor’s initiative was revived in April 2005 by Chechnya’s
then mufti Akhmad Shamaev who suggested banning Wahhabism in Chechnya
as extremist ideology. He referred to the example of cross-border
Dagerstan where the republic’s state council adopted a law providing
for criminal liability for the propaganda of Wahhabism back in 2000.
Shamaev stepped down soon due to disagreements with the republic’s
leaders but new mufti Sultan Mirzaev kept the ball rolling. “Officers
of the Chechen Interior Ministry repeatedly addressed me and other
religious figures asking to explain to them who Wahhabi are, what the
essence of their ideology is , if they should be eliminated,” mufti
Mirzaev told Kommersant. He says Chechen soldiers used to feel
uncertain about “the fact if the war against Wahhabi is justified in
terms of Islam, whether they commit a sin killing people of the same
religion.” “But these are notorious bandits, there is no other name
for them, they commit crimes using religious mottos as a cover
misleading young fighters,” the mufti underscored.

These uncertainties were dispelled at yesterday’s extended Council of
the republic’s imams held in the Kadyrovs’ clan village of Tsentoroy.
Mirzoev claims that all religious figures bar none supported the fatwa
(religious decree with the force of law) on the fight with the
so-called Wahhabi, passed by the council. “We made it clear for the
heads of defense and law enforcement agencies [representatives of the
Chechen Interior Ministry and commanders of special units were present
at the session] that those who kill innocent people must be stopped â€
either lagged or eliminated by any possible means. We have adopted the
fatwa which says that the one whose hands are in blood must be
eliminated,” the mufti informed Kommersant. Law enforcement agencies
willingly accepted the decision of the religion’s clergy. “They won’t
have any scruples now. They will be sure they are doing piety.”
However, the mufti made it a point that it is not the matter of jihad
(holy war) 

[osint] WHISTLE-BLOWER FACES FBI PROBE

[David Bier]

Mike Lynn, a former researcher at Internet Security Systems, or ISS,
said he was tipped off late Thursday night that the FBI was
investigating him for violating trade secrets belonging to his former
employer.
Lynn resigned from ISS Wednesday morning after his company and Cisco
threatened to sue him if he spoke at the Black Hat security conference
in Las Vegas about a serious vulnerability he found while
reverse-engineering the operating system in Cisco routers.

WHISTLE-BLOWER FACES FBI PROBE

►
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,68356,00.html?tw=wn_story_mailer
► Wired News / by Kim Zetter

Jul 29 2005 ► Jul 29. The FBI is investigating a computer security
researcher for criminal conduct after he revealed that critical
routers supporting the internet and many networks have a serious
software flaw that could allow someone to crash or take control of them.
Mike Lynn, a former researcher at Internet Security Systems, or ISS,
said he was tipped off late Thursday night that the FBI was
investigating him for violating trade secrets belonging to his former
employer.
Lynn resigned from ISS Wednesday morning after his company and Cisco
threatened to sue him if he spoke at the Black Hat security conference
in Las Vegas about a serious vulnerability he found while
reverse-engineering the operating system in Cisco routers. He said he
conducted the reverse-engineering at the request of his company, which
was concerned that Cisco wasn't being forthright about a recent fix it
had made to its operating system.
Lynn spoke anyway, discussing the flaw in Cisco IOS, the operating
system that runs on Cisco routers, which are responsible for
transferring data over much of the internet and private networks.
Although Lynn demonstrated for the audience what hackers could do to a
router if they exploited the flaw, he did not reveal technical details
that would allow anyone to exploit the bug without doing the same
research he did to discover it.
Both companies knew in advance about Lynn's plan to talk and
originally supported it. But at the last minute, the companies tried
to halt the presentation or force Lynn to allow Cisco representatives
to speak as well. They threatened Lynn with a lawsuit if he talked and
made good on that threat after his appearance, when they filed a
restraining order to prevent him from saying anything else about the flaw.
The company said the vulnerability was not new and that it had already
patched the problem in April and sent revised software to customers.
Lynn said, however, that Cisco did not tell customers exactly why the
software was revised or indicate that the update was a critical patch.
As a result, he said, system administrators didn't understand the
urgency of the situation. Cisco denied that the flaw was as critical
as Lynn said it was.
Prior to the talk, Cisco, with agreement from the conference
organizers, hired temporary workers to rip out pages from a conference
book that contained images of the slides from Lynn's presentation.
They also replaced the conference CD-ROM with a new disc that was
absent the presentation. This hasn't stopped people from obtaining the
presentation, however: A site has posted it (.zip) for people to download.
The news of the criminal investigation came just hours after Lynn
signed a settlement with Cisco and ISS releasing him from civil
liability in exchange for meeting several conditions. Lynn was to
provide a mirror image of all computer data he has and give it to a
third party for forensic analysis. This was likely to determine if he
had stolen proprietary information from ISS or Cisco or broken any
other laws. His research material on the vulnerability would then have
to be erased. Lynn also was prohibited from discussing the bug in the
future.
I was really mad at ISS before and now I'm extremely disappointed,
Lynn told Wired News. At this point, they're just trying to milk it
for punitive damages. We already had a standing agreement, and now
they're trying to attack me in some other way. The FBI declined to
discuss the case. Our policy is to not make any comment on anything
that is ongoing. That's not to confirm that something is, because I
really don't know, said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson. But Lynn's
lawyer, Jennifer Granick, confirmed that the FBI told her it was
investigating her client.
Granick said, however, that she thought the agency was simply
following through on a complaint it recei-ved when Cisco and ISS filed
their lawsuit against Lynn and that the investigation wasn't initiated
after her client reached his settlement with the companies. She didn't
know the nature of the complaint but said it was probably something to
do with intellectual property and that it most likely came from Cisco
or ISS.
The investigation has to do with the presentation, she said, but
what crime that could possibly be is un-known because they haven't
found any (evidence against him).
She hadn't spoken with the U.S. attorney in charge of the
investigation 

[osint] U.S. OFFERS NORTH KOREA EVIDENCE THAT NUCLEAR SECRETS CAME FROM PAKISTANI'S NETW

[David Bier]

In February, North Korea declared for the first time that it was a
nuclear weapons state. It said it had re-processed 8,000 fuel rods,
turning them into weapons fuel. 
There has long been a dispute about a second nuclear program, one the
United States alleges that North Korea began in the 1990's, when the
Yongbyon plant was frozen under a 1994 accord. That program, the
United States alleges, aims at producing enriched uranium, a process
easier to hide than producing plutonium. American officials, who first
told North Korea that they had evidence of the program in 2002, say
North Korea initially admitted to it.

U.S. OFFERS NORTH KOREA EVIDENCE THAT NUCLEAR SECRETS CAME FROM
PAKISTANI'S NETWORK
►
www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/politics/29korea.html?ex=1123473600en=e3776ca50ab99628ei=5070emc=eta1

► The New York Times / by David E Sanger and Jim Yardley

Jul 31 2005 ► Jul 28. In negotiations with North Korea this week, the
Bush administration has for the first time presented the country with
specific evidence behind American allegations that North Korea
secretly obtained uranium enrichment technology from a founder of
Pakistan's nuclear program, two senior ad-ministration officials said.
The decision to share the intelligence with North Korean negotiators,
the officials said, was part of an ef-fort to convince North Korea
that any discussions about disarmament must cover not only the nuclear
weapons program it has boasted about, but a second one that it now
denies exists.
Putting on the table the evidence that North Korea obtained technology
from the network built by Abdul Qadeer Khan is significant because it
is an effort to break an impasse over the scope of North Korea's
nuclear program.
American officials were reluctant to describe the North Korean
response, but one official said that when presented with the evidence
- chiefly the testimony of Mr. Khan - they argue with us about it. 
American officials have never made public the details of Mr. Khan's
statements to Pakistani officials, who have declined to make him
available for direct interrogation. But they have shared the
information widely with Asian allies, and elements of it have leaked
out, including Mr. Khan's assertion - doubted by several specialists
in the American intelligence community - that the North Koreans once
showed him what they said were three fully assembled nuclear weapons. 
The two Bush administration officials declined to speak on the record,
citing the delicacy of both the intelligence and the current
negotiations. They would not describe how much detail had been given
to the North Koreans. The presentation came in the first two days of
talks in Beijing, which American officials said may stretch into next
week. On Thursday, American negotiators, led by Christopher R. Hill,
moved past generalities in talks with North Korea and focused on the
specifics of their dispute over the nuclear program.
Later, Mr. Hill said he hoped the talks had advanced enough so that
the six nations taking part could soon start drafting a statement that
would advance the disarmament process. The other participants are
China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.
Mr. Hill said North Korea and the United States found some common
understanding in their meeting Thursday, but added that a lot of
differences remained. 
I want to caution people not to think we are coming to the end of
this, Mr. Hill told reporters.
North Korea has long admitted to turning spent plutonium fuel from its
nuclear reactors into bomb fuel. That program is centered at the
Yongbyon complex.
In February, North Korea declared for the first time that it was a
nuclear weapons state. It said it had re-processed 8,000 fuel rods,
turning them into weapons fuel. Specialists inside and outside the
government say that fuel could be used to produce six or more nuclear
weapons, but there is no independent evidence to confirm that the
weapons have been produced.
There has long been a dispute about a second nuclear program, one the
United States alleges that North Korea began in the 1990's, when the
Yongbyon plant was frozen under a 1994 accord. That program, the
United States alleges, aims at producing enriched uranium, a process
easier to hide than producing plutonium. American officials, who first
told North Korea that they had evidence of the program in 2002, say
North Korea initially admitted to it. Since then, North Korea has
denied the program's existence.
A senior administration official told reporters Thursday evening that
any agreement must include disman-tling both programs. But
intelligence officials have said they do not know where the uranium
program is. 
We don't want to be inspecting every tunnel where it might be
hidden, the senior official said. They've got to give it up. That's
how the Libyans did it, he said, a reference to Libya's decision to
dismantle its program.
Mr. Hill has recently emphasized it is unlikely that this fourth round
of talks will produce a breakthrough but that 

[osint] The soldiers who took part in the surveillance operation that led to de Menezes’

[David Bier]

The soldiers who took part in the surveillance operation that led to
de Menezes’s death included men from a secret undercover unit formed
for operations in Northern Ireland, defence sources said. 
Known then as 14 Int or the Det, it is reported to have formed the
basis of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, the newly created
special forces unit stationed alongside the SAS at Hereford. 

COULD STOCKWELL ‘POLICE OFFICER’ BE A SOLDIER?

London Bombs †SAS Link

► http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1715880,00.html

► Times / by Michael Smith

Jul 31 2005 ► Jul 31. British special forces soldiers took part in the
operation that led to the shoot-to-kill death of an innocent Brazilian
electrician with no connection to the London bombings, defence sources
said last week. 
Jean Charles de Menezes was tailed by a surveillance team on July 22
as he caught a bus to Stockwell Underground station in south London.
He was shot eight times when he fled from his pursuers at the Tube
station. 
The Ministry of Defence admitted last week that the army provided
“technical assistance” to the surveil-lance operation but insisted the
soldiers concerned were “not directly involved” in the shooting. 
Press photographs of members of the armed response team taken in the
immediate aftermath of the killing show at least one man carrying a
special forces weapon that is not issued to SO19, the Metropolitan
police firearms unit. 
The man, wearing civilian clothes with a blue cap marked “Police”, was
carrying a specially modified Heck-ler  Koch G3K rifle with a
shortened barrel and a butt from a PSG-1 sniper rifle fitted to it, a
combination used by the SAS. 
Another man, dressed in a T-shirt, jeans and trainers, was carrying a
Heckler  Koch G36C. Although this weapon is used on occasion by SO19
it appears to be fitted with a target illuminator purchased as an
“ur-gent operational requirement” for UK special forces involved in
the war on terror. 
The soldiers who took part in the surveillance operation that led to
de Menezes’s death included men from a secret undercover unit formed
for operations in Northern Ireland, defence sources said. 
Known then as 14 Int or the Det, it is reported to have formed the
basis of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, the newly created
special forces unit stationed alongside the SAS at Hereford. The men
include SAS soldiers serving on attachment and are part of a team of
around 50 UK special forces that has oper-ated in London since the
July 7 bombings in which 56 people died. 
Special forces counterterrorist experts have been regularly used to
support police at Heathrow since the September 11 attacks. They moved
into London a day after the July 7 bombings and have been support-ing
the police and gathering intelligence to help snare the suspects. 
Members of SO19 (technically known as CO19) are trained by SAS and SBS
instructors. One key tenet of that training is to ensure that a
suicide bomber is killed rather than wounded, which would allow them
to trigger a bomb. 
The use of multiple shots to the head is the modus operandi of the
special forces, whether from the SAS, the SBS or the undercover
intelligence operators used in the Stockwell operation. Over the past
30 years the SAS has developed a reputation for never allowing gunmen
to remain alive, an attitude shown most graphically during the 1980
Iranian hostages siege and the Gibraltar IRA killings eight years later. 
“It is vital to strike fear into the minds of the terrorists,” one
former SAS officer said. “In an ongoing situa-tion such as we have now
the fear must be directed to the fact that we are watching them and
will eventu-ally (get) them. They need to know that they cannot escape. 
“We know they are happy to kill themselves but that doesn’t mean they
are happy to be killed by others. As long as they evade the police
they will think they are in control but the minute they are
intercepted they lose control.” 
The Ministry of Defence insisted last week that the military
involvement was limited in the operation that led to de Menezes’s
death. “We would describe it as technical assistance as part of a
police-led operation under police control,” a spokeswoman said. “It is
a particular military capability that the police can draw on if
needed. It was a low-level involvement in support of a
police-controlled operation.” 
The Det is made up of the army’s best urban surveillance operators
using skills honed in Belfast against republican and loyalist
terrorists. Its speciality has always been close target
reconnaissance: undercover work among civilians, observing terrorists
at close quarters, and carrying out covert searches of offices and
houses for information and weapons. The unit was very egalitarian when
it operated in Northern Ire-land. An operator’s rank was always
regarded as less important than his or her capabilities; it was also
the only UK special forces unit to use women. 

[osint] IS YOUR PRINTER SPYING ON YOU?

[David Bier]

No law regulates what sort of documents the Secret Service or any
other domestic or foreign government agency is permitted to request
for identification, not to mention how such a forensics tool could be
developed and implemented in printers in the first place. With no laws
on the books, there's nothing to stop the privacy violations this
technology enables, the EFF warns.

IS YOUR PRINTER SPYING ON YOU?

► http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/29/printer_spy_fears/

► The Register / by John Leyden

Jul 30 2005 ► Jul 29. Secret codes enbedded into pages printed by some
colour laser printers pose a risk to personal privacy, according to
the Electronic Frontier Fundation. The US privacy group warns the
ap-proach - ostensibly only designed to identify counterfeiters - has
become a tool for government surveil-lance, unchecked by laws to
prevent abuse.
In the current political climate, it's not hard to imagine the
government using the ability to determine who may have printed what
document for purposes other than identifying counterfeiters, the EFF
said. The ACLU recently issued a report revealing that the FBI has
amassed more than 1,100 pages of documents on the organization since
2001, as well as documents concerning other non-violent groups,
including Greenpeace and United for Peace and Justice.
EFF notes that only the privacy policy of your printer manufacturers -
rather than any legislative controls - stop the Secret Service from
using printer codes to secretly trace the origin of non-currency
documents. No law regulates what sort of documents the Secret Service
or any other domestic or foreign government agency is permitted to
request for identification, not to mention how such a forensics tool
could be developed and implemented in printers in the first place.
With no laws on the books, there's nothing to stop the privacy
violations this technology enables, the EFF warns.
All this sounds like the stuff of black helicopter conspiracy theory
but the EFF wants to flesh out its pre-liminary research by gathering
information about what printers are revealing and how. It's asking
consum-ers to get involved by sending in test sheets from colour laser
printers. In addition to documenting what printers are revealing, the
EFF is filing a FOIA request over the issue. These research efforts
are a neces-sary precursor to any legal challenge from the EFF and
ammunition for possible lobbying on legislation to protect consumer
privacy.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hmtiuj4/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123449618/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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] THE GROWING LONDON-AFRICA CONNECTION

[David Bier]

If people flee to southern Africa, it is because there is an
infrastructure there that can hide, move and protect them. One does
not wander into Zimbabwe and Zambia in the hope of finding those
things. The infrastructure exists as a safe harbor and arriving there
is not an accident. Zambia has surfaced in several other al Qaeda
cases, often with suspects tied to South Africa.

THE GROWING LONDON-AFRICA CONNECTION
=E2=96=BA http://www.douglasfarah.com/
=E2=96=BA Farah Douglas
Jul 30 2005 =E2=96=BA A prime suspect in the July 21 London bombing is
arrested in Zambia, after having earlier spent time in South Africa.
He reportedly entered Zambia through Zimbabwe. Two other suspects are
originally from East Africa. Seems like a disturbing pattern, again
highlighting the growing role of Sub-Saharan Africa in al Qaeda's
emphasis and infrastructure.
The passage of Haroon Rashid Aswat through Zimbabwe should be of
particular concern. The regime of Robert Mugabe is the successor to
the regime of Charles Taylor in Liberia, and is rapidly becoming a
functioning criminal enterprise that gives support and shelter to a
range of international criminal organiza-tions. If there is one state
that is ideal for harboring al Qaeda, like Liberia before it, it is
Zimbabwe, for all the same reasons: the ability of the regime to
control entry and exist points, access to government perks such as
diplmatic passports, protection by the security forces, and the other
reasons failed states with authoritarian regimes attract these groups.
As in Liberia, it is a serious mistake to think Mugabe (or Taylor) has
any ideological or religious affinity with al Qaeda or anyone else.
They deal with al Qaeda for money, to get back at the outside world
(par-ticularly the United States) and because they can. One of the
major misunderstandings of the FBI and CIA in the Liberia case was
their thinking and telling me and others that a Taylor-al Qaeda
convergence was impossible because Taylor was a Christian. Perhaps in
the loosest possible way, but he was primarily about money, not
religion. I hope the same misanalysis is not being applied in Zimbabwe.
Another important point: If people flee to southern Africa, it is
because there is an infrastructure there that can hide, move and
protect them. One does not wander into Zimbabwe and Zambia in the hope
of finding those things. The infrastructure exists as a safe harbor
and arriving there is not an accident. Zambia has surfaced in several
other al Qaeda cases, often with suspects tied to South Africa.
Not too long ago, my good friend Bobby Block, the intrepid Wall Street
Journal correspondent in Southern Africa for many years, wrote about
al Qaeda in Southern Africa and South Africa, as well as ties to the
tanzanite trade in Tanzania. Guess what happened next? He was
denounced not only by South Africa, but by the same agencies in this
country that dismissed my work. Interesting how, a few years later it
is clear that, had those warnings been heeded, perhaps the
infrastructure in an abandoned continent would not have grown to the
point of presenting a national security threat to the United States
and Europe.
See also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR200507250=
1801_pf.html









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hkk7ga6/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123450058/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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 

[osint] THE JIHADIST MOVEMENT AFTER LONDON

[David Bier]

...the attacks in London suggest that a new generation of
Salafi-Jihadists is emerging which do not belong to any recognizable
networks and are not necessarily rooted in specific countries. There
are two contentions here: first, unlike the earlier generation of
Salafi-Jihadists, many of the new generation of terrorists may not
have the extensive experience of fighting in Algeria, Chechnya,
Afghanistan or Bosnia; second, the attacks on London present further
evidence that it is the Salafi-Jihadist movement, rather than
organiza-tions such as al-Qaeda, which draws upon a slightly different
network of support, that constitutes the cur-rent threat in Europe.

...it is further argued here that the newly-emergent terrorist
networks are neither organized nor inspired by al-Qaeda. 

THE JIHADIST MOVEMENT AFTER LONDON

► http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369754
► Terrorism Monitor, Jamestown / by Cerwyn Moore, Murad Al-Shishani

Jul 29 2005 ► Jul 28. Few events have provoked such contradictory
assessments as this month's bomb attacks in London. Until recently,
the majority of research on terrorism since 9/11 has focused on
militants who may have had experience fighting in Afghanistan, thus
linking them directly to al-Qaeda. But, the attacks in London suggest
that a new generation of Salafi-Jihadists is emerging which do not
belong to any recognizable networks and are not necessarily rooted in
specific countries. There are two contentions here: first, unlike the
earlier generation of Salafi-Jihadists, many of the new generation of
terrorists may not have the extensive experience of fighting in
Algeria, Chechnya, Afghanistan or Bosnia; second, the attacks on
London present further evidence that it is the Salafi-Jihadist
movement, rather than organiza-tions such as al-Qaeda, which draws
upon a slightly different network of support, that constitutes the
cur-rent threat in Europe. Although many of these points have recently
been made in the Security, Terrorism and the UK Report (July 2005)
published through Chatham House, it is further argued here that the
newly-emergent terrorist networks are neither organized nor inspired
by al-Qaeda. [1]

A series of events, marked at the outset by the bomb attacks in
Casablanca, followed by the Madrid train attack and the detentions in
Spain thereafter, the murder of Theo van Gogh and finally the attacks
in Lon-don, highlight how a functional or even organizational reading
of the current terror threat is misleading.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the series of attacks in Europe
and North Africa were largely over-shadowed by the reporting of the
war in Iraq. Thus, this instantaneous and wide-ranging coverage of the
attacks in London has added to the analytical confusion. Indeed, most
analysis on the UK attacks seems to be distorted by the assumption
that those involved in the incidents are part of homogenous groups and
linked to particular causes in specific countries.

Implications: Morocco and Madrid

In a series of arrests in Europe earlier this year, authorities are
reported to have detained a number of militant operatives. In April,
Spanish authorities detained twelve suspected terrorists including six
Moroc-cans, three of Syrian origin, an Egyptian, an Algerian and a
Palestinian. More recently in June, and again in Spain, at least a
further sixteen suspected extremists were detained. Significantly,
almost all of the de-tained suspects were described as extremists
rather than al-Qaeda operatives. Many of those detained appear to be
loosely linked to the Zarqawi network, which automatically
differentiates them from a genera-tion of recognized al-Qaeda leaders
such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

Analyzing the events in London in this context indicates a number of
issues and two of these are high-lighted here; on the one hand, those
in control of operations in Iraq and Europe, and those who have
or-chestrated the wave of attacks since the Casablanca bombings appear
to be linked to the Salafi-Jihadist movement, and on the other hand,
these incremental events and the jihadists associated with them are
drawing extensively upon links with North African militants. In the
case of the first attacks in London on July 7, even though the
attackers appear to be British-born Muslims (three of whom are of
Pakistani origin), some reports suggest that there are links between
handlers, clerics and bomb-makers associated with North African militants.

British newspapers reported that British police had asked European
counterparts for information on Moroccan Mohammed al-Garbuzi, who
lived in Britain for 16 years before vanishing from his north London
home last year. [2] Initial reports also pointed to links with known
terrorists. As one newspaper report noted: [F]ollowing detailed
examination of the timings of the explosions and early forensic
analysis of the four blast scenes... links between the terrorists and
the Continent are being actively 

[osint] THE MUSLIM MIND IS ON FIRE

[David Bier]

I fear those naïve Muslims who think that they are beating the West
have now achieved their worst crime of all. The West is now going to
war against not only Muslims, but also, sadly, Islam as a religion.
In this new cold and hot war, car bombs and suicide bombers here and
there will be no match for the arsenal that those Westerners are
putting together - an arsenal of laws, intelligence pooling,
surveillance by satellites, armies of special forces and indeed,
allies inside the Arab world who are tired of having their lives
disrupted by demented so-called jihadis or those bearded preachers
who, under the guise of preaching, do little to teach and much to
ignite the fire, those who know little about Islam and nothing about
humanity.


THE MUSLIM MIND IS ON FIRE
► http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050726-073844-6818r

► The Middle East Times / by Youssef M. Ibrahim [a former Middle East
correspondent for The New York Times and energy editor of the Wall
Street Journal, is managing director of the Dubai-based Strategic
Energy Investment Group]
► CCISS / by Martin Rudner / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Jul 29 2005 ► Jul 28. The world of Islam is on fire. Indeed, the
Muslim mind is on fire. Above all, the West is now ready to take both
of them on.

The latest reliable report confirms that on average 33 Iraqis die
every day, executed by Iraqis and foreign jihadis and suicide bombers,
not by US or British soldiers. In fact, fewer than ever US or British
soldiers are dying since the invasion more than two years ago.
Instead, we now watch on television hundreds of innocent Iraqis lying
without limbs, bleeding in the streets dead or wounded for life. If
this is jihad someone got his religious education completely upside down.

Palestine is on fire, too, with Palestinian armed groups fighting one
another - Hamas against Fatah and all against the Palestinian
Authority. All have rendered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
impotent and have diminished the world's respect and sympathy for
Palestinian sufferings.

A couple of weeks ago London was on fire as Pakistani and other
Muslims with British citizenship blew up tube stations in the name of
Islam. Al Qaeda in Europe or one of its franchises proclaimed proudly
the killing of 54 and wounding 700 innocent citizens was done to
avenge Islam and Muslims.

Madrid was on fire, too, last year, when Muslim jihadis blew up train
stations killing 160 people and wounding a few thousands.

The excuse in all the above cases was the war in Iraq, but let us not
forget that in September 2001, long before Iraq, Osama Bin Laden
proudly announced that he ordered the killing of some 3,000 in the
United States, in the name of avenging Islam. Let us not forget that
the killing began a long time before the inva-sion of Iraq.

Indeed, jihadis have been killing for a decade in the name of Islam.
They killed innocent tourists and na-tives in Morocco and Egypt, in
Africa, in Indonesia and in Yemen, all done in the name of Islam by
Mus-lims who say that they are better than all other Muslims. They
killed in India, in Thailand and are now talk-ing of killing in
Germany and Denmark and so on. There were attacks with bombs that
killed scores inside Shia and Sunni mosques, inside churches and
inside synagogues in Turkey and Tunisia, with Muslim preachers saying
that it is okay to kill Jews and Christians - the so called infidels.

Above all, it is the Muslim mind that is on fire.

The Muslim fundamentalist who attacked the Dutch film director Theo
Van Gogh in the Netherlands, stabbed him more than 23 times then cut
his throat. He recently proudly proclaimed at his trial: I did it
because my religion - Islam - dictated it and I would do it again if
were free. Which preacher told this guy this is Islam? That preacher
should be in jail with him.

Do the cowardly jihadis who recruit suicide bombers really think that
they will force the US Army and Brit-ish troops out of Iraq by killing
hundreds of innocent Iraqis? US troops now have bases and operate in
Iraq but also from Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain
and Oman.

The only accomplishment of jihadis is that now they have aroused the
great Western Tiger. There was a time when the United States and
Europe welcomed Arab and Muslim immigrants, visitors and students,
with open arms. London even allowed all dissidents escaping their
countries to preach against those countries under the guise of
political refugees.

Well, that is all over now. Time has become for the big Western vengeance.

Visas for Arab and Muslim young men will be impossible to get for the
United States and Western Europe. Those working there will be expelled
if they are illegal, and harassed even if their papers are in order.
Airlines will have to right to refuse boarding to passengers if their
names even resemble names on a pro-hibited list on all flights heading
to Europe and the United States.

What is more important to remember is this: When the West 

[osint] FBI TRANSLATION BACKLOG GROWS

[David Bier]

... Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said in a report. 
The FBI's collection of audio material continues to outpace its
ability to review and translate all that mate-rial, Fine said. His
findings were similar in a July 2004 audit, except that he said the
FBI now does a bet-ter job prioritizing its translation work. Fine
released his report at an FBI oversight hearing by the Senate
Judiciary Committee. 
There were 707,742 hours of unreviewed recordings at the end of March,
a 50 percent increase over the start of 2004, Fine said. The bureau no
longer is running behind on intercepts relating to al-Qaida cases. 


FBI TRANSLATION BACKLOG GROWS

► AP / by Mark Sherman
► Intelligence Digest / by Glenmore Trenear-Harvey / [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Jul 28 2005 ► Jul 28. The FBI's backlog of untranslated audio
recordings from terrorism and espionage investigations grew markedly
in the past year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog said
Wednes-day. 
The FBI is capturing and reviewing more conversations than ever in
languages associated with terrorists, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine
said in a report. 
The FBI's collection of audio material continues to outpace its
ability to review and translate all that mate-rial, Fine said. His
findings were similar in a July 2004 audit, except that he said the
FBI now does a bet-ter job prioritizing its translation work. Fine
released his report at an FBI oversight hearing by the Senate
Judiciary Committee. 
There were 707,742 hours of unreviewed recordings at the end of March,
a 50 percent increase over the start of 2004, Fine said. The bureau no
longer is running behind on intercepts relating to al-Qaida cases. 
The FBI said those backlogged recordings include hundreds of thousands
of hours of white noise and other unintelligible audio, conversations
in closed cases and mistakenly captured exchanges. But even by its own
measure, the FBI's counterterrorism audio backlog more than doubled,
Fine said. 
FBI Director Robert Mueller, testifying at the same hearing, said much
of the backlog is in obscure lan-guages for which translators are hard
to find. He told senators that the bureau is able to promptly address
all of our highest priority counterterrorism intelligence, generally
within 24 hours. 
On a different topic, Mueller was unusually specific in describing a
case to illustrate the need for adminis-trative subpoena power, a
provision of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act that is up for renewal. 
It allows law enforcement to subpoena records without permission from
a judge or grand jury. 
At a time when authorities were scrambling to pursue leads on the men
who set off bombs in the London mass transit system on July 7, it took
the FBI two days to obtain records from an American university on a
one-time chemistry student who may have had ties to the four
attackers, Mueller said. 
While Mueller did not use any names, the situation he described is
similar to the case of Magdy el-Nashar, an Egyptian-born academic who
recently taught chemistry at Leeds University. He is believed to have
rented one of the homes authorities searched in Leeds, where some of
the attackers lived. 
El-Nashar studied chemical engineering at North Carolina State
University in 2000. 
The person had expertise in chemistry that would enable the person to
 construct the bombs, Mueller said. But when the FBI first approached
the university, officials declined to turn over records. 
We had to go back with a grand jury subpoena. Now in my mind we
should not  in that circumstance ... have to show somebody that this
was an emergency, he said. 
North Carolina State spokesman Keith Nichols said the university
needed a subpoena or court order to comply with a federal education
privacy law. Nichols said the FBI eventually served three subpoenas on
the university and we provided all the remaining documents. 
El-Nashar was detained in Egypt. But after several days of
questioning, the Egyptian government said he had no links to the
attacks or to al-Qaida. 
Mueller's example did not persuade Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,
who said there would not be sufficient checks on the FBI if it could
issue subpoenas in intelligence cases on its own. 






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hkho6bo/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123451924/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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 

[osint] WHEN A BRITON BLOWS UP A BRITON

[David Bier]

Israel is the immediate suspect in any mass terror attack in the
world. Either it initiated the attack itself, as is commonly claimed
in the Arab media, or it knew in advance but did not prevent it, as in
the conspiracy theories that abounded after September 11, or its bad
behavior in the territories fed the suicidal urges of Arabs and
Muslims, as suggested by Blair and his fellow-Europeans.


WHEN A BRITON BLOWS UP A BRITON

► Haaretz / by Aluf Benn
► Intelligence Digest / by Glenmore Trenear-Harvey / [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Jul 28 2005 ► Jul 27. When Britons blow up other Britons in the
Underground, Prime Minister Tony Blair blames critical issues in the
Middle East that need to be taken care of and sorted out - and
everyone understands to whom he is referring. When scores of people
are killed in Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian commentator blames the
Mossad. Could this be the same commentator who accused Israeli
intelligence of blowing up the twin towers?

Israel is the immediate suspect in any mass terror attack in the
world. Either it initiated the attack itself, as is commonly claimed
in the Arab media, or it knew in advance but did not prevent it, as in
the conspiracy theories that abounded after September 11, or its bad
behavior in the territories fed the suicidal urges of Arabs and
Muslims, as suggested by Blair and his fellow-Europeans.

So what if the perpetrators of the terror attacks in London grew up in
the British welfare state and never knew what a roadblock, an
occupation or a Jewish settlement is? The important thing is that it
is possible to export the blame to the Jewish state.

These reactions are bothersome. It is not pleasant to hear that your
country bears such responsibility for the spread of international
evil, and the knowledge that these assertions are utter lies is no
consolation. Nevertheless, it is sometimes difficult to take the
defamers to task when Israel itself insists on butting in. Israel's
longing to be a part of the West and the enlightened world, and to
link Palestinian terror to some international conspiracy instead of
seeing it as a local problem oversteps the bounds of common sense and
reason. Sometimes it is best to remain silent and let others take care
of their own problems.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom went to pay a condolence visit in
London this week. Before he departed for Britain he announced that he
would discuss the terror attacks in London, Sharm and Israel with
Blair, as if there was a connection between the explosions in the
Underground and the murder of the Kols near Kissufim or the firing of
Qassams. True, all of them were committed by Muslims, but so far no
deeper con-nection has been discovered.

After every terror attack abroad, reports are published to the effect
that the Mossad intelligence service had known something, had tracked
the perpetrators and had issued a warning that was ignored. 

Pre-sumably the public relations people at the Mossad encourage such
reports, in the belief that the image of its long arm and
omniscience will encourage foreign services to cooperate and exchange
information with their colleagues in Israel. The problem is that one
who insists on appearing like the supreme fighter of international
terror is liable to create unnecessary enemies for himself.

The height of absurdity was reached by the front-page headline in the
mass circulation daily Maariv last Friday. The head of Military
Intelligence, Major General Aharon Ze'evi Farkash, told the newspaper
about a plan he had submitted to the government wherein, in return for
suitable funding, within three years he would cause 70 percent of
international terror activity to be thwarted, assisting many
countries, mainly in Europe. In that same closed discussion,
Farkash also said that Israel was not an Al Qaida target.

These remarks give rise to a number of questions: If Israel is not an
Al Qaida target, why should it make itself one? How does Farkash know
how to thwart 70 percent of terror attacks, and not 69 percent or 82
percent? What does Military Intelligence know about Bin Laden and his
colleagues that is being kept from the CIA? And perhaps there is
something to accusations that Israel does not reveal everything to its
friends abroad?

Here is a possible explanation: the Farkash plan was published on the
eve of the discussion of the security budget. The Israel Defense
Forces are required to make cuts and the army has run out of threats:
Iraq is occupied, Syria has been abandoned, Iran is under
international care and the Palestinians are worn out by the intifada.

When the local market is at a low, it's time to turn to the
international market for Israeli abilities to identify and thwart
terror. If Israeli help isn't effective, at least there will be fat
budgets, trips abroad and a strengthened image. What is a tiny and
superfluous taunting of Bin Laden compared to all this?





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial 

[osint] ISLAMIST TERRORISM IN THE SAHEL: FACT OF FICTION?

[David Bier]

There are enough indications, from a security perspective, to justify
caution and greater Western involvement. However, the Sahel is not a
hotbed of terrorist activity. A misconceived and heavy handed approach
could tip the scale the wrong way; serious, balanced, and long-term
engagement with the four countries should keep the region peaceful. An
effective counter-terrorism policy there needs to address the threat
in the broadest terms, with more development than military aid and
greater U.S.-European collaboration. 

ISLAMIST TERRORISM IN THE SAHEL: FACT OF FICTION?

► http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3347f=1
► International Crisis Group

Jul 27 2005 ► Mar 31. The Sahel, a vast region bordering the Sahara
Desert and including the countries of Mali, Niger, Chad and
Mauritania, is increasingly referred to by the U.S. military as the
new front in the war on terrorism. There are enough indications, from
a security perspective, to justify caution and greater Western
involvement. However, the Sahel is not a hotbed of terrorist activity.
A misconceived and heavy handed approach could tip the scale the wrong
way; serious, balanced, and long-term engagement with the four
countries should keep the region peaceful. An effective
counter-terrorism policy there needs to address the threat in the
broadest terms, with more development than military aid and greater
U.S.-European collaboration. 
There are disparate strands of information out of which a number of
observers, including the U.S. military, have read the potential threat
of violent Islamist activity in the four Sahelian countries covered by
the Americans' Pan-Sahel Initiative (PSI). There is some danger in
this, but in this region, few things are ex-actly what they seem at
first glance. Mauritania, which calls itself an Islamic republic,
harshly suppresses Islamist activities of any kind, while Mali, a star
pupil of 1990s neo-liberal democratisation, runs the great-est risk of
any West African country other than Nigeria of violent Islamist
activity. Those who believe pov-erty breeds religious fanaticism will
be disappointed in Niger, the world's second poorest country, whose
government has maintained its tradition of tolerant Sufi Islam by
holding to an unambiguous line on sepa-ration of religion and the state. 
The prospects for growth in Islamist activity in the region -- up to
and including terrorism -- are delicately balanced. Muslim populations
in West Africa, as elsewhere, express increasing opposition to
Western, especially U.S., policy in the Middle East, and there has
been a parallel increase in fundamentalist prose-lytisation. However,
these developments should not be overestimated. Fundamentalist Islam
has been present in the Sahel for over 60 years without being linked
to anti-Western violence. The Algerian Salafi Group for Preaching and
Combat (GSPC), which lost 43 militants in a battle with Chad's army in
2004 after being chased across borders by PSI-trained troops, has been
seriously weakened in Algeria and Mali by the combined efforts of
Algerian and Sahelian armed forces.
The U.S. military is a new factor in this delicate balance. Its
operations in the four countries are orches-trated by the European
Command (EUCOM) headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. In the absence of
Con-gressional willingness to fund a serious engagement by other parts
of the government, the Pentagon has become a major player by
emphasising the prospect of terrorism, though military planners
themselves recognise the inherent dangers in a purely military
counter-terrorism program. 
With the U.S. heavily committed in other parts of the world, however,
Washington is unlikely to devote substantial non-military resources to
the Sahel soon, even though Africa is slowly gaining recognition --
not least due to West Africa's oil -- as an area of strategic interest
to the West. The resultant equation is laden with risks, including
turning the small number of arrested clerics and militants into
martyrs, thus giving ammunition to local anti-American or anti-Western
figures who claim the PSI (and the proposed, expanded Trans-Saharan
Counter Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI) still under consideration in the
U.S. gov-ernment) is part of a larger plan to render Muslim
populations servile; and cutting off smuggling networks that have
become the economic lifeblood of Saharan peoples whose livestock was
devastated by the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s, without offering
economic alternatives. To avoid creating the kinds of problems the PSI
is meant to solve, it needs to be folded into a more balanced approach
to the region, one also in which Europeans and Americans work more
closely together.

Recommendations to the U.S. Government:

1. Establish a healthier balance between military and civilian
programs in the Sahel, including by:
(a) opening USAID offices in the capitals of Mauritania, Niger and Chad;
(b) tailoring significant development programs to nomadic populations
in 

[osint] Inquiry Into Lobbyist Sputters After Demotion

[David Bier]

In 2002, Abramoff was retained by the Superior Court in what was an
unusual arrangement for a public agency. The Times reported in May
that Abramoff was paid with a series of $9,000 checks funneled through
a Laguna Beach lawyer to disguise the lobbyist's role working for the
Guam court. No separate contract was authorized for Abramoff's work.

The transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov.
18, 2002, according to a copy obtained by The Times. The subpoena
demanded that Anthony Sanchez, administrative director of the Guam
Superior Court, release records involving the lobbying contract,
including bills and payments.

A day later, the chief prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Frederick A. Black, who
had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news
release announced that Bush was replacing Black.

The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary
status, Black had held the acting U.S. attorney assignment for more
than a decade.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guam7aug07,1,5281180.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Inquiry Into Lobbyist Sputters After Demotion

The unusual financial deal between Jack Abramoff and officials in Guam
drew scrutiny.

By Walter F. Roche Jr.
Times Staff Writer

August 7, 2005

WASHINGTON †A U.S. grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of
controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but
President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor and the
inquiry ended soon after.

The previously undisclosed Guam inquiry is separate from a federal
grand jury in Washington that is investigating allegations that
Abramoff bilked Indian tribes out of millions of dollars.

In Guam, an American territory in the Pacific, investigators were
looking into Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court
officials to lobby against a court revision bill then pending in the
U.S. Congress. The legislation, since approved, gave the Guam Supreme
Court authority over the Superior Court.

In 2002, Abramoff was retained by the Superior Court in what was an
unusual arrangement for a public agency. The Times reported in May
that Abramoff was paid with a series of $9,000 checks funneled through
a Laguna Beach lawyer to disguise the lobbyist's role working for the
Guam court. No separate contract was authorized for Abramoff's work.

Guam court officials have not explained the contractual arrangement.
At the time, Abramoff was a well-known lobbyist in the Pacific islands
because of his work for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
garment manufacturers, accused of employing workers in sweatshop
conditions.

Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum said the lobbyist has no recollection
of his being investigated in Guam in 2002. If he had been aware of an
investigation, he would have cooperated fully. Blum declined to
respond to detailed questions.

The transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov.
18, 2002, according to a copy obtained by The Times. The subpoena
demanded that Anthony Sanchez, administrative director of the Guam
Superior Court, release records involving the lobbying contract,
including bills and payments.

A day later, the chief prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Frederick A. Black, who
had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news
release announced that Bush was replacing Black.

The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary
status, Black had held the acting U.S. attorney assignment for more
than a decade.

The acting U.S. attorney was a controversial official in Guam. At the
time he was removed, Black was directing a long-term investigation
into allegations of public corruption in the administration of
then-Gov. Carl Gutierrez. The inquiry produced numerous indictments,
including some of the governor's political associates and top aides.

Black also arranged for a security review in the aftermath of Sept. 11
that was seen as a potential threat to loose immigration rules favored
by local business leaders. In fact, the study ordered by Black
eventually cited substantial security risks in Guam and the Northern
Marianas.

Abramoff, who then represented the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, alerted his clients in a memo about the expected
report and warned: It will require some major action from the Hill
and a press attack to get this back in the bottle.

The lobbyist also wrote that he and his aides expected to meet in the
near future with Justice Department officials, according to Abramoff
billing documents released this year by the Marianas government.

A Justice Department spokesman previously dismissed Abramoff's
references to meetings with high level department officials as a lot
of bluster to impress a client.

Abramoff also sought expanded lobbying business with the Pacific
island governments.

A lawyer for Gutierrez discussed hiring Abramoff to represent Guam's
territorial government in 2002 before the grand jury inquiry began.
The discussions were 

[osint] Some Bombs Used in Iraq Are Made in Iran, U.S. Says

[David Bier]

These are among the most sophisticated and most lethal devices we've
seen, said the senior officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity
because of the delicate intelligence reports describing the bombs.
It's very serious.

Note that no one is willing to blame the Iranian government even
though they rule Iran with an iron hand and either are condoning
shipment of weapons reaching Iraq from Iran or are actively involved.
 But U.S. acknowledgement of that would require action against Iran
which could easily spiral into active combat involving Iranian forces
and the majority Shiite militias in Iraq against U.S. troops.

Meanwhile, the shaped charges keep coming...

David Bier

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/politics/06bomb.html?themc=th

August 6, 2005
Some Bombs Used in Iraq Are Made in Iran, U.S. Says
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - Many of the new, more sophisticated roadside
bombs used to attack American and government forces in Iraq have been
designed in Iran and shipped in from there, United States military and
intelligence officials said Friday, raising the prospect of increased
foreign help for Iraqi insurgents.

American commanders say the deadlier bombs could become more common as
insurgent bomb makers learn the techniques to make the weapons
themselves in Iraq.

But just as troubling is that the spread of the new weapons seems to
suggest a new and unusual area of cooperation between Iranian Shiites
and Iraqi Sunnis to drive American forces out - a possibility that the
commanders said they could make little sense of given the increasing
violence between the sects in Iraq.

Unlike the improvised explosive devices devised from Iraq's vast
stockpiles of missiles, artillery shells and other arms, the new
weapons are specially designed to destroy armored vehicles, military
bomb experts say. The bombs feature shaped charges, which penetrate
armor by focusing explosive power in a single direction and by firing
a metal projectile embedded in the device into the target at high
speed. The design is crude but effective if the vehicle's armor
plating is struck at the correct angle, the experts said.

Since they first began appearing about two months ago, some of these
devices have been seized, including one large shipment that was
captured last week in northeast Iraq coming from Iran. But one senior
military officer said tens of the devices had been smuggled in and
used against allied forces, killing or wounding several Americans
throughout Iraq in the past several weeks.

These are among the most sophisticated and most lethal devices we've
seen, said the senior officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity
because of the delicate intelligence reports describing the bombs.
It's very serious.

Pentagon and intelligence officials say that some shipments of the new
explosives have contained both components and fully manufactured
devices, and may have been spirited into Iraq along the porous Iranian
border by the Iranian-backed, anti-Israeli terrorist group Hezbollah,
or by Iran's Revolutionary Guard. American commanders say these bombs
closely matched those that Hezbollah has used against Israel.

The devices we're seeing now have been machined, said a military
official who has access to classified reporting on the insurgents'
bomb-making abilities. There is evidence of some sophistication.

American officials say they have no evidence that the Iranian
government is involved. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and
the new United States ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad,
complained publicly this week about the Tehran government's harmful
meddling in Iraqi affairs.

There is movement across its borders of people and matériel used in
violent acts against Iraq, Mr. Khalilzad said Monday.

But some Middle East specialists discount any involvement by the
Iranian government or Hezbollah, saying it would be counter to their
interests to support Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents, who have stepped up
their attacks against Iraqi Shiites. These specialists suggest that
the arms shipments are more likely the work of criminals, arms
traffickers or splinter insurgent groups.

Iran's protégés are in control in Iraq right now, yet these weapons
are going to people fighting Iran's protégés, said Kenneth Katzman, a
Persian Gulf expert at the Congressional Research Service and a former
Middle East analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency. That makes
little sense to me.

One of Iran's top priorities is to get the United States out of Iraq,
which means keeping up the violence there. At the same time, that
clearly works against their other goal, which is to get religious
Shiites in power and keep them in power. Right now, popular support
for the government of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, which is
friendly toward Iran, is waning because it cannot deal effectively
with the Sunni-based insurgency.

And while American military intelligence officers believe Iranian
intelligence has a large presence in Iraq

[osint] Al-Qaeda attack foiled

[David Bier]

...Turkish security forces arrested the members of an al-Qaeda cell,
comprised mostly of Turkish citizens, in Alanya on Thursday.

They also found a boat docked in the harbour and loaded with 400kg of
TNT, which was to have been used against the Israeli tourists.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1750403,00.html

Al-Qaeda attack foiled
07/08/2005 10:42  - (SA)  

Tel Aviv - Turkish security forces prevented a mass attack the
al-Qaeda terrorist group intended launching against Israeli tourists
in the southern Turkish port of Alanya, the Israeli Yediot Aharanot
daily reported on Sunday.

According to the Israeli daily, Turkish security forces arrested the
members of an al-Qaeda cell, comprised mostly of Turkish citizens, in
Alanya on Thursday.

They also found a boat docked in the harbour and loaded with 400kg of
TNT, which was to have been used against the Israeli tourists.

Four Israeli cruise ships carrying 3 500 tourists to Alanya were
ordered to change their routes Friday and anchor in alternate
destinations following intelligence reports of a possible terror
attack at the port.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h0538dv/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123469394/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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] Families Learn of Recruiters' Lists -- and How to Opt Out

[David Bier]

Under the education bill signed by President Bush in 2002, military
recruiters must be granted the same access to high school facilities
as colleges and prospective employers †from setting up informational
booths in the lunch room to handing out T-shirts to pique students'
interest. Additionally, schools must provide student contact
information, unless a parent has told the school not to. A school
district that fails to comply risks losing federal funding.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-recruit7aug07,1,6883654.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Families Learn of Recruiters' Lists -- and How to Opt Out
By Seema Mehta
Times Staff Writer

August 7, 2005

As the military struggles to meet recruitment goals, activists are
intensifying efforts to educate parents about how they can delete
their teenagers' names from directories that schools are required to
provide recruiters under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

Their message is simple: All parents or students have to do is put in
writing that the school may not release their contact information â€
name, address and phone number †to the military.

In Santa Ana, a group of women organized community meetings to alert
parents about opting out. In Sylmar, student protesters have mobilized
a delete-your-name campaign every time recruiters visit campus. And a
group of Pacific Palisades activists has visited more than a dozen
high schools throughout the region to distribute forms that students
can use to strike their names from lists provided to the armed forces.

We're trying to inform people of their rights, said Erika Herran,
16, a member of the Young Political Activists at Sylmar High School.
They definitely know more than before, but there's still a lot more
to be done.

Under the education bill signed by President Bush in 2002, military
recruiters must be granted the same access to high school facilities
as colleges and prospective employers †from setting up informational
booths in the lunch room to handing out T-shirts to pique students'
interest. Additionally, schools must provide student contact
information, unless a parent has told the school not to. A school
district that fails to comply risks losing federal funding.

Recruiters use the lists to call students and visit them at home to
tout the benefits of enlisting in the military. Staff Sgt. Roberto
Sanchez, a Marine Corps recruiter in Los Angeles, said the lists were
essential to his job.

It saves us a lot of time in finding the individuals, he said.
Without contact information, everybody would be walking up and down
the streets trying to find possible enlistees.

But critics say that releasing such personal information violates the
privacy of students and their parents †most of whom, educators and
activists say, are unaware they can opt out.

The whole purpose is to educate the parents and the students in our
country about what is going on in their campuses and what options are
available to protect themselves, said Deborah M. Vasquez, a member of
OC Mujeres en Accion, a Santa Ana woman's social justice organization
that holds community forums on what it calls the military's predatory
practices.

Military officials said they were seeing more such activism, which
they call counter-recruitment.

We see that all the way up and down ... the Western states, said
Capt. Carolyn Nelson of the 12th Marine Corps District in San Diego,
which oversees West Coast recruitment efforts. All individuals have a
right to know what's out there. We don't discourage it, we don't
encourage it. Everyone has freedom of speech.

The military pushed for the equal-access provision in the No Child
Left Behind Act to counter a growing hostility to recruiters at some
schools, especially on the coasts, and to deal with a shrinking pool
of potential enlistees, as more teenagers than ever †two out of every
three, according to the Department of Labor †go on to secondary
education. At some schools, it has long been a tradition to provide
student contact lists to colleges and, in some cases, employers.

Among the armed services, the Army is having the most difficult time
meeting its recruitment goals. The Army fell more than 7,800 soldiers
short of the nearly 55,000 enlistees it needed between Oct. 1 and June
30, while the Army National Guard fell more than 10,000 short of its
goal of nearly 45,000 enlistees, according to the Department of
Defense. The Army and Navy reserves and the Air National Guard also
fell short.

The Army's shortfall is due to an improving economy and the war in
Iraq †not counter-recruitment efforts, said Douglas Smith, a
spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Ft. Knox, Ky.

Is it hindering us? Not really, said Nelson, the Marine recruiter.

No one tracks how many students have opted out of the No Child Left
Behind Act's provision. But educators report, anecdotally, that they
are increasingly being asked to make an effort to inform parents and
students of this right.

In 

[osint] China and India bury hatchet

[David Bier]

India's response to fear of encirclement is evident in recent summit
talks with the Chinese. First, it is boosting economic ties with
China. Second, it is emphasising relations with the US. Third, it is
stepping up ties with other east Asian countries to counter China's
growing commercial reach. New Delhi is in talks with Thailand and
Singapore to create free-trade agreements. It is also seeking to
counter China's close military relations with Burma by pushing its own
construction projects there. For many years China has run rings around
India diplomatically. Now India is learning how to play Mahjong.


http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1740862005

China and India bury hatchet

DAN MCDOUGALL
IN NEW DELHI

THE Nathu La pass pierces the heart of the Himalayas following the
precipitous path of the ancient silk route that for a millennium has
linked the two most populous nations on earth.

It was here in 1962, in the province of Sikkim, that a two-month war
broke out between India and China over their vast 3,500km border. A
subsequent ceasefire failed to resolve the conflict, and for the past
43 years both nations have bitterly contested their territories on the
roof of the world - until now.

In a significant gesture of cartographic diplomacy, the Chinese
premier, Wen Jiaboa, recently visited New Delhi and presented the
Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, with a beautifully crafted map
of the Himalayas that finally acknowledged Sikkim as a state of India.
New Delhi in turn, in a rehearsed display of compromise, reiterated
respect for China's sovereignty over Tibet and promised to prevent
anti-Chinese political activities by the community of Tibetan exiles
in India. Further border resolutions are in the pipeline.

The true symbolism of the accord was made clear by the public signing
of a groundbreaking Sino-Indian pact between the two nations which are
home to one-third of the world's total population. The 11 agreements
envisaged a galloping growth in bilateral trade, joint petroleum, gas
and space exploration, and additional agreements for co-operation
between China's 2.5-million-man People's Liberation Army and the
1.3-million-strong Indian Defence Force.

In short, Asia's oldest and most important relationship has undergone
a tectonic shift. Today the Nathu La pass is once again open for
business. But the re-establishment of meagre trade along the route is
merely symbolic, representing nothing more than yak butter, woollen
shawls and, most likely in these modern times, pirate DVDs.

On a global scale, of all the significant economies in the world,
China and India have been the fastest growing for the past decade, yet
barely a few years ago, trade between both nations was under $1bn per
year.

According to statistics released by the Indian government last week,
China has now come from nowhere to be New Delhi's second-biggest trade
partner after the US - trade between both countries in 2005 is
expected to exceed $13.6bn with both aiming for a trade turnover of
$20bn by 2008 and $30bn by 2010. India-US trade is currently worth
$19.8bn.

Premier Wen has declared that China and India will be the two
pagodas of economic power in the 21st century. He said: Co-operation
is just like two pagodas - one hardware and one software, he said,
referring to India's computer software skills and China's growing
dominance in computer hardware. Combined, we can take the leadership
position in the world. When that particular day comes, it will signify
the coming of the Asian Century of the IT industry.

Emulating China's economic success is obviously the aim among
reformists in India. Manmohan Singh has challenged Mumbai to
transform over the next five years so that people will forget about
Shanghai.

While recent economic interest in the West has focused on the
blossoming relationship between Washington and New Delhi, according to
a recent study almost 2.5 million Indians visited China in 2004, and
although the majority were tourists, vast numbers of Indian
businessmen are also travelling to China to outsource contracts and
attract trade and inward investment from Shanghai and Beijing.

The world, and in particular America, is watching. A futuristic report
published last December by the US National Intelligence Council even
compared the parallel emergence of China and India to the rise of
Germany in the 19th century and America itself in the 20th century,
with potentially just as dramatic impacts on regional and world affairs.

It's been about as good as it gets for India's foreign policy. This
is reflected in the growing economic ties with China and the US, said
Kalim Bahadur, head of Central Asian Studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal
Nehru University.

So what exactly has changed? For a start the perception within the
Indian business community about China has undergone a dramatic
transformation over the past three to four years. The fears about the
Chinese dragon invading India with cheap manufactured goods 

[osint] Exclusive: CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away

[David Bier]

Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed
up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have
been caught. He was there, Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

Exclusive: CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away

Newsweek

Aug. 15, 2005 issue - During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W.
Bush and John Kerry battled about whether Osama bin Laden had escaped
from Tora Bora in the final days of the war in Afghanistan. Bush,
Kerry charged, didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and
kill the leader of Al Qaeda. The president called his opponent's
allegation the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Bush
asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden
was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border.

But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's
Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S.
commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing
Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive
intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence
operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. He was there,
Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks,
National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004
statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. We don't
know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December
2001, Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. Bin Laden was
never within our grasp. Berntsen says Franks is a great American.
But he was not on the ground out there. I was.

In his book—titled Jawbreaker—the decorated career CIA officer
criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing
enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams
in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger.
(Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting
CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of
military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a strategic
disaster because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of
conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members.
Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at
Tora Bora was not necessarily just the number of troops.

Berntsen's book gives, by contrast, a heroic portrayal of CIA
activities at Tora Bora and in the war on terror. Ironically, he has
sued the agency over what he calls unacceptable delays in approving
his book—a standard process for ex-agency employees describing
classified matters. They're just holding the book, which is
scheduled for October release, he says. CIA officers, Special Forces
and U.S. air power drove the Taliban out in 70 days. The CIA has taken
roughly 80 days to clear my book. Jennifer Millerwise, a CIA
spokeswoman, says Berntsen's timeline is not accurate, adding that
he submitted his book as an ex-employee only in mid-June. We take
seriously our goal of responding quickly.

—Michael Hirsh




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h2a0ear/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123560494/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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 

[osint] Monkey See, Monkey Do

[David Bier]

Lest you think this is merely of academic interest, consider the
stakes: the Pentagon last week revealed that it is spending money to
train certain scientists how to write screenplays for thrillers
related to their specialties. Why? Because the status of science has
sunk so low that the government needs these disciplines to become sexy
again among students or the brain drain will threaten national
security. One of the reasons we have fewer science majors is the
pernicious right-wing notion that conventional biology is vaguely
atheistic.

Anotherwords, good Christian children should not study that godless
science lest it tempt them to stray from the one path to God.  

Good Grief! Now all we need is a mob of Luddites!

Personally, I would prefer to rely on science to produce the weapons
and equipment for Iraq and the war on terror rather than a mere belief
in the voodoo science of Intelligent Design.  And I would hope that
the schools educating American children would teach science to them
instead of a belief system that dooms them to non-technical
occupations and eats away the National Security of this nation.

David Bier


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853604/site/newsweek/

Monkey See, Monkey Do

Offering ID as an alternative to evolution is a cruel joke. It walks
and talks like science but in the lab performs worse than medieval
alchemy.


By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

Aug. 15, 2005 issue - A teacher in Kansas, where war over Darwin in
the schools is still raging, calls the theory of intelligent design
creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Great line, but unfair to the elegant
tailoring of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank
that has almost singlehandedly put intelligent design on the map.
Eighty years after the Scopes monkey trial, the threat to science
and reason comes less from fundamentalists who believe the earth was
created in six days than from sophisticated branding experts and
polemical Ph.D. s who are clever enough to refrain from referring to
God or even the Creator, and have now found a willing tool in the
president of the United States.

Lest you think this is merely of academic interest, consider the
stakes: the Pentagon last week revealed that it is spending money to
train certain scientists how to write screenplays for thrillers
related to their specialties. Why? Because the status of science has
sunk so low that the government needs these disciplines to become sexy
again among students or the brain drain will threaten national
security. One of the reasons we have fewer science majors is the
pernicious right-wing notion that conventional biology is vaguely
atheistic.

Now President Bush has given that view a boost. When Bush was asked
about intelligent design last week, he answered, Both sides ought to
be properly taught... so people can understand what the debate is
about. This sounds reasonable until you realize that, as the
president's own science adviser, John H. Marburger III, admits, there
is no real debate. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept,
Marburger told The New York Times, committing a bit of candor that
will presumably earn him a trip to the White House woodshed.

Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute claims ID uses a
scientifically valid inference to the best explanation to back up
its theories. That might be good enough for a graduate course in the
philosophy of science (and the ACLU should not prevent it from being
discussed in high-school humanities and philosophy classes), but the
idea of its being offered as an alternative to evolution in
ninth-grade biology is a cruel joke. Its basic claim—that the human
cell is too complex to be explained by natural selection—is unproven
and probably unprovable. ID walks like science and talks like science
but, so far, performs in the lab worse than medieval alchemy.

It's not God who's the problem but ID's assault on Darwin. Brown
University biologist Kenneth Miller (who attends mass every week) says
the unspoken message peddled by the Discovery Institute is that
evolution is the single shakiest theory in science. In fact, despite
its flaws, it remains among the most durable theories in all of science.

Even as the president helps pit faith against science in the
classroom, popes and other clerics have long known that religion and
evolution are not truly at odds. Evolution does not, for instance,
challenge the idea that the universe began with a spark of divinity.
Darwin himself wrote movingly of God. Only the scientific process—not
the scientist—must be agnostic. Long before Darwin, enlightened
Christians understood that religion and science are best kept in
separate realms. In the fifth century, for instance, Saint Augustine
criticized other Christians who talk nonsense about the laws of nature.

The most clever thing about intelligent design is that it doesn't
sound like nonsense. It conjures up Cambridge, not Kansas. The name
evokes Apple software, the MoMA gift shop or a Frank Gehry chair. The
scholarly

[osint] Mishandling the China Challenge

[David Bier]

The Bush administration does not seem to know how to handle this new
challenge. Donald Rumsfeld, fresh from wrecking U.S. -European
relations over the last three years, has decided to try his hand at
Asian affairs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853602/site/newsweek/

Mishandling the China Challenge
Donald Rumsfeld, fresh from wrecking U.S.-European relations over the
last three years, has decided to try his hand at Asian affairs.
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

Aug. 15, 2005 issue - If you look at two recent events, you might well
conclude that the Chinese are a lot smarter at handling the United
States than we are at handling them. This week China National Offshore
Oil Corp. (Cnooc) ended its bid for the American energy firm Unocal,
scared off by rising opposition to the deal from Congress. The deal
would not have given China any special lock on energy supplies. The
only real downside to its collapse is that we will never get to see
the merger fail, as it likely would have, and recognize that the
Chinese had overpaid for a second-tier firm. Recall that before the
Japanese went on their real-estate spree in the 1980s (which scared
Americans silly and produced the 1988 law that allows the government
to block such deals), they bought oil reserves and other such
commodities, thinking they'd gain special advantage through direct
ownership of them. But markets didn't work like that then and it
remains to be seen if that strategy would work now.

More important, the way in which the United States killed this deal
has sent a bad signal around the world. It suggests that we're
intolerant of China's economic rise and want to stop it. It also
suggests hypocrisy. For years the United States has been pushing
countries around the world to open up their energy sector to foreign
investment. In particular, we've been making this case aggressively to
China and Russia. When protectionist officials in other countries want
to fend off a bid from an American (or other foreign) company, they
invoke national-security concerns. Now they have a perfect precedent.
And if the effect of the Unocal affair is to close the energy sector
around the world to foreign investment, the damage done to American
interests probably outweighs any gains in killing the deal. It also
slows the opening of the Chinese economy, which is bad for the United
States for both economic and political reasons.

Now take the second event, the recent announcement of the East Asian
Summit in Kuala Lumpur this December. The summit will include the
Southeast Asian countries plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, New
Zealand and Australia. In other words, it is not simply an East Asian
gathering but rather a broader one encompassing the major nations of
the Asia-Pacific, with one notable exclusion: the United States of
America. Despite being the dominant military and political player in
the region, America has not been invited, the first time it has been
excluded in such discussions.

This is how the Chinese challenge presents itself. It is not a crude
attempt to corner the world's energy supplies but rather a quiet
effort to establish itself as the dominant player in Asia. China
pursues this strategy not by making noisy threats, but by making
itself crucial to other countries in the region. Consider the
turnaround in Indonesia. Ten years ago, when Indonesian officials
spoke of their security concerns, China was usually on top of the
list. Today, they speak of China only as a partner.

China's growth strategy has been different from that of Japan. When
Japan rose to power, it did so in a predatory fashion, pushing its
products and investments in other countries but keeping its own market
closed. China has done the opposite, opening itself up to foreign
trade and investment. The result is that growth in countries from
Brazil to Australia increasingly depends on the Chinese market. China
is making itself indispensable to the world. Even India, which is wary
of China's rise and is a counterweight to it, will not ignore this
reality. In three years its largest trading partner will be China,
displacing the United States of America.

The Bush administration does not seem to know how to handle this new
challenge. Donald Rumsfeld, fresh from wrecking U.S. -European
relations over the last three years, has decided to try his hand at
Asian affairs. He's off to a characteristically clumsy start. Rumsfeld
made a speech in Singapore recently where he complained about China's
rising military budget. It's a cause for concern, but Rumsfeld handled
it crudely, producing a backlash. Singapore's Straits Times was one of
dozens of regional newspapers that reported on the speech by pointing
out that the U.S. military budget consumes more than $400 billion
annually [closer to $500 billion if you add in Iraq and Afghanistan]
and accounts for almost half of global defense spending. Experts
estimate, the newspaper continued in the next sentence, that China
spends between $50 [billion] and $90 

[osint] Of the Many Deaths in Iraq, One Mother's Loss Becomes a Problem for the Presiden

[David Bier]

...Ms. Sheehan said she broke in and told Mr. Bush that Casey was her
son, and that she thought he could imagine what it would be like since
he has two daughters and that he should think about what it would be
like sending them off to war.

I said, 'Trust me, you don't want to go there', Ms. Sheehan said,
recounting her exchange with the president. He said, 'You're right, I
don't.' I said, 'Well, thanks for putting me there.' 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/politics/08crawford.html?oref=login

August 8, 2005

Of the Many Deaths in Iraq, One Mother's Loss Becomes a Problem for
the President

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 7 - President Bush draws antiwar protesters just
about wherever he goes, but few generate the kind of attention that
Cindy Sheehan has since she drove down the winding road toward his
ranch here this weekend and sought to tell him face to face that he
must pull all Americans troops out of Iraq now.

Ms. Sheehan's son, Casey, was killed last year in Iraq, after which
she became an antiwar activist. She says she and her family met with
the president two months later at Fort Lewis in Washington State.

But when she was blocked by the police a few miles from Mr. Bush's
1,600-acre spread on Saturday, the 48-year-old Ms. Sheehan of
Vacaville, Calif., was transformed into a news media phenomenon, the
new face of opposition to the Iraq conflict at a moment when public
opinion is in flux and the politics of the war have grown more
complicated for the president and the Republican Party.

Ms. Sheehan has vowed to camp out on the spot until Mr. Bush agrees to
meet with her, even if it means spending all of August under a
broiling sun by the dusty road. Early on Sunday afternoon, 25 hours
after she was turned back as she approached Mr. Bush's ranch, Prairie
Chapel, Ms. Sheehan stood red-faced from the heat at the makeshift
campsite that she says will be her home until the president relents or
leaves to go back to Washington. A reporter from The Associated Press
had just finished interviewing her. CBS was taping a segment on her.
She had already appeared on CNN, and was scheduled to appear live on
ABC on Monday morning. Reporters from across the country were calling
her cellphone.

It's just snowballed, Ms. Sheehan said beside a small stand of trees
and a patch of shade that contained a sleeping bag, some candles, a
jar of nuts and a few other supplies. We have opened up a debate in
the country.

Seeking to head off exactly the situation that now seems to be
unfolding, the administration sent two senior officials out from the
ranch on Saturday afternoon to meet with her. But Ms. Sheehan said
after talking to the officials - Stephen J. Hadley, the national
security adviser, and Joe Hagin, a deputy White House chief of staff -
that she would not back down in her demand to see the president.

Her success in drawing so much attention to her message - and leaving
the White House in a face-off with an opponent who had to be treated
very gently even as she aggressively attacked the president and his
policies - seemed to stem from the confluence of several forces.

The deaths last week of 20 Marines from a single battalion has focused
public attention on the unremitting pace of casualties in Iraq,
providing her an opening to deliver her message that no more lives
should be given to the war. At the same time, polls that show falling
approval for Mr. Bush's handling of the war have left him open to
challenge in a way that he was not when the nation appeared to be more
strongly behind him.

It did not hurt her cause that she staged her protest, which she said
was more or less spontaneous, at the doorstep of the White House press
corps, which spends each August in Crawford with little to do, minimal
access to Mr. Bush and his aides, and an eagerness for any new story.

As the mother of an Army specialist who was killed at age 24 in the
Sadr City section of Baghdad on April 4, 2004, Ms. Sheehan's story is
certainly compelling. She is also articulate, aggressive in delivering
her message and has information that most White House reporters have
not heard before: how Mr. Bush handles himself when he meets behind
closed doors with the families of soldiers killed in Iraq.

The White House has released few details of such sessions, which Mr.
Bush holds regularly as he travels the country, but generally portrays
them as emotional and an opportunity for the president to share the
grief of the families. In Ms. Sheehan's telling, though, Mr. Bush did
not know her son's name when she and her family met with him in June
2004 at Fort Lewis. Mr. Bush, she said, acted as if he were at a party
and behaved disrespectfully toward her by referring to her as Mom
throughout the meeting.

By Ms. Sheehan's account, Mr. Bush said to her that he could not
imagine losing a loved one like an aunt or uncle or cousin. Ms.
Sheehan said she broke in and told Mr. Bush that Casey was her son,
and that she thought he could 

[osint] War Plans Drafted To Counter Terror Attacks in U.S.

[David Bier]

In my estimation, [in the event of] a biological, a chemical or
nuclear attack in any of the 50 states, the Department of Defense is
best positioned -- of the various eight federal agencies that would be
involved -- to take the lead, said Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the head
of Northcom, which coordinates military involvement in homeland
security operations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/07/AR2005080700843_pf.html

washingtonpost.com

War Plans Drafted To Counter Terror Attacks in U.S.
Domestic Effort Is Big Shift for Military

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 8, 2005; A01

COLORADO SPRINGS -- The U.S. military has devised its first-ever war
plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in the
United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis scenarios and
anticipating several simultaneous strikes around the country,
according to officers who drafted the plans.

The classified plans, developed here at Northern Command headquarters,
outline a variety of possible roles for quick-reaction forces
estimated at as many as 3,000 ground troops per attack, a number that
could easily grow depending on the extent of the damage and the
abilities of civilian response teams.

The possible scenarios range from low end, relatively modest
crowd-control missions to high-end, full-scale disaster management
after catastrophic attacks such as the release of a deadly biological
agent or the explosion of a radiological device, several officers said.

Some of the worst-case scenarios involve three attacks at the same
time, in keeping with a Pentagon directive earlier this year ordering
Northcom, as the command is called, to plan for multiple simultaneous
attacks.

The war plans represent a historic shift for the Pentagon, which has
been reluctant to become involved in domestic operations and is
legally constrained from engaging in law enforcement. Indeed, defense
officials continue to stress that they intend for the troops to play
largely a supporting role in homeland emergencies, bolstering police,
firefighters and other civilian response groups.

But the new plans provide for what several senior officers
acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to take
charge in some situations, especially when dealing with mass-casualty
attacks that could quickly overwhelm civilian resources.

In my estimation, [in the event of] a biological, a chemical or
nuclear attack in any of the 50 states, the Department of Defense is
best positioned -- of the various eight federal agencies that would be
involved -- to take the lead, said Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the head
of Northcom, which coordinates military involvement in homeland
security operations.

The plans present the Pentagon with a clearer idea of the kinds and
numbers of troops and the training that may be required to build a
more credible homeland defense force. They come at a time when senior
Pentagon officials are engaged in an internal, year-long review of
force levels and weapons systems, attempting to balance the heightened
requirements of homeland defense against the heavy demands of overseas
deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Keating expressed confidence that existing military assets are
sufficient to meet homeland security needs. Maj. Gen. Richard J. Rowe,
Northcom's chief operations officer, agreed, but he added that stress
points in some military capabilities probably would result if troops
were called on to deal with multiple homeland attacks.
Debate and Analysis

Several people on the staff here and at the Pentagon said in
interviews that the debate and analysis within the U.S. government
regarding the extent of the homeland threat and the resources
necessary to guard against it remain far from resolved.

The command's plans consist of two main documents. One, designated
CONPLAN 2002 and consisting of more than 1,000 pages, is said to be a
sort of umbrella document that draws together previously issued orders
for homeland missions and covers air, sea and land operations. It
addresses not only post-attack responses but also prevention and
deterrence actions aimed at intercepting threats before they reach the
United States.

The other, identified as CONPLAN 0500, deals specifically with
managing the consequences of attacks represented by the 15 scenarios.

CONPLAN 2002 has passed a review by the Pentagon's Joint Staff and is
due to go soon to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top aides
for further study and approval, the officers said. CONPLAN 0500 is
still undergoing final drafting here. (CONPLAN stands for concept
plan and tends to be an abbreviated version of an OPLAN, or
operations plan, which specifies forces and timelines for movement
into a combat zone.)

The plans, like much else about Northcom, mark a new venture by a U.S.
military establishment still trying to find its comfort level with the
idea of a greater homeland defense role after the Sept. 11, 2001, 

[osint] Electronic passports set to thwart forgers

[David Bier]

The e-passport initiative has its roots in legislation passed by
Congress in May 2002 to improve border security. It called for 27
countries whose citizens don't need visas for entry into the USA to
convert to electronic passports by October 2004. Congress has since
delayed the deadline until October 2006.


http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-08-08-ele
ctronic-passports_x.htm

Electronic passports set to thwart forgers
By Roger Yu, USA TODAY
The U.S. passport is joining the digital age. After three years of
research and discussion, the State Department has finalized most of
the technical and logistical details of new, supposedly tamper-proof
passports embedded with a smart-card chip.
A contactless smart chip and antenna is flexible enough to embed
in the cover of a standard passport booklet.

If current plans hold, they'll become standard issue for U.S.
travelers as soon as February.

Proponents say the chip, which will contain the holder's personal data
and digital photo, should allow speedier entry at borders for most
travelers.

Because the chip's data can't be altered, proponents say, forging
passports will be virtually impossible. That, they say, gives
authorities a potent new anti-terrorism weapon.

When swiped across an electronic reader, the chip in the passport
wirelessly transmits data to a customs officer's computer screen. The
e-passport relies on radio frequency identification technology (RFID).
E-passport development
May 2002: The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
requires the USA and other countries whose citizens don't need visas
for entering the USA to develop electronic passports.
The act sets a deadline of October 2004.

March 2004: The Bush administration asks Congress to delay the
deadline to October 2006 to allow participating countries more time to
address technical issues. Congress agrees.

April 2005: The State Department closes comment period, begins to firm
up plans for the new e-passport.

December 2005: State Department plans to test the new passport with
diplomats and select government officials.

February 2006: State Department expects to make e-passports available
to U.S. travelers.

Source: The State Department

The new passport looks much like the traditional type. But the
smart-card chip, embedded in the back page, makes it slightly thicker.
If the chip is broken or malfunctions, the holder can continue to use
the passport as a non-electronic passport, or buy a new one.

Once the new version is available, it would take up to a year for all
new passports to be issued in the new format. Americans with valid
traditional passports won't have to replace them until they expire.

The new passport will cost $97, or $12 more than the traditional
version.

Initially, U.S. diplomats will use the e-passport as a test, probably
starting in December, says Frank Moss, deputy assistant secretary of
State. If successful, the new passport will be available to the public
next year, possibly as early as February, Moss says.

Calls for better border security

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks prompted calls for improved border
security. The new e-passport is perhaps the most visible aspect of the
government's foray into digital technology for border control.

The e-passport has raised concerns among critics who say it lacks
adequate privacy safeguards. Wireless transmission of data compromises
security, and important personal data could fall into the wrong hands,
they say. With proper equipment, someone could remotely intercept
personal data, they say.

Wireless transmission could lead to what's called skimming or
eavesdropping, says Cedric Laurant of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group.

In skimming, an intruder secretly uses a device to read the chip's
data from as far away as several feet.
ELECTRONIC PASSPORTS
The new U.S. electronic passport will look like its predecessor in
size and shape, although it will be slightly thicker. Photos of owners
will still be included. How the new electronic features will be used:

What happens at passport control

(1) The officer swipes the data page through a special reader to read
the two lines of printed characters on the bottom of the data page.
This provides a key that';s unique to the passport and lets the
process proceed.

(2) When the passport is held over the reader (no contact is
necessary), a radio field from the reader wakes up the chip, and the
encrypted data are transferred to the reader, allowing the officer to
conduct a visual check.

(3) The officer holds your open passport over another reader, then
checks a view of you, with the photo in your passport, and all the
data from your passport (including your photo) on the monitor. The
data on the monitor also verify that your passport was issued by a
legitimate authority, and that it has not been altered.

Security details

A chip is embedded into the back cover. It contains data that cannot
be read without the security key 

[osint] U.S. spotted Qaeda cell before 9/11

[David Bier]

More than a year before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a U.S.
military intelligence unit identified four future hijackers as likely
members of a cell that Al Qaeda was operating in the United States,
according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican
member of Congress.
 
The intelligence unit, a small, highly classified team called Able
Danger, prepared a chart in the summer of 2000 that included visa
photographs of the four men, including the ringleader, Mohammed Atta.
 
The unit recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that
the information be shared with the FBI, according to the former
official and the Republican member of Congress, Curt Weldon of
Pennsylvania.
 
The recommendation was rejected, and the information was not shared,
they said, apparently at least in part because Atta and the others
were in the United States on valid entry visas.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/09/news/qaeda.php

 U.S. spotted Qaeda cell before 9/11
By Douglas Jehl The New York Times

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2005
WASHINGTON More than a year before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a
U.S. military intelligence unit identified four future hijackers as
likely members of a cell that Al Qaeda was operating in the United
States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a
Republican member of Congress.
 
The intelligence unit, a small, highly classified team called Able
Danger, prepared a chart in the summer of 2000 that included visa
photographs of the four men, including the ringleader, Mohammed Atta.
 
The unit recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that
the information be shared with the FBI, according to the former
official and the Republican member of Congress, Curt Weldon of
Pennsylvania.
 
The recommendation was rejected, and the information was not shared,
they said, apparently at least in part because Atta and the others
were in the United States on valid entry visas.
 
Under U.S. law, intelligence agencies may not collect intelligence on
individual citizens and permanent residents. That protection does not
extend to visa holders, but Weldon and the former official said it
might have reinforced a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11
about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency.
 
A former spokesman for the commission that investigated the Sept. 11
attacks, Al Felzenberg, confirmed that members of its staff, including
Philip Zelikow, the executive director, were told about the program
during a trip in October 2003 that included stops in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. But Felzenberg said the briefers did not mention Atta's
name. The report produced by the commission last year does not mention
the episode.
 
Weldon first spoke publicly about the episode in June, in a
little-noticed speech on the House floor and in an interview with The
Times-Herald in Norristown, Pennsylvania. The matter resurfaced Monday
in a report by Government Security News, which is published every two
weeks and covers issues related to homeland security.
 
Speaking by telephone from his home in Pennsylvania, Weldon said he
was basing his assertions on similar ones made by at least three other
former intelligence officers with direct knowledge of the project, and
he said some had first called the episode to his attention shortly
after the Sept. 11 attacks.
 
The account is the first assertion that Atta, an Egyptian, who became
the lead hijacker in the plot, was identified by any U.S. agency as a
potential threat before the Sept. 11 attacks. Among the 19 hijackers,
only Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been identified as
potential threats by the CIA before the summer of 2000, and
information about them was not provided to the FBI until the spring of
2001.
 
Weldon has long been a champion of the kind of data-mining analysis
that was the basis for the work done by the Able Danger team.
 
The former intelligence official spoke on the condition of anonymity,
saying that he did not want to jeopardize political support and the
possible financing for future data-mining operations by speaking
publicly. He said the Able Danger unit had been established by the
Special Operations Command in 1999 under a classified directive to
assemble information about Qaeda networks around the world.
 
Ultimately, Able Danger was going to give decision makers options for
taking out Al Qaeda targets, the former defense intelligence official
said. He said that he had personally delivered the chart in the summer
of 2000 to the Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida, and that
it had been based on information drawn from unclassified sources and
government records, including those of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
 
We knew these were bad guys, and we wanted to do something about
them, the former intelligence official said.
 
Weldon is an outspoken figure who is a vice chairman of both the House
Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee. 

[osint] Bush Is No Nixon

[David Bier]

They were nice men. I told them Iraq was not a threat to the United
States and that now people are dead for nothing. I told them I
wouldn't leave until I talked to George Bush. I want to ask the
president, 'Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?' Last
week, he said my son died for a 'noble cause' and I want to ask him
what that noble cause is.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081005I.shtml

Bush Is No Nixon
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 10 August 2005

No mother who lost her son to this Iraq war should be made to
stand in a ditch, and yet that is exactly where Cindy Sheehan stands
today, by the side of the road in Crawford, Texas. She has been
standing there since she heard about the 20 Marines who were killed in
Iraq last week, since she heard George W. Bush describe from his
vacation home the noble cause for which those Marines died.

Cindy's son, Casey, died in Iraq for that cause more than a year
ago. She heard those words from Mr. Bush and went to Crawford. She
wanted to talk to the president. The folks in the ranch sent out a
couple of lackeys to speak with her. They were very respectful,
Sheehan said later to CNN. They were nice men. I told them Iraq was
not a threat to the United States and that now people are dead for
nothing. I told them I wouldn't leave until I talked to George Bush. I
want to ask the president, 'Why did you kill my son? What did my son
die for?' Last week, he said my son died for a 'noble cause' and I
want to ask him what that noble cause is.

Today, she is standing in a ditch by the side of the road in
Crawford, waiting to speak to Mr. Bush. Many who hear this may have
the obvious reaction: Who does this woman think she is? Who thinks
they can just bop down the road and speak to the president? This is an
important man, and there are security concerns, and anyway, who thinks
they can just show up for a sit-down like this?

Well, Sheehan did get an invitation of sorts. A presidential
spokesman described Bush's time in Crawford (approximately five weeks,
or about as much vacation time as the average Frenchman gets) as a
chance for him to shed his coat and tie and meet with folks in the
heartland and hear what's on their minds. Sure, this administration
has raised secrecy and isolation to a zen-like art form, but it
sounded pretty clearly like George goes to Texas to talk to the folks.
Cindy Sheehan would like to talk.

It's interesting. In the last 50 years, few presidents have been
more reviled, denounced and tarnished than Richard M. Nixon. The
Vietnam war, Kent State, the attacks upon Cambodia, not to mention the
Watergate scandal, left Nixon surrounded by demonstrators and
investigators who eventually forced him into an unprecedented resignation.

The Nixon and Bush administrations share a number of fascinating
similarities. Both inspired stunning vituperation from those who
opposed them. Hunter S. Thompson, avowed life-long foe of Nixon,
remembered him this way: Let there be no mistake in the history books
about that. Richard Nixon was an evil man - evil in a way that only
those who believe in the physical reality of the Devil can understand
it. He was utterly without ethics or morals or any bedrock sense of
decency. Nobody trusted him - except maybe the Stalinist Chinese, and
honest historians will remember him mainly as a rat who kept
scrambling to get back on the ship.

It is easy to imagine, and easy to find via a simple Google
search, similar sentiments aimed toward Mr. Bush.

Both were burdened by an unpopular war, the fighting of which
appeared with each passing day to be more and more futile. Nixon's
Vietnam came to him from Johnson, and Kennedy before him, and
Eisenhower, whom Nixon served as vice president. Bush's Iraq came to
him from his father, not only from that first Bush administration but
from the senior's time as vice president to Reagan. One notable
difference here, of course, is that Nixon inherited a catastrophic
shooting war while Bush created one.

Nixon and his people were obsessed with secrecy and with dirty
tricks. The boys in the Bush White House share the sentiment, and have
managed to surpass the Nixonian standards. Nixon wanted to destroy his
critics. Bush and his people have actually destroyed more than a few,
including a deep-cover CIA operative married to a man who attacked
Bush's Iraq policy in print.

Both were dogged by protesters wherever they went, yet here is the
point at which the similarities diverge. Bush has the benefit of First
Amendment Zones, which keep demonstrations far away, out of sight and
out of mind. He would just as soon flush himself down a toilet as
speak to someone critical of his actions. More than any other
administration in recent memory, this Bush crew represents the triumph
of the Yes-Men. Bush is in his bubble, managed and spun, and nothing
gets through.

Nixon, on the other hand, went a different way one 

[osint] Bomb cache found in Iraq believed to be from Iranian Revolutionary Guard:

[David Bier]

We believe they came from Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the official
told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The find is significant not only because of the Iranian connection but
also because it indicates manufactured bombs are now being introduced
in a conflict that has seen the widespread use of mainly improvised
explosive devices.

I think we believe there is more of them out there, that this is just
the first cache we've actually obtained, the official said.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/09082005/323/bomb-cache-found-iraq-believed-to-from-iranian-revolutionary-guard-official.html

Tuesday August 9, 07:16 PM


Bomb cache found in Iraq believed to be from Iranian Revolutionary
Guard: official

Photo
Click to enlarge photo

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US intelligence believes that a cache of
manufactured bombs seized in Iraq about two weeks ago was smuggled
into the country from Iran by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an
intelligence official said.
We believe they came from Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the official
told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The find is significant not only because of the Iranian connection but
also because it indicates manufactured bombs are now being introduced
in a conflict that has seen the widespread use of mainly improvised
explosive devices.

I think we believe there is more of them out there, that this is just
the first cache we've actually obtained, the official said.

He said intelligence analysts had fairly high confidence that the
bombs came from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

NBC News, which first reported the development last week, said US
soldiers discovered dozens of recently manufactured shaped charges
smuggled into northeastern Iraq from Iran.

Shaped charges focus the force of an explosion to blast through even
the heavy armor on an M-1 tank.

They were first reported to be turning up in Iraq several months ago,
amid a general escalation in the size and deadliness of the bombs
being devised by insurgents.

Triple stacked anti-tank mines were reported to have been used in an
explosion last week that flipped over an armored amphibious assault
vehicle, killing 14 marines and an interpreter in one of the biggest
single losses of the war.

US military officials estimate that some 70 percent of US casualties
stem from improvised bombs.

We are seeing larger amounts of explosives, Brigadier General Carter
Ham of the Joint Staff told reporters last week.

We are seeing different techniques that are being used in an effort
to counter the efforts of coalition and Iraqi security forces to
protect folks while they are moving -- different types of penetrators,
different techniques of triggering the events, he said.

If US intelligence is correct about the latest find, it would suggest
Iran's Revolutionary Guard is moving into a conflict that for the past
year has been dominated by Sunnis rather than Shiites.

Until recently, the Pentagon has aimed its complaints at Syria over
the infiltration of fighters, money and weapons across its border.

But during a visit to Baghdad last month, US Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld pointedly accused Iran as well as Syria of seeking to
undermine the US-backed transition in Iraq.

The commander of the British-led multinational division in southern
Iraq on Friday told reporters here there has been a lot of
speculation, but not many facts, about Iranian activities in his sector.

But Major General James Dutton said an Iraqi border enforcement unit
in southern Iraq found a major arms cache about two weeks ago near
Route Six, which runs from Basra to al-Amarah.

We don't know exactly where that came from. We are keen to find out,
and investigations are ongoing, he said. There have been suggestions
that they could have come from Iran, but I certainly can't prove that.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
font face=arial size=-1a 
href=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h7ou20r/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705323667:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123712532/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!/a./font
~- 

--
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 

[osint] U.S. forces rely on dogs to detect bombs in Iraq. Insurgents rig them with explo

[David Bier]

Before, they used to use car bombs. Now they are using people and
animals, said Col. Adnan Jaboori, a spokesman for the interior
minister. They are finding new ways to use remote-control technology.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-dogs10aug10,0,2727461.story?coll=la-home-headlines
THE WORLD
Servants -- and Weapons -- of War
U.S. forces rely on dogs to detect bombs in Iraq. Insurgents rig them
with explosives.
By Borzou Daragahi
Times Staff Writer

August 10, 2005

BAGHDAD — These are the dogs of war.

At a checkpoint leading to the U.S.-protected Green Zone, Gordy stands
sentry. The affable Belgian Malinois has a nose finely tuned to detect
the nitrates, plastic explosives, gunpowder and detonation cords that
suicide bombers use to blow up people.

On a barren stretch of road in northern Iraq, a dog rigged with
explosives approaches a group of Iraqi police officers. Detonated by
remote control, the bomb tears the dog apart but doesn't harm the cops.

In a war where the line between civilian and soldier is blurred, even
man's best friend has been caught up in the combat. U.S. forces hail
their trained dogs as heroes, but to insurgents, canines provide the
means for a more sinister goal.

Iraqi police cite the recent use of dogs rigged with explosive devices
in Latifiya, just south of Baghdad, in Baqubah in central Iraq and in
and around the northern city of Kirkuk.

Some Iraqis are horrified by the ethics of dragging the animal world
into a human conflict.

How can they use these lovely pets for criminal and murderous acts?
asked Rasha Khairir, 25, an employee of a Baghdad stock brokerage. A
poor dog can't refuse what they are doing with him because he can't
think and decide.

Despite a common prejudice in the Muslim world against dogs, which are
considered unclean, even the most virulent clerical opponents of the
U.S. presence in Iraq have decried the use of canines as proxies in
the war.

Abdel Salam Kubaisi, a spokesman for the Muslim Scholars Assn., a
hard-line Sunni Arab clerical organization sympathetic to insurgents,
called the practice un-Islamic. Our religion does not permit us to
hurt animals, he said, neither by using them as explosive devices
nor in any other manner.

U.S. troops extol the virtues of their canine allies in the war
against the insurgents.

Dogs are vital in Iraqi counterinsurgency efforts, said Staff Sgt.
Ann Pitt, 35, of Buffalo, N.Y., a U.S. Army dog handler based near the
southern city of Nasiriya.

We have many items to help us do our mission, but I don't think we
have a better detection tool than a dog, said Pitt, who cares for
Buddy, another Belgian Malinois, a dog similar to a German shepherd.
These dogs are amazing. They are more dependable and effective than
almost anything we have available to us.

The Army has deployed dogs since World War I to locate trip wires,
track enemies, stand guard at base perimeters and search tunnels for
explosives or booby traps.

Even these dogs weren't always treated kindly. Of 4,300 dogs sent to
Vietnam, 2,000 were handed over to the South Vietnamese army and 2,000
were put to sleep. Only 200 managed to make it home, said Ron Aiello,
Vietnam War-era dog handler who runs U.S. War Dog, a 1,100-member
Burlington, N.J., organization.

His group set up a website, http://www.uswardogs.org , to raise funds
for a memorial to honor the dogs and their handlers.

In Iraq, dogs like Gordy and Buddy are posted at checkpoints and at
entrances to government buildings.

They sniff for explosives among reporters' equipment at news
conferences and passengers' bags at Baghdad's international airport.

What we do is prevent people from getting killed, said Artwell
Chibero, Gordy's 29-year-old Zimbabwean handler, an employee of a
private security firm hired by the Defense Department.

Dogs have 25 times more smell receptors than humans, Pitt said.

We smell spaghetti sauce and we think, 'Oh, the spaghetti sauce
smells good,'  Pitt said. To a dog, they would smell the tomatoes,
the onions, the basil, oregano. They smell all the odors individually.

Insurgents have long stuffed roadside bombs into the carcasses of
animals. But Iraqi security officials say they increasingly worry
about the use of live animals.

Dogs have been used in many areas by insurgents throughout Iraq to
carry explosive devices, said Noori Noori, inspector-general at the
Interior Ministry. They used mentally retarded people for operations
during the elections, so why wouldn't they use animals?

Last year in Ramadi, in the vast desert west of the capital,
insurgents dispatched a booby-trapped donkey toward a U.S.-run
checkpoint around sunset. As one of the soldiers tried to stop it,
the donkey exploded, said resident Mohammed Yas, 45. The only
casualty was the donkey.

Before, they used to use car bombs. Now they are using people and
animals, said Col. Adnan Jaboori, a spokesman for the interior
minister. They are finding new ways to use remote-control technology.

The 

[osint] Michael Schwartz on Iranian Ironies

[David Bier]

...as of late summer 2005, the Pentagon, under instructions from
Vice President Dick Cheney's office, was drawing up a contingency
plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack
on the United States. The plan mandates a large-scale air assault on
Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons…. As in
the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually
being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United
States. The breadth and depth of the assault, according to Giraldi's
Air Force sources, would be quite striking: Within Iran there are
more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are
hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by
conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. Since many targets
are in populated areas, the havoc and destruction following such an
attack would, in all likelihood, be unrivaled by anything since
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (former CIA official Philip Giraldi asserted
in the American Conservative magazine)
The increasingly desperate circumstances that constrained Bush
administration actions when it came to the developing Iranian-Iraqi
relationship were addressed by Middle East scholar Ervand Abrahamian,
who pointed to a similarly precarious American situation in
Afghanistan. He concluded that the U.S. could not afford a military
confrontation with Iran, since the Iranians were in a position to
trigger armed revolts in the Shia areas of both countries: If there's
a confrontation, military confrontation, there would be no reason for
them to cooperate with United States. They would do exactly what would
be in their interests, which would be to destroy the U.S. position in
those two countries.

A senior international envoy quoted by Christopher Dickey in
NewsweekOnline, offered an almost identical opinion: Look at what
they can do in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon. They can turn the
whole Middle East into a ball of fire, and [American officials] know
that.

In light of all these developments, Juan Cole commented: In a
historic irony, Iran's most dangerous enemy of all, the United States,
invaded Iran's neighbor with an eye to eventually toppling the Tehran
regime -- but succeeded only in defeating itself. 

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=11233

Michael Schwartz on Iranian Ironies

We have now reached another of those recurring tinderbox moments
relating to Iran. Yesterday, the Iranians officially relaunched
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/international/middleeast/09cnd-iran.html?ex=1124251200en=279b6b15105b3de4ei=5070emc=eta1)
their nuclear program, beginning a suspended process of uranium
conversion at a facility near Isfahan. In this, Iran's emboldened
clerical regime defies the European troika -- France, Germany, England
-- with which it has been in negotiations, and perhaps creates a
moment for which Bush administration officials have longed, but whose
challenging arrival they may now regret. The board of governors of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) met Tuesday essentially on
an emergency basis and perhaps in the near future the matter of the
Iranian nuclear program may even go to the UN Security Council
(http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH10Ak05.html)
with possible sanctions on the table. (The passage of any sanctions
measure there is unlikely indeed, given Russian and Chinese backing
(http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article304657.ece)for
the Iranians, not to speak of the sympathy of other non-nuclear
states on the 35-nation IAEA board). And then...? Well, that's the
$64 dollar (a barrel) question, isn't it?

The geopolitical fundamentalists of the Bush administration have been
itching for a down-and-dirty regime change fight with the clerical
fundamentalists of Iran at least since the President, in his 2002
State of the Union Address
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html),
linked Iran, Saddam Hussein's hated neighboring regime with which it
had fought an eight-year war of the utmost brutality, and the
completely unrelated regime in North Korea into an infamous axis of
evil. (Perhaps what the President meant was excess of evil.) As we
now know, Saddam's Iraq, with its non-existent nuclear program, was
chosen as the administration's first target on its shock-and-awe
cakewalk through the Middle East (and then, assumedly, the rest of
the world) exactly because it was a military shell of its former self,
a third-rate pushover compared to either Iran or North Korea. As it
happened, the Second-Cousin-Twice-Removed of All Battles turned into
-- as Saddam Hussein predicted -- the Mother of All Battles and war
against the rest of the axis fell into abeyance.

Now, we're back to a potential face-off with a country that at least
has an actual nuclear program, if not (unlike the North Koreans) a
weapon to go with it. The nuclear world as