Open Thread 07-52
News & views & whatever ...
Posted by b on July 28, 2007 at 20:07 UTC | Permalink
next page »The CIA, past ::
From CIA doc 1947,
The consequences of the partition of Palestine
excerpt:
The US, by supporting partition, has already lost much of its prestige in the near East. In the event partition is imposed on Palestine, the resulting conflict will seriously disturb the social, economic, and political stability of the Arab world, and US commercial and strategic interests will be dangerously jeopardized. While irresponsible tribesmen and fanatic Moslems are haphazardly blowing up parts of the oil pipelines and attacking occasional Americans, it is possible that the responsible gvmts. will refuse to sign pipeline conventions, oil concessions, civil air agreements, and trade pacts.
(from the bottom of page 1)
see more:
http://tinyurl.com/2c4kh3>cia 47
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 28 2007 20:39 utc | 2
The United States and the European Union have agreed to expand a security program that shares personal data about millions of U.S.-bound airline passengers a year, potentially including information about a person's race, ethnicity, religion and health.
According to the deal, the information that can be used in such exceptional circumstances includes "racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership" and data about an individual's health, traveling partners and sexual orientation.
Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 28 2007 23:46 utc | 4
The Fog of War, the excellent documentary by Errol Morris, is available to view and download for free on google video.
Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 28 2007 23:54 utc | 5
Noirette @ 2 - wow. They were really on their game back then.
Posted by: boxcar mike | Jul 29 2007 3:26 utc | 6
excerpt from chomsky's latest book
The Cold War Between Washington and Tehran
In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington’s basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important.
As was the norm during the Cold War, resort to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq—a country otherwise free from any foreign interference, on the tacit assumption that Washington rules the world.
In the Cold War-like mentality that prevails in Washington, Tehran is portrayed as the pinnacle in the so-called Shiite Crescent that stretches from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon, through Shiite southern Iraq and Syria. And again unsurprisingly, the “surge” in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited to Iraq—more narrowly, to attaining U.S. goals in Iraq.
Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is intended to allay the growing fears and anger elicited by Washington’s heightened aggressiveness, with forces deployed in position to attack Iran and regular provocations and threats.
For the United States, the primary issue in the Middle East has been and remains effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance.
Iranian influence in the “crescent” challenges U.S. control. By an accident of geography, the world’s major oil resources are in largely Shiite areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington’s worst nightmare would be a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world’s oil and independent of the United States.
Posted by: b real | Jul 29 2007 5:23 utc | 7
coha: Ecuador’s Quest For A Coherent Foreign Policy
The relationship between Ecuador and Venezuela is important to evaluate because close ties may have strong implications both within OPEC and across the international community. Prior to his election, Correa announced that he greatly anticipated closer relations with Venezuela, but adamantly denied any need for Venezuelan assistance. Chávez quietly supported Correa throughout the campaign, and at Correa’s January inauguration, Chávez presented Correa with a replica of Simón Bolivar’s sword.While this may seem inconsequential, it is not so for the Bush Administration, which loses no love over Chávez’s leftist government. The election of Correa may have significant implications for Washington: Ecuador is the U.S.’s second-greatest supplier of South American makeshift oil and is the home of the only U.S. military base in South America. In January, Correa announced that Quito will not renew its leasing arrangement with Washington for its Forward Operating Location (FOL) situated in Manta, Ecuador, which ends in 2009. The basis for this action is that it is not aligned with Ecuador’s national sovereignty.
guardian uk: Media-Generated "Scandal" Undermines Democracy in Ecuador
..on May 21 the opposition TV media launched an assault on President Correa's finance minister, Ricardo Patiño. In a seven minute grainy video clip from a hidden camera, they showed the minister meeting on February 12 with two representatives of a New York investment firm, as well as a former finance minister. Patiño talks about "scaring the markets," in what looks like a plot to manipulate the country's bond market. The clip, taken out of context, was shown repeatedly for days on the TV news, spliced with gratuitous, unrelated images of faceless people counting large amounts of cash.It turns out that the video was authorized by Patiño himself, an odd thing to do if one is meeting to plan a crime. Patiño claims that the purpose of the meeting and the taping of it was to investigate corruption. And indeed the rest of the video - not shown on TV but presented in a transcript published in Ecuador's major newspapers - supports his explanation. In the rest of the meeting, Patiño is probing for information on corrupt activities - including past market manipulations. He allows the others to present and explain the possibilities in detail, never agreeing to go along with anything - just as one would expect in an investigation of this sort. In fact he states that it would be wrong to manipulate the market. The meeting ends with one of the investors stating that nothing would be done regarding the current debt payment - which was due three days after the videotaped meeting -- but that they could think about what to do in the future.
But the TV media's repeated, propagandistic images - playing on people's cynicism from decades of corrupt government -- had the most influence. This emboldened the opposition to make more wild allegations of secret deals with foreign banks, and vote to censure Patiño in the Congress - which they control. All of this has been done without anyone presenting evidence that the finance minister was involved in any wrongdoing.
If all this seems Orwellian, it is. Ecuador currently has the most honest government it has ever had - that is why it has had so much support from the beginning. Yet the impression that is coming across in the media - both Ecuadorian and now spilling over into the international press - is one of corruption.
Posted by: b real | Jul 29 2007 5:38 utc | 8
In December 2005 I wrote a bit about the functioning of Echelon, how the Bush regime had extended it into a domestic program and how it is easily abused.
In February 2006 I concluded that their were three secret programs of datamining domestic data (email's etc.) though one or two of those might have been shut down.
There are at least three new major surveillance-by-data-mining ("dataveillance") programs in use inside the U.S. government. I am convinced by now that these and others and the NSA's communication surveillance are used to suppress the media and any opposition in Congress.
In May 2007 the Ashcroft hospital incident was revealed. I then asked why the FBI, director Mueller was involved in this. This made sense only when there were a domestic program related to that incident, something different than the acknowledged "terrorist surveilance program".
Today the NYT reveals:
A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.
...
Government examination of the records, which allows intelligence analysts to trace relationships between callers and identify possible terrorist cells, is considered less intrusive than actual eavesdropping. But the N.S.A.’s eavesdropping targeted international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States, while the databases contain primarily domestic records.
The NYT now covers one part, the datacollecting and datamining, not the purpose and use of the datamining, which will be the really big story. I am still convinced that this was abused for political gains ...
@b,
Your response on the last open thread is appreciated and will be passed on to my reprersentative. If I get any response I'll let you know. Thanks b.
Posted by: Juannie | Jul 29 2007 9:48 utc | 10
Snip...
A surgeon general's report in 2006 that called on Americans to help tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the administration's policy accomplishments, according to current and former public health officials.The report described the link between poverty and poor health, urged the U.S. government to help combat widespread diseases as a key aim of its foreign policy, and called on corporations to help improve health conditions in the countries where they operate. A copy of the report was obtained by The Washington Post...
I've worn out my shocked face. Just assume I'm looking aghast.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 29 2007 15:17 utc | 11
Producer of 9/11 conspiracy film arrested
Producer of Loose Change, that is, arrested for desertion from the military. As a sidenote, the article says 3,301 soldiers deserted in 2006.
Posted by: Alamet | Jul 29 2007 17:26 utc | 12
This mainstream economy writer sounds even more alarmed than Jerome a Paris @ b's link on previous OT:
Chrysler crisis and the plunge into chaos
ON WEDNESDAY night about midnight, Australian time, the world changed, maybe forever.
(snip)
Could, I wondered, the Plunge Protection Team have hit the button? Who else would be throwing gold away in the face of a dollar that couldn't manage to bounce the cat, and buying enough equity to turn a savage market around? It is now fair to speculate that forces that have very little to do with the free market are in charge of it. But that is an issue that will win me no friends and place me squarely in conspiracy corner.
(snip)
Posted by: Alamet | Jul 29 2007 22:44 utc | 14
Destruction of Nahr el-Bared camp almost complete:
army commander Gen Michel Suleiman told his troops that a final assault on the camp was "imminent". ... Much of the camp, which was previously home to some 30,000 people, has also been destroyed in Lebanon's worst internal conflict since the end of the civil war in 1990. After a night of relative calm, the Lebanese army pounded Fatah al-Islam's remaining positions with artillery, tank fire and rocket-propelled grenades on Sunday.
fwiw, here is a story from Novak describing a deranged president and yet another double-cross of the Kurds.
The surprising answer was given in secret briefings on Capitol Hill last week by Eric S. Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Cheney who is now undersecretary of defense for policy. Edelman, a Foreign Service officer who once was U.S. ambassador to Turkey, revealed to lawmakers plans for a covert operation of U.S. Special Forces to help the Turks neutralize the PKK. They would behead the guerrilla organization by helping Turkey get rid of PKK leaders that they have targeted for years
Posted by: dan of steele | Jul 30 2007 6:17 utc | 16
I believe this is worth a new thread: The widow of Daniel Pearl is suing Pakustan for the injustice caused by her husband's death. She has the full support of Almighty America and of the Jewish lobbies. I wonder if Muslims who suffer injustice have even a fraction of the opportunities for retribution available to Jewish-Americans. And people wonder about the causes of Islamic terrorism! This is a story, corroborated by the British Government itself, of American terrorism and British cowardice:
Revealed: MI5's role in torture flight hell
· British source tells of betrayal to CIA
· 'I was stripped and hauled to US base'
David Rose
Sunday July 29, 2007
The Observer
An Iraqi who was a key source of intelligence for MI5 has given the first ever full insider's account of being seized by the CIA and bundled on to an illegal 'torture flight' under the programme known as extraordinary rendition. In a remarkable interview for The Observer, British resident Bisher al-Rawi has told how he was betrayed by the security service despite having helped keep track of Abu Qatada, the Muslim cleric accused of being Osama bin Laden's 'ambassador in Europe'. He was abducted and stripped naked by US agents, clad in nappies, a tracksuit and shackles, blindfolded and forced to wear ear mufflers, then strapped to a stretcher on board a plane bound for a CIA 'black site' jail near Kabul in Afghanistan.
He was taken on to the jail at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba before being released last March and returned to Britain after four years' detention without charge.
'All the way through that flight I was on the verge of screaming,' al-Rawi said. 'At last we landed, I thought, thank God it's over. But it wasn't - it was just a refuelling stop in Cairo. There were hours still to go ... My back was so painful, the handcuffs were so tight. All the time they kept me on my back. Once, I managed to wriggle a tiny bit, just shifted my weight to one side. Then I felt someone hit my hand. Even this was forbidden.'
He was thrown into the CIA's 'Dark Prison,' deprived of all light 24 hours a day in temperatures so low that ice formed on his food and water. He was taken to Guantanamo in March 2003 and released after being cleared of any involvement in terrorism by a tribunal.
A report by Parliament's intelligence and security committee last week disclosed that, although the Americans warned MI5 it planned to render al-Rawi in advance, in breach of international law, the British did not intervene on the grounds he did not have a UK passport. The government claimed he was the responsibility of Iraq, which he fled as a teenager when his father was tortured by Saddam Hussein's regime.
The report confirmed that al-Rawi, 39, was only held after MI5 sent the CIA a telegram, stating he was an 'Islamic extremist' who had a timer for an improvised bomb in his luggage. In reality, before al-Rawi left London, police confirmed the device was a battery charger from Argos.
The committee accepted MI5's claim, given in secret testimony, that it had not wanted the Americans to arrest him, in November 2002, concluding the incident had damaged US-UK relations.
But al-Rawi alleged that the CIA told him they had been given the contents of his own MI5 file - information he had given his handlers freely when he was working as their source. He said an MI5 lawyer had given him 'cast iron' assurances that anything he told them would be treated in the strictest confidence and, if he ever got into trouble, MI5 would do everything in its power to help him. When al-Rawi was in Guantanamo, he asked the American authorities to find his former MI5 handlers so they would corroborate his story but, because he did not know their surnames, MI5 said it could not assist.
The committee report cited MI5 testimony claiming that when al-Rawi was transported in December 2002, it could not have known how harsh his treatment might be. Yet eight months earlier, Amnesty International had published a lengthy report on US detention in Afghanistan, quoting several ex-prisoners who described conditions very similar to those experienced by al-Rawi.
He had conveyed messages between the preacher Abu Qatada and MI5 when Qatada was supposedly in hiding in 2002. At MI5's behest, he came close to arranging a meeting between the two sides.
Al-Rawi has now spoken out in an effort to help his friend Jamil el-Banna, who remains in Guantanamo. A Jordanian who also lived in London for years, where his wife and five children are British citizens, he too has been cleared by the Americans. However, he has been unable to leave Guantanamo because Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, says she is reviewing his right of residence on national security grounds.
Sarah Teather, the Liberal Democrat MP for Brent East in London, where el-Banna lives, said his case revealed 'decrepitude at the heart of the government'. The government had 'no regard for the welfare of his children'.
His lawyers have filed a statement from al-Rawi as part of a judicial review case. In the action, they accuse MI5 of having a 'causative role' in both men's ordeals, stating it was 'complicit' in the illegal rendition and guilty of an 'abuse of power'.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 30 2007 7:01 utc | 17
In summary: British resident Bisher al-Rawi, a confirmed MI5 agent, was ILLEGALLY kidnapped by the CIA, subjected to Extraordinary Rendition (= torture in Afghanistan), then taken to Guantanamo in March 2003 and released after being cleared of any involvement in terrorism by a tribunal.
MI5, which sparked his kidnapping by mistaking an Argos battery charger for a timing device (!?!?!) refused to correct their error, confront the Americans or to admit he was a British spy, and didn't even take care of his family. If this doesn't shock you I don't know what will.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 30 2007 7:22 utc | 18
Patrick Cockburn Iraq: One in seven joins human tide spilling into neighbouring countries
Four million people, one in seven Iraqis, have run away, because if they do not they will be killed. Two million have left Iraq, mainly for Syria and Jordan, and the same number have fled within the country.Yet, while the US and Britain express sympathy for the plight of refugees in Africa, they are ignoring - or playing down- a far greater tragedy which is largely of their own making.
...
Kalawar is a horrible place. Situated behind a petrol station down a dusty track, the first sight of the camp is of rough shelters made out of rags, torn pieces of cardboard and old blankets. The stench is explained by the fact the Kurdish municipal authorities will not allow the 470 people in the camp to dig latrines. They say this might encourage them to stay.
...
The US administration has 18 benchmarks to measure progress in Iraq but the return of four million people to their homes is not among them.
NGOs Report Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq
About 8 million Iraqis - nearly a third of the population - need immediate emergency aid because of the humanitarian crisis caused by the war, relief agencies said Monday.Those Iraqis are in urgent need of water, sanitation, food and shelter, said the report by Oxfam and the NGO Coordination Committee network in Iraq.
The report said 15 percent of Iraqis cannot regularly afford to eat, and 70 percent are without adequate water supplies, up from 50 percent in 2003. It also said 28 percent of children are malnourished, compared with 19 percent before the 2003 invasion.
maybe it is just me but the Hamas haters have been rather quiet lately. Perhaps there is some dirt on USUK that is being held as a playing card.
apparently in the mad rush to save their pathetic asses, Fatah left behind some very interesting information.
a pretty good story from the WSJ, probably one of the last once murdoch gets his claws on the paper
Posted by: dan of steele | Jul 30 2007 10:46 utc | 21
@dan of steele thanks fer the John Clarke link. We don't see too much of him this side of the Yasman since he moved to Melbourne when a whole generation of us kiwis went to Oz in the 70's.
The hamas intelligence story is equally amusing especially this bit:
"Mr. Hayya said some important former Fatah operatives in Gaza, all of whom were granted amnesty after Hamas took over, were now cooperating with the group on intelligence matters.' Shades of Gehlen the bazi spie organisation who transferred en mass to america in 1945.
If they do have real secrets the amerikans and Israelis only have themselves to blame as blind freddy could see that Hamas was going to win Gaza.
The most important stuff for Hamas will be the identity of the doubles in their own organisation, plus by publicising the extent of Fatah treachery on the west bank, they will make it tougher for Fatah to rig the vote.
I suppose it is too much to hope that they picked up anything on the Arafat poisoning but not impossible. Fatah had become very lackadaisical about most things and it got much worse after Arafat died. Heh only Arafat was smart enough to make sure that information on the Arafat poisoning didn't fall into the wrong hands, but when Abu Masen murdered Arafat he eliminated the best intelligence brain as well as the only credible leader Fatah had.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 30 2007 12:10 utc | 22
Thanks Dan, that is quite a well deserved bomb there dropping on Fatah.
I suppose it is too much to hope that they picked up anything on the Arafat poisoning but not impossible.
They did turn up a handwritten letter by Dahlan to the Israelis where Dahlan said "let us do it our way". That's why Dahlan was recently kicked out by Abbas.
B @ 20
The source of those reports are here:
(Arabic)http://www.ncciraq.org/IMG/pdf_NCCI_OXFAM_-_Rising_the_Humanitarian_Challenge_in_Iraq_-ARABIC.pdf
We'll have them up on our site as well in about 20-25 minutes.
Now a head up:
The Bush Administration are giving their "progress report" in September. but the GAO is giving one before that we are told it is due out on September 1st. The GAO page to watch is here:
Iraq: War and Reconstruction Products since January 2002
Erdla
Thanks Erdla!
---
Some nuggest from this Salon piece, which laudates the "careful" U.S. bombing ...: When is an accidental civilian death not an accident?
When the Air Force asks permission first. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military has rules for killing civilians. But do the rules actually save lives?
In the first six and a half months of 2007, according to a Human Rights Watch database, the U.S. Air Force dropped 527,860 pounds of bombs in Afghanistan -- nearly equal to the 575,500 pounds during all of 2006, according to that database. In Iraq, the tonnage is lower, but the increase is more dramatic. In the first half of this year, 222,000 pounds of bombs fell in Iraq, compared to 61,500 during 2006. ...
Ever wondered about Human Rights Watch? How human are they? How "neutral"? From the article:
At the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003, there was one number that was crucial to American military officials as they planned airstrikes."The magic number was 30," said Marc Garlasco, who was the Pentagon's chief of high-value targeting at the start of the war. "That means that if you hit 30 as the anticipated number of civilians killed, the airstrike had to go to Rumsfeld or Bush personally to sign off." If the expected number of civilian deaths was less than 30, however, neither the president nor the secretary of defense needed to know.
...
Garlasco, now a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, describes a callous approach back in 2003.
fantastic interactive "found" photoessay called Taliban at Slate. The only thing I usually find interesting on their site is their photo archive.
"Taliban" is below today's pictures of Barcelona.
Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 30 2007 18:31 utc | 27
Wow. Thanks faux. I love the pastoral/cottage backdrops.
Posted by: beq | Jul 30 2007 18:43 utc | 28
Lenin's Tomb proprietor tallies up the savagery and horrific toll on Iraqis of their "liberation".
Posted by: ran | Jul 31 2007 5:35 utc | 30
US/E.U. plan to database airline passengers' personal information raises deep privacy concerns
The United States and the European Union have agreed to expand a security program that shares personal data about millions of U.S.-bound airline passengers a year. Information that potentially can be used includes "racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership" and data about an individual's health, traveling partners and sexual orientation. "Even a request for a king-size bed at a hotel could be noted in the database." "E.U.'s privacy supervisor expressed 'grave concern' over whether the rules 'will be fully compatible with European fundamental rights,' calling the arrangement 'without legal precedent.'"
"The data will be used only for the purpose of preventing and combating terrorism and related offences and other serious offences that are transnational in nature."
Liars. The moment you started asking for information about sexual orientation, we can see that you are planning on using this as some kind of moralistic tracking tool.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff praised the pact as an "essential screening tool for detecting potentially dangerous transatlantic travelers."
And fags. We want to keep an eye on them too.
What the fuck does my 'philosophical beliefs' have to do with my ability to fly internationally? Because I may disagree with the Hobbsian view, I can't go to France or something?
Fuck these people.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 31 2007 6:58 utc | 32
The death of this crackpot creed is nothing to mourn
The wider conflict now engulfing Iraq lays bare the absurdity of liberal interventionism - and the decline of US power
Liberal interventionists who supported regime change as part of a global crusade for human rights overlooked the fact that the result of toppling tyranny in divided countries is usually civil war and ethnic cleansing. Equally they failed to perceive the rapidly dwindling leverage on events of the western powers that led the crusade. If anyone stands to gain long term it is Russia and China, which have stood patiently aside and now watch the upheaval with quiet satisfaction. Neoconservatives spurned stability in international relations and preached the virtues of creative destruction. Liberal internationalists declared history had entered a new stage in which pre-emptive war would be used to construct a new world order where democracy and peace thrived. The result of these delusions is what we see today: a world of rising authoritarian regimes and collapsed states no one knows how to govern.Many will caution against throwing out the baby of humanitarian military intervention together with the neocon bathwater. No doubt the idea that western states can project their values by force of arms gives a sense of importance to those who believe it. It tells them they are still the chief actors on the world stage, the vanguard of human progress that embodies the meaning of history. But this liberal creed is a dangerous conceit if applied to today's intractable conflicts, where resource wars are entwined with wars of religion and western power is in retreat.
The liberal interventionism that took root in the aftermath of the cold war was never much more than a combination of post-imperial nostalgia with crackpot geopolitics. It was an absurd and repugnant mixture, and one whose passing there is no reason to regret. What the world needs from western governments is not another nonsensical crusade. It is a dose of realism and a little humility.
Recommended: Inside the surge, part two: the provinces
An exclusive film from Guardian photographer Sean Smith on his time embedded with the US Marines in Iraq's Anbar Province and the mountain division in the so-called Triangle of Death.
Monbiot on "missile defense": Brown's contempt for democracy has dragged Britain into a new cold war
Thus, without consultation or discussion, the defence secretary announced that Menwith Hill, the listening station on the North York Moors, will be used by the United States for its missile defence system. Having been dragged by the Bush administration into two incipient military defeats, the British government has now embraced another of its global delusions.Des Browne's note asserted that the purpose of the missile defence system is "to address the emerging threat from rogue states". This is a claim that only an idiot or a member of the British government could believe. If, as Browne and Bush maintain, the system is meant to shoot down intercontinental missiles fired by Iran and North Korea (missiles, incidentally, that they do not and might never possess), why are its major components being installed in Poland and the Czech Republic? To bait the Russian bear for fun? In June, Vladimir Putin called Bush's bluff by offering sites for the missile defence programme in Azerbaijan and southern Russia, which are much closer to Iran. Bush turned him down and restated his decision to build the facilities in eastern Europe, making it clear that their real purpose is to shoot down Russian missiles.
Nor is it strictly true to call this a defence system. Russia has around 5,700 active nuclear warheads. The silos in Poland will contain just 10 interceptor missiles. The most likely strategic purpose of the missile defence programme is to mop up any Russian or Chinese missiles that had not been destroyed during a pre-emptive US attack. Far from making the world a safer place, its purpose is to make the annihilation of another country a safer proposition.
This strategic purpose takes second place to a more immediate interest. Because it doesn't yet work, missile defence is the world's biggest pork barrel. The potential for spending is unlimited. First, a number of massive - and possibly insuperable - technical problems must be overcome. Then it must constantly evolve to respond to the counter-measures Russia and China will deploy: multiple warheads, dummy missiles, radar shields, chaff, balloons and God knows what. For the US arms industry, technical failure means permanent commercial success.
Back to DeAnander's Law: it is always more profitable, in money terms and for the elite, to do things wrong.
Posted by: catlady | Jul 31 2007 16:25 utc | 36
i'll copy this straight from democracynow's headlines, though i'm hard pressed to state clearly whether they're merely relaying or (subtly) highlighting the insanity that passes for official rhetorical attempts at diversion in the USuk.
Gordon Brown Praises War on TerrorismBritain's new Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with President George Bush on Monday at Camp David. Brown appeared to fully defend the so-called U.S. war on terror.
* Gordon Brown: "We know we are in a common struggle, and we know we have to work together, and we know we've got to use all means to deal with it. So we are at one in fighting the battle against terrorism, and that struggle is one that we will fight with determination and with resilience, and right across the world."
President Bush praised Gordon Brown's vision.
* President Bush: "The notion of America and Britain sharing values is very important; and that we have an obligation, it seems to me, to work for freedom and justice around the world. And I found a person who shares that vision and who understands the call. After all, we're writing the initial chapters of what I believe is a great ideological struggle between those of us who do believe in freedom and justice and human rights and human dignity, and cold-blooded killers who will kill innocent people to achieve their objectives."
During a press briefing British Prime Minister Gordon Brown also discussed Iran and Darfur.
* Gordon Brown: "On Iran, we are in agreement that sanctions are working and the next stage we are ready to move towards is to toughen the sanctions with a further U.N. resolution. Darfur is the greatest humanitarian disaster the world faces today, and I've agreed with the President that we step up our pressure to end the violence that has displaced 2 million people, made 4 million hungry and reliant on food aid, and murdered 200,000 people."
Posted by: b real | Jul 31 2007 16:37 utc | 37
From IraqSlogger,
This may (or may not) turn out to be very important:
"Autonomous Government of the South" Announces its Founding, with Tribal Support
The Lebanese al-Akhbar daily reported that a “semi-official” autonomous government was announced yesterday in Southern Iraq. The paper said that “over 40 tribal chiefs from the provinces of Basra, Nasiriya, 'Amara and Samawa” have signed an agreement announcing the birth of a “self-ruling government” in the Shi'a-dominated southern provinces; and released a statement signed by “the administration of the autonomous government of the South.”
(snip)
This will be underplayed:
Iraqis, Not Iran, Behind Karbala Attack
And this is where all those geopolitical chess moves leave the Iraqis:
When Death Offers an Escape From Violence
Posted by: Alamet | Jul 31 2007 18:07 utc | 39
f william engdahl: The great biofuel fraud
The dramatic embrace of biofuels by the Bush administration since 2005 has clearly been the global driver for soaring grain and food prices in the past 18 months. The evidence suggests this is no accident of sloppy legislative preparation. The US government has been researching and developing biofuels since the 1970s.The bio-ethanol architects did their homework, we can be assured. It's increasingly clear that the same people who brought us oil-price inflation are now deliberately creating parallel food-price inflation. We have had a rise in average oil prices of some 300% since the end of 2000 when George W Bush and Dick "Halliburton" Cheney made oil the central preoccupation of US foreign policy.
there's a good paper waiting to be written on the implications of this biofuel project as a new form of the plantation economy throughout the third world. the damages -- environmental, social & economic -- that this drive will entail are potentially enormous & devastating.
a recent heritage foundation paper on africa states:
Africa is also a potential source of ethanol, which could help to meet President Bush's call for a 20 percent reduction in U.S. gasoline consumption by 2017. Africa offers the ideal tropical climate for producing ethanol from sugarcane.
their recommendation is that the u.s. push to privatize all energy sources in the continent and "remove tariffs and quotas on sugarcane ethanol before 2009."
Posted by: b real | Jul 31 2007 18:30 utc | 40
o conquistador
Africa: Biofuels Can Allow All Humanity to Prosper
by Luiz Inacio Lula Da SilvaBrazil has over 30 years of success in its production of fuels that combine energy security and broad economic, social, and environmental benefits. The one-quarter ethanol and three-quarter gasoline mix used by regular cars and the use of alcohol by flex-fuel cars, made it possible for Brazil to cut the consumption and imports of fossil fuels by 40 per cent. Since 2003, we have reduced our carbon dioxide emissions by over 120 million tonnes, thus helping slow global warming.
But the potential uses of biofuels go far beyond providing a new source of clean and renewable energy. The ethanol industry has created 1.5 million jobs directly and 4.5 million indirectly in Brazil. In its first phase, the biodiesel programme created more than 250,000 jobs, especially for small-scale farmers in semi-arid areas, generating income and helping to settle people on the land.
It is also important to point out that biofuel production does not threaten food security, because it affects only 2 per cent of our agricultural land. Moreover, by generating new income that can be used to buy food, it helps combat hunger.
These programmes also put a damper on chaotic migration, staunching the exodus from rural to urban areas, reducing the pressure on major cities, and providing a disincentive to small-scale miners and farmers to raze forests.
In addition, the expansion of sugar cane production has helped restore overgrazed pasture land that had little or no potential for agriculture.
Developing countries thus stand to benefit significantly from biofuels.
Given their enormous potential for creating jobs and generating income, they offer a real option of sustainable development, especially in countries that depend on the export of scarce natural resources. At the same time, ethanol and biodiesel open up new paths of development, especially in the bio-chemical industries, in the form of social, economic, and technological alternatives for countries that are economically poor but rich in sun and arable land.
FOR A world facing environmental degradation and the increase of energy prices, biofuel offers real promise. It can help poor countries combine economic growth with social inclusion, and environmental conservation. In short, it is a valiant ally in the fight against social and political instability, violence, and migratory chaos.
However, this revolution can only occur if the rich countries open their markets to the poorest and eliminate agro-subsidies and barriers to the import of biofuels
Posted by: b real | Jul 31 2007 18:57 utc | 41
Prime Minister Brown is clearly another poodle. Democracy is as moot in the UK as it is in the USA. As for the article in the Guardian, while Monbiot is right on the political front; he completely misinterprets the meaning of the 10 missile interceptors that Bush intends to install in Europe. An example would be, if someone shot you in the gut with a 357 Magnum, and as you fell dying you managed to spit some of you own blood into the killer's eyes; that would be a comparable effect to the deterrent of the 10 interceptors.
Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of warheads would be churning North America, Russia, and Europe, into a radioactive no-man's land. Monbiot's assertion that the missiles are for mop-up after a US first strike against Russia or China is just ludicrous. China's missiles, if they were fired, would be coming across the Pacific.
There has been prior speculation on the strategic meaning of the 10 interceptors. At least plausible, is the theory that these weapons could be used against Russia, as a preliminary decapitation strike against Putin and his command-and-control, by Bush/Cheney and other insane US leaders.
My preferred theory is that the missile system is being put in place to reinvigorate Europe's Cold War reflex to shelter under America's military umbrella. I think it is being employed, as well, to drive an economic wedge between Europe and Russia. It's a typical Bush/Cheney policy: divide, confuse, destabilize. This forces an economically emerging and still struggling Russia to spend money on new weapons systems. The idea under it all is to break down trust between rivals, and to continue US dominance at the expense of everyone else.
Insecurity and uncertainty, fear in all its forms, are the handmaidens of empire.
If there is any American solution to this conundrum, it must come from the US Congress, simply because insane and/or unstable Chief Executive[s] must of necessity be impeached, compelled to resign, or be removed from office. To do anything else, or to delay, is to invite catastrophe.
Interestingly the Brown visit has been interpretated quite differently in the UK and in the US. The first impression, carried by US TV media was not sufficient to judge. Seem Froomkins column today where he highlights the quite diverging takes.
Copeland,
another thing you might consider is that Rumsfeld wanted to seriously draw down troops from Europe. Obviously a lot of money that gets spent there on bases, rent, utilities, and etc would not be spent if there are no troops to spend it. What better way to get a reversal of base closures in Europe than to point to the Russian threat?
We all understand that Russia is bad, a lot of us hid out in fallout shelters and heard the stories about how the russians would boil babies for the oil needed for their machine guns. sometimes you go with what you know, it has withstood the test of time and is not a new product that needs to be sold.
Posted by: dan of steele | Jul 31 2007 20:28 utc | 44
@43,
I saw a bit of the Camp David thing on BBC America last night - maybe it's a cultural thing, but it looked like Brown was treating Bush as if Bush had been dead and lying in the sun for a week. He seemed to be recoiling from the prez even at the podium, and they were quite widely spaced. The best bit was when Bush herded Brown into his ghastly golf cart and, instead of driving off, as Brown obviously expected, drove at the press and made a hokey loop, complete with goofy grin and wave. Brown, as the cameras clicked, turned his head so far in the opposite direction from Bush that you could literally see only the back of his head. There was nothing ambiguous about it at all.
What it means in poodle terms, though, is anyone's guess...
Posted by: Tantalus | Jul 31 2007 21:01 utc | 45
I have now spent thirty goddamn minutes fighting with typepad to post this...
This reads like the notes of a whistleblower:
PART 1
Check out this Very Interesting anonymous postings at TPM
STUDY MUELLER'S HESITATION
I would encourage a "fresh look" at not just the transcript, but the _audio_:["Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes."]
It appears he _almost_ mentioned "national security council" program. . . NSC is not the same as NSA. Another way to read between the lines . . ."National security program": Something that is _outside_ FISA; and _outside_ what the FISA current covers. . .although it was intended to cover _all_ things.
Listen closely to the pauses, spacing, and hemming and hawing. Mueller is dancing around something that -- it appears -- President and AG have said falls "outside" the FISA-coverage: This might be a Canadian-Australian-NZ-UK data transfer program: Whereby non-US interception methods are used, but the data is forwarded to the NSA through non-direct US means.
. . . .
Also, if the Senate's Leahy/Specter do not trust Gonzalez, why would they trust him on this AG-certifications under FISA? If he's been lying to the Senate, then his AG-certifications on "OK to do this without a warrant" are also in doubt. He could define anything -- rightly or wrongly -- as being under that umbrella.
Question becomes: What certification has the AG made on things that not even the Gang of 8 was told about; and how was the NSC (not NSA) involved with the oversight of this, outside FISA-Gang of 8 review?
"National security" could mean: "Maintaining morale" or "maintaining confidence": That could mean providing false information to the public; or, based on data mining, issuing public news releases to justify public support for illegal activity; or maintain confidence in something that was an illegal contract. This would involve capture through NSA of meta-language; then stripping out identifying information;; then transferring that data to a firm like Flieshman Hilliard which would examine it, and issue public news releases on various government "public oversight" and "media messaging issues": Smith Act issues in re domestic propaganda: Possibly a "public service" announcement to maintain loyalty in non-sense. Something for AT&T to discuss.
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 4:45 PM
snip:
Recall, it's CIA that was sharing info with the EU on the rendition; and Plame was retaliated against by OVP: and the OVP blocking the archivist audit. Addington knew about the European Detention centers.Not getting info on the naval-based detention centers.Recall, Iran-Contra was an NSC-run operation: Cheney was involved. Could be the same kid of thing -- something run out of NSC, not the DoJ or NSA. Not clear that the "NSA" vs "NSC" is a typo: Suspect its different: NSC, not NSA, appears to be running these things.
Recall DoJ met with the intelligence personnel at various sports facilitates in DC. Keep thinking Plame and Cheney were about sending a message to Cheney' private intelligence network -- likely linked through Halliburton -- to send a message: "Plame outing" is what will happen if you crosss the VP. Seems to simplistic to say this is only about oil, and retaliating against others who spill the beans. Libby's name was mentioned in the context of "basketball," another program -- that came up during the Grand Jury reviews; his counsel was worried Fitzgerald had access to NSA-GCHQ-intercepted information of legal counsel.
. . .Philbin was former OLC, meaning he probably clashed with Addington on the legal aspects of Rendition/prisoner abuse as well. Philbin documented his concerns, which the Congress can ask for since those memoranda and their existence on this subject have been disclosed. Mentioning Philbin may have been merely a suggestion of which people/memoranda to specifically ask for.
Philbin was aware of the "security" issues of GTMO; and likely would have been involved with discussions in detaining prisoners in Eastern Europe.1. Support Aspect: NSA resources supporting, or outsourced
"NSA" or "NSC" program doesn't necessarily have to mean just data interception, but _use_ and _support_ of other activities: Combat, intelligence analysis, interrogation, or direct support for the CIA. Problem NSA and DOJ have is when CIA -- possibly connected with this "other program" -- have talked to the EU. EU may have more information about this "other program" than the Congress has been directly told or understands.2. Direct reporting to NSC, outside Congressional oversight
IF this is an NSA "program" it could be a support function for the NSC, or one of the combatant commanders; or made to _look_ that way to hide the real objective of the activity. They may have classified it as an "NSA Program" to bury its real objective as a domestic-CIA-cover action program, which is illegal, an "open secret" but explained away as a "training program" like Operation Falcon: Use of Federal resources at the local level for training, manning support, and domestic intelligence gathering in conjunction with CIFA.3. Posse Comitatus
This could be a special access program within DoD that is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, hidden as an "NSA program" but a domestic security force backed by combat forces/special forces units which have the power to issue arrest warrants, detain people, and target those who oppose the illegal activities.4. Individual Cells, untraceable, multi-agency
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the President could not, through DoD and CIFA, establish a Gestapo-like "NSA program" within the DoD community, and then outsource this to local law enforcement -- JTTF. They've got people that cross flow between the guard units, local law enforcement, FBI, and to civilian jobs all day. They could be creating individual cells within JTTF units that are comprised of NSC contractors, data analysis, and law enforcement whose sole goal is to act as a direct reporting entity to the NSC. They could very well be reporting directly to people working for Cheney, and Congress and JCS might never realize who or what was actually assigned, or relying on DoD assets.5. DoD Entities With Personnel Assigned Stateside
DoD could ery well have created "foreign entities" in other countries, who then are in charge of these personnel stationed in the US. DoD was given this power to establish foreign intelligence and combat support entities overseas; however, if that's mutated, the NSC may have subcontracted to these DoD entities US-based personnel who directly support NSC: In effect, creating an NSC-NSA support function under DoD foreign entities, but basing their contractors in the US..SUMMARY
Mueller appears to be referring to a sub-contracted effort which indirectly supports the NSC with a special domestic security unit. These units engage in direct engagement with state-side personnel and civilians. Contractors, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel are assigned under non-direct-NSC-NSA units, but are hidden inside commercial entities. The groups appear capable of moving quickly, with no direct supervision, but act as internal security forces, completely outside FISA oversight. They appear to be entities unrelated to FISA, but are front line units which verify information, gather intelligence domestically, and help NSC pinpoint targets which NSC contractors are assigned.RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Congress examine the Operation Falcon; determine which NSA/NSC personnel were assigned to oversee.
B. Examine the budget lines inside the DOD foreign entities support accounts; and determine which banks are used to challenge those funds. Determine how the DOD funds are funnelled overseas through the NSC entities, then back to the US to these individual groups.
C. Review the "investigative leads" and ground rules JTTF and local law enforcement use to dissuade detection of the domestic intelligence gathering efforts.
D. Review the destruction logs of the CIFA; and determine who was supposed to keep the logs related to these classified documents.
Determine which signalling systems, monitoring, and other intelligence gathering the JTTF are using; and where this information is sent. Ultimately, it winds up somewhere: Which contractors, NSC staffers have access to these reports.
E. Examine with Congressional Counsel whether it is the intent that these domestic security services operate this way; and whether, as FISA is written, this type of activity would fall outside what the FISA Court can engage.
F. Review the DHS domestic interrogation facilities. Look at the gas mileage for the DHS pick up teams. Review the files they've had access to; and the basis for detaining someone. Review the complaints of citizens being forcibly removed from their cars, engines running, or being taken from their homes while school children are present in the early morning. Evidence includes car impound fees.
G. Discuss with POST and local LE efforts used to dissuade public awareness of intelligence gathering: Excuses given to hide pre-textual stops; and examine whether local officials do or do not keep adequate records related to officer complaints and requests for civilian oversight to examine officer misconduct.
H. Examine problems during audits: To what extent officers in LE, FBI, and DHS are concerned when reports of officer misconduct arise; and what methods auditors are aware to segregate complaints about officer misconduct from auditors:1. Have they been asked to leave the room; were concerns explained away; were officers complaining they were "short manned" an unable to supervise; and how do these explanations square with the officer conduct.
2. How often are these units employed to provoke innocent civilians to respond to abuse?
3. To what extent are these domestic units used to harass civilians based on a "hunch"?
4. Would these units put the children of minors at risk to entrap a suspected target?
5. Is there no report of any of these personnel ever exposing a minor to a potentially unsafe situation to engage a target?
6. Has the FISA court, Congress, and Judiciary been fully apprised of how these units operate; their procedures; and oversight requirement to ensure 42 USC 1983 claims are minimized?
7. What insurance do these units have if they are engaged in liable action?
Snip:
LEARN LESSON OF OLC IN RE SUBPOENA RESPONSESRecall, OLC issued a "memo" saying that WH Counsel did not have to testify. This, according to the WH, was "gospel." Untrue, but that's another issue. OLC made a "rule" and then everyone said, "See, that's what they said."
Now, consider this, from TPMM quote, above: ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] That could mean anything, anybody, and without reference to any legal standard."not legally controversial" . . . _according to whom_. . . ?...:
- OLC?
- Consensus within NSC?
- Consensus within NSA?
- Rove's determination?
- Gonzalez assessment after talking to Goodling about door mats for the Hoover Building?
. . .What's their idea of "non legal controversy", as opposed to a "controversy that is real, but not based on a law, just the Constitution"?
What is someone like Darth Cheney said, "We need to justify this -- find a reason. Ignore words in the law if you need to. Just give me a memo. You get an appointment to the bench if you can figure this out." What if Roberts or Alito gave a really good opinion on this and made everyone -- in that room -- believe it was "not controversial", even though it was?
. . .
Again, saying ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could mean:
A. "other programs" were controversial;
B. "other groups" _are_ doing illegal things, but you haven't asked us about them, so we haven't made up a lie. . . yet;
C. OLC "determined" (using a feather, some fairy dust, and after gazing into GOodling's eyes) that anything the NSC wanted to do under Cheney was OK, just as long as nobody traced the money.
. . .There's another way of looking at this ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."]
D. "This program" is different from "that program" which has been hidden in another budget, unrelated to the NSA or NSC:
E. DoD _is_ allowed to do things overseas, and contractors have been assigned -- working for those _overseas_ entities -- in the US.
F. The data that is managed is channelled, but the contractors have no idea who it is they are monitoring: All they see is the raw data; someone else then recombines the data if there is a problem.
G. If we find a problem in the data, we then use the data we've collected to justify the warrant; if we can't get one, we self-issue one, and get the AG to certify it as being OK> Never mind that Qwest objected.
["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could also mean:
H. Legal counsel assigned to our units have been told to keep their comments to themselves
I. All contracts supporting this activity are -- by definition -- "legal contracts"; (just don't talk about whether they support a lawful or unlawful objective. Far too scary to contemplate!)
J. "not controversial" could mean all the legal views that opposed it were ignored; and the remaining opinions were in "full support".
K. The legal counsel who knew of the Constitutional violations were sent to Guantanamo, threatened with nasty things: "To the washroom, counsellor! No gloves for you."
L. Legal counsel who remained quiet were promised a "good rating" by "the decider" in their upcoming DOJ ranking list -- the names given to the Senate for Federal Benches."not legally controversial" could mean all case law showing it was illegal was ignored; or selectively rewritten, as Addington well did with the Iran-Contra minority report.
["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could mean: other programs were contentious; but since AG Gonzalez is on the pig-spit this week, we need to pretend we are concerned, even though we are not.
The people who said this was "no problem" and were not saying tat it was lawful, just that it wouldn't be a problem to find a judge who they could bribe to not take action."not legally controversial" does not mean that it was legal; only that the in "someone's mind" (God knows where) their idea of "controversial" is a different definition which does not use controversy. Maybe legal counsel who opposed were _not_ using spears with _poison_ tips, so the spin misters said, "See not controversial, if they ere really upset they would have had nasty poison, the kind that makes Ebola look like a fuzzy kitten." The infamy! How dare they!
Transcripts can tell you alot: The changes, pauses, and hesitations -- especially when compared to the audio -- can be very revealing: Find out if they are changing their pace of word; and is it liekly they've been fed lines through an ear piece like Bush is. Someone is pulling the strings; someone has a script.
The problem is when the questions asked do not match the scripted answers. How about some last minute changes to the questions to throw them off, Congress?
This is not necessarily true: [}Very obviously, the program Mueller referred to was the Terrorist Surveillance Program."]
The "other programs" could be things _far too scary_ to contempate. Recall, this Preident is linked with war crimes: It means nothing for him to set up camps, and make people disappear. "all for the cause. . ."
Put the burden on the President: Prove those internment camps you've built aren't being used; and that the prisoners aren't out "exercising" when the Auditors arrive.
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:17 PM
I don't personally think the fact that they are or are not referring to "this" or "that" or "TSP" or "Not TSP" is the issue: The fact is that there isn't a consistent story, raising the question: What other activity is occurring that may be an NSA-related function, but has been organized to fall _outside_ FISA oversight, but is still illegal under the Constitution:
- Roving bands of contractors harassing US citizens;
- Temporary detention centers to detain US citizens without warrant or trial;
- Use of tax information by JTTF to compel US citizens to explain things that the agents are not able to determine through NSA intercepts
- Groups whose sole function is to fill in the gaps in the NSA intercepts, and provide some meat to explain what is going on with something that is unusual, but they don't want the court to know they're looking at . . . again.Recall, the RNC has deleted/destroyed e-mail. If this "other program" were "OK," how does the RNC explain the failure to retain detain related to an ongoing "OK" activity? [I realizes this assumes the RNC e-mail was related to the activity; but isn't that the point: The RNC believes that this activity is lawful, so why not discuss it by email?" What if the RNC, when it first created the backup email system, through nobody would find out about it; and they assumed the e-mail would never see the light of day because of "privilege" claims. But when, what if someone from one of the law firms associated with he CIA went to the EU, and the RNC realized, "Oh, no. . . they've figure it out; it's not lawful; and we're in trouble. Destroy everything." IT doesn't make sense to destroy evidence related to a "legal program" when that activity -- if it were lawful and non-disclosed -- should be protected by privilege. Rather, it appears they realized private would not work, and the documents would not be shielded.
The question goes back to DOJ, OLC, and outside counsel: [ "When you learned of the "other programs" involved with this intelligence activity, did you fear that the information in the RNC accounts would be disclosed; or was there something you learned from the EU -- and CIA visits with the EU -- which prompted the evidence destruction related to rendition, FISA< prisoner abuse, and other things OLC apparently "all agreed" -- in a perverse Yoo-like fashion -- was "lawful". . . (never mind Geneva, FISA< or The Constitutional requirements)." ]
Sounds like a law firm which was auditing a company related to various NSA programs and prisoner transfers should have detected this chance of fraud, and internal control problems. Or is a law firm saying, despite attestations to the SEC on those financial statements, that they had "no idea" what was going on, despite counsel's awareness of the activity -- as evidenced by their meeting with the DoD General Counsel's staff on these very issues?
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:32 PM
Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 7:08 PMMy question is:
mo2" How do we know October 2001 was the beginning of the illegal spying program?"
Excellent point: We don't; allegations are that the _illegal_ surveillance started _before_ Sept 2001.
-------------
mo2: "Given that Bush/Rice were warned about al quaeda before Bush was sworn in in 2001, why is it thought that they did absolutely nothing before October 2001?"
Good point again.
mo2:" Because they say so is not good enough."
Right. Getting warmer.
-------------
mo2: Could it be that they did do something, but that something was illegal?
You are correct.
mo2: "And they feel it is better to be called do-nothings than criminals?"
Also, they like the idea people are focusing on the wrong surveillance, wrong time period: The confusion menas they can blame Congress for "not asking teh right questions."
mo2: "Can somebody please provide the link to the testimony that says the TSP started on October 1, 2001?"
Someone said that, you're correct; but TSP isn't necessarily what's being talked about.
- - - - -
THe point is: If the GOP will not convice Gonzalez for lying, then Gonzalez needs to explain why his comments are _true_:
- What programs could exist under both the inconsenst statementes of Gonzalez; and also the disparity between what Gonzalez and Mueller are saying.The GOP Senators canot have it both ways: Sayhing, "AG is telling the truth; but not having any information to support _that_ conclusion.
The problem they have: Not only were they doign illegal things _before_ Sept 2001; those illegal things did _not_ work.There's no basis for the President to say, "We need to do more of this illegal stuff" as it didn't work before Sept 2001; rather, what's needed is the opposite: "Given we tried ilegal things, and _that_ didn't work, who has some other ideas?"
They can't ask _that_ question because they'll admit:
1. They screwed up
2. They have no clue
3. They're not able to hire someone to help them outThe only option they have is to pretend the problem is one thing; and then solve that "new problem" in a way that appears to solve it. Forget the fact that the problem they may be "sovling" is illusory. They may have defined the program in terms of what _appears_ to be a solveable problem.
IN other words, if they've realized that they can't win, they['ll [a] redefine the enemy in terms of what Congress can be led to believe is a credilbe threat; and [b] redefine the solution in terms of not solvinga real problem, but in terms of what appers to solve what they've created the impression is the problem.
Problems, solutions, reality, and the illusion may or may not be matching: This may explain why things are not appearing all that straightforward: They're still tring to figure out how they're in power despite their stupidity.
KNOW THE NATURE OF US GOVERNMENT LEGAL COUNSEL AND WHAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF DOINGI read this, and thought of the attorneys in DOJ who were saying gum this to death; and what Gonzalez has been saying/doing -- Lying, obstruction: ["Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay"]
The quote and subject are not as important as the point: US Government legal counsel will obstruct justice, and stupidly document that obstruction: How many of the RNC e-mails would WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ staff counsel have sent back and forth on their progress in blocking review of FISA, Geneva, and other illegal activity; then delete these e-mails when they learned it was on the Libby/Abramoff Grand Jury subpoena list?
Know who you're up against: People who have no remorse over engaging in illegal conduct, and (apparently) hiding evidence related to executions of people who opposite reckless conduct. These are lawyers who are doing this: The very people who supposedly are the "best" and "brightest" in the legal profession: The same people who are put on the Federal Benches. Congress needs to take a wider view of the DOJ Staff misconduct in re FISA, Geneva, rendition, and prisoner abuse.
Doesn't look as through Congress has really woken up to the recklessness in the legal community. Let's get some state level disbarment investigations going; and forward the results to the public so we can throw it back at them during future confirmation hearings.
The lawyers were behind the Watergate break-ins, and the Holocaust. We can't let this happen again, and the lawyers need to be put on a tight leash. They've defied their oath, putting their party and President before the Constitution. That which is not lawfully opposed, will continue; the legal profession, left unleashed, will do what is least expected: Turn the law inside out to justify genocide, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and defiance of their oath and Constitution.
A president does not do this on their own; nor does a Congress -- with lawful options to end it -- have much of a defense when they have powers to investigate, block funding, and compel oversight. The Ranking Members of the Committees have had this power to compel reviews since day one. Doesn't matter that the GOP "controlled" Congress: The DNC has the power to filibuster bills; and could have issued letters to the DoJ-NSA-CIA-DoD IG requesting assistance. There's no merit to any assertion that "nobody was going to do anything" -- how do the Members of Congress explain the effort to _do_ something: Pass proclamations calling for Congress to impeach _despite_ the GOP "controlling" the US Government.
One answer: There is a way to lawfully oppose. There is no merit to any assertion that there is no opting; or that were are stuck with this abuse. There is a way: If Congress will not oppose this abuse; and Congress will not end funding, then there is _someone else_ who can be trusted to assert their oath, and defend the Constitution. Assent to DNC-GOP joint assent to this despotism is unacceptable. It doesn't matter if its unwillingness to impeach, refusal to investigate, inaction on subpoenas, or stupid assent to DoJ-US Atty decisions to do nothing to enforce the law. _Someone else_ can be found who _will_ do their job. Stop listening to excuses of why this "cannot" be done;and _find_ a way to make those who have an oath to _do_ their job: Defend the Constitution, even it means prosecuting the President, VP, Speaker, and House Judiciary Chairman for [a] violating Geneva; and [b] refusing to enforce the Constitution using all lawful options. It is reckless -- this many years after 9-11 and the disclosures of the prisoner abuse and illegal NSA -- for Congress to be still rubber stamping legislation/funding: There are options to end the funding, which the DNC refuses; and there are options to lawfully target legal counsel complicit with this illegal activity.
This isn't about DoJ, FISA, or RNC e-mails, but whether legal counsel -- with that "special position of trust before the court" -- can really be trusted; or whether they need to be overseen, audited, and intruded upon as if they were a branch of government. America's legal counsel have expected too much deference for reckless service; and this many years after the illegal activity has surfaced it is absurd for the American legal community to flaunt "how great it is" or ask anyone to embrace the "American model" when the lawyers have their disastrous results on _their_ hand. Their only solution appears to be to laugh at what they've done to gum things up; never realizing We the People have the option to get them disbarred, and make _them_ the lawful target of war crimes prosecutions. America's lawyers, indeed, did learn the lesson of the Holocaust: How to commit illegal warfare and not get caught. We the People have something to say about that. This is far from over. These are issues of international criminal law with one large defense pool: American legal counsel inside DoJ, OVP, DoD, and outside counsel
They wished this.
- - - -
[BTW: The quote is from the Tillman case in keeping criminal prosecutors from reviewing the close-range gun shot wounds to Tillman, leading some to believe that he was executed to silence him for his anti-war stances he was apparently going to advance outside the military. Tillman is reported to have been frustrated [a] there were too many shows going on in Afghanistan; [b] they were really not going after AlQueda; and [c] the staged engagements were just a dog and pony show, not really serious about defeating an enemy.]
In my view the question of "are there one, two, or more programs" isn't relevant: The _known_ information shows there's been _illegal_ activity.
Whether there is _alot_ of illegal activity; or whether there is _multiple_ or _many_ program's merely confirms the foregone conclusion: There's illegal activity.
Time to stop digging for "confirmation" of what we know; and compel Congress to explain why -- despite the known illegalities -- they continue to fund what they know, or should know is illegal.
Murtha's cutting of the DoD COngressional liaision office budget shows that the budget tools are there: "Mr. President, cooeprate with our inquiry; or you get no money." The arugment that the GOP is 'blocking' the DNC is fiction: The DNC can cut the money and _make_ the GOP "pass" an Amemdnet to add money back.
Again, I appreciate there are people who want to spend time getting clues and "figuring things out" -- in my view, it would be more productive to take the information that we have, and give it to the DNC is a simple format: The FISA violations are known to be illegal; either cut the money, or we're going after you wtih prosecutions.
TheraP" And ask why the illegal activity is being funded." [TP1]
TheraP: "And that is a very good question. Why have things been reauthorized over and over?" [TP2]
- - - -
TheraP: "And what blackmail or bribery or whatever is being used to keep people in line?" [TP3]
TheraP: "And, where is the paper trail for that?" [TP4]
- - -
1. There is the option to cut funding: Murtha says Rumsfeld appointees frustrate oversight, cuts Pentagon agency budget 2. People who have been complicit with Geneva violations -- malfeasance in failing to cut budgets -- like to change the subject.
3. Google: [ descriptive summaries NSA 614113 R-2 ]
4. Google [ JROC NSA ]
5. Google [ " Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance in office on account of the scheming malevolence with which he administered injustice. "]
6. Google [5 USC 3331 malfeasance ]
7. Google [32 CFR 2800 Ad Hoc Committees ]
8. Google [ Statement Accounting standard 74 compliance ]
9. Before Sept 2001, NSA had program funding for a lawful NSA surveillance method which fully complied with FISA. JROC is the DoD group which oversees the funding/program authorization; they make decisions: "Is there a _cheaper_ way to do this?" They decided that they had to spend money. Then it was cancelled. Someone made the decision to _cancel_ what is _lawful_; but Congress is making a decision to _keep funding_ what is _illegal_.
10. Evidence is not only what exists; but the _absense_ what what should exist: The Ranking Members of the Committees 2001-2006 had the _option_ to document their concerns; and forward that concern to the DOD-NSA-CIA-DOJ IG. [See 6]
11. Compliance audits of OVP would have detected the documentation of whether OVP, Addington, and others aware of rendition, NSA survilance were or were not retaining records. The auditors have been blocked. [See 7, 8]
- - - -
_Q&A_
TP1: See 2, then 11.
TP2: See 1, then 10.
TP3: See 5, then 2.
TP4: See 3, then revisit 2, then 1; then reconsider 7, then link with 8; then reconsider 10.
"But now it makes me wonder if there are any events in the US related to the London bombings?"
Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 3:11 PM- - - -
1. Google: ["attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay"]2. Google: [ Procurement Guidance Documents Software PGD ]
- - - -
3. Consider: RNC offices were attacked in the run up to the 2006 elections.
4. Compare the following
A. Location of attacks on RNC offices before the election;
B. Point spread of RNC going into the election in those districts.5. Consider: RNC wrote a note/letter to the unions "complaining" about "unions" attacking the RNC offices.
6. If you could convince someone "your opponent' was engaged in "dirty tricks" would that not convince some of the opposition to rejoin you and denounce "the opposition"?
7. Then consider: Supposedly the RNC 'knew" enough to write a letter to "who was involved"? Why didn't the US Atty's bring prosecutions:
8. The information in the RNC/DoJ offices will show you:
A. What basis there was to conclude "the unions" were behind the attacks [none, fabricated, not followed up];
B. The subsequent discussion on prosecutions, or non-prosecutions;
C. Which DoJ staff liaison were involved with the campaigns;
D. The IP Numbers for the DOJ Staff not involved on processing FISA warrants, but engaged in discussions/non-official business using official government resources.9. Evidence isn't just what exists, but what is _absent_ but what _should exist_
- - - - - - -
_Q&A_A. Funding, records: What physical evidence was retained of the RNC office destruction; who was assigned; and how was the investigation closed out: Either there is a report, and that report was given to the RNC as the basis for their "letter about the unions"; or there is no evidence, and no basis for the letter. [See 9]
B. These are issues of criminal law, not just e-mail or voting. That State AG would have to get information from the JTTF to understand what basis there was to conclude that terrorism was _not_ an issue; and who should have been involved with the preliminary review _before_ the RNC issued their letter to the DNC. [See 9]
C. Link to FISA warrants: The same DoJ Staff computers that were "supposed" to be working with the FISA warrants, are linked with non-official business. How did the RNC get the "fast answer" on what was 'going on' with these attacks; but the AG says that he's "undermanned" and "can't process FISA warrants"? [See 8, then 9]
D. Where is the US Atty review of the evidence related to these attacks on the RNC offices; and how did the US atty go through the process to decline prosecution: Which FBI agents were involved; which State officials were assigned to which fusion center; and how was CIFA involved; were there no NSLs issued to determine who was involved? [See 9]
E. What is the explanation of the FBI director, and those assigned to the FBI support staff: Do they have no OPR experience; or is there a supervising problem within the FBI; is there any record of any of the FBI agents "involved" with this "investigation" not fully reviewing anything, ever while they were a SAC, ASAC, or assigned to DOJ OPR; what review per SAS74/99 was done of the DOJ OPR/IG/FBI budgets in light of these fraud indicators? [See 8]
F. When the reports within the FBI of leadership not doing what they should, how was this addressed? [See 9-11, Sibel Edmonds. . .]
G. Issue: Voting fraud, absent/incomplete investigation files; property destruction. No JTTF concern or prosecutors?
H. JCS and CIFA are also involved with domestic surveillance. What was the DoD General Counsel's involvement with the notifications related to these domestic issues: Was terrorism not on the notification list; was the DOD General counsel not consulted; was DoD General counsel never in receipt of, connected to any briefing given to anyone at the White House related to DoD domestic intelligence gathering efforts?
Someone was briefed: No other explanation for the RNC letter. The question is whether the _appropriate_ investigations, notifications were or were not made: These calls, reports are logged in the correspondence logs; and they are tracked with various messages, workflows, and other assignments. Within Microsoft Outlook, there is a scheduling function: That information is familiar to you via the US Atty e-mail disclosures. Rove's link to Microsoft Outlook is clear; the question is whether the DOJ Staff IP numbers -- commonly linked to outside sites in other states -- were or were not reviewed by the Grand Jury when they examined the third-party-data transfer systems. Recall how quickly legal counsel coordinated on the Libby defense memoranda: They have a file sharing capability; however, Goodlings notifications of "delete this file" means that the auto-notification feature was turned off; or the file sharing system was not being used.
Questions:
A. Which DoJ Small Business Contract personnel were involved with the computer/IT/SW updates related to the DOJ-RNC file transfer systems; [See 2]
B. Where is a copy of the computer utilization meeting minutes where the pro/con of a file transfer system was discussed; who approved the budget profile within DoJ; and how was this decision coordinated with the RNC; [See 2]
C. If the file transfer system was in place -- and not subject to any "recent" review (Since 2001), why did Goodling not rely on the auto-notify feature when forwarding the updates to the readers?
D. Where are the e-mail notifications to the DoJ staff related to authorization for them to use, access, and transfer data using this file transfer system; when were the authorizations sent; who ensured the continued use and access to this system was proper; how were non-official uses of this system monitored; were there any efforts by non-DoJ personnel to use this system to transfer non-official records?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 1 2007 0:49 utc | 46
Part 2
Cont...
S1: Procedure check sheets: "there must be paper trails of procedures."
S2: Investigations: "Procedures for everything! And whether it is investigations that took place (or didn't)"
S3: Evidence: "what kinds of paper trails may exist"
S4: Storage: "what form they might be stored"
S5: Indicators: "what the data suggest was happening"
- - - -
"Just a tiny example of how one strange event can lead to another - and more evidence of something really strange - and probably illegal going on."
- - -- -
Yes. It's all connected: The open source will dance around the illegal information that has been illegally classified.
Google [ GAGAS ] These are some of the procedures to audit.
Google [ CFR ] These are things that are standards that are audited. Note, an
EO may or may not apply; and a CFR may or may not apply.
Google [38 CFR 2800 ] These are the Security classification _procedures_ that the VP must comply related to _classified information_.
Google [ Statement Accounting Standard 74 Compliance ] This is the standard used to review entities receiving Federal Funds: To review their internal controls.
Google [ SAS 99 ] These are the fraud indicators used to assess whether auditors should increase or decrease audit scope. More indicators of fraud, trigger more sampling. If there are audit risks, but the auditor does _not_ increase audit scope, that is a problem for the _auditor_ not juts the original _audit target_.
- - - -
Recent discussions about whether the President's EO "do or do not apply to OVP" are irrelevant: 38 CFR 2800 _does_.
- - - -
Google [ Manual of Administrative Operations and Procedures ] and/or [ Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines ] -- These are the FBI standards.
Google [ USAM ]
These guidelines show how the prosecutors and investigators find evidence, comply with internal procedures, and do things to enforce the law.
Google [ CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS ] These are the guidelines for _Congress_ to meet.
Google [ PART 160 DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATORY SYSTEM ] -- These are some example guidelines of what people are supposed to follow. Auditors are supposed to review these requirements; then do audit/samples to test whether the procedures are or are not being followed.
Once the auditor completes their review, they provide an audit report. The report is sometimes called a report of an "audit engagement". Either the audit report exists or it does not; either management met the requirements, or it did not; either the management developed a plan to correct their problems, or they did not. Once an audit is done, there is required _follow-up to test whether the implemented solutions solve the _original_ problem identified. Either the program/solution is _solving_ the problem or it is not.
- - - -
There's also problem the President has: There are mandatory audits which _he_ has to oversee, but the audit target is _outside his control_ This means, that we can test whether the _president's auditors_ were or were not doing their job.
Google [ PART 266 AUDITS OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AND OTHER NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS ]
That is the trap that Congress has laid. By funding these "non-US government entities", what Congress has created are entities which can _observe_ whether the President is or is not overseeing his auditors; and how competent the audits are.
Don't miss the point: Congress is allowed to set up dummy entities not to waste money, but to create _bait_ that the President is _required_ to engage, target, and put under surveillance. The Presidents' problem is that he doesn't know which of the companies are real; or which ones are bait that are direct reporting units to the Congressional staffers.
Anything that the bait detects is then back challenged to Congress: Has the team from the President's office attempted to do something inappropriate; have the audit rules been followed; or have there been unusual interactions suggesting that the President and RNC have attempted to deploy "people not related to the President".
The problem: Once Congress creates this dummy entity, from that point on, all interactions with that entity are from a specific _time_. Congress can then use the President's efforts to interact -- directly or indirectly -- and test:
A. What are the President's method to share information about the upcoming target;
B. Who is coordinating;
C. And are the President's personnel able to professional respond to unusual situations.
These are part of the _designed_ problems the President is forced to confront. Then, going backwards from the audit, we can examine
1. Which data fields did the President's auditors use, access, and adjust when _preparing_ for the audit;
2. Which records _only related to this dummy audit_ were created; and how were those records updated; and how was the information sent/transmitted/stored
3. Once we let this data sit for a while, and then create the impression that there ha has been illegal activity, what effort do legal counsel, the President, DOJ staff, and others make to destroy that audit data that was _only_ connected to that bogus entity.
This is what has happened with the President right now. He and his auditors have been set up; the records that they've destroyed were based on discrete communications on specific dates and times. Before that information was received, the records were fine; after the data was received, the records were destroyed.
SO we can pinpoint:
1. What the President, DoJ Staff, legal counsel, OVP, EOP, and others were told; how they were told; and the means that the records were stored;
2. The time that the triggering event occurred;
3. Then trace the record holes -- knowing that a credible search would trigger responses related to the known target.
Once those known targets are missing, then we broaden the line of inquiry:
A. When did legal counsel review the information, procedures, and conduct an audit;
B. Who last had access;
C. Who had the responsibility to establish this baseline.
It can't be changed. Either its there; or its not. The President's problem is he doesn't know which of the data sets have been planted; and that doesn't matter: There are known holes that were once linked with information that outside personnel put there _knowing_ they would be removed.
There is a second set of data that can be compared to the existing data set. That second data set is a clean version of all the data. Had the auditors done their job, and the records not been destroyed, the clean/secure version would match the President's version. Again, we don't need t to see any details of how they do things: We only need to plant the data, and let the President put that information where it is supposed to go; then let him destroy it. Then the second/secure data set is presented to the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury can see the holes; and the _time_ that the holes were created.
That is his problem with the FISA, Prisoner abuse, and the Geneva violations. Discrete information was transmitted; and on specific dates the NSA, NSC, and President were _known_ to believe something that was orchestrated. They've reacted to something they thought was real. Whether it was or was not real is irrelevant. The point is that the data existed; then its missing; and the missing holes are linked with specific lines of data and evidence that only specific people were told.
Those people are linked with specific offices, budgets, computers. It's all been stored, secure, and even if they destroy the records, they have no idea what other things are happening. This has been done using methods the NSA cannot detect. There are Trojan horses inside the NSA systems, WH computers, and other things: They are not viruses, but they are discrete information packages that are organized in unique ways. They're either there, as they're supposed to be; or they've been destroyed.
Part of the answer to this is the Congressional Correspond log. These are the records that show when Members of Congress were notified by letter of certain things. JCS, NSA, WH, and all other departments have the same type of tracking systems. If you noticed on the DOJ e-mails, you may have come across something called a "work flow": These are discrete tasks. Once a person is assigned a task, that is logged; either the log is OK, and has the information; or the log has been tampered with.
Again, once NSC and NSA have been triggered with a known event that will catch their attention, that package of information will get stored. Either it is still there as it should be, and the auditors can locate it; or its not there, because its been tampered with. Once the auditors know which information they're looking for, but that information is gone, then they can tell something about the entities responsiveness; procedural compliance. If its there, fine; but if its missing, then they do a flow charge of the procedures from data collection to data storage. They can tell who accessed it; which personnel had which authorities; and when the information -- known to have been stored -- was removed.
That removal is linked with pre-destruction e-mails, guidance, and other memoranda linked with the legal counsel. The problem is when legal counsel also has missing gaps at the same time as the data is missing.
Here's the problem for the President and Congress and outside legal counsel: Once the dummy entity is created, it can be determined who was aware of that information; and the means by which Congress, the President, outside counsel and others coordinated their efforts to retaliate, identify, and discredit those who are involved.
Once the President and/or Congress and/or legal counsel issue a subpoena for something that is _false_; and has been created with the intent to _identify_ the methods the President is using to support illegal activity, that court action is linked to that discrete task. The problem is the legal counsel, Congress, and President have rushed without thinking, and have generated evidence, memoranda, notes, and communications.
The issue isn't what _is_ going one, but is the _line of evidence_ that should be in the Congressional computers, Presidents' files, and the legal counsel records be there? Their problem is they cannot control the records _of their responses, messages, communications, and documentation_ which have been stored _outside their control_. Again, we have two sets of data: The data that should be there if things were going as required; and the remaining data that will have holes.
Once we align the two timelines, the holes will then be traceable to legal counsel communications, presidential notes, conversations, and Member of Congress communications. Don't miss the point: Congress and the President, not just legal counsel, have a problem. There are required stops that all three have taken; and then not acted on. They're stuck. This goes back to 2001. They can't prevent the comparison between what should have happened; vs what their records say happened. The holes are things they can't go back and fill. They're not sure exactly what they were dealing with.
Review:
The first line of evidence is in the Congressional correspond logs. These are the notification dates to Congress on FISA violations, illegal activity, prisoner abuse, and other things.The second lines of evidence is the IG memoranda they get from the ranking Members related to problems.
The third line of evidence is the audit engagement and workflow.
The fourth line of evidence is the audit report of compliance related to that audit engagement.
The fifth line of evidence is the safeguarded information which the President, Congress, and legal counsel have been exposed to and either: Ignored, reacted to, panicked, or did what they were supposed to do.
This information relates to the safeguarded information provided to outside personnel at the EU; and has been transmitted by the CIA to foreign entities.
Then we go down the oath of office, list of malfeasance standards, and start our prosecutions of Members of Congress, the President, VP, legal counsel, DoJ-EOP-OVP legal staff. They're stuck. This isn't just a data retention problem, this is related to allegations of war crimes, malfeasance.
Small tiny problem: It's July 2007, sixteen [16] months before the 2008 election. Congress, the President, and legal counsel know they are stuck. Normally, they have the advantage on their side: They can find a scapegoat, and agree to pin the problem on them; this time -- they are the problem, and they can't bury this.
All the notifications to Congress are documented; legislative immunity falls apart; and their defenses fall away when we look at what they did; then compare it with what they should have done per 5 USC 3331, their oath of office. We need only look at the FISA violations -- as reported publicly -- then compare that with the open information -- of that illegal activity -- and contrast that with the votes: They, knowing there was a problem with illegal activity, continued to fund and spend money on things that violated the Constitution. Nobody made them. they freely chose to do this; despite knowing of that illegal activity, they did not -- as they had the power to do -- either document their concerns with the IGS or US Atty; nor did they remove themselves from the votes to pay for what they should have known was not lawful.
_Your Points_
S1: Procedure check sheets: "there must be paper trails of procedures." -- Yes, and these are not classified. They are open records. Auditors' compliance testing is also public evidence.
S2: Investigations: [ "Procedures for everything! And whether it is investigations that took place (or didn't)" ] Indeed.
S3: Evidence: [ "what kinds of paper trails may exist" ] Right again. Not complicated.
S4: Storage: [ "what form they might be stored" ] Right, and there are standards not only for the way the data is stored; but also the physical infrastructure used: Not just information, but security of that IT hardware that comes up with a 32 CFR 2800 audit.
S5: Indicators: [ "what the data suggest was happening" ] Right, all we have to do is ook at the holes. The bigger the hole, the bigger the problem _they_ have. The key is the timeline: What happened; what was their _known_ response; and then what is missing _despite_ their procedures to follow when notified of that event/information.
Evidence is not needed proving that they didn't do their job; the fact that there are holes this big, and no correction, but continued funding is enough. Take your pick: This is all over the place. You have to decide your deadline to make this decision; and when you want to stop. _That's_ the concern: It appears people are spending so much time digging through this evidence, that they're missing the big picture: Each line of evidence isn't telling us new information: It's part of the same kettle of fish: Malfeasance in re FISA violations, prisoner abuse, rendition, war crimes, and oath of office.
Time to engage with the State AGs. All fifty [50] of them, and bring in the Certified Fraud Examiners, Auditors, and some people who have some inclination of the prosecution possible against the Members of Congress, president, VP, and legal counsel in OVP, DoJ, EOP, and outside legal counsel. We don't need more evidence; we need some public trials, indictments, prosecutions, legal counsel disbarments, and jail time. The oath wasn't enough to inspire them.
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 10:19 PM
You are correct. They use a system of intermediaries who process the FISA warrants. They're also located overseas.Also, think broadly when you See the word "data mining" What could someone be induced to believe was "lawful"? If a "computer" does the "mining" does that mean a "person" isn't violating the Constitution? Someone's argued that.
The problem is fiduciary duty; and responsibility. Someone had to write the software; and that software was written with the intent it do something; then someone has to audit that software to ensure it meets the requirements. That auditor is supposed to review:
A. What are the legal requirements, restrictions;
B. What is this software doing;
C. Are there any problems
D. Has the certification of that legal compliance been tested independently?Oversight means overseeing, not pointing to confusion, and hoping it remains hidden behind a secret briefing. Either it's explained in plain English; or it is not. The problem is when FISA violations are rubber stamped on the basis of gobbly goop.
The Constitution is very simple and clear. All that is required is that you comply with it. When you ignore it, then you have a problem: The "excuses to ignore" these simple rules, then become the same excuse to ignore planning, leadership, oversight, backups, training, and audits. Then we have Katrina, botched operations in Afghanistan, and a President that has to be fed lines because he can't think on his feet. We need real leadership, not what we have.
"So that's why they had to classify everything!!!"
Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 10:52 PM
- - - -
Google [ ORCON Executive Order corruption ]
- - -
Yes, and there's a rule about that as well: ORCON, it's illegal go classify evidence of illegal activity.Which takes us back to the dispute over Cheney's assertion that "that" EO "didn't apply." The "EO that did or didn't apply" contains the rules on ORCON.
It doesn't matter whether the "_EO_" did or didn't apply, the _32 CFR 2800_ does apply: It has OVP name on it. It can be enforced through prosecutions; and that CFR _does_ list EOs which _do_ apply.Whether the _standards listed_ does or does not apply is meaningless; the issue is whether the _requirement_ regardless which standard is used, ignored, or explained away is _legally enforceable_. Arguing over which EO does or doesn't apply is a distraction from [a] the ORCON requirements which prohibit classification of that data; and [b] the data which _must_ be protected per the applicable CFR: 38 CFR 2800.
- - - -
This takes us back to the RNC e-mails. Recall, the White Hose legal counsel did something very stupid:
1. Determined that the information would be protected by privilege
2. Created an illegal backup database
3. Destroyed that databaseHere's the problem, and why we know legal counsel was involved: Once someone assumes a database will "never" see the light of day; they have a choice: Do they talk candidly; or do they use that "to be forever hidden" database to hide illegal activity?
Here's how we know something very important: Once the evidence of illegal activity was _known_ to be revealed; and that _claims_ of executive privilege would _fail_, then they had a problem: The backup e-mail could be detected; and the _existence_ and content of that backup e-mail could be breached.
In other words, one does not destroy evidence in the RNC e-mails unless they believe that privilege would fail; but then contradict themselves and say, "But we have executive privilege". That defies reason. Again, if the _expectation_ of privilege -- going forward from time of creation -- were real, then there would have been [wait for it] [a] no reason to have a backup systems; no reason to have an e-mail system that violated the law; and no reason to _destroy_ the very thing that would "forever" enjoy a shield of privilege.
- - -Rule: Privilege isn't a power: It's a _claim_ that the _court_ doe snot have to recognize. If a claim of privilege has been abused; or adverse inferences _about missing data_ suggest that the evidence was _illegally destroyed_, the claim of privilege is one that the court is _not required_ to recognize. A defendant can do things that will make the claim meaningless, without effect, or irrelevant: By disclosing that information in an e-mail, as Miers did with the DoJ e-mail.
Executive privilege isn't something the _court_ is required to recognize. It can be claimed, asserted, and demanded as a "right" but that's meaningless: It is a _court recognized_ claim that the court -- for whatever reason it chooses -- can refuse.The key is for the Grand Jury to know: It can decide that the _claim_ of privilege was not real; and that it was _not_ reasonable for legal counsel to believe that the claim of privilege was bonafide. In other words, going forward from the time that the e-mail was created, and the fact that that "supposedly privileged e-mail was destroyed" wold _undermine_ confidence that counsel _really_ believed that the evidence was privileged or protected. Again, it makes no sense for counsel to argue "but it's privilege" _while_ that supposed "stuff which would never see the light of day" is destroyed.
This then translates into whether legal counsel's _assertions_ to the grand jury about what they _believed_ was privileged are true; or whether the legal counsel has _retroactively_ asserted something which is not supported by the subsequent actions. Namely, once legal counsel says -- in hindsight -- we "believed' our actions were lawful, they key point is: That is a _dubious belief_ and a _dubious assertion of what was a belief_ because of the subsequent destruction of information that was supposedly going to be shielded.
In so many words, the problem legal counsel has is that their "assertion of a belief" about that evidence and legality of that data archiving method gets called into question: And forms _for the Grand Jury_ a reasonable basis to impeach that legal counsel as a witness. This means that the Grand Jury says, "We do not believe this witness"; whether they want to investigate that legal counsel further over that dubious claim is what the Libby Grand Jury did.
- - -In other words, going back to our discrete events, RNC legal counsel and WH Counsel established that illegal database and e-mail system; but _then_ were alerted to [a] questions about that content; but then [b] worried that their _claim_ of executive privilege would fail.
This is linked to the Grand Jury subpoenas in re Libby and Ashcroft. Once the evidence destruction _time_ is known, we can pinpoint _what_ they were responding to. Again, if the privilege claims were bonafide -- that the WH counsel "believed" the documents were privileged -- they wold not have a reason to set up any backup system; or destroy the very thing that was supposed to be shielded.
The key is subtle: _When_ did WH counsel suddenly get religion and realize, "Our dubious belief that this claim of privilege would prevail isn't going to work; someones told them what is here; we can't hide this behind privilege; we have to destroy this."
The only people who cold understand [a] what data there was; [b] where it was located; [c] how it was crated; and [d] the assumptions they had relative to executive privilege were the people who made the rules, did the vetting for the documents, and knew the rules of privilege.
At some point _after_ the Grand Jury subpoena landed, WH counsel had two paths they attempted to go down at the same time: First, their legal/public position of asserting privileged; but second, the private path of comparing which documents would most likely be admissible, and not survive the claim of privilege, and had to be destroyed.
Someone did a comparison _after_ the Subpoena landed, but moved quickly enough to sort through the data, and get rid of the things that had _previously_ been retained. In other words, someone convinced themselves -- after a first look -- that the documents would be protected; but then something changed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Timeline: (Time from left to right)
There are seven milestones: [ A-G ]
[ ] --[1] -- X ---[2] ---- 0 -----[3] ------- D
A. [ ] Origination of data
B. [Phase 1]
C. X First visit/review
D. [Phase 2]
E. 0 Subpoenas land
F. [Phase 3]
G. D Destruction
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---The time line is simple: After first creation point [ ], A , there is a timeline of data; that was not tampered with _for some time_ [Phase 1], B; then, they had a problem, looked at the data [c] , but decided to do nothing [Phase 2], D; then they had a real problem [E]: Ooops, we aren't going to be able to hide this [Phase 3], F; then the destruction orders went out [G].
Each of those points is discrete; and things were kept; and other things were not kept; things were reviewed; and there were discussions inside the RNC and WH Counsel's office.
Again, we're not talking about conversations that are privilege, but the WH Counsel's office discussions about the _problematic data_: That discussion is different, and not protected. That's what the outside legal counsel has a problem with right now: They were the ones who knew the standards; did the audit; and came back with certifications.
Either they found problems and documented them; or they didn't find the problems and left them alone. Their problem: They don't know which data was deliberately placed in the WH Datasets, and sent through the RNC e-mails with the intent that it be _destroyed_: It would create a hole for the auditors to ask: "Why isn't this here?" RNC doesn't know what was test data; and which was real data. They can't tell the difference. Someone else does. Not them.
The problem they have is that they didn't realize what was happening _while_ it happened. Again, this isn't just in the WH, but all over the place. and not just in the President's office, but OSC, DoJ, EOP, OVP, NSA, NSC, and Congress.
They have no control over the baseline data which has been captured, and remains secure outside their control. They're being led to believe the data -- including all backups -- has been totally destroyed. Now they realize they have a problem.But it's worse than they imagined. CIA transferred data to the EU: This is connected with the NSA intercepts of the war crimes; confirming the timing of the notifications to the White House; and explaining the timelines of the destruction actions. Add in the Libby and Abramoff investigations and destruction, and the President has another problem: Too many discrete events that the RNC is _responding to_; and too many holes that are only linked with concerns about _discrete events_.
The destruction wasn't random, but related to awareness by WH counsel that their original delusions weren't going to prevail. That's the key: It only takes one link between notification, and subsequent destruction for the WH Counsel to hang themselves. It's already happened. Multiple Times. Take your pick:
A. Conversations over whether to transfer prisoners after disclosure of Eastern European prisoner abuses;
B. Whether to, after the Supreme Court ruled against them, to move the prisoners;
C. Coordination with members of Congress to start investigation of the _leaks_, despite the President knowing for one year that the NYT had been looking at things. Surely if the President was "concerned" about leaks, he wouldn't ta
I know the above is long, but it seems important, and as if someone is trying to devulge something, you might want to check it out. Any comments, thoughts insights???
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 1 2007 0:51 utc | 47
@ beq, et al...
Justice Department Tips Off Senator Stevens Before Searching His Home!
Stevens said in a statement that his attorneys were advised of the impending search yesterday morning.
Anyone out there been given an advance warning of a search of their home by police?
Anyone?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 1 2007 1:47 utc | 48
Re #46 by Uncle $: Holy Cow! Whatta read!
I'm going to have to work on this one. It sure sounds like somebody knows something though. Right?
Posted by: Jake | Aug 1 2007 3:36 utc | 49
this comment is also interesting, it gives a deeper, darker context to what Bush and/or Cheney might be trying to hide.
Then again, maybe it will lead to looking at/dismissing this--the AG-gate scandal, etc.--as just an extension of 9-11 Truthers' 'conspiracy theories'.
I don't dismiss such connections/theories, but we all know how the MSM reacts to anything that touches on such.
So: I hope raising this will spark interest in this thread, but will not have misdirect discussion.
That said, I gotta say, I've long wondered about that meeting in early July. If there were two meetings and I'm confusing them, someone set me straight--but I think 'there can be only one' high level meeting with Rice, when Tenet and some unnamed 'other' gave a power point to alert the administration about very strong concerns re some sort of terrorist strike.
Does this narrow who that unnamed 'other' was? Was is Mueller? I remember word coming out about this meeting about a year ago (when Woodward's book had just come out?) and being puzzled that Richard Clarke said something that gave Rice some cover/defense against attacks from Dems, etc. for having been warned in such a way and not having acted effectively.
The comment below doesn't answer things, but it's interesting that the July 5th mtg. which stirred up such an interesting flurry at the time I'm thinking of, is maybe again a part of the flow of meaningful events.
I think I have figured out why Mueller is parsing his words and what the White House is protecting:The illegal Project X wiretaps had captured information on Zacarious Moussaoui that could have prevented the 9-11-2001 attacks from occurring at all.
"A senior FBI official attending the White House meeting on July 5th (2001) committed the bureau to redouble contacts with its foreign counterparts and to speed up transcription and analysis of wiretaps obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), among other steps.
But when the field agent in Phoenix, Arizona, reported the suspicions of a hijacking plot just five days later, the FBI did not share the report with any other agency. One must ask, why?
...
On August 15,2001, an alert civilian instructor at a Minnesota flight school called the FBI" ...
The FBI office in Minnesota attempted to get a FISA warrant, but they were rebuffed. A crucial mistake, because Zacarias Moussaoui’s possessions contained evidence that would have exposed key elements of the September 11th plot.But, why was this request denied? Again, the historical facts must be analyzed.
In March 2001, an internal debate ignited at the Justice Department and the FBI over wiretap surveillance of certain terrorist groups. Prompted by questions raised by Royce C. Lamberth, the Chief Judge of the FISA Court, the Justice Department opened an inquiry into Michael Resnick an FBI official who coordinated the Act’s applications. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller (then deputy Attorney General), ordered a full review of all foreign surveillance authorizations.
...
The article goes on to state, “the men then phoned Bangor airport trying to get a flight to Boston but were told there was no flight that matched their desired departure time, the authorities said. The men then phoned Portland International JetPort, where two of them apparently made reservations for a flight to Boston on Tuesday morning.”How would this information be gleaned so quickly? How would the FBI know to visit a store in Bangor, Maine only hours after the attacks? Moreover, how would they know the details of a phone conversation that occurred a week prior to the attacks?"
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/senatecommittee091802b.html
Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 5:19 PM
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 1 2007 4:29 utc | 50
So here's the end scenario - Deepthroat goes To the New York Times - this time not just as some random blogger.
But as someone who is ready and willing at last to step forward. He is introduced in the media with his real name, and his real rank and title at whatever agency he works at.
He brings tapes, transcripts, emails, copies of every offense that BushCo has
devellopped and used to prop up operation upon illegal operation.
It is a story that rivals the Ellsberg release decades ago.
The Nation is outraged.
but Congress says "It sure would be a lot of work to do something about all this; after all, there will be an election in November of '08. Let's just wait it out. That way we can adjourn for our long awaited summer vacation."
1. Nancy still says it would be too "divisive" to do anything about it, and that she wants to focus on her own agenda.
2. Said whistleblower gets attacked by the MSM criminally complicit corporate media night and day, eventually becoming today's Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Cindy Sheehan or Valerie Plame.
3. The whole thing will eventually blow over and be forgotten.
back to your regular programming, but hey! hopping mad bunny says the dems will save us!
Posted by: | Aug 1 2007 5:09 utc | 51
Cheney shows up on Larry King, and says he was wrong about things; Rumsfeld agrees to testify about the execution (not on his own orders) of a football hero leading a charge on the battlefield; Bush razzes the press at Camp David; a spokesman acknowledges that the government has been reading everyone's mail for the past six years; and the Chairman-elect of the Joint Chiefs opines that the whole Iraqi adventure is nothing more than a great big disaster....
How soft, how soothing it all is! Ah yes, oh loyal opposition, we've certainly made some mistakes, but then we're all human--we're all just folks, trying to do our job.
And just what job might that be, you bad, bad Republicans?
WHY, IT'S YOUR JOB, YOU ASSHOLES--THE ONE YOU GAVE US BACK IN SEPTEMBER 2001! TO MASSACRE EVERYTHING WALKS THAT AND TALKS IN THE BAD, BAD WORLD OF ALLAH. WOULD YOU DO THIS ANY BETTER THAN WE HAVE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN? GIVE IT A TRY IF YOU THINK SO, BUT NEVER, NEVER THINK THAT WE DIDN'T DO OUR BEST, AND AT YOUR BEHEST, YOU HYPOCRITICAL ASSHOLES!
(Find me just ONE elected official in the USA who has denounced this war, in unequivocal terms, as the wicked and evil initiative of a wicked and evil electorate. Just one--not two--going back, shall we say, to the year 2001. I'd be grateful for this piece of information, because I haven't been able to find it. I don't know how to Google it, for example; I haven't learned how to tweak the most powerful search-engine ever invented by men, or angels, or gods...).
Posted by: alabama | Aug 1 2007 5:49 utc | 52
Multiple Programs confirmed:
NSA Spying Part of Broader Effort
The Bush administration's chief intelligence official said yesterday that President Bush authorized a series of secret surveillance activities under a single executive order in late 2001. The disclosure makes clear that a controversial National Security Agency program was part of a much broader operation than the president previously described.The disclosure by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, appears to be the first time that the administration has publicly acknowledged that Bush's order included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005.
...
Under siege: drug shortage 'is killing patients in Gaza'
Shifa hospital, the biggest in the Gaza Strip, is running out of drugs. It is performing emergency operations only. The CAT scanner is out of service for want of spare parts. The orthopaedic department no longer has plaster of Paris. Hospital managers appealed yesterday to the international community to lift the siege on Gaza, which imposed after Hamas seized control in June.Dr Juma al-Saqa, a hospital spokesman, told reporters they needed 150 tons of medicines urgently. On Monday, Israel allowed the Red Cross to bring in 50 tons. That was not enough.
Dr Moaya Abu Hasnein, the director of accident and emergency, said dozens of cancer and kidney patients were slowly dying because of the boycott. While the Rafah crossing, formerly manned by European Union monitors, remained closed, it was impossible to transfer patients to Egypt. He reported that about 700 emergency cases had been sent to hospitals in Israel and the West Bank over the past month, but that left many more behind.
Pentagon announces 20,000 troop rotation for Iraq
The latest deployment calls for two Marine Corps regimental combat teams from Camp Pendleton, California, to arrive in Iraq for a 12-month tour in December, the Pentagon said.The Marines so far had a 7 month deployment cycle which was prelonged from their usual 6 month cycle. Now it's 12 month.The Army's 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, Texas, would also arrive in December but for a 15-month tour of duty.
A First Marine Expeditionary Force headquarters unit from Camp Pendleton would then deploy to Iraq early next year for 12 months.
The current deployment schedule would keep the Army brigade and First Marine Expeditionary Force unit in Iraq into 2009.
Next step: shorten the recreation cycle for all troops down to 9 month from the current 12 month. ...
Remember Jordan, the state created out of eastern Palestine and a few other bits to ensure that Palestine would always be too weak to resist Israel? The Hashemites were told to go hang out there by the Brits and the French when the ibn-Saud family got Saudi and didn't want to have to deal with competing bids to steal the oil.
Didn't cop the irony? Well neither did the Palestinians who didn't really want these self-indulgents, who are a British caricature of a 'wog sheik'. Jordan's imported King Hussein was a 'good Arab' - to generations of English newspaper readers. He had a great RAF mustache and flew british made jet fighters, protected himself from the locals by British trained Gurkhas under the command of english public schoolboys who always phoned home before obeying any 'tricky' order from the King. The locals don't laugh too much about his son Abdullah either, who is trying to ease just a little, the leash of oppression, around the throats of his 'subjects'.
The long outlawed Muslim League were the unofficial opposition for decades and now that young Abdullah has decided to have one of those new fangled election things to decide the mayors of the Jordanian villages, there has been plenty of trouble down at mill.
It seems the opposition had been labouring under the illusion that the mayoralties which had been by royal appointment, would now be decided by the population of each village. Al-Jazera had some great footage last night of a bloke trying to cast his ballot, only to have to hand over his drivers license and passport as well, which, along with the ballot paper are carefully read by the election official who then hands the lot to a conveniently nearby policeman, who also reads the ballot paper intensely followed by the passport and drivers license. The copper then passes the paperwork back to the by now cowering voter who he instructs to place the vote in the glass box. "See anybody was allowed to vote" - while the cameras were there. I'm sure that everyone else in the village got the message though.
Anyway according to this BBC story the opposition got the shits with the farce and pulled the pin deciding to withdraw from the whole finangle before the results of the cheat was made official.
Of course the beeb would hate to think there was anything really wrong in the land of the good arabs- well mostly good except for those pesky Palestinians - so they headline it Jordan election marred by boycott rather than the more accurate "Jordanian election marred by fraud".
Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 1 2007 7:50 utc | 56
sheesh alabama, isn't that kinda chicken and egg stuff?
did the citizenry call out for blood without any stimulation or was it choreographed?
isn't there always and everywhere a knee jerk reaction to danger, whether it be real or percieved?
who even knew what or who al qaeda was on Sept 10, 2001? On Sept 11, 2001 our government was quick to point out who the villians were, before any investigation could be conducted it was very clear that evil arabs had attacked our country without any provocation whatsover. you sure can't take something like that laying down, how dare they! we had to strike back, it was a point of honor.
blaming good, believe the government tells the truth, people for this clusterfvck is not really fair. it would be silly and extraordinarily hypocritical for any politico to denounce the voters for taking us into war. when was the decision to invade Iraq put on the ballot?
Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 1 2007 8:41 utc | 57
"when was the decision to invade Iraq put on the ballot?"
Exactly.
Posted by: beq | Aug 1 2007 11:57 utc | 58
Dear all,
For those of you who may have doubted my claims on another thread about Iran's educational and scientific prowess, according to Stanford University (see one-minute video below) Sharif is “the best in the world”. The commentator also goes on to say that Sharif graduates are granted automatic green cards, and that “There’s an innate intelligence to this country. It’s not simply the ‘black robes’ we’ve been describing.” But as far as Bush is concerned, this is "just another country" to destroy in America's goal of dominating the Middle East's energy resources and enabling Israel to continue its terrorist policies:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=s957W6jomBc
Posted by: Parviz | Aug 1 2007 12:34 utc | 59
So much alphabet soup to wade through but thanks for your posts Uncle. WHY doesn't someone come forward? Is Joe Wilson the only one without fear?
Posted by: beq | Aug 1 2007 12:55 utc | 60
The Justice Department serving the bandits: U.S. Attorney Became Target After Rebuffing Justice Dept.
The night before the government secured a guilty plea from the manufacturer of the addictive painkiller OxyContin, a senior Justice Department official called the U.S. attorney handling the case and, at the behest of an executive for the drugmaker, urged him to slow down, the prosecutor told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.I wonder how many such cases will stay in the dark ...John L. Brownlee, the U.S. attorney in Roanoke, testified that he was at home the evening of Oct. 24 when he received the call on his cellphone from Michael J. Elston, then chief of staff to the deputy attorney general and one of the Justice aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year.
Brownlee settled the case anyway. Eight days later, his name appeared on a list compiled by Elston of prosecutors that officials had suggested be fired.
Larisa Alexandrovna: Total Information Awareness Is Alive And Kicking
"A controversial counter-terrorism program, which lawmakers halted more than two years ago amid outcries from privacy advocates, was stopped in name only and has quietly continued within the intelligence agency now fending off charges that it has violated the privacy of U.S. citizens.
Research under the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness program -- which developed technologies to predict terrorist attacks by mining government databases and the personal records of people in the United States -- was moved from the Pentagon's research-and-development agency to another group, which builds technologies primarily for the National Security Agency, according to documents obtained by National Journal and to intelligence sources familiar with the move. The names of key projects were changed, apparently to conceal their identities, but their funding remained intact, often under the same contracts."
How about this little gem from 2002?
"Embedded in the nearly 500 pages of the current House version of the Homeland Security Act is language that could give the federal government sweeping powers to secretly monitor e-mails, bank accounts, credit card transactions, telephone calling cards, medical records, and travel documents – all without a search warrant – and keep that data in a centralized database. The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is already pursuing the creation of such a vast electronic dragnet. Admiral John Poindexter, who heads the Information Awareness Office at DARPA, argues that the government needs to "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases to find terrorists before they can attack the United States...
Call it what you want, but Total Information Awareness is the federal government creating a surveillance state to spy on its own citizenry. Of course, the rationale for such draconian action is that it will help catch would-be terrorists before they inflict harm on innocent Americans. This preys on the public's new sense of vulnerability and places safety above liberty. As Benjamin Franklin said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."'
How about this little gem from 2003?
"Members of Congress were queuing up this week to express their indignation at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's proposal to create a futures market where investors could bet on the likelihood of terrorist attacks. "There is something very sick about it," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). She demanded that Congress "end the careers of whoever it was who thought that up."
So why are people still surprised about the Bush administration having "other surveillance" programs as part of one huge program that Congress already said "NO" on? Remember, the Iran Contra gang got a big NO from Congress and did what? Exactly what Congress said NO on. Who is in office now? Many members of the Iran Contra gang. You get the idea now? So the latest on the illegal surveillance program is this:
- snip -
Is the White House declassifying intelligence for political reasons? Yep. They are hoping this will save Gonzo from his own perjury. The problem of course, is that Gonzo lied about so many things, that this will do little to save him. Especially when one considers that he claimed a discussion took place prompted by members of Congress regarding "other intelligence" activities, when no members of Congress - that is the gang of 8 - recall anything other than what they call the TSP wiretapping program being discussed.
There are two separate questions here:
Did Gonzo lie to Congress? and
Are there other surveillance programs?
The answer to both is yes.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 1 2007 13:57 utc | 62
Small tiny problem: It's July 2007, sixteen [16] months before the 2008 election. Congress, the President, and legal counsel know they are stuck. Normally, they have the advantage on their side: They can find a scapegoat, and agree to pin the problem on them; this time -- they are the problem, and they can't bury this.
Uncle $cam, you're a treasure. Thank you.
W.
Posted by: Wolf DeVoon | Aug 1 2007 15:41 utc | 63
Somalia: A UN humanitarian delegation visits Mogadishu's IDP camps
Mogadishu 01, August.07 ( Sh.M.Network)- UN humanitarian coordinator, Eric Laroche, along with other UN officers, arrived in Mogadishu, the Somali capital, on Wednesday. They visited some of Mogadishu's IDP camps.The AU/AMISOM troops assigned for the escort of the VIPs have tightened security during their visiting. Holding a press conference in UNDP headquarter in Mogadishu, Laroche said he was shocked to see the huge number of the internally displaced people that are camped in Mogadishu.
"We have been told that the number of Mogadishu's IDPs could be estimated around 300,000 but we have seen a larger number than that," he said indicating the refugees were in need of relief supplies. "People need clean water, food and medical assistance," he added.
a press release from the Somali Council of the Islamic Courts (SCIC) states
The Ethiopian troops and the TFG malitias have been using destructive weapons and all types of violence against the people of Somalia, particularly in Mogadishu in an attempt to reduce the support base of the resistance against the Ethiopian occupation.As a result, many people, including children, women, and the elderly have been killed. Many others have been maimed, and over one million people have been forced to flee their homes and their properties have been looted by the Ethiopian troops and their supporting TFG malitias led by some of the NOTORIOUS SOMALI WARLORDS.
http://www.shabelle.net/news/ne3445.htm
Mogadishu 01, August.07 ( Sh.M.Network)- Some of Mogadishu residents began fleeing as violence has escalated since government troops have been stationed in the capital's biggest open-air market, Bakara, in early July.After contingents of Somali military and police forces occupied Yaqshid neighborhood, north of the capital, on Tuesday, residents started fleeing. Our reporter, Nimo Hassan, said she saw many families carrying as many house items as they could and moving to outside of the capital.
Madina Ahmed, a mother of four, said she and her children were moving to Afgoi, 30 KM west of Mogadishu. "We are afraid because the largest number of Somali troops is in our neighborhood. We will remain in Afgoi until the situation is calm," she said.
Abdirisaq Mohammed Ali, a young man left to keep an eye on at least 4 homes in the vicinity, told Shabelle that most of the people there fled fearing that fighting might erupt.
"Most of the villagers fled because they said the rising number of government troops here might draw more attacks from the rebels, especially at nights," he said.
Our reporter also stated that she saw at least six neighborhoods in north of the capital where most of the residents fled.
and, again, this quote from a u.s. foreign policy establishment publication
Does the Somali Model apply to Darfur?I think not. Sudan has a regime that controls the country. The thing that made encouraging the Ethiopians so easy is that Somalia didn’t really have a central government in place, which made breaching its sovereignty so easy. In fact, the Ethiopians tried to consolidate a government in exile that would be internationally recognized. So, Somalia was a unique situation from the standpoint of international law. You couldn’t send in a proxy force of any kind into Sudan without raising sovereignty issues.
txt of yesterday's UN Security Council Resolution 1769 on Darfur Hybrid Force
Posted by: b real | Aug 1 2007 15:53 utc | 64
3rd link above was supposed to be
somalia: Mogadishu violence forces people to flee
Posted by: b real | Aug 1 2007 15:55 utc | 65
john bellamy foster: The Latin American Revolt : An Introduction
The revolt against U.S. hegemony in Latin America in the opening years of the twenty-first century constitutes nothing less than a new historical moment. Latin America, to quote Noam Chomsky, is “reasserting its independence” in an attempt to free itself from centuries of imperialist domination. The gravity of this threat to U.S. power is increasingly drawing the attention of Washington. Julia Sweig, Latin American program director at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the twenty-first century is likely to be known as the “Anti-American Century,” marking a growing intolerance of the “waning” U.S. empire. Outweighing even the resistance to the U.S. war machine in Iraq in this respect, Sweig suggests, is the political realignment to the left in Latin America, which, in destabilizing U.S. rule in the Americas, offers a “prophetic microcosm” of what can be expected worldwide.
Posted by: b real | Aug 1 2007 18:35 utc | 67
@ Uncle #s 46/47 - Your anonymous commenter is everywhere now.
Posted by: beq | Aug 1 2007 19:10 utc | 68
it's been a long hard slog for the people of latin america. let's hope lessons learned inspire ME and african nations.
Posted by: annie | Aug 1 2007 19:14 utc | 69
@69
also, the peeps of the USA should also be proud that their governments have shown "un-historical" restraint towards Chavez in Venezuela. And towards Cuba too.
and i think that Americans more & more want something other than the totally self-interested gun-boat ways of the past.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 1 2007 22:50 utc | 70
Funding kiddie porn - What new depth of depravity can the New York Times sink to?
The lead article in Counterpunch right now is a report on the courtroom revelation that now sacked NYT journo Kurt Eichenwald made a number of 'under the table payments' to teenager Justin Berry who ran a website featuring kiddie porn. Although it had already been disclosed that Eichenwald made a single payment to Berry as recompense for an 'expose' style story on internet kiddie porn, the subsequent trials of some of those caught up in the NYT investigation reveals that there were other payments made before the porn site was loaded up with the porn.
In other words it's looks awfully like Eichenwald provided the 'seed' money for the venture.
How many children were corrupted by the NYT's desperation to sell a few more copies of it's fishwrap?
We know from other similar cases eg Judith Millar, Jayson Blair et al, that the Times will try and wriggle out from under by saying it "had no idea that this one bad apple in a barrel of wonderfully talented, honest and hardworking journalists was rotten at the core".
After a million dead bodies and 4 million refugees in Iraq a horror which would have had great difficulty in getting off the ground without NYT support, isn't it time for the Times to fix the obvious problems with it's culture and systems that these incidents reflect?
There is no way that Eichenwald would have pulled the multi-thousand dollar payments to Berry out of his own pocket. He would have been counting on the NYT to reimburse him at some stage. Eichenwald must have felt confident that reimbursement would happen or he wouldn't have forked out the cash. So there are systemic problems around NYT chequebook journalism when a reporter gets up to this sort of deception:
"While looking into the hard drives, Richards' lawyer Kimberly Hodde told federal court Judge Aleta Trauger on Tuesday, investigators discovered that in May or June 2005, someone calling himself Andrew McDonald used PayPal to send money to Berry from Dallas. "McDonald" used a Yahoo address, and one from AOL that the FBI earlier identified as Kurt Eichenwald's. Dallas is Eichenwald's home.In court, Richards' lawyers explained that they subpoenaed PayPal and got back a fake snail-mail address and two credit card numbers used to make the "Andrew McDonald" payments. They then subpoenaed the credit card companies to find out the real name of the person who owns the cards."
That is aside from the systemic problems that the NYT appears to have with it's recruitment practices. The barrel has a lot more rotten apples than the average bumwipe.
Which brings us to the issue of the NYT culture. What is it about the NYT environment that makes highly educated and skilled reporters who have managed to get themselves into one of the best paddocks on the farm, feel so pressured to get a big story that they risk everything they have worked for to generate the ink?
The NYT response to scandal is similar to that of the scumbag pols they tout on their front pages. If something turns to shit, there is no attempt to fix it, to right the wrong, because that might be perceived an an indication of guilt. Instead a great deal of time and energy is put into placing as much distance as possible between the paper and the miscreant. Have an 'ombudsman' castigate the rotten apple publicly. There - that proves the NYT wasn't part of it.
From this angle it is more like the barrel is rotten and it contaminates all the apples in it. That means the ombudsman's words aint worth shit either. If the Readers' Advocate is the paragon of virtue the paper asserts, then why the hell is he/she facilitating the retreat and cover-up?
Yuk. This type of oleaginous hypocrisy makes a normal person nauseous.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 1 2007 23:34 utc | 71
Yeah, anyone here besides me make it through Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow*?
Re-meme-ber kids,
Proverbs for Paranoids**
1. You may never get to touch the Master, but you can tickle his creatures.
2. The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immortality of the Master.
3. If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.
4. YOU hide, they seek.
5. Paranoids are not paranoids because they're paranoid, but because they keep putting themselves, fucking idiots, deliberately into paranoid situations.
1)CHECK
2)CHECK
3)DOUBLE CHECK, mThanks Media...
4)CHECK
5)CHECK W/caveat***
Also recall many MOA's including myself have spoke on the admin taking us to the very brink of collapse, well,
The I-35W bridge by the University of Minnesota campus has collapsed. The bridge, one of the most heavily traveled freeway bridges in the Twin Cities metro area, collapsed around 6:05 this evening. Sections of the freeway are said to be floating in the Mississippi as cars are stranded on standing portions of the bridge. Slideshow of Images Live (real-time) updates via mPR
Lear: Who is it that can tell me who I am? The Fool: Lear's shadow
How many here have pointed out we give money to Israel and waste so much on military projects even while our whole public infrastructure (sewer,power,water,roads), transportation, safety, justice,...
I bet they don't have these problems in the gated communities...yet. And when they do...?
Can you say, Blackwater?
The fourth turning prediction suggests a final abandon of futurist promises of social security, Medicare, and elder benefits. These New Deal projects will lie in the dust bins of history. Today's advice is to prepare for both economic and political upheaval. The federal government will need to simplify and reduce, size and scope. All levels of government need to prune legal, regulatory, and professional thickets that stymie institutional change. Government needs to thin out procedural requirements that could delay or weaken emergence measures in a crisis.
We control through omission and chaos! The Hegelian Dialectic of Problem, reaction, solution. We create the problem, or let it happen, we present the enhanced reaction interactively along with you surfs, and then we have spent billions of your money on 'think tanks/what if scenarios' that only benefits us, the powerful.
Ahhh, the economy thereby infrastructure couldn't be better, ya see, because we hide the numbers!
*b, the html of underlining text does not seem to work anymore, e.g., [u]blah blah[/u]
** 1),2)and 4) you can work out for yourselves, It wont be hard...
*** Remember folks it was Kissinger who said, "if your not paranoid in Washington"... it's grown exponentially since then.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 2 2007 2:03 utc | 72
a couple of comments based quotes pulled from the prepared stmts of witnesses testifying at wednesday's senate foreign relations committee hearing exploring the us africa command and a new strategic relationship with africa
theresa whelan, deputy asst secdef for african affairs:
We are looking for ways to increase capital and trade flows, the means by which mutual prosperity is built....
Stability and prosperity in Africa are important to the long-term interests of the United States.
...
AFRICOM represents an opportunity to strengthen and expand U.S. and African relationships in such a way that our combined efforts can help generate a more indigenous and, therefore, more sustainable peace and security on the continent.
major gen jonathan s. gration, usaf (ret.):
With US interests on this continent clearly defined and a united voice in Washington to advocate for requirement and resources, I believe we'll be able to advance America's interests in Africa better and build strong partnerships with African government to eliminate poverty and accelerate Africa's integration into the global economy.
michael hess, usaid:
We believe that AFRICOM can significantly advance the "Three D" concept, and facilitate the coordination of defense, diplomacy and development to advance American foreign policy interests on the continent of Africa.
the parallels to some of justifying rhetoric advancing the first scramble for africa are striking. evidently the good general (ret), despite being a south african, is not familiar w/ that earlier period of "Africa's integration into the global economy," when the end of the int'l slave trade led to the even more vicious territorial conquest which cast aside the continent's role as peripheral area for a key role, overseen by global colonizers of course, in the int'l economy. the mid-to-late nineteenth century was also a period of fervent "free trade" ideology which transitioned into monopoly capitalism, thus the scramble by the euro empires for global geostrategic domination, dividing the world into quasi-protectorates, of which africa was the most egregious example.
ms. whelan herself expresses how AFRICOM will bring order (accountability) and stability (reliability) to key regions of the continent to protect & further u.s. interests ("prosperity") in trade flows and capital accumulation. think tanks, such as the heritage foundation paper i recently pointed out, are calling for the civilian component of AFRICOM to push economic models focusing on the privatization of resources and services throughout the continent. this will allow for even more foreign owners to amass & extract capital from this resource-rich continent while developing commodity-export economies, for instance biofuel plantations to supply the western powers. this is not much different than what happened in the first scramble. the economies of the african nations did experience growth, but little in terms of development, as can still be seen today.
and the usaid official remarkably stated that "We believe that AFRICOM can significantly advance the "Three D" concept." defense, diplomacy and development. well, this is barely a step above the "three c's" -- coined by the perambulating scottish missionary david livingstone -- which were used to justify euro conquest of africa back a little over a hundred years ago: commerce, christianity and civilisation. so now we've moved up a letter in the alphabet and hope to instill in the natives our concepts of defense, diplomacy and development. and of course all of the sales pitches aimed toward africans constantly harp on the humanitarian focus of empire's latest unified combatant command, on how AFRICOM's purpose is to "help africans help themselves." the more honest assessment is that AFRICOM is being created to help u.s. americans to help themselves to africa's resources, but that's not as cute & catchy in these days of polished propaganda.
so the establishment is telling africans that they're bringing in those shiny new "three d's" this time. but what they don't tell them is that they'll also be taking three c's out of africa -- crude, capital and china.
Posted by: b real | Aug 2 2007 4:21 utc | 73
@68,
I've been wondering what Billmon has been up to. Hmmmmmmm.
Posted by: biklett | Aug 2 2007 5:01 utc | 74
Thanks b real,
Posters like you make MoA a great site.
The U.S. media -all media here - is so quiet on this.
One point though:
"... AFRICOM is being created to help u.s. americans to help themselves to africa's resources" >>> I'm not sure the American people are in on all this.
Posted by: Rick | Aug 2 2007 5:10 utc | 75
Luke Ryland has some interesting thoughts today on Tice's testimony. He says:
The thing is, Russ Tice tried to tell Congress about some of the NSA's illegal and unconstitutional spying programs and not a single person in congress had sufficiently high clearance to hear what Tice had to say - not even the Chairs of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees.
In fact, it's not apparent that the Attorney General is even clued into the program. . . .
Yes, we all acknowledge that they have the technical capability to spy on whoever they want, whenever they want - and we all acknowledge that they have no respect for any laws (or, at least, that they can justify anything to themselves so long as we are 'at war.') And yes, we all know about Echelon - but Tice seems to be talking about something that is revolutionary, not incremental. . . .
Tice is obviously working at the pointy-est end of technology. The NSA has the most extravagant technology in the history of mankind - and Russ is suggesting that, maybe, this information could be declassified in 200 years??? I've followed Tice's story pretty closely - and he generally isn't one for hyperbole, but this particular quote is obviously absurd. But let's say he was out by a factor of ten - and he actually meant 20 years. Nearly everything that we've seen discussed about what might or might not be happening with the latest NSA spying program has been happening, internationally, with Echelon for twenty or thirty years - so it appears that Tice is talking about something that is categorically different to Echelon, and it is also categorically different to any of the incremental discussion this past month about any of the programs that Gonzales and the Gang of Eight might have discussed.
Sibel Edmonds, Russ Tice, and the illegal spying that congress has NO idea about
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 2 2007 5:14 utc | 76
@b real 73
Yes thanks for all your awesome work, particularly the monumental Africom structural analysis: I have been following your work very closely even when i am "gone" from the site.
The real 3 Ds, (+ 3): death, dependency, and division, along with disease, destitution, and dictatorship.
Our wealth and well-being is based upon others poverty and suffering -- something to always keep in mind, and never forget, in the search for true humility.
Posted by: Malooga | Aug 2 2007 5:30 utc | 77
Malooga & b real,
When I think of Africa and the 3 D's, I think of Diamonds, De Beers and death
Posted by: Rick | Aug 2 2007 5:50 utc | 78
More to my point in #72 and public ...
the collapse of public transport infrastructure despite record demand; current inequality between rich and poor at highest levels since 1928; social mobility of the US far worse than in Europe; mass privatization of critical public infrastructure;
neglect of infrastructure; domination of the US political process by multimillionaires and immensely powerful media; etc, etc
Engineers and various critics of our national spending priorities have been warning about the nation's aging infrastructure a few years now. See also: NE US Blackout of 2003, failure of flood control system in New Orleans in 2005, etc.
Finally, US engineers reporting massive neglect of infrastructure; We're going to see more of these.
19th-century-style domination of the US political process by multimillionaires and immensely powerful media; etc...
Snow Crash was predicated on the breakdown of the state. In contrast, what we're seeing here is a small part of the return of the United States to the Dickensian conditions of the 19th century.
At the beginning of the eighteenth century... Debtors did not share suffering equally in their prison. Wealthy debtors sent to prison to pay still had assets to draw upon and obtained private accommodations and even redecorated with some of the comforts of home.
We currently don't have debtors prisons yet, it certainly has become a crime in and of it self to be poor in America in more ways than one.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 2 2007 5:50 utc | 79
To close out this thread...
Northeast Blackout of 2003, Is aging infrastructure slowing the U.S.?, Blast Shows Age of US Infrastructure
Also, consider that we've had three infrastructure failures since Bush was elected (WTC, though that was a special case, New Orleans and the blackouts on the East and West Coasts) -- and none of them have been fixed, haven't even been a real issue in the election campaign.
I used to believe that Americans would wake up once stuff started falling down around their ears. I was wrong. I don't think anything will wake people up.
(Nothing against the good people of Minnesota, who don't deserve this...)
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 2 2007 6:09 utc | 80
b real@73
Thanks again for your expositions.
USA's search for a comprehensive policy towards ??Africa?? (a continent of numerous diverse nations & cultures), seems to be based on a one-size-fits-all approach.
and whats changed since the first scramble is Africans have much fewer illusions. And there is no tipping point available for D3 like there was for C3.
its not quite pathetic yet but ...
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 2 2007 6:58 utc | 81
@Uncle I realise how mean and churlish this sounds but I have to disagree when you say "Nothing against the good people of Minnesota, who don't deserve this..."
In one sense, I guess what many take to be in the xtian sense you're probably correct most people haven't committed a crime of anything like the magnitude sufficient to create the bad karma that being killed or maimed in an 'accident' would seem to require. On the other hand though we all and by all I mean those of us who live in modern capitalist democracies, have taken the basics of what is required to stay safe, for granted so long that we have deserved 'bad luck' when it comes.
We can rail against the corporations, maybe argue that the feeling of security and guaranteed well being that most people in westernised countries live with has been created deliberately so that we won't worry about that shit when we're working for the man.
Corporations don't want people bringing insecurities into the production line, it distracts us from making them money. But we have to acquiesce to that. It only happens with our agreement even if that agreement is largely unspoken.
If a bridge collapses because the money has been blown on the corporate welfare state which appears to be the sinkhole of most amerikans taxes; yet life continues as normal, is it still totally their fault or is there a point when we have to stop the acquiescence and actually do something, fight back?
Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 2 2007 7:06 utc | 82
Did, no worries, it's pretty damn hard to offend me...
Interestingly enough, my comment was completely tongue and cheek snark...
I damn well do blame citizens be they Minnesotans or my fellow country men in general, for this shit, for the exact reason you so aptly describe: If a bridge collapses because the money has been blown on the corporate welfare state which appears to be the sinkhole of most amerikans taxes; yet life continues as normal, is it still totally their fault or is there a point when we have to stop the acquiescence and actually do something, fight back?
Bush's war on America this war and destruction of governmental infrastructure ... isn't the fulfillment of a conservative ideology to dismantle government... it has been a systematic effort to take it over...
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 2 2007 7:25 utc | 83
The U.S. "opposition":
Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.
...
Obama's warning to Musharraf drew sharp criticism from several of his rivals for the Democratic nomination, but not from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).
Debs is dead,
your comment would hold true for most other places but NOT Minnesota. Even though there has been a swing to the right in recent years most people there actually care about each other. The population is mostly Swede and Norwegian and share values found in Scandinavia.
Many great people have come from Minnesota, like Paul Wellstone to name just one.
You can be sure there will be a serious investigation of this collapse and more money will be allocated toward infrastructure. Minnesota weather is hell on roads anyway so something like this can not be completely unexpected though it should be.
Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 2 2007 8:11 utc | 85
Uncle, a slight slipup on yr. part. You know it is not "bush's war". Musta slipped out of some pre-programmed nook of yr. brain 'cuz it was too long before someone did you the favor of kicking you off kos, for reasons I couldn't get from that link.
If you recall, everything went along fairly well for Clinton - aside from the military rebelling at having their protective coloration (see Wm. Burroughs via Allen Ginsburg) threatened by being forced to openly accept dem damn homosexuals - until he proposed funding to rebuild infrastructure. Then the shit hit the fan in the press. He, of course, immed. acquiesced to Wall Street's wishes & backed off. It's the radical-right bi-partisan agenda to piratize it. The collapsing infrastructure - thrown in w/the drowning Am. cities & dying oceans are the perfect metaphor for their vaporizing hedge funds & the Am. cos. they've hollowed out, isn't it? Wonder what the rest of the world thinks.
But some people are mobilizing to fight bush. Scientists mobilizing to fight bu$h I read that & wondered if it would spread to other professions, perhaps even the chronically passive engineers. Would they rise up & demand that the Feds fund care of our infrastructure? Or would journos rise up & protest the slashing of newsroom staffs so Wall St. could suck out 30% profits? Or doctors strike demanding single payer medical system, rather than the Predator run system that, for ex. pays a pediatrician ~$35/mon. to see a given child, regardless of how much care that child needs?
Posted by: jj | Aug 2 2007 8:19 utc | 86
The reason the American people (USians as well as us southerners and northerners) don't care about infrstructure collapse is simple.
A narrated cruise on the Norwegian fjords tells you this about the picturesque hillside farms hundreds of metres above the ocean. "When the tax collector came, they lifted up the ladders."
Maybe most people think they can just live off the land. City people, I'm not so sure. Smuggling, retail, they also can get along.
It's a rich country. Probably can support tens of millions of people. Maybe hundreds!
Posted by: jonku | Aug 2 2007 8:23 utc | 87
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=13226”> Prof. Richard Falk: Slouching Towards a Palestinian Holocaust
There is little doubt that the Nazi Holocaust was as close to unconditional evil as has been revealed throughout the entire bloody history of the human species. Its massiveness, unconcealed genocidal intent, and reliance on the mentality and instruments of modernity give its enactment in the death camps of Europe a special status in our moral imagination. This special status is exhibited in the continuing presentation of its gruesome realities through film, books, and a variety of cultural artifacts more than six decades after the events in question ceased. The permanent memory of the Holocaust is also kept alive by the existence of several notable museums devoted exclusively to the depiction of the horrors that took place during the period of Nazi rule in Germany.
Against this background, it is especially painful for me, as an American Jew, to feel compelled to portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as 'holocaust.' The word is derived from the Greek holos (meaning 'completely') and kaustos (meaning 'burnt'), and was used in ancient Greece to refer to the complete burning of a sacrificial offering to a divinity. Because such a background implies a religious undertaking, there is some inclination in Jewish literature to prefer the Hebrew word 'Shoah' that can be translated roughly as 'calamity,' and was the name given to the 1985 epic nine-hour narration of the Nazi experience by the French filmmaker, Claude Lanzmann. The Germans themselves were more antiseptic in their designation, officially naming their undertaking as the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question.' The label is, of course, inaccurate as a variety of non-Jewish identities were also targets of this genocidal assault, including the Roma and Sinti ('gypsies'), Jehovah Witnesses, gays, disabled persons, political opponents.
Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty.The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy. If ever the ethos of 'a responsibility to protect,' recently adopted by the UN Security Council as the basis of 'humanitarian intervention' is applicable, it would be to act now to start protecting the people of Gaza from further pain and suffering. But it would be unrealistic to expect the UN to do anything in the face of this crisis, given the pattern of US support for Israel and taking into account the extent to which European governments have lent their weight to recent illicit efforts to crush Hamas as a Palestinian political force.
Richard Falk is Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Read the rest at the link.
Posted by: Bea | Aug 2 2007 8:38 utc | 88
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__070728_martial_law_is_one_s.htm”> Martial Law is Just One Step Away
If Pat Tillman was likely executed, on orders from above, because he was about to go public with his negative views on the Iraq war ~ and in the event of another 9/11 event, all Americans who exercise their consitutional right to dissent could well be subject to martial law: Allen L Roland
To understand Bush you must remember that, as a child, he used to blow up frogs for sport.What does that tell you ? As a psychotherapist, It tells me that there is a seriously emotionally deprived, sad and angry child within Bush who retreated into himself at an early age ~ and is oblivious to the consequences of his actions on others. Except this time it is not frogs he is blowing up ~ it is human beings who are being sacrificed by the thousands and they are all secondary to his driven unconscious desire to maintain power and control, and thus avoid the inner demons of his deep emotional deprivation and fear of failure. Remember, As Governor of texas ~ George Bush was known as the Texas Death machine and was, in essence, still killing frogs.
No state has executed as many people as Texas, and no American governor has put more people to death than the George W. Bush ~ who signed off on 135 executions since he took office in 1995, about one death every two weeks. In his first term of four years, seventy-nine people died.
Now as President , Bush is the American death machine, with over 655,000 civilian deaths in Iraq to his credit as well as close to 4000 American military ( reported ) deaths ~ he is still killing frogs.
Now put this in the context of Pat Tillman's suspicious death…
Read the rest at the link.
Posted by: Bea | Aug 2 2007 8:42 utc | 89
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/22/2688/”> Eric Margolis: America’s Next Big Blunder
Fears are growing the U.S. may be planning to attack Pakistan's "autonomous" tribal region bordering Afghanistan.
The Bush administration is ready to lash out at old ally Pakistan, which Washington now blames for its humiliating failures to crush al-Qaida or defeat Taliban resistance forces in Afghanistan. Limited "hot pursuit" ground incursions, intensive air attacks, and special forces raids by U.S. forces into Pakistan's tribal are being studied.
The U.S. claims the 27,200- sq.-km region, home to 3.3 million Pashtun tribesmen, is a safe haven for al-Qaida and Taliban, and a hotbed of anti-American activity. Indeed it is, thanks mostly to the U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan. Fears are growing the U.S. may be planning to attack Pakistan's "autonomous" tribal region bordering Afghanistan.
The Bush administration is ready to lash out at old ally Pakistan, which Washington now blames for its humiliating failures to crush al-Qaida or defeat Taliban resistance forces in Afghanistan. Limited "hot pursuit" ground incursions, intensive air attacks, and special forces raids by U.S. forces into Pakistan's tribal are being studied.
The U.S. claims the 27,200- sq.-km region, home to 3.3 million Pashtun tribesmen, is a safe haven for al-Qaida and Taliban, and a hotbed of anti-American activity. Indeed it is, thanks mostly to the U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan.I spent a remarkable time in this wild medieval region during the 1980s and ’90s, traveling alone where even Pakistani government officials dared not go, visiting the tribes of Waziristan, Orakzai, Khyber, Chitral, and Kurram, and their chiefs, called “maliks.”
These tribal belts are always called “lawless.” Pashtun tribesmen could shoot you if they didn’t like your looks. Rudyard Kipling warned British Imperial soldiers over a century ago, when fighting cruel, ferocious Pashtun warriors of the Afridi clan, “save your last bullet for yourself.”
Law and honor
But there is law: The traditional Pashtun tribal code, Pashtunwali, that strictly governs behavior and personal honor. Protecting guests was sacred. I was captivated by this majestic mountain region and wrote of it extensively in my book, War at the Top of the World.
Again, more at the link...
Posted by: Bea | Aug 2 2007 8:45 utc | 90
"Nothing against the good people of Minnesota, who don't deserve this..."
My thinking went like this, "'The last good people of Minnesota' pretty much died out 125 years ago. What we have now is descendants of weekend scalp bounty hunters. Or as Garrison Keilor might say, "The ones who survived were all above average." A chilling thought.....
Posted by: Malooga | Aug 2 2007 8:54 utc | 91
no way is this indicative of french people I know
Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 2 2007 11:38 utc | 92
Hopefully this link from post 89 will work better
Martial Law is Just One Step Away
Although after skimming the article, I find it lacking:
First off, as horrible as Bush is, this is more than “Bush’s War”.
Second, kids do bad things a lot. Many kids in the rural area where I lived blew up frogs, killed ants with a magnifying glass, etc, etc. (I think that is when I started to be a loner.) I’m not sure they all, as more mature people, now lack compassion.
Lastly, to base conclusions about Pat Tillman’s death and the certainty of martial law so heavily on just one man, that is, George Bush, because of his disregard for life, is a stretch. That does not mean that Pat Tillman’s death was not murder or even ordered from higher up the chain, or that nationwide martial law will not come. But “just one step away” may be an exaggeration.
Posted by: Rick | Aug 2 2007 14:30 utc | 93
stan goff over at feral scholar maintains that tillman's was not a planned execution & that ballistics rpts are wrong
Posted by: b real | Aug 2 2007 14:49 utc | 94
Re the Glasgow Airport incident a month ago, Glasgow terror suspect dies from burns in Scottish hospital
Posted by: Alamet | Aug 3 2007 0:14 utc | 96
I'll copy this in full, because once the Arab Monitor moves newspieces to the archives they are inaccessible to us non-paying folks:
Egypt attempts to evict its own population along the Gaza Strip border
Cairo, 1 August - Violent clashes between the Egyptian police and residents of the northern Sinai are going into their third day, as desperate people are clinging to their houses and farmlands, all the more as the average compensation offered by the government for each property it intends to seize, is deemed much too low as to allow for the construction of new houses and farms. Under pressure from the US and Israel, the Egyptian government had promised to evict its population from a 150 meter strip of land along the border with the Gaza Strip.The clashes began on Monday, when several thousands of demonstrators confronted the police, who in turn, responded with rubber bullets. The death of a teenage boy from injuries inflicted by the police triggered the participation of even greater numbers of angry demonstrators, who attacked poice vehicles and demolished the police checkpoint of el-Massoura. What began as a protest against the government's compensation offer is rapidly growing into a local insurgency with people vowing to defend their homes and land with their lives.
Posted by: Alamet | Aug 3 2007 0:19 utc | 97
The latest news that South Korean officials plan on meeting with representatives of Afghanistan's Taliban resistance movement doesn't auger well for Kabul's mayor and city council chair Hamid Karzai.
Following the confirmation that the body of a second Korean hostage had been found and that the Korean aid workers lives were in grave danger, Kabul had set about 'rescuing' the abductees with whatever force may be necessary. On Aug 1 reuters reported that a rescue operation had commenced with the dropping of pamphlets by USAF aircraft warning citizens in the area the hostages were believed to be held, to stay out of the way.
There is no longer any sign of that bulletin on the Reuters site, however the Canadian National Post blog has constructed a timeline of Reuters changing bulletins. Somehow it was determined that telegraphing one's punches by letting the Taliban know you were coming was not such a good idea.
Of course none of that would have been of any concern to the Kabul City Council or the US and other Nato forces who were about to 'go in'. Alive or dead the hostages must be rescued because as long as they were hostages the Korean govt was under pressure to get the fuck outta Dodge (ie pull it's remaining troops out of Afghanistan immediately rather than the slow withdrawal agreed to). Worst of all however was the bad press around this issue. It means that the cardboard cut out Nato leaders look silly claiming they are winning in Afghanistan when as this incident clearly shows the Taliban are becoming stronger.
Maybe the Korean govt had already quietly agreed to a 'save them by shooting them' scenario. There were intimations that was the case, as long as it was a Nato operation not an Afghani one. There wasn't much faith in the spine that a 'good dose of freedom' delivers.
But as news of the rescue attempt leaked to the Korean people, in particular relatives of the hostages, they made it plain better dead than Taliban was a lousy option.
Somehow Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was involved, which gives an indication of the likelihood of any survivors, since Negroponte never seemed to mind amerikan xtians being martyrs for the cause of corporate capitalism in central america, it is unlikely he would demur at the notion of Korean xtians croaking.
Negroponte was bailed up at a meeting by Korea's Foreign Minister Song Min-soon on Aug 1 just as the operation was swinging into top gear.
That meeting must have been full and frank as they say in the classics:
""The two sides ruled out the possibility of military operations and placed a top priority on safely resolving the issue by mobilising all means," Song said after the meeting, the official said."The United States is not preparing military operations," he quoted Song as saying.
In another development, eight senior members of South Korea's National Assembly left for Washington on Thursday to urge US officials to take an "active and positive" approach to the crisis, amid widespread perceptions that Washington is key to ending the crisis by influencing Afghanistan's government.
Song indicated there were difficulties in ending the crisis because of a US policy of refusing to negotiate with people it regards as terrorists, but vowed to resolve the issue while keeping intact the principle, the South Korean official said."
Now that the South Koreans have managed to force the US into permitting direct contact with the Taliban Government, other nations faced with intractable Afghani issues will insist on the same access.
Say for example you are a European state whose population were being decimated by the availability of cheap and freely available Afghani smack. Would you plead with the DEA to stage one of their show operations in the few parts of the country controlled by Karzai and co - knowing that the flow of smack into your society would not be impeded by this? Or would you sit down with the Taliban and negotiate a deal whereby they got paid to stop the flow?
In the end people have to deal with the entity in control, while the coalition of the swilling had control of most of Afghanistan's territory for that fleeting period after the invasion, it was the US led Nato forces one did business with, but now control of the countryside out of Kabul has gone back to the indiginous forces of whatever ilk, frequently incorrectly referred to as the Taliban, that is who others must deal with.
There will be other issues like this with the eventual result the complete sidelining of Karzai and the City Council.
Leave the last word to the Nazis:
The conservative xtain blogs condemned the liberal media for blowing the rescue, but were divided on whether death by rescue was a workable option. Comments ranged from:
"So what’s the deal? Are we never gonna use the neutron bomb, or what?"
and
"Lord, take me under friendly fire in a rescue operation any day, as long as my captors experience the pain of life before they spend eternity swimming in a lake of fire."
(where do you make these people amerika?)
To:
"I cannot find it in myself to give CNN/Reuters any shred of a benefit of the doubt. I hope the hostages and the raiders survive the attack by the legacy media. I should think the hostages would be safer with the Taliban than with these guys “helping”.
With allies like that is it any wonder the South Koreans have opted out of the Afghani farce?
Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 3 2007 1:15 utc | 98
re #96: I didn't know Scotland was one of the secret torture sites.
"Is it safe?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Posted by: catlady | Aug 3 2007 3:53 utc | 99
Latest headline:
Rove Exempted From Hearings in Attorney Firings Due to Polonium-210 Poisoning.
Or was his kool-aid laced with DU? He's lookin' all X-Filey.
Uncle $, that horrible urge to unstoppable laughter is comin' over me.
Posted by: catlady | Aug 3 2007 4:04 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
Chalmers Johnson reviewing "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA":
The Life and Times of the CIA
Posted by: b | Jul 28 2007 20:12 utc | 1