[osint] No Secrets: Eyes on the CIA
Posted 050303 by David Bier, CADRE Intel Mgr, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7037720/site/newsweek/ No Secrets: Eyes on the CIA Newsweek March 7 issue - Aviation obsessives with cameras and Internet connections have become a threat to cover stories established by the CIA to mask its undercover operations and personnel overseas. U.S. intel sources complain that "plane spotters"hobbyists who photograph airplanes landing or departing local airports and post the pix on the Internetmade it possible for CIA critics recently to assemble details of a clandestine transport system the agency set up to secretly move cargo and peopleincluding terrorist suspectsaround the world. Google searches revealed that plane spotters Web-posted numerous photos of two private aircraftone a small Gulfstream jet and the other a midsize Boeing 737registered to obscure companies suspected of CIA connections. Some of the pictures were taken at airports in foreign countries where CIA activities could be controversial. When the 737 last year went through a change of tail number and ownershipa suspicious company in suburban Boston apparently transferred the plane to a similar company in Reno, Nev. Internet searches of aviation and public-record databases disclosed details of the plane's new owners and registration number. One critical database, accessible via Google, was a central aircraft registry maintained by the government's own Federal Aviation Administration. A U.S. intel source acknowledged that the instant availability of such data and photos on the Internet is not helpful "if your object is clandestinity." (To see how it works, check the Web for info on a business jet carrying the Liechtenstein tail number HB-IES. The search should turn up pictures of that plane at a European airport, as well as public records and news stories describing how the plane, registered to a company called Aviatrans, once belonged to Saddam Hussein.) Intel sources say the CIA's own lawyers years ago decreed that under U.S. law the agency must register its aircraftincluding their tail numbers and the front companies that own themwith public authorities like the FAA, even though this could provide clues to clandestine activity. Agency officials and lawyers have discussed the possibility of changing U.S. laws and regulations to make it easier for the agency to hide its activities. That may be difficult, so for now, plane spotters can keep their eyes on the CIA. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM ~-> -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Moscow believes Iran has developed a large nuclear device in its preliminary st
"Russian intelligence estimates that Iran is now capable of detonating this non-weaponized nuclear device - or in other words carrying out its first nuclear test." "Referring the issue to the UN would have a "very big effect" on oil prices, Libyan Energy Scretary Fathi Hamed bin-Shatwan said Tuesday at an OPEC meeting in Vienna." Iran was involved in a uranium enrichment program jointly with North Korea for years (up until U.S. special forces operating on the nearby border with Afghanistan forced its shutdown in 2002) with technical advice from Pakistan's Khan (no doubt the "members of a nuclear black market network" noted in the article) and his staff. The program involved design and operation of enrichment machines, nuclear bomb diagrams, North Korean missile technology and a Chinese missile warhead design (same one provided to Libya by Khan). So the news that they have set up enriched uranium compression devices and developed a rudimentary bomb that might soon be tested is not terribly surprising. Nor is the threat to cut off oil to Western nations if Iran is hauled before the Security Council much of a surprise since that is about the only leverage Iran has right now. The only other path they might be willing to take is a gigantic gamble: Invade Iraq (while firing missiles at Israel and shutting down Persian Gulf access to oil shipments and U.S. Navy) and attempt to encircle U.S. forces there in cooperation with the Shiite militias with the endgame to hold the American forces hostage. No assurance they could succeed, given U.S. airpower capability, but the attempt would cause worldwide shockwaves and might even forge a U.S.-Sunni-Kurd alliance of very strange bedfellows to survive. One positive note: If the Iranians attempt that, Congress will pass a Declaration of War and, with official Constitutional war powers really and legally operable, CICBush43 won't have to worry about FISA any more. David Bier http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1785 Moscow believes Iran has developed a large nuclear device in its "preliminary stage." January 31, 2006, 8:11 AM (GMT+02:00) Russian FM Sergei Lavrov put this information before the five permanent UN Security Council and Germany, which Tuesday night, Jan. 30, agreed for the first time to haul Iran before the UN body over its nuclear program. Until then, Moscow and Beijing had stood out against the UN nuclear watchdog' referring the Iran dossier to the Security Council. Tehran hit back Wednesday by saying the decision was unconstructive and the end of diplomacy According to Lavrov, Russian intelligence estimates that Iran is now capable of detonating this non-weaponized nuclear device - or in other words carrying out its first nuclear test. DEBKAfile sources add: This estimate which Russian president Vladimir Putin passed to President George Bush some weeks ago is challenged by US and Israeli nuclear experts, who do not believe Iran is up to the stage of a nuclear device. However, on Jan. 21, the opposition FDI claimed Iran would carry out its first nuclear test before the Iranian new year, which falls on March 20. Ahead of the IAEA's Thursday meeting in Vienna, a leaked report claimed Iran had last week given the watchdog sensitive documents which apparently showed how to mold highly enriched uranium into the hemispherical shape of warheads, in an effort to stave off referral to the Security Council. At the same time, according to the same unnamed diplomats, the agency passed to Tehran intelligence provided by the US that suggests Iran has been working on details of nuclear weapons, such as missile trajectories and ideal altitudes for exploding warheads. When the IAEA asked Iran for an explanation of the documents, Tehran replied they had been obtained from members of a nuclear black market network. Still ahead of the nuclear watchdog's meeting, Moscow and Beijing dispatched diplomats to Tehran to explain that their support for referral to the Security Council did not mean an end to diplomacy. Referring the issue to the UN would have a "very big effect" on oil prices, Libyan Energy Scretary Fathi Hamed bin-Shatwan said Tuesday at an OPEC meeting in Vienna. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law e
[osint] A Fatal Misconception Rather than Intelligence Failure
"AMAN was not surprised. If it failed to pass its assessments on, it was because no one in authority was listening or reading." Sounds familiar. David Bier http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1138 A Fatal Misconception Rather than Intelligence Failure January 29, 2006, 10:52 PM (GMT+02:00) A relatively junior intelligence officer has been mandated to establish why Israeli intelligence missed predicting the Islamist terrorist Hamas takeover of Palestinian government by the ballot. Does the remit given him by chief of staff Lt-Gen Dan Halutz and military intelligence director Maj-Gen Amos Yadlin give him enough scope to get to the bottom of a monumental lapse? Hardly. His task has been limited to an internal intelligence probe rather than a broad inquiry. Within this limit, there is no way he can truly explain how Israel came to find itself face to face with a strategic calamity on the scale of the 1973 Yom Kippur War; quite simply, there are too many weighty and relevant questions he is not authorized to articulate. Here are a few: 1. Why did no military intelligence authority warn the government that evacuating the Gaza Strip would be present Hamas with the gift of territory and fuel its claim that Palestinian terror had Israel on the run? 2. Why did Israel pull its troops back from the Philadelphi border enclave, knowing their removal would open up the Gazan-Egyptian border to a flood terrorists, including dozens of Hizballah specialists and instructors, thousands of guns and tons of explosives all destined for Hamas? This was how Hamas built itself up as the dominant political, military and financial power in the eyes of Palestinian security personnel and the voting public. Was this lost on Israeli intelligence? 3. Why was did no military, security or intelligence authority sound the alarm about the real motive behind the Hamas willingness to call an informal ceasefire? Did they not notice it was designed to hoodwink Israel into standing idly by as Hamas, Hizballah, Tehran and Damascus laid the groundwork for the Hamas grab of Palestinian government? There are two answers to these questions. The first is a conundrum. Since the Palestinian-Israel confrontation erupted five years ago, DEBKAfile's sources have noted an incomprehensible dwindling of Palestinian experts at the top level of IDF intelligence, AMAN. Recently appointed director Maj.-Gen Yadlin has a fine reputation as a brilliant and creative analytical mind. But coming as he does from the rarefied levels of the Israel Air force, he will not have had the sort of experience necessary to plumb the minds of Mohammed in Jenin or Salem in Jebalya. He can be counted on to spot whether Iranian president Mahmoud Ahamdinejad and Syrian president Bashar Assad have fixed a date for a combined missile attack against Israel, which is important. But Israel faces another threat to its survival from the escalation of the Palestinian terrorist offensive, which Hamas has led over the years and which is now joined by al Qaeda. Israel's clandestine bodies must therefore be able to second-guess Ahmed and Salem and their schemes as well as the designs of hostile regional leaders. In July 2001 the otherwise insignificant Nabil Aqal of Hamas hosted British shoe bomber Richard Reid at his home in the Jebalya district of Gaza City and taught him how to hide C-4 explosive substance impregnated with blast-enhancing chemicals in his shoe. Five months later, December 22, Reid attempted to blow up an American Airlines plane bound for Miami. Passengers wrestled him to the floor before he could detonate the bomb. For US intelligence, Hamas' Nabil Aqal was just a nobody, although he later turned out to have shown a dangerous al Qaeda terrorist a novel method for blowing up hundreds of US citizens. That lesson has still to be learned by AMAN. Similarly, Yadlin's deputy, head of research Big-Gen Yossi Baidetz is an expert on Hizballah, with little active knowledge on Palestinian terrorists. This blind spot at the top of the service will have trickled down the ranks of analysts, officers and operatives in the field. The second reason for so many unanswered questions regarding the failure to predict the rise of Hamas was Israeli security chiefs' dogged adherence to a misconception. No probe is necessary to bring this to the surface. It was abundantly plain in every word uttered by the policy-makers, whether defense minister Shaul Mofaz, the chief of staff or the defense ministry's strategic director Amos Gilead. The last of those three negotiated the international security accords that were supposed to provide security guarantees following the Israeli troop pull-out from the Gaza Strip last September. All the spokesmen of Ariel Sharon's government harped on the same theme: the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas must be left to crack down on terror and disarm Palestinian terrorist organizations like H
[osint] Europe on Slippery Slope to Recognizing Hamas-ruled Palestinian Government
"...Islamic experts warn that these transparent maneuvers will be seen by the Islamic terrorists group as a sign of weakness and they will therefore blow back in the faces of their authors. Hamas will maintain its seemingly reasonable posture and hold its fire, while using the chance to go forward without interference towards its long-term religious-territorial goals." So much for CICBush43's statement that Hamas would not get U.S. funding. If Hamas lays back and has Abbas act as a puppet figurehead, the money from us and the EU will continue to flow to the Palestinian Authority and thence to terrorists of which Hamas will be foremost. Especially since aid funds can be ostensibly sent on by the PA to Hamas' network of schools, hospitals and charities where the funds can be laundered and siphoned off to Hamas military wing...and to Al Aqsa Brigade and Fatah too if they are good boys and do what Hamas says to do. Bottom Line: We continue to fund terrorists whose goal is the utter destruction of Israel and return of all of its lands to Muslim hands. David Bier http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1139 Europe on Slippery Slope to Recognizing Hamas-ruled Palestinian Government A DEBKAfile Special Analysis January 30, 2006, 9:06 PM (GMT+02:00) After a series of muddled statements and zigzags, wishful thinking prevailed in London and Brussels after all. The European Union, led by the Middle East Quartet, agreed to release financial aid to a Palestinian government taken over by a terrorist organization. "We give them three months to assess the situation. We don't want chaos and we want to go on with the peace process," said EU foreign executive, Javier Solana at the end of the foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels Monday, 30 Jan. Hamas, which is responsible for at least 60 bombing attacks on Israelis and countless deaths, did not have to fight too hard or too long for a reversal of the short-lived boycott on funding, sparked by its election victory over Fatah with 74 seats in the 132 Palestinian Legislative Council. The Islamist terrorists were not required to give up a single principle for the sake of Western aid. After the Quartet's decision, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice left Europe for Kabul. At first, she tried urging the EU to stand by its pledge to withhold aid from the Palestinians until Hamas renounces terrorism. A few hours later, like her European colleages, she was saying two opposite things at once: The administration, she said, would follow through on aid promised to the current, US-backed Palestinian government led by President Mahmoud Abbas. But then, Rice went on to rule out any US financial assistance to an organization that advocates the destruction of Israel, advocates violence and refuses its obligations under an international framework for eventual Mideast peace. The inference here is that Abbas, supported from Washington and Jerusalem, was responsible for Hamas's participation in the Jan 25 election. So it was up to him to arrange things so as to enable West to send financial aid to the Palestinian people without violating its own laws and principles against terrorist organizations. The stakes are high. The EU gave the PA $615 million last year. The US had budgeted $234 for 2006. The West and Israel too are clearly clinging to Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah was trounced in the Palestinian election last week, as a fig leaf to cover the true shape of the new Palestinian government until everyone can catch their breath and come up with a coherent new policy. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh played along with this stratagem by appealing to the Americans and Europeans to keep the aid funds flowing because, he said, they were not destined for Hamas but for Palestinian president Abu Mazen. The only clear statement came from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the next EU president, Monday in Jerusalem: A Palestinian Authority that included Hamas cannot be directly supported by EU money as long as the group refuses to give up violence and refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, she said. This meant that Berlin ties financial aid to the Hamas changing at least one of its stripes relinquishing terrorism. However as a collective, European foreign ministers meeting in Brussels, including her own subordinate, sang a different tune. Hamas provided the European powers with some helpful keys for unlocking Western aid for zero concessions: 1. Hamas does not intend heading or even participating in the next Palestinian government. That administration will therefore not match the strict definition of a Hamas government. This magicked away one major obstacle holding up the flow of aid funds from Europe. 2. Hamas does not oppose the new Palestinian government meeting its obligations under international frameworks. That is no problem either. Hamas has no trouble voting for the peace principle so long as its conditions are met,
[osint] Gridlock no longer a dirty word
"...58% want Dems to make sure the GOP doesn't go too far, while 34% want Dems to work in a bi-partisan way to avoid gridlock. The results are nearly identical to an NBC/WSJ poll done this time last year." Rare opportunity for non-subscribers to check out the whole WSJ poll which has some very bad results for CICBush43 in terms of public views of his administration. And the WSJ is no filthy liberal rag... David Bier http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6488.html Gridlock no longer a dirty word Posted By Carpetbagger On 31st January 2006 @ 11:09 In General | 10 Comments The latest NBC/WSJ poll has plenty of the usual bad news for the GOP (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11103804/) Bush's approval is at 39%, Republicans are seen as more corrupt than Dems, a clear majority are concerned that warrantless searches could be misused and could violate a person's privacy, Americans prefer a Dem-run Congress 47% to 38% but there's one question that NBC/WSJ always includes in its national poll that never gets enough attention. (It's from the subscription-only internals.) (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/poll20060131.pdf) Which of the following roles would you like to see the Democrats in Congress play? A) Work in a bipartisan way with Republicans to help pass President Bush's legislative priorities so that we do not have gridlock, OR B) Provide a balance to make sure that President Bush and the Republicans do not go too far in pushing their agenda. No one likes "partisan gridlock," right? The conventional wisdom tells us that voters long for politicians who can work cooperatively. Republicans throw the "obstructionist" label around frequently, which makes Dems worry about public perceptions. And yet, the results from this question weren't even close 58% want Dems to make sure the GOP doesn't go too far, while 34% want Dems to work in a bi-partisan way to avoid gridlock. The results are nearly identical to an NBC/WSJ poll done this time last year. It's numbers like these that Dems should keep in mind the next time Senate Republicans start whining about how desperate the American people are to see bipartisan cooperation. By a wide margin, people are far more worried about the GOP going too far. Voters want a real opposition party that will stand as a barrier against Republican excess. "Obstructionism" isn't much of an insult if it has majority support. Article printed from The Carpetbagger Report: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com URL to article: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6488.html -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] US Army forces 50,000 soldiers into extended duty
"The persistent use of stop-loss underscores the fact that the war-fighting burden is being carried by a handful of soldiers while the vast majority of citizens incur no sacrifice at all." ""When you sign up for the military, you're saying, 'I'll give you, say, six years and then after six years I get my life back.' And they're saying, 'No, really, we can extend you indefinitely.'" "Hilferty said there are about 12,500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve, currently serving involuntarily under the policy, and that about 50,000 have had their service extended since the program began in 2002." What that last quote means is the "volunteer" Army has about 10% of its troops in Iraq serving there involuntarily, forced to be there even though their enlistment contracts (which do not say anything about involuntary retention in the text enlistees sign) have expired. David Bier http://today.reuters.co.uk/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=uri:2006-01-29T144559Z_01_N196487_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-USA-STOPLOSS.xml US Army forces 50,000 soldiers into extended duty Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:46 PM GMT By Will Dunham WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called "stop-loss," but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat. The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits. "As the war in Iraq drags on, the Army is accumulating a collection of problems that cumulatively could call into question the viability of an all-volunteer force," said defence analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank. "When a service has to repeatedly resort to compelling the retention of people who want to leave, you're edging away from the whole notion of volunteerism." When soldiers enlist, they sign a contract to serve for a certain number of years, and know precisely when their service obligation ends so they can return to civilian life. But stop-loss allows the Army, mindful of having fully manned units, to keep soldiers on the verge of leaving the military. Under the policy, soldiers who normally would leave when their commitments expire must remain in the Army, starting 90 days before their unit is scheduled to depart, through the end of their deployment and up to another 90 days after returning to their home base. With yearlong tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, some soldiers can be forced to stay in the Army an extra 18 months. HARDSHIP FOR SOME SOLDIERS Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman, said that "there is no plan to discontinue stop-loss." "We understand that this is causing hardship for some individual soldiers, and we take individual situations into consideration," Hilferty said. Hilferty said there are about 12,500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve, currently serving involuntarily under the policy, and that about 50,000 have had their service extended since the program began in 2002. An initial limited use of stop-loss was expanded in subsequent years to affect many more. "While the policies relative to the stop-loss seem harsh, in terms of suspending scheduled separation dates (for leaving the Army), they are not absolute," Hilferty said. "And we take individual situations into consideration for compelling and compassionate reasons." Hilferty noted the Army has given "exceptions" to 210 enlisted soldiers "due to personal hardship reasons" since October 2004, allowing them to leave as scheduled. "The nation is at war and we are stop-lossing units deploying to a combat theatre to ensure they mobilise, train, deploy, fight, redeploy and demobilise as a team," he said. NO LUCK IN COURT A few soldiers have gone to court to challenge stop-loss. One such case fizzled last week, when U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington dismissed a suit filed in 2004 by two Army National Guard soldiers. The suit claimed the Army fraudulently induced soldiers to enlist without specifying that their service might be involuntarily extended. Courts also have backed the policy's legality in Oregon and California cases. Jules Lobel, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who represented the National Guard soldiers, said a successful challenge to stop-loss was still possible. "I think the whole stop-loss program is a misrepresentation to people of how long they're going to actually serve. I think it's caused tremendous mora
[osint] Coalition Faces More Frequent, Sophisticated Military Operations
"These big operations, the attack on the police commando compound and Abu Ghraib, some rock star put those together," said Lt. Col. Shawn Weed, an intelligence officer with the 3rd ID. "Those were complex, professional-style attacks, militarily thought out, planned and resourced operations." "The coordination and sophistication of attacks has dramatically increased,...They've obviously had training, some military background and military training in the way they conduct operations. We hadn't seen that before." "Three years of constant fighting against the world's most advanced military has produced very experienced and capable insurgent fighters in Iraq. Information released by U.S. military officials in Iraq showed that insurgents conducted 34,131 attacks in 2005, a 26 percent increase over the previous year's 26,496. The number of car bombs more than doubled, as did the number of roadside bomb incidents, which rose from 5,607 in 2004 to 10,953 last year." The insurgents have become so expert that their skills are being exported to Afghanistan via training of Taliban personnel and briefings on tactics and planning for Taliban commanders and an increasing number of al-Qaeda veterans are advising/leading small Taliban units. The Karzai government and U.S. and other foreign troops supporting it are already experiencing the results of this expertise exchange. See my post "Afghanistan holds 'bomb plotters'" and the next post from me for more on this. CICBush43 has definitely made us more secure in the GWOT now that his invasion of Iraq has generated a whole new generation of very highly skilled, veteran combat-hardened potential terrorists, in the killing fields of Iraq who have neither fear nor love, for the U.S., only hate. David Bier http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1460302&C=thisweek Posted 01/30/06 10:59 Coalition Faces More Frequent, Sophisticated Military Operations By GREG GRANT While the majority of American casualties in Iraq are due to roadside bombs, complex attacks operations displaying a high level of planning, preparation and tactical proficiency are becoming more common. It is a disturbing trend that indicates a Sunni insurgency that is becoming more, not less, capable and sophisticated over time, according to U.S. Army officers in Iraq. Case in point? U.S. Marines and Iraqi troops, backed by attack aircraft, repelled a series of coordinated, daylight insurgent attacks in the Iraqi city of Ramadi Jan. 24 that included mortars, small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters in Washington Jan. 25 that the fighting in Iraq has produced a "battle hardened" U.S. military. But there is a flip side to that argument that officers in Iraq are beginning to voice concern about: Three years of constant fighting against the world's most advanced military has produced very experienced and capable insurgent fighters in Iraq. Information released by U.S. military officials in Iraq showed that insurgents conducted 34,131 attacks in 2005, a 26 percent increase over the previous year's 26,496. The number of car bombs more than doubled, as did the number of roadside bomb incidents, which rose from 5,607 in 2004 to 10,953 last year. After a year spent battling insurgents in Baghdad, Col. Ed Cardon, a brigade commander in the Army's 3rd Infantry Division (3rd ID), said the enemy in Iraq should not be underestimated; it is well trained, experienced and highly organized. "The coordination and sophistication of attacks has dramatically increased," Cardon said. "They've obviously had training, some military background and military training in the way they conduct operations. We hadn't seen that before." When the 3rd ID arrived in Baghdad in early 2005, the division's soldiers faced hastily placed improvised explosive devices (IEDs) comprising a single mortar or artillery round, and occasional sniper fire from insurgents hidden in the shadows. Over the year, the bombs got much bigger, their triggers more sophisticated. These bombs now are often used to initiate an attack, drawing U.S. forces into kill zones emplaced with multiple IEDs, mortars zeroed on preselected locations, with small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire, said Capt. Stephen Capehart, a tank company commander in the 3rd ID. "The insurgency is getting more sophisticated over time," he said. "They adapt to us and we adapt to them; it's a never-ending cycle." Organized Attacks Dozens of what the military calls "low-level" insurgent cells operate throughout Iraq, limiting their attacks to a specific geographic area, such as a neighborhood or along a stretch of highway. But larger, more sophisticated insurgent networks, their ranks made up primarily of former Iraqi military and intelligence office
[osint] Aerial IEDs Show Adaptive, Resilient Enemy
"While there appears to be some debate within the military on the nature of this threat (Defense News, Jan. 16 issue), the use of aerial IEDs can provide several insights into the organization and nature of the enemy...this tactic shows that insurgent forces in Iraq are able to mount complex operations that demonstrate competence in real-time targeting using relatively advanced weapon systems, as well as effective command, control and intelligence functions." "More than simply using weapons effectively, however, our enemies also attempt to disseminate doctrine and lessons learned. For example, recent reports of Taliban insurgent leaders traveling to Iraq to learn advanced urban warfare tactics from Abu Musab al Zarqawi's network seem to belie the notion that al-Qaida is a disconnected, decentralized actor." "The recent increase in the level of suicide attacks in Afghanistan is likely an indicator that Afghan-based insurgents are utilizing tactics developed in Iraq. By employing networks as diverse as smuggling routes and the Internet, al-Qaida and its affiliates in Iraq and Afghanistan are showing an ability to consistently adapt to changing circumstances." The Iraq invasion cancer has metastasized and who knows where the al-Qaeda cells will invade next after Afghanistan. That nation now will have to either have significant troop increases to meet a resurgent Taliban/al-Qaeda insurgency or the U.S. and Western governments will have to abandon the Karzai government to Islamist fanatics who will restore the terrorist training centers the U.S. destroyed in 2002. See my previous posts on the issue of insurgent/al-Qaeda capabilities and expertise dissemination in posts "Afghanistan holds 'bomb plotters'" (post 65010) and "Coalition Faces More Frequent, Sophisticated Military Operations" (post 65166) for more on this. David Bier http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1485326&C=thisweek Posted 01/30/06 10:43 Aerial IEDs Show Adaptive, Resilient Enemy The U.S. military is growing increasingly concerned about so-called aerial IEDs (improvised explosive devices) used against American helicopters in Iraq. Consisting of mortar rounds on short fuses, this new tactic has already been used on numerous occasions. Given that the past month has been particularly bad for U.S. helicopter crews, we may be witnessing a new capability for insurgent forces in Iraq. While there appears to be some debate within the military on the nature of this threat (Defense News, Jan. 16 issue), the use of aerial IEDs can provide several insights into the organization and nature of the enemy. First, this tactic shows that insurgent forces in Iraq are able to mount complex operations that demonstrate competence in real-time targeting using relatively advanced weapon systems, as well as effective command, control and intelligence functions. More than simply one man with a mortar tube, the aerial IED attacks are sophisticated operations that pose potentially serious threats to our ability to provide heliborne combat, medical and logistical support to isolated units or soldiers in contact with the enemy. The ability of insurgent cells to detect and discern patterns in routes and flight operations, field spotters with communications devices, and devise a method for effective tracking and targeting reveals a level of operational effectiveness that is as disturbing as it is threatening. Second, this tactic is the latest in a long string of examples where terrorist or insurgent forces demonstrate an ability to learn and adapt in response to pressure. Where the United States takes weeks and months to adapt its tactics, and months and years to adapt its deployed capabilities, the insurgents require much less time. Though lacking a $75 billion defense research, development, test and evaluation budget, they nevertheless manage to go through technology innovation cycles the time between an idea and its introduction into the market as a product at a swift pace. The Pentagon is still working on numerous development options for countering ground-based IEDs. Meanwhile, terrorists are one step ahead, with new IEDs against which no counter is yet being planned. Spreading the Lessons More than simply using weapons effectively, however, our enemies also attempt to disseminate doctrine and lessons learned. For example, recent reports of Taliban insurgent leaders traveling to Iraq to learn advanced urban warfare tactics from Abu Musab al Zarqawi's network seem to belie the notion that al-Qaida is a disconnected, decentralized actor. The recent increase in the level of suicide attacks in Afghanistan is likely an indicator that Afghan-based insurgents are utilizing tactics developed in Iraq. By employing networks as diverse as smuggling routes and the Internet, al-Qaida and its affiliates in Iraq and Afghanistan are showing an ability to consistently adapt to changing ci
[osint] Wounded piece of the union
"This is the state of our wounded piece of the union: fragile" http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/editorials/index.ssf?/base/news-2/113869101379000.xml Wounded piece of the union Tuesday, January 31, 2006 The State of the Union address is a moment for presidents to make Americans feel good about the direction of the nation. President Bush no doubt will attempt to do that tonight, and his speech is expected to tout the federal government's role in the recovery of the Gulf Coast. Here in South Louisiana, we have an intimate view of recovery. This is the state of our wounded piece of the union: fragile. The vast majority of the more than 200,000 homes in Louisiana destroyed by Katrina's floodwaters are still dark and muck-filled. Owners are trying to figure out whether they can afford to rebuild and whether anyone else will either. U.S. Rep. Richard Baker's plan for federally backed buyouts in flooded neighborhoods had raised spirits here, but the White House dampened them last week when it abruptly announced it would not support the measure. We need hope. Roughly 400,000 of our neighbors have yet to return. Their houses are falling apart, and they have nowhere else to live in the meantime. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has delivered only 19,300 of 64,791 trailers requested by people left homeless by Katrina, despite promises to have all of them in place by now. In St. Bernard Parish, Judy Morgan and Cheryl "Cricket" Livaudais couldn't wait for a FEMA trailer and have pitched tents where Ms. Morgan's home once stood. They are not the only ones. The dearth of livable housing is holding our economy back. The metro area has lost more than one-fourth of its pre-Katrina work force. The lack of workers, cost of repairs and loss of customers are making it tough for businesses to rebound. That is especially true in Orleans and St. Bernard parishes, which had the greatest flood damage. Before Katrina, St. Bernard had 600 restaurants and food stores; it now has 10. The Small Business Administration ought to be the salvation for businesses stricken by the storm, but the agency is incapable of responding quickly in a crisis. Even if flooded businesses are able to put together the mounds of paperwork necessary for a loan, they may not be able to hold on long enough to get the money they need. Hundreds of commercial fishers are being stranded as well. The Coast Guard had pledged to salvage all 2,300 commercial vessels grounded or sunk by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Now the agency says FEMA rules will allow it to handle only boats that are blocking navigable waterways. As many as 800 owners will get no help with their wrecked boats, simply because storm surge dropped them on land instead of in a body of water. And an industry that is vital to South Louisiana and to the nation will languish. The people of greater New Orleans are starting to rebuild. We greatly appreciate the federal government's help so far. But we are coping with one of the most devastating disasters in American history, a disaster made far worse by the failure of a levee system designed and built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Certainly President Bush can point to substantial progress in the five months since Hurricane Katrina hit, but our needs are still vast. Until this region has healed, the entire union will suffer. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Tehran takes steps to protect nuclear facilities
"Iran has been pursuing a clandestine programme in co-operation with North Korea, estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, to construct a network of underground tunnels to conceal and protect its military nuclear programme." http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw060123_2_n.shtml Tehran takes steps to protect nuclear facilities By Robin Hughes JDW Deputy Editor London For some months, Iran has been pursuing a clandestine programme in co-operation with North Korea, estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, to construct a network of underground tunnels to conceal and protect its military nuclear programme. The tunnel project includes the construction of 10,000 m2 of underground halls, with tunnels measuring hundreds of metres branching off from each, the sources said. The construction programme, diplomatic sources told JDW, is being financed under a special budget that has been assigned separately from the official Iranian budget. The Iranian authorities, they added, are "currently on high alert in anticipation of air strikes against their facilities". A delegation of North Koreans, led by Lyu-Do Myong, a leading North Korean government expert on underground construction, had by June 2005 arrived in Tehran to help design and construct the underground tunnel network, which is designed to protect Iran's military nuclear facilities. During the same period, the legal department of the IRGC, which is responsible for the project, summoned "dozens of managers from leading Iranian construction companies to sign joint-venture contracts with the IRGC," the sources said. According to the sources, "all these joint-venture contracts have been signed and construction is currently under way. The companies selected are at present involved in intensive construction and maintenance work for massive shielding of the tunnels branching to the facilities at Natanz and Isfahan". 227 of 906 words [End of non-subscriber extract.] -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] ''Condoleezza Rice Completes Washington's Geostrategic Shift''
"Wrapped in the language of the Bush administration's campaign to encourage democracy around the world and explained under the rubric of "transformational diplomacy," Rice laid out plans to reposition diplomatic resources from Europe and Washington to emerging power centers in Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East, and to reorganize the administration of foreign aid by creating the post of director of foreign assistance, whose occupant would coordinate aid programs that are currently dispersed among several agencies and bring them into line with Washington's broad foreign policy goals." "In her January 18 speech at Georgetown University, where she sketched out how U.S. diplomatic resources would be repositioned, Rice left behind the scenario of the neoconservatives and their allies in Vice President Dick Cheney's office that is premised on the ability of the U.S. to achieve sufficient military superiority to allow it to act alone to secure its global interests in the long term. Rather than thinking in terms of a unipolar configuration of world power dominated by the United States, Rice embraced multipolarity and the acknowledgment of Washington's limitations that follows from it." Obvious Condi is positioning herself, with the covert support of party elements who realize the official CICBush43 unilateral view of the world will be unsupportable domestically and internationally by then, for a run for president in 2008. In the meantime, it would be helpful if she could convince CICBush43 and Cheney to stop touting democratic reform in rigid Islamist countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The only practical result of democratic reform in such nations would be the popular election of majority Islamic extremists, as already happened in Iraq and Palestine, that are hostile to the U.S. The end game in Saudi Arabia would be election of Wahhabis who would form a government totally hostile to the U.S., cut off oil to the U.S. and probably coordinate with Shiite governments in Iran and Iraq to do the same. No wonder CICBush43 is suddenly, after cutting alternative energy programs for years, touting the U.S. as "addicted to oil." Given that Islamists are a majority in Jordan, instituting a democracy there would result in an Islamist government hostile to the U.S. and Israel right on the latter's border. Not good... David Bier http://pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=431&language_id=1 01 February 2006 ''Condoleezza Rice Completes Washington's Geostrategic Shift'' n quick succession on January 18 and 19, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced major changes in the operational dimension of Washington's global diplomatic strategy. Wrapped in the language of the Bush administration's campaign to encourage democracy around the world and explained under the rubric of "transformational diplomacy," Rice laid out plans to reposition diplomatic resources from Europe and Washington to emerging power centers in Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East, and to reorganize the administration of foreign aid by creating the post of director of foreign assistance, whose occupant would coordinate aid programs that are currently dispersed among several agencies and bring them into line with Washington's broad foreign policy goals. Rice's announcements culminate a major revision of Washington's overall geostrategy that has been in the making since 2004 when the failures of the Iraq intervention exposed the limitations of U.S. military capabilities and threw into question the unilateralist doctrine outlined in the administration's 2002 National Security Strategy. Through the second half of 2004, Washington appeared to function in a policy void, as the neoconservative faction in the security establishment, which had already edged out the traditional multilateralists, lost influence and no competing tendency was strong enough to take its place. That picture changed in 2005 when Rice became secretary of state and moved to fill the policy vacuum by implementing her realist vision based on classical balance of power. In her January 18 speech at Georgetown University, where she sketched out how U.S. diplomatic resources would be repositioned, Rice left behind the scenario of the neoconservatives and their allies in Vice President Dick Cheney's office that is premised on the ability of the U.S. to achieve sufficient military superiority to allow it to act alone to secure its global interests in the long term. Rather than thinking in terms of a unipolar configuration of world power dominated by the United States, Rice embraced multipolarity and the acknowledgment of Washington's limitations that follows from it. Nearly echoing the analysis of Beijing's 2005 defense white paper, Rice asserted that "states are increasingly compet
[osint] EFF's Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic
"The lawsuit alleges that AT&T Corp. has opened its key telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by the NSA and/or other government agencies, thereby disclosing to the government the contents of its customers' communications as well as detailed communications records about millions of its customers, including the lawsuit's class members. The lawsuit also alleges that AT&T has given the government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information -- one of the largest databases in the world. Moreover, by opening its network and databases to wholesale surveillance by the NSA, EFF alleges that AT&T has violated the privacy of its customers and the people they call and email, as well as broken longstanding communications privacy laws." http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/#legal EFF's Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program * FAQ * Summary of Key News Reports * Legal Documents * Related Links * Join EFF now! The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications. In December of 2005, the press revealed that the government had instituted a comprehensive and warrantless electronic surveillance program that ignored the careful safeguards set forth by Congress. This surveillance program, purportedly authorized by the President at least as early as 2001 and primarily undertaken by the NSA, intercepts and analyzes the communications of millions of ordinary Americans. In the largest "fishing expedition" ever devised, the NSA uses powerful computers to "data-mine" the contents of these Internet and telephone communications for suspicious names, numbers, and words, and to analyze traffic data indicating who is calling and emailing whom in order to identify persons who may be "linked" to "suspicious activities," suspected terrorists or other investigatory targets, whether directly or indirectly. But the government did not act-and is not acting-alone. The government requires the collaboration of major telecommunications companies to implement its unprecedented and illegal domestic spying program. AT&T Corp. (which was recently acquired by the new AT&T, Inc,. formerly known as SBC Communications) maintains domestic telecommunications facilities over which millions of Americans' telephone and Internet communications pass every day. It also manages some of the largest databases in the world, containing records of most or all communications made through its myriad telecommunications services. The lawsuit alleges that AT&T Corp. has opened its key telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by the NSA and/or other government agencies, thereby disclosing to the government the contents of its customers' communications as well as detailed communications records about millions of its customers, including the lawsuit's class members. The lawsuit also alleges that AT&T has given the government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information -- one of the largest databases in the world. Moreover, by opening its network and databases to wholesale surveillance by the NSA, EFF alleges that AT&T has violated the privacy of its customers and the people they call and email, as well as broken longstanding communications privacy laws. The lawsuit also alleges that AT&T continues to assist the government in its secret surveillance of millions of Americans. EFF, on behalf of a nationwide class of AT&T customers, is suing to stop this illegal conduct and hold AT&T responsible for its illegal collaboration in the government's domestic spying program, which has violated the law and damaged the fundamental freedoms of the American public. Legal Documents * Complaint [PDF, 351KB] http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/att-complaint.pdf Related Links Related Pages on eff.org * About the domestic spying program generally http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/NSA/ * About FISA generally http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/FISA/ * In re Sealed Case, Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, 2002 [PDF] http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/FISCR/20030129-02-001.pdf * EFF's 2001 FISA FAQ http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.bit.html About AT&T's Daytona Database (External) * AT&T's Daytona Page http://www.research.att.com/projects/daytona/ * Another AT&T Daytona page http://public.research.att.com/viewProject.cfm?prjID=69 * "Survey: Biggest Databases Approach 30 Terabytes" eWeek.com http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1378353,00.asp * "Bigger & Better" InformationWeek.com http
[osint] Face and fingerprints swiped in Dutch biometric passport crack
"...the security of the Dutch biometric passport has already been cracked. As the programme reports here, the passport was read remotely and then the security cracked using flaws built into the system, whereupon all of the biometric data could be read. The crack is attributed to Delft smartcard security specialist Riscure, which here explains that an attack can be executed from around 10 metres and the security broken, revealing date of birth, facial image and fingerprint, in around two hours." Not reassuring when you consider that the same type of RFID chip in the Dutch passports is also in the prototypes for U.S. frequent traveler ID, biometric passport (see 2nd related story below) and U.S. transit card for Canada entry. David Bier http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/30/dutch_biometric_passport_crack/ Face and fingerprints swiped in Dutch biometric passport crack Chip skimmed, then security breached By John Lettice Published Monday 30th January 2006 12:38 GMT Dutch TV programme Nieuwslicht (Newslight) is claiming that the security of the Dutch biometric passport has already been cracked. As the programme reports here, (http://omroep.vara.nl/tvradiointernet_detail.jsp?maintopic=424&subtopic=38690) the passport was read remotely and then the security cracked using flaws built into the system, whereupon all of the biometric data could be read. The crack is attributed to Delft smartcard security specialist Riscure, which here explains (http://www.riscure.com/news/passport.html) that an attack can be executed from around 10 metres and the security broken, revealing date of birth, facial image and fingerprint, in around two hours. Riscure notes that that the speed of the crack is aided by the Dutch passport numbering scheme being sequential. The process is explained in greater detail by Bart Jacobs, Research Director of the Institute for Computing and Information Sciences, University of Nijmegen, in presentations to be found here. (http://wwwes.cs.utwente.nl/safe-nl/meetings/24-6-2005.html) These make it clear that a skimming exercise could potentially yield all biometric data from a passport (or indeed a biometric ID card), giving ID thieves and would-be forgers a considerable leg up in the construction of fakes. According to the Dutch Interior Ministry ways to improve the security of the passport are being looked at. But note that they say "improve", not "fix". (Thanks to Robin for the tip) Related stories 'RFID tag' - the rude words ID card ministers won't say (30 January 2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/30/burnham_rfid_evasions/ Rules for RFID chips in US passports (27 October 2005) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/outlaw_passports/ 'RFID the lot of them!' UK ID card to use ICAO reader standard (25 July 2005) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/25/id_card_goes_icao/ Plan B from Petty France - the other UK ID card (23 January 2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/23/idcard_passport_roots/ Blair under fire on ID cards (19 January 2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/19/id_goveernment_cameron/ 'Tell us the truth about ID costs' - Lords harpoon the ID Bill (17 January 2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/17/lords_blocks_idscheme_on_costs/ Pre-op transsexuals favoured with twin IDs (31 January 2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/31/trannies_get_two_cards/ -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Katrinas Paper Trail
"# "A unified national homeland security planning structure does not exist." # "The National Response Plan did not function as planned." # "The bureaucratic process delayed the Federal response." # "NORTHCOM [the U.S. military command covering the continental USA] was not fully aware of its deployed assets for the first 48 hours after landfall." # "Federal agencies hampered the restoration of goods and services by taking uncoordinated actions without understanding their national impact." # "There was no Federal coordinating entity with a complete understanding of the interdependency of critical infrastructure needs. # "Training was designed to respond to WMD [weapons of mass destruction] incidents." Sadly, the problems are not over with FEMA. As noted in a previous post today, they lag way behind in aiding Katrina victims in Louisiana. Since NORTHCOM is tasked with the military component of homeland security, the reported inability to swiftly identify and locate its own assets is troublesome. David Bier http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11103206/site/newsweek/ Katrina's Paper Trail How early did the White House know about the levee damage in New Orleans? A look at the documents detailing the timelineand why the government says it got `confusing' information. WEB EXCLUSIVE By Mark Hosenball Newsweek Updated: 1:19 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2006 Jan. 30, 2006 - As Hurricane Katrina battered New Orleans last Aug. 29, White House officials in early evening began to receive messages warning of serious damage to the levees that protect the city, according to documentation obtained by NEWSWEEK. But the White House did not recognize the extent of the damage until the next morning because the message traffic was confusing and contradictory, senior officials claim. Briefing reports obtained by NEWSWEEK show that at 6:08 p.m. on Aug. 29the day Katrina made landfall near New Orleansthe disaster operations center of the Red Cross sent out a Katrina status report that New Orleans was flooding. The report said some levees had been "reportedly" breached, but that other flooding could have been caused by "water going over the tops of the levees." The report carries markings indicating it was found in White House archives. About 90 minutes later, at 7:35 p.m., the operations center at the Department of Homeland Securitythe command post that White House officials say had the lead role in coordinating federal responses to the hurricaneissued a "spot report" about flooding in the city based on information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for maintaining the New Orleans levee system. "A small breach is reported at 17[th] Street Canal by local firemen," the report said, adding that there was also report of a levee breach on the west bank of the Mississippi River. The bulletin also reported "overtoppings" of a levee in nearby St. Bernard Parish. A copy of the report obtained by NEWSWEEK does not indicate whether or not it was sent to the White House. But similar reports were passed on from the Homeland Security command center to the White House Situation Room. Around the same time these reports circulated, the most senior federal official on the ground in the hurricane region, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) public-affairs representative Marty Bahamonde, was anxiously trying to inform top government officials of his own observations that serious breaches in New Orleans levees were contributing to widespread flooding in the city. In public testimony before a Senate committee last October, Bahamonde said he took two helicopter tours over the city between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. that day. After landing, he rapidly tried to pass on his observations by making three phone calls: one to FEMA's "front office," one to FEMA's public-affairs office and one to then FEMA chief Michael Brown. Bahamonde testified that he told Brown that the ruptured levee he observed was "just pouring water into the city and there was no sign that that was going to stop anytime soon." Bahamonde said Brown told him: "Thank you. I am going to call the White House right now." White House officials have refused to disclose to either the media or congressional investigators details of any conversations Brown had with White House officials. Brown told congressional investigators last year he called the White House to say he needed "help" responding to the hurricane. White House officials maintain that at the same time the warnings about major levee breaches were coming in, the White House was getting other contradictory information suggesting New Orleans flooding was due to water "overtopping" leveesa less serious condition than the levees themselves being ruptured. Administration defenders point to a 6 p.m. Homeland Security bulletin, &q
[osint] 'Textbook' rescue saves 72 Canadian miners
"Seventy-two Canadian potash miners Monday walked away from an underground fire and toxic smoke on Monday after being locked down overnight in airtight chambers packed with enough oxygen, food and water for several days. The company said the textbook case of safe underground mining was due to those chambers, extensive training of rescue workers and support from the rural community." It was also due to a Canadian government interested in miner safety rather than putting safety secondary to mining business profits and political campaign donations. Those miners are fortunate they don't work in a U.S. mine where airtight safety chambers are not common. David Bier http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CANADA_MINE_FIRE?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Jan 30, 5:57 PM EST 'Textbook' rescue saves 72 Canadian miners By BETH DUFF-BROWN Associated Press Writer TORONTO (AP) -- Seventy-two Canadian potash miners Monday walked away from an underground fire and toxic smoke on Monday after being locked down overnight in airtight chambers packed with enough oxygen, food and water for several days. The company said the textbook case of safe underground mining was due to those chambers, extensive training of rescue workers and support from the rural community. "I'm almost getting choked up thinking about how well this team worked together," Marshall Hamilton, a spokesman for Mosaic Co., the Minneapolis-based owner of the mine, said after he got word that all the men were evacuated safely. Greg Harris, one of the miners, said he was never concerned about his safety as he played checkers with colleagues in the refuge room waiting to be rescued. They drew the checkerboard on the back of a map and used washers as chips. "Everything is good," Harris told The Canadian Press from his home. "Communication was excellent. We had no problems whatsoever." Analysts said the rescue could serve as a lesson for their counterparts in the United States, China and other countries. "It really looks like a textbook recovery to me" said Davitt McAteer, head of the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration under former President Clinton. McAteer is leading the investigation into the deaths of 12 miners who died earlier this month at the Sago coal mine in West Virginia. McAteer, in a telephone interview, said the safety chambers in the Mosaic mine in Canada's central Saskatchewan province were key to the miners' survival. "I think that the question of the existence of the chamber that provided oxygen, food and protection is fundamentally important in any kind of a mine," he said. He acknowledged, however, that potash mines are not nearly as dangerous as those for coal - where an initial explosion can provoke a secondary one 10 times as strong. There are no such chambers in U.S. mines, he said, because back in the late 1970s, the U.S. government determined there was no material strong enough to withstand the secondary explosion. Since then, he said, NASA and the Defense Department have created stronger materials. "If you can build a black box to withstand an explosion in an airplane, why can't you build one to escape an explosion in a mine?" he asked. He said Canada, Australia and the United States run some of the safest mines in the world, with the United States reporting a record low 57 mine deaths last year. Earlier this month, 14 miners died in two separate accidents at mines in West Virginia. Two men died in a fire Jan. 21 at a mine in Melville, nearly three weeks after 12 men died after an explosion near Tallmansville. The number of mining deaths in Canada was not immediately available. The Saskatchewan Mining Association said there was only one mining death in the province last year. China has the world's deadliest mining industry, where more than 5,000 coal miners die each year. The mine in Esterhazy, about 130 miles northeast of the provincial capital of Regina, was Saskatchewan's first potash operation when it opened in 1962. Saskatchewan is North America's largest producer of potash, a pinkish-grey mineral used in the production of agricultural fertilizer, soap and glass ceramics. The fire first broke out early Sunday in the central Canadian mine's polyethylene piping, filling the tunnels with toxic smoke and forcing the 72 miners to seek refuge in the sealed chambers until the fire was out and the air safe to breathe. Thirty-two miners were brought to the surface early Monday; 35 emerged a few hours later. The last to be rescued Monday were five workers holed up in the farthest reaches of the mine. Shannon Reitenbach, an industrial mechanic at the mine, said employees hold routine fire drills and are trained to keep in constant contact with people on the surface and study maps of the labyrinth of mine shafts. Mosaic CEO Fri
[osint] Big Five recommends referring Iran to UN Security Council
"Israel's policy of keeping a low public profile on this issue to keep it from turning into an Israeli-Iranian issue, rather than an international one, would continue." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622520048&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Big Five recommends referring Iran to UN Security Council Herb Keinon, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 1, 2006 Israeli officials welcomed Tuesday morning's recommendation by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to send the Iranian nuclear dossier to the Security Council, but cautioned against expecting quick economic sanctions against the Teheran regime. Following the surprise decision by the foreign ministers of the US, Britain, France, Russia and China to recommend that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at its upcoming meeting refer the issue to the Security Council, the officials noted that the Security Council would unlikely take up the issue until March. In the meantime, the officials said, Israel's policy of keeping a low public profile on this issue to keep it from turning into an Israeli-Iranian issue, rather than an international one, would continue. Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said Tuesday that Iran would resume suspended nuclear activities and bar surprise UN inspections of facilities if it is referred to the Security Council. He stopped short of specifying that Iran would restart its uranium enrichment program, which has been suspended for nearly two years. A resumption of enrichment would dramatically escalate Teheran's confrontation with the West. "In case of referral... we have to start all nuclear work that has been voluntarily suspended and stop implementation of the Additional Protocol," Larijani told reporters. Under the protocols, Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to carry out surprise inspections of its nuclear sites with as little as two hours notice. The deal also lets them inspect sites Iran has not officially declared as nuclear facilities - such as the Parchin military base outside of Teheran that inspectors visited in October on suspicion that nuclear activity was taking place there. In recent weeks, Israeli diplomats have held discussions with their European and American counterparts about the most effective type of sanctions to take. According to assessments in Jerusalem, there is no interest in the various capitals in hitting Iran with draconian sanctions immediately, but rather waiting to see the impact that the very referring of the issue to the Security Council will have on the government in Iran. This is very much in line with what US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the Herzliya Conference via a video hookup last week. He said the first step after referring the issue to the Security Council would be a statement calling on Iran to comply with the existing IAEA resolutions. "I think that would be a gut check for the Iranians, and if they don't heed that warning we would have to consider what to do next," he said. Regarding that next stage, according to assessments reaching Jerusalem, the international community is walking a tightrope between wanting to punish the Iranian government and not wanting to make the Iranian public suffer. The concern is that if the people suffer, they would rally around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, something that would run contrary to the interests of the international community. Among the sanctions being considered are a ban on oil exports from Iran and an embargo against shipping refined oil products to Iran - something that could have a devastating impact on the country's economy. Iran imports oil products because its oil refining capabilities are very limited. Banning Iranian oil exports would mean that the international community would also have to ensure that other oil-producing countries increase their production so oil prices don't jump dramatically. There are also discussions about banning foreign investments in Iran, amid concern that not all countries would obey the ban and some would take advantage of the situation to get into Iran through the back door and make a huge profit. Other steps being considered are preventing the landing of Iranian airplanes abroad, and denying travel visas for Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian officials. At a London meeting that lasted into the early hours of Tuesday, envoys of Britain, China, France, Russia and the US decided they would recommend that at its Thursday meeting the IAEA should report Iran to the UN Security Council. They also decided the Security Council should wait until the agency issues a formal report on Iran in March before tackling the issue. Russia has touted that proviso in hopes that the referral will not scuttle negotiations it is holding with its ally Iran in hopes of resolving the standoff. In Vienna, Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh said the gathering storm over the nuclear issue would not affect Iran's oil policy. "We have no reason to
[osint] In a Lean Budget Year, A Pledge for Research
"...after years of cuts, Bush's proposals would barely get renewable-energy funding back to where it was at the end of his predecessor's administration, said Dan Reicher, an assistant energy secretary for renewable fuels and conservation under President Bill Clinton. "I wish the president had seen the green light six years ago," he said. "Then we'd be a lot further along then we are today." "...whereas his science program was denominated in billions of dollars, his energy program was in millions. Research into emissions-free coal plants would get $54 million in the fiscal year that begins in October. Solar power would get an additional $65 million. And wind energy would get a $5 million increase. Bush also called for $59 million in additional funds for developing fuels out of agricultural waste, such as wood chips, switch grass and stalks, with the aim of making such "cellulosic ethanol" competitive and practical within six years." Lots of noise, lip service and finger-pointing at the American public, but little real emphasis on actually swiftly moving forward to wean us (and him) away from his profiteering oil patch buddies any time soon. The level of energy reseach funding is a mere pittance; much, much, more would be needed to really show commitment to an energy self-sufficient America within even two decades from now. CICBush43 is just electioneering, not providing direction to effective energy policy. David Bier http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020100031.html In a Lean Budget Year, A Pledge for Research By Jonathan Weisman and Amy Goldstein Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, February 1, 2006; A13 With Washington bracing for an austere budget year, President Bush last night proposed a 10-year, $136 billion initiative that would double the federal commitment to basic scientific research and train tens of thousands of new math and science teachers. The president's "American Competitiveness Initiative" may lack the ambition of last year's effort to dramatically reshape Social Security, but in size and scope it dwarfs other domestic proposals in health care and energy research that had been heavily promoted in the run-up to the State of the Union address. It was also welcomed by scientists, after two years of relative austerity. The National Institutes of Health will absorb its first spending cut in three decades this year; last year, the National Science Foundation had to tighten its belt. Now the president will ask Congress to increase spending on federal research and development next year by nearly $6 billion, to a level that would be more than 50 percent higher than the level he inherited in 2001. Under the initiative, the budgets of the NSF, the Energy Department's Office of Science, and the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology would double over 10 years, with $50 billion in new funding. "I have to say we're delighted," said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "If this plays out, if Congress appropriates these kinds of funds, it will be a serious national commitment to a future science-based economy." In his speech, Bush put far more emphasis on an energy research-and-development effort that he said by 2025 would replace three-quarters of the oil imported from the Middle East. He pointedly did not renew his call to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. "We have a serious problem," Bush said. "America is addicted to oil." But whereas his science program was denominated in billions of dollars, his energy program was in millions. Research into emissions-free coal plants would get $54 million in the fiscal year that begins in October. Solar power would get an additional $65 million. And wind energy would get a $5 million increase. Bush also called for $59 million in additional funds for developing fuels out of agricultural waste, such as wood chips, switch grass and stalks, with the aim of making such "cellulosic ethanol" competitive and practical within six years. "It's important that this president, who made his living in the oil patch, is confronting what he called America's addiction to oil," said Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition. "This is an important step for this president, and I hope Congress is more aggressive than he has been." But after years of cuts, Bush's proposals would barely get renewable-energy funding back to where it was at the end of his predecessor's administration, said Dan Reicher, an assistant energy secretary for renewable fuels and conservation under President Bill Clinton. "I wish the president had seen the green light six years ago," he said. "Then we'd be a l
[osint] White House, Chertoff Faulted Over Katrina
"The White House had no clear chain of command in place, investigators with the Government Accountability Office said, laying much of the blame on President Bush for not designating a single official to coordinate federal decision-making for the Aug. 29 storm." A link to the GAO preliminary observations referred to in this article is provided at the end of the article. Please note that the GAO has no affiliation with any political party. David Bier http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_on_go_co/katrina_washington White House, Chertoff Faulted Over Katrina By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 13 minutes ago The White House and Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff failed to provide decisive action when Hurricane Katrina struck, congressional investigators said Wednesday in a stinging assessment of slow federal relief efforts. The White House had no clear chain of command in place, investigators with the Government Accountability Office said, laying much of the blame on President Bush for not designating a single official to coordinate federal decision-making for the Aug. 29 storm. Bush has accepted responsibility for the government's halting response, but for the most part then-FEMA Director Michael Brown, who quit days after the hurricane hit, has been the public face of the failures. "That's up to the president of the United States," GAO Comptroller General David M. Walker told reporters after being asked whether Chertoff should have been the lead official during the emergency. "It could have been Secretary Chertoff" or someone on the White House staff, Walker added. "That's up to the president." The report, which the congressional agency said was preliminary, also singled out Chertoff for several shortcomings. Chertoff has largely escaped direct criticism for the government's poor preparations and slow rescue efforts. The Homeland Security Department angrily responded to the GAO report, calling the preliminary findings a publicity stunt riddled with errors. Homeland Security oversees the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued a national plan last year for coordinating federal disaster response with state and local agencies. In their nine-page report, investigators noted that they had urged the Clinton White House to appoint a single disaster coordinator more than a decade ago after the destruction wrought by Hurricane Andrew. Still, they said, the Bush administration continued the failure with the lack of a clear chain of command and that led to internal confusion when Katrina struck. "In the absence of timely and decisive action and clear leadership responsibility and accountability, there were multiple chains of command," the report found. The assessment the first of several reports about the response to Katrina noted that Chertoff authorized additional federal assistance to overwhelmed state and local resources on Aug. 30, a day after the storm hit. But Chertoff did not specifically classify the storm as a catastrophic disaster, which would have triggered a faster response. "As a result, the federal response generally was to wait for the affected states to request assistance," the report found. In another stab at Chertoff, the report called for Homeland Security to provide stronger advance training and planning for future disasters including taking better advantage of the military's ability to rescue and evacuate victims, provide supplies and assess damage. Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke called the report misleading because federal officials and supplies were already at the Gulf Coast before Katrina hit. He said Chertoff did not activate a government plan for dealing with catastrophes because it is used only to respond to unexpected disasters. The report "displays a significant misunderstanding of core aspects of the Katrina response that could have easily been corrected in the most basic conversations with" Homeland Security leaders, Knocke said. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who is leading a special House investigation of the Katrina response, said the GAO findings will be included in his own panel's conclusions, which are due Feb. 15. "I'm very hopeful that our final report will answer a lot of questions the American people have," Davis said. "The most obvious being: How could our government fail so badly?" New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, in Washington to testify before a separate Senate-led Katrina inquiry, said he was not surprised at the report's conclusions. "One of the big challenges in this event was the chain of command issue," Nagin told The Associated Press. "And for something that was a multistate event, something that pretty much overwhelmed local government, we need to figure out how to do this better in the future." However, a transcript of an Aug. 28 briefing as Katrina bore
[osint] Soldiers sue over out-of-pocket costs
"...Massachusetts National Guard soldiers are taking the question straight to the top. They have filed a class-action lawsuit claiming they are owed $73 million in food, lodging, and commuting expenses they paid out-of-pocket while activated under state orders to protect sites such as military bases and reservoirs from terrorist attacks." "The lawsuit comes as other units across the country have faced problems with payments. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report last year, units in Maryland housed off-post had to pay for meals themselves or hitchhike to their post's dining facilities. In other states, National Guard members in some cases had not been given proper documentation to collect reimbursements, or standard answers about their entitlements." I don't see CICBush43 wading into this one with a "Support Our Troops" button on his lapel. In fact, the administration has been totally silent even though the National Guard Bureau is a part of DoD under Rumsfeld and should have, early on, established clear, national guidelines for reimbursement of guardsmen expenses incurred for homeland security duties. They didn't. Just like the Army didn't establish (and still has not) effective policies and procedures for the pay of soldiers wounded in Iraq and over 5,000 of the 16,000 wounded so far ended up dunned by bill collectors and families without pay; some for many months. So much for the Support Our Troops motto! David Bier rom the February 01, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0201/p03s02-usmi.html Soldiers sue over out-of-pocket costs Members of the Massachusetts National Guard file what is thought to be a first-of-its-kind lawsuit. By Sara Miller Llana | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor BOSTON - After 9/11, hundreds of thousands of America's part-time soldiers answered the call to serve. Along the way, some have asked whether the costs they bear - from insufficient body armor to mounting debt for their families at home - is fair. Now, Massachusetts National Guard soldiers are taking the question straight to the top. They have filed a class-action lawsuit claiming they are owed $73 million in food, lodging, and commuting expenses they paid out-of-pocket while activated under state orders to protect sites such as military bases and reservoirs from terrorist attacks. The lawsuit, filed recently in federal court against the Massachusetts National Guard and the US Department of Defense, is believed to be the first of its kind nationally, and raises new questions about what the government owes its men and women in uniform. For the soldiers' lawyers in the case, the denial to provide or pay room and board represents a diversion from standard practice. "It doesn't make sense, under applicable law, military procedure, or military experience," says John Shek, a Boston-based lawyer representing the plaintiffs. The case currently names four plaintiffs. Both the Massachusetts National Guard and the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Va., would not comment on the case, they said, because it is pending. But Maj. Winfield Danielson, spokesman for the Massachusetts National Guard, did say that this case has been under investigation since May, before the lawsuit was filed. The plaintiffs contend that suing was their last resort. When retired Capt. Louis Tortorella was called to serve at Camp Edwards on Cape Cod in December 2001, his orders read: "Government quarters not available, meals not available, per diem not authorized." But his station was 250 miles round trip from his home in Brookline, N.H. In 21 months, he says, he was forced to spend $14,625 in out-of-pocket expenses. He says when he questioned his superiors, he was told to forget about it, to "drive on," but was never told why per diem was denied. "Never in 25 years of military service have I experienced a set of orders like that," he says. The lawsuit comes as other units across the country have faced problems with payments. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report last year, units in Maryland housed off-post had to pay for meals themselves or hitchhike to their post's dining facilities. In other states, National Guard members in some cases had not been given proper documentation to collect reimbursements, or standard answers about their entitlements. "There are lots of disputes over reimbursements for meals," says Gregory Kutz, director of Financial Management and Assurance at the GAO. The sheer number of part-time soldiers, he says, was a major reason. "It's like trying to put a 10-pound sack of sugar into a five-pound bag," he says, "with soldiers spilling into hotels ... or riding bicycles back and forth. There were all kinds of novel situations created because of the unprecedented volume of people that didn't have sufficie
[osint] Transition of wounded back home has flaws
"For some war wounded and their families, the gaps between the systems remain frustrating, even dangerous, according to stories shared during a meeting earlier this month of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission." http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/SWPrintIt.cfm?page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eheraldnet%2Ecom%2Fstories%2F06%2F01%2F28%2F100bus%5Fphilpott001%2Ecfm The Herald - Everett, Wash. - www.HeraldNet.com Published: Saturday, January 28, 2006 Transition of wounded back home has flaws Tom Philpott Military Update With the Iraq war producing a steady stream of severely wounded service members, the departments of Defense and of Veterans Affairs are struggling with calls to create a "seamless transition" for disabled troops moving to long-term care. For some war wounded and their families, the gaps between the systems remain frustrating, even dangerous, according to stories shared during a meeting earlier this month of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission. "We've fallen through every crack imaginable," said Sarah Wade, wife of Army Sgt. Edward Wade, who was medically retired after serving in Afghanistan and Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division. Edward, 27, suffered severe brain injury and lost his right arm in February 2004 when a hidden bomb detonated beside his Humvee. He spent two months in a coma, during which the Army discharged him. That decision left Sarah, then Edward's fiance, in the fight of her life to get Edward, a polytrauma patient, the right combination of specialty care. The VA has four polytrauma centers and plans to build 21 more. The military also is moving to expand its multitrauma capabilities. But the effort was too late, or existing facilities too far away, to help the Wades. Sarah Wade said she dropped out of college and quit her part-time job to travel with Edward between VA hospitals in Richmond, Va., and Durham, N.C.; Walter Reed Army Medical in Washington D.C.; the hospital at Fort Bragg, N.C., and the couple's home in Chapel Hill, N.C. It has been a hectic and costly effort. But it thwarted VA plans, at one point, to keep Edward in a VA nursing home with a World War II veteran as a roommate and no specialists on staff to treat brain trauma or to rehabilitate an above-the-elbow amputee, Sarah said. The Wades' appearance before commissioners, with Edward using his remaining hand to move the microphone so his wife could be heard, was the emotional centerpiece in a compelling afternoon of testimony. The commission is conducting a comprehensive review of pay and benefits for disabled veterans, family members and survivors. Congress recently extended the due date for the commission's report to October 2007 Army Capt. Marc Giammatteo, the victim of a rocket-propelled grenade, also described his attempt to bridge the health systems. After more than three months and 25 surgeries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to try to save his right leg, Giammatteo was granted convalescence leave to visit family in Connecticut. His only promise to his doctors was to continue physical therapy to rehabilitate his leg. That he did. During therapy, however, a skin graft began to ooze. Walter Reed advised he apply special gauze available only by prescription. Giammatteo decided to try the nearby VA hospital, but was turned away. "I was told I wasn't a veteran yet, that I was still on active duty and so they couldn't write a prescription for me," he said. Maybe it isn't practical to open VA clinics and hospitals to all active duty members, Giammatteo said. But he urged the commission to recommend VA access at least for wounded service members on convalescent leave. Army Capt. David Rozelle said his big concern was with the timing of VA benefit counseling. Many wounded soldiers and Marines, newly arrived at Walter Reed or Bethesda Naval Medical Center, don't want to hear about their veterans benefits. They want to get back to their units. Rozelle, who lost his lower right leg to a tank mine in June 2003 while in Iraq with the 10th Mountain Division, said he listened to a bedside briefing from a VA representative, then threw the paperwork in the trash. "Seamless transition can only start when the veteran is ready for it to start," Rozelle said. He suggested that VA counselors focus first on educating family members of benefits and health care options. Family or hospital staff can then alert VA counselors when the patient is ready to listen. Rozelle said he speaks for a lot of wounded soldiers. But Rozelle also is exceptional, the first amputee in recent U.S. history to be redeployed to combat. He served a second tour in Iraq with his prosthetic leg. He conceded that the leg gave him problems, and he probably returned too soon. He now administers the amputee care center at Walter Reed. Spc4. Kevin Pannell with the Arkansas National Guard lost both of his legs in Iraq to a grenade attack. His medical retirement and transition to veteran status have gone well except for some pay pro
[osint] Fitzgerald admits White House may have destroyed some emails relevant to CIA lea
"Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy." Nixon redux? David Bier http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_admits_White_House_may_have_0201.html Fitzgerald admits White House may have destroyed some emails relevant to CIA leak case 02/01/2006 @ 4:31 pm Filed by RAW STORY RAW STORY has acquired a letter from CIA leak Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis Libby, who was indicted for allegedly obstructing justice and other charges for his role in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Advertisement In the letter, Fitzgerald admits that he has been told some emails from the President and Vice President's offices have been deleted, though he cautions that "no pertinent evidence has been destroyed." "In an abundance of caution," he writes, "we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal achiving process on the White House computer system." The New York Daily News' James Meek reported this morning that "CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald collected 10,000 pages of documents - including the most sensitive terrorism memos in the U.S. government - from Vice President Cheney's office, he said in court papers released yesterday. Libby's lawyers are seeking classified material to aid their defense, which many legal analysts see as an attempt to force the prosecutor's hand in dropping the case or reducing certain charges in the interests of national security. Meek added: "Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy." The relevant page of that letter follows in image form. http://rawstory.com/images/other/fitz-destroyed.jpg To download Fitzgerald's entire letter in PDF form, click here. http://rawstory.com/other/pdfs/RawStoryFitzLetter.pdf -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Official: Army Has Authority to Spy on Americans
"...about 12,500 Talon reports would have been filed during the approximately 2½ years the program has existed," The Washington Post concluded Tuesday." ""Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting U.S. person information," the U.S.Army's top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday. Not only that, military intelligence agencies are permitted to "receive" domestic intelligence information, even though they cannot legally "collect" it," according to the Nov. 5, 2001, memo issued by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Noonan Jr., the deputy chief of staff for intelligence." Since the TALON reports primarily targeted groups, if an average of eight persons per group is assumed, that means TALON collected data on about 100,000 Americans and a smattering of Canadians in the U.S. Al Qaeda, by its own records seized by the Army in Afghanistan, only trained at most 20,000 from all over the world with even basic military skills training with a much lower number receiving advanced terrorist training. Lots of overflow here, including even Canadian school children; and we haven't even gotten to the wholesale NSA data mining yet. Folks went to jail and lots of careers were ruined in MI for the Army spying against Americans during the Vietnam War, so I have to assume that general may be engaged in bush league thinking. David Bier http://cqpolitics.com/cq.com/www.cq.com/public/20060131_homeland.html CQ HOMELAND SECURITY INTELLIGENCE Jan. 31, 2006 9:21 p.m. Official: Army Has Authority to Spy on Americans By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff "Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting U.S. person information," the U.S.Army's top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday. Not only that, military intelligence agencies are permitted to "receive" domestic intelligence information, even though they cannot legally "collect" it," according to the Nov. 5, 2001, memo issued by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Noonan Jr., the deputy chief of staff for intelligence. "MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone, anytime," Noonan wrote in the memo, obtained by Secrecy News, a newsletter from the non-profit Federation of American Scientists in Washington. Defense Department and Army regulations "allow collection about U.S. persons reasonably believed to be engaged, or about to engage, in international terrorist activities," Noonan continued. "Remember, merely receiving information does not constitute `collection' under AR [Army Regulation] 381-10; collection entails receiving `for use,' " he added. (Army Regulation 381-10, "U.S. Army Intelligence Activities," was reissued on Nov. 22, 2005, but had not previously been disclosed publicly.) "Army intelligence may always receive information, if only to determine its intelligence value and whether it can be collected, retained, or disseminated in accordance with governing policy," The distinction between "receiving" and "collecting" seems "to offer considerable leeway for domestic surveillance activities under the existing legal framework," wrote editor Steven Aftergood in Tuesday's edition of Secrecy News. "This in turn makes it harder to understand why the NSA domestic surveillance program departed from previous practice." Aftergood was alerted to the existence of the memo by another security expert, John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, who thought that "there is enough ambiguity in the language that with a bit of creativity in managing the U.S. persons files there would have been not too much trouble" applying existing rules to the warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency. TALON Reports The Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) was launched in 2002 with the mission of "gathering information and conducting activities to protect DoD and the nation against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, assassinations, and terrorist activities," according to a CIFA brochure. Its TALON program has amassed files on antiwar protesters, according to a Pentagon official. "More than 5,000 TALON reports" were "received and shared throughout the government" in the program's first year of operation," Carol A. Haave, deputy undersecretary of Defense for counterintelligence and security, told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in May 2004. "At that rate, about 12,500 Talon reports would have been filed during the approximately 2½ years the program has existed," The Washington Post concluded Tuesday. Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence: "Collecting Information on U.S. Pers
[osint] Multimillion dollar Abramoff client gave $50,000 to GOP after meeting with Bush,
"I will not comment about what Abramoff did outside of the commonwealth," Fitial told the Marianas Variety Online. "But if you ask me what he did for the commonwealth, (Abramoff) protected our Covenant." Covenant is Fitial's political party. Fitial was elected governor of the Northern Marianas in November." And so, with the corruption investigations stopped by Ashcroft, Fred Black, the U.S. Attorney there demoted and forbidden to conduct corruption cases, and legislation to bring CNMI immigration under U.S. rules blocked by the photographed legislators, the almost slave labor garment industry working conditions still exist and the open immigration policy needed to bring in thousands of asian workers continues. With totally open immigration, any al-Qaeda member can immigrate to CNMI, establish a cover and identity and then, since it is a U.S. protectorate, travel to the U.S. as a domestic traveler not subject to strict examination. A BIG loophole in our homeland security and the GWOT. Say "Cheese" CICBush43! David Bier http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Multimillion_dollar_Abramoff_client_who_gave_0201.html Multimillion dollar Abramoff client gave $50,000 to GOP after meeting with Bush, DeLay, Hastert and Lott 02/01/2006 @ 1:05 pm Filed by John Byrne and Ron Brynaert Abramoff firm gave $50,000 more to GOP congressional campaigns seven months after visits Photo - Fitial with President Bush in 2001 http://www.saipantribune.com/imgarch/p1foto5.25.2001.jpg Eleven million dollars can buy a lot of access in Washington. Especially if your lobbyist is Jack Abramoff. Take Beningo Fitial, the current governor of the Northern Marianas Islands, a U.S. territory in the Pacific. He and his company, along with their trade lobby and funds doled out by the islands at his prodding, spent $11.5 million dollars lobbying Washington between 1995 and 2002. Now he says he wants his money back -- but he continues to maintain that Abramoff protected his island's interests. Fitialwho became Speaker of the Marianas House after a coup organized by Abramoff's associates and former aides of House Majority Leader Tom DeLaywas treated like a king. In January 2001, Fitial enjoyed the inauguration of President George W. Bush. (http://www.saipantribune.com/archives/newsstoryarch.aspx?newsID=11360&cat=1&archdte=1/16/2001%2012:00:00%20AM) Three months later, in April, Fitial met Bush a second time. He also met then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS). (http://www.saipantribune.com/archives/newsstoryarch.aspx?cat=1&newsID=13561&archdte=5/14/2001%2012:00:00%20AM) Then he stopped in for visit with Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL). (http://www.saipantribune.com/archives/newsstoryarch.aspx?cat=1&newsID=13561&archdte=5/14/2001%2012:00:00%20AM) Fitial with Tom DeLay and Conrad Burns http://rawstory.com/images/other/fitialdelayburns.jpg In other wordsAbramoff seems to have arranged for a non-head of state for a tiny island in the Pacific to meet with the three most powerful men in the United States of America. But that's not all: Fitial also met with then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) (http://www.saipantribune.com/archives/newsstoryarch.aspx?cat=1&newsID=12856&archdte=4-6-2001) and Senate Interior Department Appropriations Chairman Conrad Burns (R-MT). (http://www.saipantribune.com/archives/newsstoryarch.aspx?cat=1&newsID=12856&archdte=4-6-2001) Fitial appears in photographs with Burns and Delay -- enlarged from tiny thumbnails in his hometown paper -- at left. (http://rawstory.com/images/other/fitialdelayburns.jpg) That, it seems -- along with a spate of legislative victories keeping the islands from U.S. jurisdiction -- is the value of $11 million dollars. Fitial, not surprisingly, has not been terribly critical of Abramoff since he pled guilty to myriad criminal charges, including fraud, tax evasion and bribing members of Congress. Six months after his visit to Capitol Hill, Fitial's family's companies donated $50,000 to the National Senatorial Campaign Committee. The following month, Abramoff's firm, at the direction (http://opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.asp?txtName=Greenberg%2C+Traurig+et+al&txtUltOrg=y&txtSort=name&txtCycle=2002) of former press secretary to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) Michael Scanlon, doled out $50,000 to the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. The Los Angeles Times reported last year that Scanlon secured Fitial's election by promising U.S. tax dollars as "bartering chips." (http://www.political-news.org/breaking/10077/two-former-aides-to-delay-paved-way-for-lobbyists-deal.html) Fitial also chaired the islands' campaign to raise money (http://www.cnmicovenant.com/bios/ben.html)for President Bush's election. The AP reported last May that records show Abramoff's Marianas lobbying team met members of the Bu
[osint] Jeb shredding state records?
"...Gov. Jeb Bush has ordered the shredding of documents and public records, a clear violation of Florida law." "...the governor also has brought in personnel from Texas to replace key members of his staff in Tallahassee. The Texans are overseeing the destruction of state documents, according to the source." And so the Abramoff scandal spreads... David Bier http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory&cat=2&id=12347 Jeb shredding state records? By Joe Baker, Senior Editor Jeb Bush http://www.rockrivertimes.com/Images/Story//Auto-img-113882301824218.jpg A source inside the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation told Insider magazine that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has ordered the shredding of documents and public records, a clear violation of Florida law. The department has oversight and approval of state gaming licensees, slot machines, dog and horse tracks, and jai-alai games. The source, who asked to remain anonymous, said the governor also has brought in personnel from Texas to replace key members of his staff in Tallahassee. The Texans are overseeing the destruction of state documents, according to the source. A source in the FBI confirmed that public records are being destroyed on orders of Jeb Bush. The source said the governor may have taken that action in response to the continuing criminal probe of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the federal investigation of the 2001 gangland murder in Miami of Gus Boulis, owner of the Sun Cruz casino boat. >From the Feb. 1-7, 2006, issue -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Military waived regulations for 21,880 recruits last year, Salon reports
"...in order to boost recruiting, the military has waived regulations for 17 percent of its new recruits -- or 21,880 new soldiers -- in 2005." Army seems to be desperate for troops. Waivers to bring in 21,880 criminals and 12,500 stop-loss actions in 2005 alone (see post 65165) to keep in the good guys who want out when they are supposed to. Really an interesting "volunteer" Army. If CICBush43 starts action against Iran, looks like a draft will not be far behind since that will no doubt actually be a declared war. And that will have consequences for all of us economically as cargo and passenger movements to and from the U.S. will involve entering a war zone with higher insurance costs so goods and fuel will cost more. Oh yeah, your insurance probably doesn't cover damage in a war zone or acts of war. Stay tuned... David Bier http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Military_waived_regulations_for_21880_recruits_0202.html Military waived regulations for 21,880 recruits last year, Salon reports 02/02/2006 @ 10:11 am Filed by RAW STORY An article in today's Salon.com describes how a future Air National Guardsman was busted for possessing marijuana and how the Guard waived their usual prohibition on "criminal offenses" to let him join the Guard. The article reveals that in order to boost recruiting, the military has waived regulations for 17 percent of its new recruits -- or 21,880 new soldiers -- in 2005. Excerpts: Under Air National Guard rules, the dealer had committed a "major offense" that would bar him from military service. Air National Guard recruits, like other members of the military, cannot have drug convictions on their record. But on Feb. 2, 2005, the applicant who had been arrested in the mini-mall was admitted into the Delaware Air National Guard. How? Through the use of a little-known, but increasingly important, escape clause known as a waiver. Waivers, which are generally approved at the Pentagon, allow recruiters to sign up men and women who otherwise would be ineligible for service because of legal convictions, medical problems or other reasons preventing them from meeting minimum standards. This is where waivers come in. According to statistics provided to Salon by the office of the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, the Army said that 17 percent (21,880 new soldiers) of its 2005 recruits were admitted under waivers. Put another way, more soldiers than are in an entire infantry division entered the Army in 2005 without meeting normal standards. This use of waivers represents a 42 percent increase since the pre-Iraq year of 2000. (All annual figures used in this article are based on the government's fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. So fiscal year 2006 began Oct. 1, 2005.) In fact, even the already high rate of 17 percent underestimates the use of waivers, as the Pentagon combined the Army's figures with the lower ones for reserve forces to dilute the apparent percentage. Equally significant is the Army's currently liberal use of "moral waivers," loosely defined as criminal offenses. Officially, the Pentagon states that most waivers issued on moral grounds are for minor infractions like traffic tickets. Yet documents obtained by Salon show that many of the offenses are more serious and include drunken driving and domestic abuse. Full restricted story here. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/ -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Court filings shed more light on CIA leak investigation
"Fitzgerald alludes to "authorization" by Libby's "superiors" who may include President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney who may have allowed him to disclose information about a then-classified report on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction to the media." ""A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document," Fitzgerald writes. "In any event, we would not view an assessment of the damage caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony which the grand jury alleged was false." It is astounding that no damage assessment has been done by the CIA as one is REQUIRED BY LAW and government regulations to be done when classified information is compromised. Somebody applied BIG TIME pressure to keep a lid on that one. And for good reason, as a damage assessment would have indicated major damage to the CIA program to control WMD since all of the foreign sources and agents associated with Plame and her front company would have been compromised worldwide. Such an assessment result indicating major damage would eventually have gone public via leak and hugely embarrassed CICBush43. David Bier http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Court_filings_shed_more_light_on_0202.html Court filings shed more light on CIA leak investigation 02/02/2006 @ 12:28 pm Filed by John Byrne and Ron Brynaert I. Lewis Libby http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20060106/capt.sge.tln50.060106185441.photo00.photo.default-302x384.jpg?x=271&y=345&sig=Y57cmfd57q7aV_OMVTzVMA-- Third Time reporter, named in filings, says he has not testified in case A series of striking revelations have emerged after the release of dozens of pages of court files in the CIA leak investigation that have gone unnoticed by the mainstream media, RAW STORY has found. Some of them have been uncovered by astute bloggers including the fact that the outed agent's husband will not testify at a trial, and that a third Time reporter has been fingered as having information potentially relevant to some aspects of the case. Moreover, the documents reveal that no formal damage assessment has been done with regard to how the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame affected the agency's operations worldwide. They also hint that Vice President Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby may have outed Plame on the orders of his "superiors." Fitzgerald's Jan. 23 letter was penned in response to a series of telephone conversations, letters, and motions filed by Libby, who was indicted for obstructing justice in the Plame investigation. Libby has sought to force the prosecutor to turn over more information about his case to bolster his defense. In the letter, Fitzgerald notes that a third Time Magazine reporter who now serves as Slate's chief political correspondent had conversations with Administration officials about a trip conducted by Plame's husband to investigate claims that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger. "We also advise you that we understand that reporter John Dickerson of Time magazine discussed the trip by Mr. Wilson with government officials at some time on July 11 or after, subsequent to Mr. Cooper learning about Mr. Wilson's wife," Fitzgerald writes. "Any conversations involving Mr. Dickerson likely took place in Africa and occurred after July 11." Matt Cooper, also a Time reporter, testified that Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove had cautioned him to play down the Wilson trip. Wilson, an ardent Bush critic, said he found no evidence to support claims that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium in order to build a nuclear weapon. Such claims were a keystone in the Administration's efforts to convince the United States and Congress to support a pre-emptive war. Reporter says he hasn't been contacted in case Dickerson told RAW STORY in an email message Thursday morning that he has not been contacted by the prosecutor. "I didn't know I was mentioned in the court filings until I saw it on the web," he said. "I've never been contacted by anyone in Fitzgerald's office." >From July 8 to July 12, 2003, President Bush took a five-country tour of Africa, accompanied by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. A pool of reporters, including Dickerson, accompanied the President's retinue. Although the White House correspondent made no mention of any such conversations in his series of articles on the trip (link), (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,463671,00.html) Dickerson did contribute to a Time online report published on July 17, 2003. >Fro
[osint] Bush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane'
"George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair." "The leaders discussed the prospects for a second resolution, but Mr Bush said: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway." He added that he had a date, 10 March, pencilled in for the start of military action. The war actually began on 20 March." "There was also a discussion of what might happen in Iraq after Saddam had been overthrown. President Bush said that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not respond." Sounds like CICBush43...determined to go to war with Iraq by any means even though no proof of Hussein violations was in hand and willing to use deception to cause Hussein to violate the first UN resolution. CICBush43 had already penciled in the invasion start date so the second UN resolution was merely a cosmetic exercise. To top it off, CICBush43 exhibited his naive viewpoint (apparently he never talked with his father about why Bush41 refused to invade) about the ethnic divisions and their possible warfare in Iraq after Hussein's overthrow. Such a leader we have... David Bier http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.ece Bush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane' By Andy McSmith Published: 03 February 2006 George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair. The two leaders were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though privately they were convinced that he had. According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." He added: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated." The memo damningly suggests the decision to invade Iraq had already been made when Mr Blair and the US President met in Washington on 31 January 2003 when the British Government was still working on obtaining a second UN resolution to legitimise the conflict. The leaders discussed the prospects for a second resolution, but Mr Bush said: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway." He added that he had a date, 10 March, pencilled in for the start of military action. The war actually began on 20 March. Mr Blair replied that he was "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam." But he also insisted that " a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs" . The memo appears to refute claims made in memoirs published by the former UK ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, who has accused Mr Blair of missing an opportunity to win the US over to a strategy based on a second UN resolution. It now appears Mr Bush's mind was already made up. There was also a discussion of what might happen in Iraq after Saddam had been overthrown. President Bush said that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not respond. Details of the meeting are revealed in a book, Lawless World, published today by Philippe Sands, a professor of law at University College London. "I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy planes to review what is going on would be considered," Mr Sands told Channel 4 News last night. "What is surprising is the idea that they would be painted in the colours of the United Nations to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. "Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises... questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law." Other participants in the meeting were Mr Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, her deputy, Dan Fried, the chief of staff,
[osint] Judge Slams Ex-EPA Chief Over Sept. 11
"The judge let the lawsuit proceed against the EPA and Whitman, permitting the plaintiffs to try to prove that the agency and its administrator endangered their health." "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," the judge said." Federal officials have immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act for actions taken "within the scope" of their official duties. The judge was acting within the scope of the precedent of scores of past judicial case law rulings that LYING is not an action within the scope of official duties. Especially when those lies result in injury and death as is already the case for at least one first responder to 9/11 who died of respiratory ailment connected to 9/11. Of course, given the propensity for CICBush43 administration officials to lie through their teeth rather than say anything, no matter how factual or real, that might differ from official White House policy because they will be (and have been) summarily fired, possibly there should be a "bureaucratic survival" exception added to the tort claims act. No? David Bier http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_re_us/epa_sept11_lawsuit Judge Slams Ex-EPA Chief Over Sept. 11 By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press WriterFri Feb 3, 12:52 AM ET A federal judge blasted former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman on Thursday for reassuring New Yorkers soon after the Sept. 11 attacks that it was safe to return to their homes and offices while toxic dust was polluting the neighborhood. U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts refused to grant Whitman immunity against a class-action lawsuit brought in 2004 by residents, students and workers in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who said they were exposed to hazardous materials from the destruction of the World Trade Center. "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," the judge said. She called Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking," saying the EPA chief knew that the collapse of the twin towers released tons of hazardous materials into the air. Whitman had no comment, according to a spokeswoman. A Justice Department spokesman said the government had no comment. Spokeswoman Mary Mears said the EPA was reviewing the opinion but was pleased that the court had dismissed two of four civil claims against the agency, including allegations brought under the federal Superfund law. "The EPA will continue to vigorously defend against the outstanding claims," she said. The judge let the lawsuit proceed against the EPA and Whitman, permitting the plaintiffs to try to prove that the agency and its administrator endangered their health. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and reimbursement for cleanup costs and asks the court to order that a medical monitoring fund be set up to track the health of those exposed to trade center dust. In her ruling, Batts noted that the EPA and Whitman said repeatedly beginning just two days after the attack that the air appeared safe to breathe. The EPA's internal watchdog later found that the agency, at the urging of White House officials, gave misleading assurances. Quoting a ruling in an earlier case, the judge said a public official cannot be held personally liable for putting the public in harm's way unless the conduct was so egregious as "to shock the contemporary conscience." Given her role in protecting the health and environment for Americans, Whitman's reassurances after Sept. 11 were "without question conscience-shocking," Batts said. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said in a statement that New Yorkers are still depending on the federal government to describe any ongoing risk from contaminants. "I continue to believe that the White House owes New Yorkers an explanation," she said. U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat whose district includes the trade center site, said the many people who worked at the site and developed respiratory diseases deserve answers. "It is my assumption that thousands of people workers and residents are being slowly poisoned today because these workplaces and residences were never properly cleaned up," Nadler said in a telephone interview. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[osint] The White House memo
"Bush and Blair discussed using American Spyplane in UN colours to lure Saddam into war." "I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law." http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661 The White House memo Published: 2 Feb 2006 By: Gary Gibbon Revealed: Bush and Blair discussed using American Spyplane in UN colours to lure Saddam into war. Channel 4 News tonight reveals extraordinary details of George Bush and Tony Blair's pre-war meeting in January 2003 at which they discussed plans to begin military action on March 10th 2003, irrespective of whether the United Nations had passed a new resolution authorising the use of force. Channel 4 News has seen minutes from that meeting, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. The two leaders discussed the possibility of securing further UN support, but President Bush made it clear that he had already decided to go to war. The details are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC. President Bush said that: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.'' Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam." But Mr Blair said that: "a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs." Mr Sands' book says that the meeting focused on the need to identify evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach of his obligations under the existing UN Resolution 1441. There was concern that insufficient evidence had been unearthed by the UN inspection team, led by Dr Hans Blix. Other options were considered. President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." He went on: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddams WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated." Speaking to Channel 4 News, Mr Sands said: "I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law." Also present at the meeting were President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice and her deputy Dan Fried, and the Presidents Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. The Prime Minister took with him his then security adviser Sir David Manning, his Foreign Policy aide Matthew Rycroft, and and his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell. Those present, as documented in Mr Sands' book, also discussed what might happen in Iraq after liberation. President Bush said that he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." The Foreign Office issued a statement: "The Government only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House in the vote on 18 march 2003. "The decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligation imposed by successive UN Security Council Resolutions was taken only after all other routes to disarm Iraq had failed. "Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between UK and US Governments about Iraq." >>White House Meeting Memo Special Report http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/whitehouse_meeting_memo.html >>Timeline: Road to War http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1655 >>More background http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/whitehouse_meeting_memo.html -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use
[osint] Mosul Makes Gains Against the Chaos
"Since the fall of Saddam, we haven't seen any changes in the situation. We thought it was going to get better -- the oil prices, the election -- but it hasn't." "Another problem is the overrepresentation of Kurds in units deployed in this predominantly Arab city. The troops Hammond's platoon was working with were all Kurds from Irbil, east of Mosul, and from Dahuk province to the north -- both located in the Kurds' largely independent region. Few spoke Arabic, and many had Kurdish flags sewn on the shoulders of their camouflage uniforms, even though the practice is against regulations." "Most people in Mosul, in general, they respect us," said Hazim Mohammed Khorsheed, a Kurdish soldier working with Hammond's unit. "Some don't respect us, so we shouldn't respect them." So the stage is being set for Kurds to take control of Mosul when the civil war starts as U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq...or sooner. David Bier http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102235.html Mosul Makes Gains Against the Chaos A Year After City's Police Force Crumbled, Iraqi Units Are on Duty, Violence Is Down By Nelson Hernandez Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, February 2, 2006; A14 MOSUL, Iraq -- A year after its police force melted away and the streets descended into anarchy, Mosul has climbed up from the abyss. But this city of 2 million, a key battleground in the Iraq war, still teeters on the edge of chaos. Insurgents have tried to assassinate the province's governor three times during his 18 months in office. They have killed his son, five other relatives and 27 bodyguards. The provincial police chief was fired late last year after he was accused of having ties to the insurgency. Unemployment hovers at about 40 percent. The number of reported attacks is down 57 percent since the battle for the city last year, according to Lt. Col. Mitchell Rambih, operations officer for the U.S. Army's 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team. But residents say violence remains a serious problem. "Every day there is shooting," Likaa Talal, a mother of five, told reporters accompanying U.S. and Iraqi troops in Mosul's Jamiilah Circle neighborhood. "There used to be more bombs before, more attacks, but now there is less. I sit at home. I don't know what's going on outside." Though the political, economic and military situations in Mosul are still tenuous, U.S. officials here say the city's fate will soon be in Iraqi hands. Confident in the skills of the newly trained Iraqi army and political and military leaders who say they are fiercely opposed to terrorism, U.S. commanders have started giving small units responsibility for protecting areas of this ethnically divided city. So far, two Iraqi battalions, roughly 1,500 men, have been given authority over sectors of the city formerly patrolled by American units. U.S. commanders plan to put a third battalion in charge of another area soon. If all goes as planned, Mosul and surrounding Nineveh province will be in the hands of 24,000 Iraqi troops by November. Ten months ago, U.S. military officials said they hoped to hand over the province by the end of 2005. After putting an Iraqi battalion in charge of a sector in the center of Mosul last March, some commanders told a Washington Post correspondent that the training of the Iraqi units was proceeding swiftly. Others, however, warned that it might be better to take a more deliberate approach, making sure the Iraqis were trained properly. The U.S. military followed their advice, and progress has been modest. Col. Michael Shields, commander of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, stressed that giving Iraqi units responsibility would remain "event-driven" and that problems with politics or insurgent attacks could slow the transition. He also noted that U.S. forces would remain in the region after the handover to give logistical, air and ground support to the Iraqi army. Interviews with the Iraqi political and military officials who will take responsibility for running Mosul and Nineveh province, and with residents of the city, reveal a conflicting picture of progress mixed with persisting problems. There are the rivalries between the city's Arabs and Kurds, played out in politics and assassinations. There is the high unemployment that leaves young men with little to do but fight or turn to crime. Police and army officials complain that the city's judges are afraid to imprison insurgents they've captured. And despite the $61.5 million spent so far on rebuilding the city's infrastructure, residents say they receive only a few hours of electricity and water a day. The central question is whether Iraqi army and police units will be able to control the restive city with limited help from U.S. forces or will desert en masse, as they did in Novembe
[osint] Lessons Learned?
"The almost $3 billion open gold loss on Barrick's books is greater than their cumulative total profits for the entire existence of the company. To my knowledge, it is the largest derivatives loss in history." "The problem with Barrick's gold short position is that it is too large to be covered, or bought back, without major consequences, either to the company or the gold market...And at 13 million ounces, the short position is much larger than the combined gold held in all the gold ETFs. A sudden gold buy of 13 million ounces would surely send the gold market flying, greatly compounding Barrick's loss." "With Barrick's rotten experience of shorting years of production so obvious, you would think no company would ever do that again. You would be wrong. Apex Silver (SIL) just did it. And they did it at precisely the wrong time. Specifically, Apex sold two years' production of both zinc and lead during the third quarter, as well as 6 months' production of silver. At the close on December 30th, zinc prices had climbed almost 40% since September 30th, with outsized gains in lead and silver as well, putting Apex's shorts immediately under water. They've got to be many tens of millions of dollars in the hole already." Just a bit of business OSINT, not of too much importance to afficianados of world events, but likely to be very painful to those holding stocks in those companies. Of course, folks holding gold ETF shares in the stock markets or holding gold futures contracts in the commodities markets may be very happy campers pretty soon if Barrick is forced to cover those short positions in a rising gold market. It would not be pretty. Apex may be in deep trouble if the Barclays silver ETF is approved as that ETF would immediately have to buy millions of ounces of silver so that it would be solvent and be able to sell silver-backed ETF shares. That would cause a rapid escalation in silver prices. Thus, Apex would be trying to buy silver to cover its six month short position (since it can't provide silver from its production for almost two years) in a massive price rise caused by the Barclay silver buy. Apex could easily end up bankrupt. It wouldbe very ugly. Fortunately for me, I have no shares of either company and certainly don't intend to buy any. For sure. David Bier http://www.investmentrarities.com/tb-archives.html January 3, 2006 Lessons Learned? By Theodore Butler Just this morning, my wife informed me that she just had a telephone conversation with an old friend who passed along regards for me, as well as the comment that she noticed gold had moved up quite a bit and how she hoped I wasn't feeling too bad because silver hadn't. When I told my wife that silver had gone up even more than gold, she was genuinely surprised, as I'm sure her friend would have been. With 2005 now history, we can speak with precision about what occurred over the past year. The most obvious is to record and note actual price performance. For the year, silver appreciated 30% in price. This gain was 50% greater than the almost 20% increase in the price of gold. To the casual observer this might have been somewhat surprising, given the amount of publicity given to gold. But silver investors have learned to take it in stride, content with profits and value and not headlines, as silver has outperformed gold in each of the past three years In fact, silver has cumulatively outperformed the other popular precious metals (gold, platinum and palladium) over the past three years by a wide margin, with the three-year return on silver close to almost double the equivalent gain in gold, 50% greater than platinum and almost 7 times the gain in palladium. Considering the value and fundamentals of silver, I would think that the out performance of silver compared to other precious metals (and all other natural resources) should become a regular feature in the years to come. By the time you do see silver in the headlines, the out performance should be astounding. But, I am not using the occasion of the closing of the books on 2005 to showcase silver's price performance. I have another thought in mind. The end of the calendar year is also the occasion for marking-to-market on a wide variety of derivatives transactions. While it will be several weeks until the publicly traded mining companies report official year-end hedge book results, it is the closing prices of December 30 that will determine those results, plus any positions that were added or liquidated during the third quarter. I'm going to go out on a limb here and talk about two companies in particular, even though there could have been trading changes during the quarter that cause my figures to be wide of the mark. I don't think there have been major changes and the situation is serious enough that I don't want to wait until the companies report to get my mes
[osint] When Two Worlds Collide
"Rove deliberately omitted key information about conversations with
reporters that he could not possibly have forgotten; he claimed to
have heard classified government information only from a reporter --
despite the fact that he himself was one of the highest government
officials in the nation; and then he admitted that he had no qualms
about enlisting surrogates to betray government employees in order to
achieve political gain.
Rove's statement raised more questions than answers. It also opened a
window into the world of a President's key adviser who never left
campaign mode and who had never before been tripped up, no matter what
he did. Such a man would be quite unprepared for an investigator like
Fitzgerald who operates under a very different timetable and in a
world ordered by radically different rules.
Now that Rove's statement has been shown to be so obviously false, it
would be most surprising if when his world and Fitzgerald's collide,
the result isn't a political earthquake."
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=55695
Tomgram: De la Vega on Why Rove Will Fall
The President passed through his State of the Union address
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html)
-- ill-digested chunks of so many other speeches he's given ("We're
writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women
lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their
liberty with purple ink
) -- largely untouched by the media.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/02/01/BL2006020101156_pf.html)
is two Supreme Court-changing appointments, Roberts and Alito, were
triumphantly in the front row of the audience.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101195.html)
undoubtedly, it wasn't a bad way for a besieged President to start
year two of term two. Okay, maybe in distant Baghdad -- "We're on the
offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory" -- things were
actually looking a little peaked and, admittedly, the Bush wave of
freedom in the Middle East had just swept Islamic fundamentalists into
control of the Palestinian Authority, but all in all the President had
reason to feel at least some satisfaction. And yet there lurks a
presidential problem of administration-staggering proportions that few
are even thinking about at the moment.
Quietly, largely below the radar screen, Special Counsel Patrick
Fitzgerald continues to work on the CIA leak case in which the
administration decided to punish ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson for
embarrassing them on Saddam's nonexistent search for yellowcake
uranium by outing his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent. News on the
case has been sparse indeed of late. I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby,
indicted former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, crept back
into the papers this week on a fishing expedition for CIA documents;
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101464_pf.html)
while a single, shades-of-Watergate sentence in a brief report by
James Gordon Meek in the New York Daily News
(http://www.nydailynews.com/02-01-2006/news/story/387396p-328749c.html)
indicated that "Fitzgerald
said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that
many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in
2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy." (The letter
can be found at the Raw Story website.) Meanwhile, not so long ago in
an investigative report at the Truthout website,
(http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012306Z.shtml) the fine Internet
reporter Jason Leopold indicated that Fitzgerald "has been questioning
witnesses in the CIA leak case about the origins of the disputed Niger
documents referenced in President Bush's January 2003 State of the
Union address."
Still, the case, having largely disappeared into the media void, has
something of the look of yet another danger dodged by an
administration with at least nine lives. Well, don't let the relative
silence surrounding Fitzgerald fool you. As former federal prosecutor
Elizabeth de la Vega indicates below, the Special Counsel is working
on another time schedule than that of administration officials. So, in
due course, expect fireworks out of his office that will first
illuminate the role of Karl Rove in the case and then may well light
up a far wider stretch of the horizon. Tom
When Two Worlds Collide
Rove v. Fitzgerald
By Elizabeth de la Vega
For Karl Rove, no news from the Plame case -- Special Counsel
Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation into the outing of
Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA agent -- is definitely not
good news. Seismic activity is notoriously silent, so we may not be
hearing any rumblings at the moment. But speaking as a former
prosecutor, I believe it highly likely that, just below the surface,
the worlds of Karl Rove and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald,
shifting like tectonic plates, are about to collide. As was true with
Vice Presi
[osint] Sanitary teams cull birds in Kurdish hot zone
"In the picturesque town of Dukan, next to a beautiful alpine lake in Iraq's Kurdish region, checkpoints blocking the roads mark the beginning of a buffer zone to halt the spread of the deadly bird flu. Teams of medical technicians and veterinarians prepare to enter the suspected "hot zone" where teenager Shanjin Abdel Qader died on January 17 after she was infected by the fatal virus." If the bird flu spreads, it will soon end up in areas occupied by U.S. troops. David Bier http://web.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleNr=9130&LangNr=12&LNNr=28&RNNr=70 2 Feb 2006 Sanitary teams cull birds in Kurdish hot zone BAGHDAD, Feb 2, 2006 (AFP) - 12h38 - In the picturesque town of Dukan, next to a beautiful alpine lake in Iraq's Kurdish region, checkpoints blocking the roads mark the beginning of a buffer zone to halt the spread of the deadly bird flu. Teams of medical technicians and veterinarians prepare to enter the suspected "hot zone" where teenager Shanjin Abdel Qader died on January 17 after she was infected by the fatal virus. Their mission is to kill hundreds of thousands of birds in this northern frontier area bordering Iran. The teams are dressed in blue or yellow chemical suits that cover their whole bodies, with masks, gloves and boots ensuring that no flesh is exposed. Hundreds of them have been at it for the past three days. Cars leaving the zone are sprayed with disinfectant, and drivers are required to wipe their shoes on carpets impregnated with the disinfectant. "We bought ourselves ten tons of disinfectant, which cost us 200,000 dollars, which comes out of the budget of the province," said team leader and veterinarian Abbas Ali, adding that help from Baghdad has been slow in coming. "With our meager funds, we have to disinfect all the villages, hamlets and residences in this vast zone," he said. According to the Kurds, some 50 villages and 400,000 people have been placed under quarantine. Ali also laments the lack of Tamiflu medication for his men, who could be in daily contact with the virus. The equipment at the disposal of Ali's men is also inadequate compared to the sophisticated tools in developed countries, he added, hoping that help would come from international humanitarian organizations. Beyond the checkpoint, lies the village of Bankard in the district of Raniya and not far from Sarkabkan, where the outbreak of bird flu began. The 4,000 people of Bankard are just starting to realize what kind of serious danger they are in. Stunned, they watch in dismay as the team moves through their streets, searching house to house for poultry or domestic birds. Chickens, ducks, all kinds of birds are shoved into sacks and thrown into a tractor before being disposed of in a massive ditch, dug for this purpose. "We are gathering up all the birds and burying them in a ditch four meters deep, far away from the houses," said Bassem Khodr Hassan, one of the volunteers on the team. He looked around with regret at the dilapidated state of the village whose inhabitants don't even have the most rudimentary forms of protection. "We're well protected with our suits, but I fear for those little kids who gather to watch us and have nothing to protect themselves with," he said. Bafflement over the men in strange suits gives way to grief as the villagers watch their livestock -- for the poor their sole means of livelihood -- disappear into sacks to be destroyed. Fatima Abdel Qader, 47, and her daughter live alone and own nothing but their poultry. A young boy called Beshko Hamma can't contain his sobs as he follows behind the members of the team who have taken away his pigeons. "I raised these pigeons myself," he said accusingly to the man in the chemical suit. "There are no sick birds in Bankard." The villagers were extremely reluctant to see their birds taken, said one team member, and only gave in after the promises of compensation announced by the government. "It's us or them," said one old woman in the village with resignation. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties
[osint] Ethnic Tensions Rising in Kirkuk
"There is no peaceful coexistence among ethnic groups as is claimed by politicians and the media," said Muhammed al-Jabar, a sociologist." As different governments have come to power (after Saddam's regime) and different policies have been laid down, mistrust has been created among the different groups and tensions are rising." "The policies of the political parties and sectarianism have infiltrated everything," said As'ad. "It even affects family relationships, like what happened to me. We hoped for so many years for democracy and freedom to come to us, and this is the price we are now paying." http://web.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleNr=9141&LangNr=12&LNNr=28&RNNr=70 3 Feb 2006 Ethnic Tensions Rising in Kirkuk Samah Samad City's ethnic and religious groups are warning of creeping sectarianism. Marwa As'ad, a Turkoman resident of Kirkuk, is heartbroken. She had been planning to marry a local Kurdish man but her family broke off the engagement after her brother was carjacked by a Kurd. She believes rising tensions among different ethnic and religious groups in Kirkuk contributed to her break-up. Like many others interviewed in this ethnically and religiously diverse city, As'ad said the atmosphere has deteriorated since Saddam Hussein's regime was overthrown in April 2003. The province of Kirkuk - home to about a million Kurds, Turkoman, Arabs, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Armenians - is sometimes referred to as a little Iraq or as Iraq's melting pot, but some believe the area, in particular the city of Kirkuk, is a powder keg waiting to explode. The situation has worsened since Iraq changed from a one-party dictatorship under Saddam's Ba'athist regime, maintain local leaders and residents. Political parties in Kirkuk, most of which represent ethnic or religious groups, are battling for control of the city and its surroundings. While there are no reliable statistics on the ethnic and religious make-up of the province, Kurds are believed to be the largest ethnic group. Indeed, Kurdish slates won five of Kirkuk's nine parliamentary seats in the December elections, and they hold the most seats on the provincial council. Saddam had tried to reduce the Kurdish majority in the area by moving significant numbers out of Kirkuk city and replacing them with mainly poor Arabs from the south. But now Kurds are fighting to bring Kirkuk city back under Kurdish political control. The move isn't popular among its other communities who effectively control certain neighbourhoods, which are adorned with often-confrontational flags and banners. "You see many provocative slogans such as 'Long live Turkoman; 'Long live Mam Jalal' (a reference to Iraqi president and Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani); or 'Kirkuk is an integral part of Kurdistan'," said Omar Muhammad, a 29-year-old Arab resident. Muhammad said the problem grew worse during parliamentary elections, and that political parties have fuelled sectarianism. On January 29, several car bombs went off near churches in Kirkuk, killing one person. Silvana Buya Nassir, a Chaeldan Assyrian, said Christians were concerned about safety prior to the bombings. "We used to hold evening ceremonies to pay tribute to Christ, but because of the deteriorating security situation and violence against our group, we have to do it during the day," she said. "The tension has forced many families to emigrate and seek asylum in European countries to escape this terrible situation." Ali Mahdi, vice president of Turkoman Iliy party, accused Kurdish parties of fomenting division by working only for their own interests and demanding the city return to Kurdish control. "They are following the same path as the Ba'ath regime to create hatred and differences among Kirkuk's people to the extent that it has affected daily relations between people," he said. "They are responsible for planting the seeds of segregation in Kirkuk." But Kurds themselves are also falling victim to the growing tensions. Waleed Ali, a 30-year-old Kurd from Hawija in southern Kirkuk province, moved to Kirkuk city's suburbs after several Kurds were killed by Arab militants, although local Arab tribesmen insisted the killers had no connection with their community. "I lived in Hawija for 30 years, but after the fall of regime their views towards us changed. They accused the Kurds of helping the Americans to topple Saddam," said Ali. Just as Kurds are blamed for helping the Americans, some in Kirkuk now equate Arabs with Ba'athists. "They hold us accountable for what Saddam and his regime did, as if all Arab people participated in those acts," said Sami al-Ne'mi, a 32-year-old Arab. Kurdish leaders in the area insist that they are not behind the tensions. "We don't differentiate between ethnic groups," said Nasreen Khalid, a Kurdish member of Kirkuk provisional council. "We work for the interests of all of Kirkuk's people." Khalid insisted that bonds between groups are much stronger than they were in
[osint] Bristling Defiance -- In Retreat
"If America is angry over what interventionism and free trade have wrought, George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crime. "Bush's war has left America divided and her people regretting he ever led us in. But unlike the world wars, Korea and Vietnam, Bush cannot claim the enemy attacked us and we had no choice. Iraq is Bush's war. Isolationists had nothing to do with it. To a man and woman, they opposed it." It is George W. Bush who is running out of alibis." A traditional conservative point of view from a former member of the Nixon administration. And right on the mark... David Bier The Post Chronicle Commentary Bristling Defiance -- In Retreat By Patrick J. Buchanan Feb 3, 2006 "The road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline," railed President Bush in his State of the Union. Again and again, Bush returned to his theme. "America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. ... "Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need. ... "American leaders from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan rejected isolation and retreat." Why would a president use his State of the Union to lash out at a school of foreign policy thought that has had zero influence in his administration? The answer is a simple one, but it is not an easy one for Bush to face: His foreign policy is visibly failing, and his critics have been proven right. But rather than defend the fruits of his policy, Bush has chosen to caricature critics who warned him against interventionism. Like all politicians in trouble, Bush knows that the best defense is a good offense. Having plunged us into an unnecessary war, Bush now confronts the real possibility of strategic defeat and a failed presidency. His victory in Iraq, like the wars of Wilson and FDR, has turned to ashes in our mouths. And like Truman's war in Korea and Kennedy's war in Vietnam, Bush's war has left America divided and her people regretting he ever led us in. But unlike the world wars, Korea and Vietnam, Bush cannot claim the enemy attacked us and we had no choice. Iraq is Bush's war. Isolationists had nothing to do with it. To a man and woman, they opposed it. Now, with an army bogged down in Afghanistan and another slowly exiting Iraq, and no end in sight to either, Bush seeks to counter critics who warned him not to go in by associating them with the demonized and supposedly discredited patriots of the America First movement of 1940-41. His assault is not only non-credible, it borders on the desperate and pathetic. "Abroad, our nation is committed to a historic long-term goal. We seek the end of tyranny in our world," said Bush. "Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends upon it." Intending no disrespect, this is noble-sounding nonsense. Our security rests on U.S. power and will, and not on whether Zimbabwe, Sudan, Syria, Cuba or even China is ruled by tyrants. Our forefathers lived secure in a world of tyrannies by staying out of wars that were none of America's business. As for "the end of tyranny in our world," Mr. President, sorry, that doesn't come in "our world." That comes in the next. "By allowing radical Islam to work its will, by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself, we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals or even in our own courage," said Bush. But what has done more to radicalize Islam than our invasion of Iraq? Who has done more to empower Islamic radicals than Bush with his clamor for elections across a region radicalized by our own policies? It is one thing to believe in ideals, another to be the prisoner of some democratist ideology. Bush has come to believe that the absence of democracy is the cause of terror and democracy its cure. But the cause of terror in the Middle East is the perception there that those nations are held in colonial captivity by Americans and their puppet regimes, and that the only way to expel both is to use tactics that have succeeded from Algeria in 1962 to Anbar province in 2005. Given the franchise, Arab and Islamic peoples from Pakistan to Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank and Egypt have now voted for candidates with two credentials. They seemed to be devout Muslims, and they appeared dedicated to tossing America out of the region and the Israelis into the sea. With opposition also rising to his free-trade policy, Bush reverted to the same tactic: Caricature and castigate critics of his own failed policies. "Protectionists," said Bush, pretend "we can keep our high standards of living, while walling off our economy." But it was pro
[osint] Gov: No Offshore Signoffs Without Royalty Share
"This year, the revenue stream is getting consideration as a way to finance $32 billion to $40 billion in hurricane protection and coastal restoration projects following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The federal government received $5.7 billion last year from oil and gas production occurring in the Gulf of Mexico from six miles from shore to international waters. Louisiana received about $32 million of that. For years, the state has asked for half of the royalties from oil and gas produced beyond the state's three-mile boundary -- a sum that could amount to more than $2 billion a year." http://www.marinelink.com/Story/ShowStory.aspx?StoryID=201854 Gov: No Offshore Signoffs Without Royalty Share Thursday, February 02, 2006 Louisiana's governor warned that the state would not support future offshore lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico unless Louisiana gets a share of the federal royalties generated by oil production there. Under a federal law that governs offshore drilling, governors in adjacent states are required to agree that federal lease sales are consistent with their states' coastal management plans. Louisiana governors have traditionally signed off on such lease sales, and the current governor's letter will not stop a March 15 lease sale of 4,000 blocks in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas exploration. However, the August lease sale could be held up. This is the latest push for a share of federal royalties from oil and gas production off Louisiana's coast. The issue has been brought forward every year by the state's congressional delegation, but has never won support in Congress. This year, the revenue stream is getting consideration as a way to finance $32 billion to $40 billion in hurricane protection and coastal restoration projects following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The federal government received $5.7 billion last year from oil and gas production occurring in the Gulf of Mexico from six miles from shore to international waters. Louisiana received about $32 million of that. For years, the state has asked for half of the royalties from oil and gas produced beyond the state's three-mile boundary -- a sum that could amount to more than $2 billion a year. The state currently gets 27% of royalties produced between three miles and six miles offshore. The U.S. secretary of the interior, who oversees the Minerals Management Service, could override the decision if there are attempts to block the next lease sale. However, this could lead to a protracted legal battle that the federal government would likely want to avoid. (Source: The Times-Picayune) -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Hamas tells West to take its aid and 'get lost'
"Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar rejected Western and Egyptian pressure for his movement to recognize Israel and renounce violence. "The Western nations can take their aid and get lost," "Israel is not a legitimate entity, and no amount of pressure can force us to recognize its right to exist," CICBush43 must be so proud of the end product of his push for democratic reform in Arab nations. Now, of course, he has to deal with a fanatic fundamentalist Islamic terror group whose very existence is based on the destruction of Israel and return of all its sacred Muslim lands to the people of the Koran. David Bier http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060203-111448-6001r.htm Hamas tells West to take its aid and 'get lost' By Paul Martin THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published February 4, 2006 GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip -- The leader of Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank said yesterday the militant Islamic movement can manage without Western aid when it assumes government of the Palestinian territories following its shocking election win last month. Leading Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar rejected Western and Egyptian pressure for his movement to recognize Israel and renounce violence. "The Western nations can take their aid and get lost," he told The Washington Times just before leaving his home for Friday prayers. Mr. Zahar had invited The Times to visit his four-story home, recently rebuilt after his somewhat more modest dwelling was destroyed by Israeli jets more than two years ago, to discuss how his movement would respond to Western demands. "Israel is not a legitimate entity, and no amount of pressure can force us to recognize its right to exist," he said. The new Palestinian government should only discuss technical matters with Israel at a low level, he added. Political talks had failed to get the Palestinians anywhere in the past 10 years, he said, and had only enmeshed the Palestinian Authority (PA) in "corrupt relationships" with the Jewish state. The United States, the United Nations, Russia and leading European powers all have called on Hamas to renounce violence, disarm and drop the demand in its charter for Israel's destruction. Failure to act would result in a loss of foreign aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, they warned. Mr. Zahar contends that the Palestinian economy could be sustained by trade and investment with other Arab nations. He said development projects since the 1993 Oslo peace deal had only benefited Israel, while accepting Western aid "with any strings attached" would only harm Palestinian interests. Jordan's King Abdullah II, on a visit to Washington, said yesterday the election results could help the peace process by clarifying once and for all whether Hamas can be a responsible governing party. It is time, the Jordanian monarch said, "for Hamas to put up or shut up." But Hamas leaders have shown little sign of moderation since the Jan. 25 vote, putting out the same party line in Gaza and Damascus, Syria, where its exiled leadership is based. "We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist state that was established on our land," Khaled Meshaal, the external head of the political and military wings of the militant Islamic group, wrote in the Palestinian newspaper, al-Hayat al-Jadida. "Our message to the United States and Europe is: The attempts you are exerting to make us abandon our principles and struggle will be wasted and will not achieve any results." But the new Hamas-led government faces pressing problems, most with money at their core. Salary payments for about 140,000 Palestinian government workers are already overdue and have been promised by Monday. Alarmed by Hamas' election victory, Israel this week froze about $55 million in taxes it collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, putting the money in an escrow account. The customs revenue is the main source of funding for the PA's budget. Interim Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Cabinet is to discuss tomorrow whether to allow the funds to go through. Mr. Zahar in the interview outlined how the new Palestinian Cabinet will be chosen, a process he said would take another month. He revealed that Hamas, in meetings yesterday with leaders of the ousted Fatah party, had demanded the right to appoint a Hamas prime minister, who would play the role of a "coordinator" rather than wield wide-ranging power. The key ministries that Hamas needed to lead, he said, were interior, education, health and social welfare. "We'll put the very best people in there, as we need to get society functioning again," Mr. Zahar said. Control of the Interior Ministry would allow Hamas to reform the Palestinians' much-criticized security services, he said. David R. Sands contributed from Washington
[osint] Hamas courting South American governments for support
"After Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislative elections on Jan. 25, the United States and the European Union demanded it renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist in order to keep receiving more than a billion dollars in aid. Unwilling to bend to the pressure, Hamas is apparently opening its diplomatic tent to leaders such as Venezuela's leftist leader Hugo Chavez, who is known to parlay oil dollars into political alliances against Washington." http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060203-111451-2459r.htm Hamas courting South American governments for support By Kelly Hearn THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published February 4, 2006 BUENOS AIRES -- The radical Islamist group Hamas, hemmed in by U.S. and European pressure, is eyeing South America for economic and political backing, according to reports here. Emissaries from the group, which recently won control of the Palestinian parliament, plan to visit Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela, according to Abu Kuhri, a Hamas spokesman. Mr. Kuhri was quoted Thursday in the Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de Sao Paulo, as saying the head of Hamas' parliamentary faction, Ismail Haniyeh, might head the delegation. He said the mission's purpose was to change the view that Hamas is a terrorist group "and to demonstrate that the problem is the Israeli occupation." After Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislative elections on Jan. 25, the United States and the European Union demanded it renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist in order to keep receiving more than a billion dollars in aid. Unwilling to bend to the pressure, Hamas is apparently opening its diplomatic tent to leaders such as Venezuela's leftist leader Hugo Chavez, who is known to parlay oil dollars into political alliances against Washington. Mr. Chavez has made no comment on Hamas' overtures so far. Yesterday, an Argentine Foreign Ministry spokesman said officials had received no word from the Palestinian Authority, adding they would not take a position on the matter until an official request is made. Palestinian Ambassador to Argentina Suhail Hani Daher Akel said he has not received any official information but told The Washington Times that such a mission would be "very interesting" and not unusual. He said Palestinians would continue to build their solid relations with countries throughout Latin America. Brazil agrees with the U.S. position that Hamas should set aside violence and recognize Israel. "Brazil is ready to cooperate with any Palestinian government which seeks, among other things, the formation and consolidation of an economically viable Palestinian state, which at the same time wants to contribute to peace and recognizes the existence of Israel," Foreign Minister Celso Amorim was quoted by wire service reports as saying. South America has significant communities of Arab immigrants. Brazil alone is home to more than 10 million people of Arab descent, with many concentrated at the border point between it, Paraguay and Argentina. U.S. officials say the so-called "triple border" area is a wellspring of laundered money for Middle East terrorist groups. Local Arabs deny the accusation. Brazil in May hosted the first summit of Arabs and South American leaders, where presidents from Venezuela to Iraq pledged to fight poverty and expand economic ties. The summit declaration also called on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories and criticized U.S. sanctions on Syria, saying they violated international law. Mr. Akel noted that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas attended the summit and visited Chile, which "has an important community of Palestinians." -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/
[osint] Book ties Blair to Bush's war plans
"was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq. The aircraft would be painted in U.N. colors, so that if Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach of U.N. resolutions," http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060203-111442-1588r.htm Book ties Blair to Bush's war plans By Tariq Panja ASSOCIATED PRESS Published February 4, 2006 Advertisement LONDON -- President Bush told Prime Minister Tony Blair nearly two months before the invasion of Iraq that the United States intended to go to war even if inspectors failed to find evidence of a banned weapons program, a human rights lawyer claimed in a book published yesterday. Author Philippe Sands said Mr. Bush made the comments in a White House meeting with Mr. Blair on Jan. 31, 2003. He cites a memo of the meeting as saying Mr. Bush also told Mr. Blair that military intervention was scheduled for March 10, 2003, even without U.N. backing. The prime minister responded that he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm" Saddam Hussein, Mr. Sands quotes Mr. Blair as saying in the new edition of "Lawless World." Mr. Sands, who is also a professor of international law at University College, London, said the meeting lasted two hours and was attended by six advisers. A spokesman for Mr. Blair said Downing Street does not comment on books or on leaked documents, and reiterated that Britain only committed to military action in Iraq after approval by the House of Commons on March 18, 2003. Mr. Sands works for the same law firm, Matrix Chambers, where Cherie Booth Blair, the prime minister's wife, practices. The first edition of "Lawless World," published last year, included claims about the advice Britain's attorney general gave the government on the legality of the war. The book also claims Mr. Blair only wanted a second U.N. Security Council resolution approving the invasion to make it easier politically to deal with Saddam. Other claims made in the book say Mr. Bush floated the idea of a number of extreme measures aimed at provoking Saddam. The president is said to have told Mr. Blair the United States "was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq. The aircraft would be painted in U.N. colors, so that if Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach of U.N. resolutions," the book said. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] 'Honest' Hamas
"President Bush's analysis of the PA election results. "The people are demanding honest government," he said."Thepeople want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find health care." Honestgovernment?Services? Hamas is "honest," all right, when it comes to its blood-lust for Jews, and maybe it can deliver to its constituents "services" related to Israel's destruction, but I doubt that's what the president had in mind. But neither did he have in mind anything connected to the reality that Palestinians have voted for terror with no "peace process" (Hamas), not a "peace process" with terror (Fatah). Not much actually separates Hamas from Fatah, but it's enough to send the global-erati over the edge." "Harvard psychiatry instructor Kenneth Levin has written an illuminating new study of such political denial called "The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege." In this book, Dr. Levin applies the lessons of psychopathology to explain self-destructive patterns of delusion and appeasement that have characterized the Israeli experience in recent years. It looks like this dangerous syndrome is proving contagious to the rest of the world in an era when there's no time for a rest cure." http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm 'Honest' Hamas By Diana West Published February 3, 2006 There comes a point, sometimes, when logic is denied, reason is abandoned, and that vital connection to reality is severed. Once upon a time, we called this a nervous breakdown and prescribed a rest cure. Now, we call it a press conference and take notes. The fact is, with the Hamas victory -- the democratic election by Palestinian Arabs of a Nazi-like terrorist organization dedicated to annihilating Israel and replacing it with a Sharia state -- something in the common culture of world elites has snapped. From the White House to the European Union, the Hamas victory, with its disastrous implications for peace and democracy, is more than any one powerful person seems able to accept. So they don't. They are, as the therapeutic community might say, in denial. Take President Bush's analysis of the PA election results. "The people are demanding honest government," he said."Thepeople want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find health care." Honestgovernment?Services? Hamas is "honest," all right, when it comes to its blood-lust for Jews, and maybe it can deliver to its constituents "services" related to Israel's destruction, but I doubt that's what the president had in mind. But neither did he have in mind anything connected to the reality that Palestinians have voted for terror with no "peace process" (Hamas), not a "peace process" with terror (Fatah). Not much actually separates Hamas from Fatah, but it's enough to send the global-erati over the edge. Such as the United Nation's Kofi Annan. He said: "I think most of them" -- "them" being Palestinian voters, who, kind of like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," sent Umm Nidal, proud "Martyr Mom" of three suicide bombers, to parliament -- "were voting for peace, they were voting for better conditions, they were voting for an honest government." Funny how he didn't mention they were voting for terrorists. The EU's Javier Solana also looked the other way. "It's my guess that a good number of people who voted for Hamas didn't vote for the Hamas platform. They voted for a group of people they believed were less corrupt... I don't think that the majority of the people that voted for Hamas voted to be an Islamic Palestine." A polite term for this is wishful thinking. It's okay when you're a kid trying to extend the myth of Ho-ho-ho for just one more Christmas; it's not okay when you are a world leader trying to rationalize millions in aid to a maniacal killing machine. And therein lies the rub. Between Europe and the United States, the PA receives about $850 million a year, and the election of Hamas brought the Western moneybags to a moment of truth. But only briefly. There was talk in Europe of witholding money from Hamastan until the terror-gang exchanged its covenant of mass murder for the Boy Scout pledge, but that went on just long enough to find a new rationale to fund the PA, at least for the time being. Eureka: "Of course Hamas is a terrorist organization," a European diplomat said, no doubt exhausted after several hours of standing on principle. "But cutting off aid to the Palestinian Authority would play straight into the hands of the extremists among them." Funny, I didn't know there were non-extremists among them. "If their leadership [Hamas] can find a way to live up to the obligations that have been undertaken, to peace, to the existence of Israel, to renouncing violence, I think there's a very good way forward," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. If?
[osint] Kurds urge foreigners to explore oil reserves
"Kurdistan's share of the profits was the money Saddam received to buy chemical weapons to decimate the Kurdish people." http://www.washtimes.com/business/20060203-102503-4014r.htm Kurds urge foreigners to explore oil reserves Published February 4, 2006 IRBIL, Iraq (AP) -- Kurdish officials are inviting foreign oil companies to explore untapped reserves in their northern region, angering Arab countrymen and raising concern about chaos in Iraq's oil industry. Kurds, their self-ruled federation firmly enshrined in Iraq's Constitution, say they are reclaiming their right to control northern oil fields after successive Iraqi regimes purged Kurds from the industry to bring it under exclusive Arab control. Despite the Iraqi industry's many problems -- falling production, crumbling infrastructure and relentless insurgent attacks -- the prospect of drilling in the world's second-largest proven reserves has led eight small foreign companies to invest in Kurdish-ruled territory. One of them, Det Norske Oljeselskap, or DNO, of Norway, struck oil in December, less than a month after starting to drill in Zakho near the Turkish border. Major oil companies have shied away from Kurdistan until the new Iraqi parliament elected in December clarifies articles in the constitution on the control of oil and until security improves. The constitution stipulates that the federal and regional governments will share management of existing oil fields, as well as strategies for developing future areas and distributing the profits. The document, however, also makes ambiguous references providing compensation for areas such as the Kurdish and Shi'ite regions that were "damaged" and "unjustly deprived" under Saddam Hussein. The constitution, ratified in a referendum in October, defers a decision on the future of Kirkuk, the center of the northern oil fields, which Kurds want to be part of the Kurdish federation. Because each region will control future oil discoveries in its own area, the Sunni minority, which lives in Iraq's oil-poor center, may not benefit equally from the riches. However, Western oil officials in northern Iraq say the entire country is floating on unexplored oil reserves, including the central regions. Iraq is estimated to have 265 billion barrels of unproven reserves and 125 billion barrels of proven reserves. Of those, an estimated 36 billion barrels are in northern Iraq. Less than 10 percent of the region has been explored, according to Heritage Oil, one of the eight foreign companies carrying out studies in Kurdistan. Iraq is also estimated to have 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. "Saddam regarded the oil in Kurdistan as his personal property," said Delshad Abdul-Rahman Mohammed, head of the Oil Projects in the Kurdish regional government of Sulaimaniyah. "Kurdistan's share of the profits was the money Saddam received to buy chemical weapons to decimate the Kurdish people." Kurdish officials in Sulaimaniyah and Irbil insist that they will share the oil wealth with the rest of the country and that agreements made with foreign companies are made in coordination with the central government in Baghdad. "This oil belongs to all Iraqis. Profits from the oil don't only go into the pockets of Kurdistan," said Mr. Mohammed. He said oil companies signed memorandums of understanding with the Kurdish regional governments and the central government "so that the regional government will not have any problems in the future." In addition to DNO, oil companies exploring in Kurdistan include Petoil and General Energy Corp., both of Turkey; Woodside of Australia; and Canadian companies Western Oil Sands Inc. and Heritage Oil Corp., which has formed a joint venture with Eagle Group of Iraq, based in northern Iraq. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' yo
[osint] New Pentagon strategy sees 'long war' on terror
"The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war," states the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which was last issued only a month after September 11, and lacked any of the lessons learned from fighting al Qaeda. "Our enemies seek weapons of mass destruction and, if they are successful, will likely attempt to use them in their conflict with free people everywhere." According to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the United States is not engaged in a "war" since no formal Declaration of War has been promulgated by the Congress which is the sole authority under the Constitution empowered to declare war. A "sustained conflict", absolutely. A war...no. However, budgeting to both combat terrorism (in ways authorized by the Constitution, treaties it makes "supreme law of the land" and Federal laws) and conventional military threats such as China, North Korea and our next foe, Iran, is admirable and necessary. But hidden in the budget derived from the QDRR are cuts in the manpower for Reserves and National Guard which will severely curtail the latter's ability to cope with the expanded missions it has to carry out to do its part for homeland security and countering terrorism. Recently Tefft posted an article touting how recruiting for the National Guard is improving. Well, the proposed budget calls for reducing NG manning from its authorized 250,000 ceiling to its current level of 133,000 so that will cause recruiting to come to a screeching halt. It will also stop any promotions of folks in the NG as there will be no vacancies to promote into. Some backhanded slap from the active duty services as reward for the NG (and Reserve) heavy presence in Iraq the active Army still needs. Folks need to gripe to their Congressional delegation members about that ungrateful approach by the military and CICBush43 to defense of our nation. David Bier http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060203-111447-2296r.htm New Pentagon strategy sees 'long war' on terror By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published February 4, 2006 The Pentagon yesterday released its first comprehensive strategy since the September 11 attacks for sizing and deploying U.S. armed forces in the "long war" against terrorists. It opted to keep much of the existing force of four years ago, but aims to put more emphasis on hunting down militants, blocking access to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and using technology to build a faster, more agile group of warships, warplanes and combat brigades. "The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war," states the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which was last issued only a month after September 11, and lacked any of the lessons learned from fighting al Qaeda. "Our enemies seek weapons of mass destruction and, if they are successful, will likely attempt to use them in their conflict with free people everywhere." In a cover letter, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld called the first wartime QDR "a roadmap for change, leading to victory." There is one big constant: the 2-million strong active and reserve force must still be able to wage two major conflicts nearly simultaneously. But the QDR adds a significant new task: The force, whose yearly budget exceeds $400 billion, needs to sustain a long war against Islamic extremists across the globe. The military has come to realize the enemy is moving from "nation-state threats to decentralized network threats from non-state enemies," the QDR states. Among major objectives is that the military must do a better job to "find, fix and finish" the enemy -- shorthand for locating al Qaeda terrorists and either killing or capturing them. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, California Republican, normally a strong Rumsfeld ally, was not impressed, saying the document is driven more by available budget dollars than by threat-based requirements. "It appears the QDR has become a budget-driven exercise, which limits its utility to Congress," Mr. Hunter said. He said the committee, which receives the Pentagon's fiscal 2007 $439 billion budget next week, is doing its own review which "will provide us with a more complete picture of America's national security needs." Among the Pentagon's major objectives: Increase special operations, the lead force in tracking and eliminating al Qaeda, by 15 percent by creating new Green Beret "A Teams." Sister organizations, civil affairs and psychological operations, will add 3,700 personnel -- a 33 percent increase. The Marine Corps will stand up its first special operations command. Set up a special WMD task force, complete with special operations forces, which will be activated on a moment's notice to intercept shipments of WMD. By 2018, field a
[osint] How Gonzales Plans to Defend Eavesdropping
"Gonzales contends in his 10-page opening statement for Monday's hearing that fighting al-Qaeda "is, in fundamental respects, a war of information," and that asking the FISA court for permission for each intercept "would necessarily introduce a significant factor of delay, and there would be critical holes in our early warning system." "the terrorist surveillance program is not a dragnet that sucks in all conversations and uses computer searches to pick out calls of interest. No communications are intercepted unless first it is determined that one end of the call is outside of the country and professional intelligence experts have probable cause (that is, `reasonable grounds to believe') that a party to the communication is a member or agent of al-Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization." Contrary to Gonzales comments, FISA warrant applications are quick and easy to do and HAVE been done by the tens of thousands. Moreover, his statement about how the intercept program is conducted (if in fact he is not lying) parallels the criteria for obtaining a FISA warrant in the first place. So what is the problem? Probably that the actual program goes WAY FAR BEYOND what they are willing to admit into wholesale datamining of many thousands of Americans as indicated by FBI frustration about the thousands of leads the program generates every month concerning Americans with NO connection to terrorism. It is no wonder that the Republican-controlled comittee has not called telecommunications executives to testify as they would be bound to disclose the extent to which their databases were accessed by NSA and other agencies such as DOD's CIFA. Gonzales helped create the program while at the White House and now as the AG, he is covering for it just as he indicated with his "hypothetical situation" response to Feingold's very specific question about whether they were doing wiretapping. Liar, liar, pants on fire! David Bier http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1156499,00.html Saturday, Feb. 04, 2006 How Gonzales Plans to Defend Eavesdropping TIME Exclusive: Attorney General will tell Senators that wiretaps target suspects, not innocents By MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales plans to use a Congressional hearing on Monday to lash out at "misinformed, confused" news accounts about President George W. Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program, and to declare it "is not a dragnet," according to administration documents provided to TIME. "I cannot and will not address operational aspects of the program or other purported activities described in press reports," he plans to say in testimony prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee. "These press accounts are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confused, or wrong." According to the documents, Gonzales plans to assert in his opening statement that seeking approval for the wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court could result in delays that "may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack." He will compare the program to telegraph wiretapping during the Civil War. In accompanying testimony, the Attorney General plans to leave open the possibility that President Bush will ask the court to give blanket approval to the program, a step that some lawmakers and even some Administration officials contend would put it on more solid legal footing. In pointed written questions posed in advance by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Gonzales was asked whether he would "consider seeking approval from the FISA Court at this time for the ongoing surveillance program at issue." According to 11 pages of answers to the 15 questions, Gonzales will reply, "We use FISA where we can, and we always consider all of our legal options." Specter has said that warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is "wrong," but Senate aides say he has concluded Bush acted in good faith. Specter's hearing, which is scheduled to last most of Monday, will focus on presidential powers in wartime and will examine whether Bush took legal shortcuts in implementing the program, which allows the National Security Agency to monitor communications involving suspected al-Qaeda members if one party to the conversation is inside the U.S. The program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks and was exposed by the New York Times in December. Since then, lawmakers have complained that the administration's legal arguments are shaky, and have contended that briefings for the House and Senate intelligence committees were inadequate or misleading. The Attorney General plans to tell Specter that the program is more limited than has been portrayed in some news reports, which have suggested that it could impinge on the privacy of inno
[osint] Pentagon Hones Its Strategy on Terrorism
"It establishes a system for measuring the military's counterterrorism efforts, with a review of progress on the nine target areas every six months. The reviews are intended to determine whether more terrorists are being captured, killed or persuaded to give up their violent struggle than are being created." "The senior Pentagon official said the guidance was issued "to integrate a number of conflicting opinions and views about what the military strategy should be." The job of writing the specifics of the military's counterterrorism effort falls to the Special Operations Command, based in Tampa, Fla. The more detailed "global campaign plan for the war on terror" is expected from Gen. Bryan D. Brown, the commander of the Special Operations Command, in coming weeks." So far, with the half-done job in Afghanistan and the creation of a terrorist combat training program through the invasion, but failed pacification, of Iraq, the report card would have to show military operations have created far more terrorists than have given up the struggle. Sadly, it does not matter much how well the military "hones" its counterterror strategy as long as it gets direction from ideological and chickenhawk national leadership, whose ignorance of foreign cultural and ethnic frameworks and paradigms based on ego or inner beliefs, negates any refinements keyed to foreign realities. David Bier http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/politics/05strategy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin February 5, 2006 Pentagon Hones Its Strategy on Terrorism By THOM SHANKER WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has completed a new, classified counterterrorism strategy that for the first time orders the military to focus on nine areas identified as necessary for any terrorist network to operate, senior Pentagon officials say, and warns that ill-conceived military operations could add to terrorists' ranks. Dated Feb. 1, signed by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and endorsed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the strategy document orders the Defense Department to undertake a broad campaign to find and attack or neutralize terrorist leaders, their havens, financial networks, methods of communication and ability to move around the globe. It also orders the military to focus on terrorist information-gathering systems, personnel and ideology. The document orders the military to defeat terrorists, specifying that doing so requires "continuous military operations to develop the situation and generate the intelligence that allows us to attack global terrorist organizations." The complete strategy will be distributed across the military in coming days, Pentagon officials said. An unclassified version, from which a series of top-secret appendices detailing intelligence activities and military operations had been removed, was provided to The New York Times by a senior Pentagon official. Military officials would speak about the document only on condition of anonymity. A military officer said that among the classified parts were the specific terrorist networks and leadership to be targets, and projected timelines for those missions. Success will be achieved, the document states, when "violent extremist ideology and terrorist attacks" are "eliminated as a threat to the way of life of free and open societies," and with the establishment of "a global environment that is inhospitable to violent extremism, wherein countries have the capacity to govern their own territories" and "have in place laws, information sharing and other arrangements that allow them to defeat terrorists as they emerge." The new document takes the place of a classified counterterrorism strategy written two years ago by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but never released for public review. It establishes a system for measuring the military's counterterrorism efforts, with a review of progress on the nine target areas every six months. The reviews are intended to determine whether more terrorists are being captured, killed or persuaded to give up their violent struggle than are being created. One senior Pentagon official involved in writing the strategy said the Defense Department had identified more than 30 new terrorist organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda that had sprung to life since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The document's unusual admission of the negative impact military actions can have cited no examples, but said: "The way we conduct operations choosing whether, when, where and how can affect ideological support for terrorism. Knowledge of indigenous population's cultural and religious sensitivities and understanding of how the enemy uses the U.S. military's actions against us should inform the way the U.S. military operates." That has be
[osint] US Senate majority leader Bill Frist says US must be prepared for militaryaction
"There is only one thing worse than military action and that is a nuclear-armed Iran." Don't underestimate Iran. It has over 513,000 troops, another 350,000 in reserves, and over 3,000 missiles already aimed at U.S. (in Iraq and elsewhere) and Israeli targets. It is also the OPEC member controlling the second largest share of the world's oil, second only to Saudi Arabia. Here are three possible ways the Iran scenarios could unfold ... Scenario #1: Diplomacy continues for a while longer, with more bickering and threats among Iran, the U.S., Israel and Europe. The UN issues economic sanctions and warnings after exhausting diplomacy. But it fails to achieve the desired results. Ultimately, either Israel or the U.S. makes the first military strike. Iran responds... Scenario #2: Like Scenario #1, with one critical addition: Come March, Iran opens its new oil exchange, the Iranian Oil Burse for trading its oil. BUT...it takes payment strictly in euros and other currencies, rejecting the U.S. dollar. A major decline in the dollar threatens to send our economy into turmoil, even while inflation continues to rise. The U.S. decides to make a strike. The aim: Derail the trading of oil in other currencies, and put the kibosh on the Iranian Oil Burse. Iran responds... Scenario #3: In response to UN sanctions, Iran shuts down its oil production and exports. A U.S. or Israeli initiated strike begins almost immediately thereafter. Iran responds... The chance that Iran will swallow its pride and disavow Islamist goals is tiny. More likely is an Iranian strike at U.S. forces in Iraq and missile attacks on Israel. So, the likelihood of a declared war with Iran this year is high. And whether it happens sooner or later, even anticipation of this disastrous conflict will likely send oil prices through the roof along with everything else. Get ready for gas lines, war rationing, reelection of Congressional incumbents (the "stay the course syndrome" herd instinct), a lower dollar, inflation, jumps in precious metal prices (assuming the govt. does not confiscate gold as it has done before...and maybe silver too because of shortages for defense production) and, naturally, "essential" curbs on civil rights. David Bier http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1822 US Senate majority leader Bill Frist says US must be prepared for military action if nonviolent means fail to deter Iran from building a nuclear weapon February 4, 2006, 9:32 PM (GMT+02:00) He followed the words of the influential US Senator John McCain who said every option must remain on the table regarding the Iranian nuclear crisis. "There is only one thing worse than military action and that is a nuclear-armed Iran." President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the immediate resumption of full-scale nuclear enrichment and an end to UN spot inspections after the IAEA board in Vienna voted to refer the Iranian dossier to the UN Security Council in five weeks. The resolution carried by 27 of the 35 board members expressed serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program. In view of its many failures and breaches of its obligations, the board asked the director of the IAEA, General Mohammed ElBaradei, to report to the Security Council steps Iran needs to take to dispel suspicions about its nuclear ambitions. The resolution called on Iran to reestablish a freeze on uranium enrichment, consider stopping construction of a heavy water reactor and formally ratify the addition to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that permits spot inspections. Tehran is also required to give the IAEA addition power to access individuals for interviews as well as documentation on its black-market nuclear purchase, equipment that could be used for nuclear and non-nuclear purposes and "certain military-owned workshops" where nuclear activities might be going on. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
[osint] Israels Nuclear Policy Fiasco after Its Hamas Contretemps
"The resolution recognized "that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery." "The American surrender to the Arab demand was carried through by telephone between US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Egyptian foreign minister Aboul Gheit. Jerusalem was not brought into the picture and was taken completely unawares. This is an indicator of how Washington regards interim prime minister Ehud Olmert." "The Bush administration's capitulation to Arab and European demands is part of the collapse of the larger US strategy in the Middle East ever since Hamas rose to victory two weeks ago. Washington's changed attitude shows up in one issue after another, the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and now Iran." The threat of Israeli WMD and delivery means has been the only block on Arab governments from mounting conventional, chemical and biological attacks on Israel. Loss of the WMD deterrent against Aram military action, combined with the standup of a Mamas-led Palestinian army armed and trained by Iran and other Arab nations, including Egypt, would spell disaster for the Israelis and their survival as the only real, long term, U.S. ally in the Middle East. An ally Condo insulted by ignoring and not consulting with Israel before agreeing to a statement that would have horrendous impact on Israel and its future. Shame! David Bier http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1141 Israel's Nuclear Policy Fiasco after Its Hamas Contretemps DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis February 4, 2006, 11:34 PM (GMT+02:00) Washington and the European Union are congratulating themselves on getting 27 of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s 35 members to refer the Iranian nuclear program to the UN Security Council. This is still a long way from sanctions. But the diplomatic achievement was achieved at a price, one that was paid for by the collapse of a fundamental Israeli policy platform just two weeks after the interim Olmert government was rocked back by the Islamic Hamas terror group's attainment of enough parliamentary seats to form the next Palestinian government. Saturday, Feb. 4, Jerusalem stood back and watched the United States buckle under European pressure and accept Egypt's demand to incorporate the following phrase in the resolution on Iran: The resolution recognized "that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery." This linkage between Iran's violations of its commitments under international treaty and the Israeli case has long been demanded by the Arab states and opposed by Washington. Its acceptance now opens the way for the integration of the same linkage in the Security Council debate on Iran. It provides a pretext for a whole new set of maneuvers and dilatory tactics by Tehran. For Israel, there are several serious ramifications: 1. The last batch of prime ministers, the late Yithzak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon and now Ehud Olmert, opted to leave the nuclear issue in the hands of the United States and the United Nations. None of them foresaw the day when the Israeli case would be dredged up as a stratagem to ease the passage of the Iranian nuclear crisis to the UN Security Council. 2. While the Vienna decision looks like a victory for Western diplomacy, Iran's leaders have lost no time in seizing on it as a license to go full throttle ahead with their illicit uranium enrichment, free of UN spot inspections. Furthermore, they have been given added leverage: before halting their own program, they can demand that the entire Middle East be disarmed - first and foremost Israel. 3. The reference to weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery would also require Israel to give up its long-range missiles. 4. The Arab states will achieve their old ambition of forcing the Security Council to address Israel's nuclear program. 5. The American surrender to the Arab demand was carried through by telephone between US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Egyptian foreign minister Aboul Gheit. Jerusalem was not brought into the picture and was taken completely unawares. This is an indicator of how Washington regards interim prime minister Ehud Olmert. 6. The Bush administration's capitulation to Arab and European demands is part of the collapse of the larger US strategy in the Middle East ever since Hamas rose to victory two weeks ago. Washington's changed attitude shows up in one issue after another, the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and now Iran. Olmert and his foreign minister Tzipi Livni say they are pleased to see international opinion lining up behind their stipulations fr
[osint] Exclusive: Can the President Order a Killing on U.S. Soil?
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances." Certainly...if the terrorist is engaged in an attack such as the 9/11 hijacking or a suicide bomber enroute to a target and so on because that falls under the legal rule of "exigent circumstance" and immediate action is essential. Not if it is just a terrorist present in the U.S. who is not actively engaged in a real time attack. While the terrorist is commiting a crime by his affiliation and potential plans to harm others, there is no immediate and violent danger so the normal rules of law apply such as arrest and jailing. As noted in the article, interrogation is more useful than a dead body in such cases. David Bier http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11180519/site/newsweek/ Exclusive: Can the President Order a Killing on U.S. Soil? Newsweek Feb. 13, 2006 issue - In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States. Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances. Current and former government officials said they could think of several scenarios in which a president might consider ordering the killing of a terror suspect inside the United States. One former official noted that before Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, top administration officials weighed shooting down the aircraft if it got too close to Washington, D.C. What if the president had strong evidence that a Qaeda suspect was holed up with a dirty bomb and was about to attack? University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein says the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Al Qaeda empowered the president to kill 9/11 perpetrators, or people who assisted their plot, whether they were overseas or inside the United States. On the other hand, Sunstein says, the president would be on less solid legal ground were he to order the killing of a terror suspect in the United States who was not actively preparing an attack. A Justice Department official, who asked not to be ID'd because of the sensitive subject, said Bradbury's remarks were made during an "academic discussion" of theoretical contingencies. In real life, the official said, the highest priority of those hunting a terrorist on U.S. soil would be to capture that person alive and interrogate him. At a public intel-committee hearing, Feinstein was told by intel czar John Negroponte and FBI chief Robert Mueller that they were unaware of any case in which a U.S. agency was authorized to kill a Qaeda-linked person on U.S. soil. Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told NEWSWEEK: "Mr. Bradbury's meeting was an informal, off-the-record briefing about the legal analysis behind the president's terrorist-surveillance program. He was not presenting the legal views of the Justice Department on hypothetical scenarios outside of the terrorist-surveillance program." Mark Hosenball URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11180519/site/newsweek/ -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted ma
[osint] The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert
"Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion." It makes it all the more damning that Libby et al outed her. Also absolutely amazing that the CIA has violated Federal law and directives requiring a formal damage assessment of her outing and its huge impact on the CIA's WINPAC and its operations. Not to mention the lives and survival of all of the foreign agents she and her front cover company recruited, or even the thousands of business people they dealt with who are now prime suspects for secret police and intelligence agencies worldwide. CIA had to have been ordered by CICBush43 or Cheney to disregard the laws on damage assessments. Why am I not surprised? David Bier http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/ The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert Newsweek Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame. The new papers show Libby testified he was told about Plame by Cheney "in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion" in mid-Junebefore he talked about her with Miller and Time magazine's Matt Cooper. Libby's trial has been put off until January 2007, keeping Cheney off the witness stand until after the elections. A spokeswoman for Libby's lawyers declined to comment on Plame's status. Michael Isikoff URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/ -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] 'Talkin' Texan' Means Lyin' Big
"Bush again got away with his false assertion that existing law wouldn't let U.S. intelligence intercept these al-Qaeda telephone calls when, in fact, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 set up procedures for just such intercepts and even let the Executive tap first and get approval from a secret court later." "Hayden protected Bush's account, since the President had depicted the eavesdropping as "limited," affecting only a "few" people who supposedly were in direct touch with al-Qaeda operatives. If Hayden had admitted the truth that many thousands of Americans had been spied on under Bush's warrantless wiretaps and few, if any, had any links to al-Qaeda Bush's story would collapse." "Bush appears to be counting on the weak memories of Americans and their susceptibility to emotional arguments. To make that work, however, Bush has had to keep the numbers of wiretaps secret so he can mislead about the scope of the operation. "What the domestic spying actually seems to entail is the National Security Agency scooping up conversations and e-mails of vast numbers of Americans possibly in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions and then mining that data. Federal officials told the New York Times that this wiretap data generates thousands of tips each month, which are then passed on to the FBI for further investigation. "But virtually all of [the tips], current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans," the Times reported. "FBI officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. Some FBI officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy." [NYT, Jan. 17, 2006] In other words, this widespread wiretapping of Americans is not restricted to a small number of people who are chatting with al-Qaeda associates; it is prying into the communications of innocent Americans and burdening U.S. law enforcement with worthless tips that divert investigative resources away from more promising leads. An investigation by the Washington Post reached a similar conclusion. "Intelligence officials who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use," the Post reported on Feb. 5, 2006." "Al-Qaeda operatives have long assumed the United States has the capacity to intercept their phone calls and e-mails, so they go to great lengths to deliver messages face-to-face or to send messages by courier. When they do communicate electronically, they make only brief cryptic references because they expect the message may well be intercepted." "I want to describe right quick our plans for victory in Iraq. First of all, anytime we put our troops in harm's way we got to go in with victory in mind." CICBush43 is lying through his teeth...again...while frittering away U.S. intelligence and FBI resources on what appears to be a gigantic data mining program targeting primarily innocent Americans instead of the communications security aware al-Qaeda. Not only a liar but a dumb, arrogant and naive one at that. And either delusional or intentionally deceptive to Americans about Iraq, where it is likely all that remains is crafting an orderly retreat of U.S. forces as a fundamentalist Islamic Shiite government friendly to Iran takes control and civil war commences. Unless, of course, we ally ourselves with the local Sunni insurgents (terrorists?) and Kurds to at least contain the Shiites in South Iraq; contrary to CICBush43's lip service to "democratic" principles. No wilder solution than Bush's rewriting history to say Hussein didn't let UN WMD inspectors in Iraq, had lots of WMD and Hussein supported al-Qaeda before the invasion. Victory? Liar, liar, pants on fire! David Bier http://consortiumnews.com/2006/020506.html 'Talkin' Texan' Means Lyin' Big By Robert Parry February 5, 2006 On Feb. 1, the day after his State of the Union Address, George W. Bush stood on the stage of the Grand Ole Opry and delighted his audience by talking "Texan," which in Bush's lexicon must mean lying big. Bush's biggest lie that day was his claim that his warrantless wiretaps inside the United States were needed to intercept calls in which "one of the people making the call has to be al-Qaeda, suspected al-Qaeda, and/or affiliate." The President said, "Let me put it to you in Texan: If al-Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know." His listeners l
[osint] 'The Biggest Secret'
eparate occasions, for example, in mid-2001, mid-2002, and January 2003, just before the war, the CIA asked the French for their evaluation of the now infamous reports that Iraq was trying to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Niger. According to the Los Angeles Times of December 11, 2005, the French intelligence chief at the time, Alain Chouet, said that the answer was the same in each instance nothing to it." Bottom Line: CICBush43 lied to the American people about Iraq, NSA and who knows what else. Liar, liar, pants on fire! David Bier http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18730 Volume 53, Number 3 · February 23, 2006 Review 'The Biggest Secret' By Thomas Powers State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration by James Risen Free Press, 240 pp., $26.00 1. The challenges posed to American democracy by secrecy and by unchecked presidential power are the two great themes running through the history of the Iraq war. How long the war will last, who will "win," and what it will do to the political landscape of the Middle East will not be obvious for years to come, but the answers to those questions cannot alter the character of what happened at the outset. Put plainly, the President decided to attack Iraq, he brushed caution and objection aside, and Congress, the press, and the people, with very few exceptions, stepped back out of the way and let him do it. Explaining this fact is not going to be easy. Commentators often now refer to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq as "a war of choice," which means that it was not provoked. The usual word for an unprovoked attack is aggression. Why did Americans elected representatives and plain citizens alikeaccede so readily to this act of aggression, and why did they question the President's arguments for war so feebly? The whole business is painfully awkward to consider, but it will not go away. If the Constitution forbids a president anything it forbids war on his say-so, and if it insists on anything it insists that presidents are not above the law. In plain terms this means that presidents cannot enact laws on their own, or ignore laws that have been enacted by Congress. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is such a law; it was enacted to end years of routine wiretapping of American citizens who had attracted official attention by opposing the war in Vietnam. The express purpose of the act was to limit what presidents could ask intelligence organizations to do. But for limits on presidential power to have meaning Congress and the courts must have the fortitude to say no when they think no is the answer. In public life as in kindergarten, the all-important word is no. We are living with the consequences of the inability to say no to the President's war of choice with Iraq, and we shall soon see how the Congress and the courts will respond to the latest challenge from the White Housethe claim by President Bush that he has the right to ignore FISA's prohibition of government intrusion on the private communications of Americans without a court order, and his repeated statements that he intends to go right on doing it. Nobody was supposed to know that FISA had been brushed aside. The fact that the National Security Agency (NSA), America's largest intelligence organization, had been turned loose to intercept the faxes, e-mails, and phone conversations of Americans with blanket permission by the President remained secret until the New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau learned over a year ago that it was happening. An early version of the story was apparently submitted to the Times' editors in October 2004, when it might have affected the outcome of the presidential election. But the Times, for reasons it has not clearly explained, withheld the story until mid-December, when the newspaper's publisher and executive editorArthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Kellermet with President Bush in the Oval Office to hear his objections before going ahead. Even then certain details were withheld. What James Risen learned in the course of his reporting can be found in his newly published book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, a wide-ranging investigation of the role of intelligence in the origins and the conduct of the war in Iraq. Risen contributes much new material to our knowledge of recent intelligence history. He reports in detail, for example, on claims that CIA analysts quit fighting over exaggerated reports of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as word spread in the corridors at Langley that the President had decided to go to war no matter what the evidence said; that the Saudi government seized and then got rid of tell-tale bank records of Abu Zubaydah, the most important al-Qaeda figure to be captured since September 11; and that "a handful of the most important al Qaeda detainees&quo
[osint] Powell's Former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson Calls Pre-War Intelligence a '
"I wonder what will happen if we put half a million troops on the ground in Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and don't find a single weapon of mass destruction?'" Notice Powell thought the invasion would involve 500K troops, a number sufficient to both win victory and fully occupy Iraq. Instead only about 150K troops actually were used and Rumsfeld withheld them from establishing local control (over Powells fervent objections) even though all Iraqi government and military entities were abolished and anarchy prevailed. The hundreds of ammo storage facilities left unguarded have been the primary source of the IED's that have killed hundreds of U.S. troops so far. Lies by CICBush43 about why we should go to war and an absolutely idiotic lack of planning and naive assumptions about Iraqi attitudes and ethnic rivalries by CICBush43 and his bush league officials. A textbook example of how to win an unneeded war, fail to conclude another one in Afghanistan and utterly lose the peace in both. David Bier http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060203/nyf073.html?.v=35 Powell's Former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson Calls Pre-War Intelligence a 'Hoax on the American People' Tonight on PBS Program 'NOW' Friday February 3, 12:19 pm ET NEW YORK, Feb. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- In an interview airing tonight on the PBS weekly newsmagazine NOW, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson makes the startling claim that much of Powell's landmark speech to the United Nations laying out the Bush Administration's case for the Iraq war was false. "I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community, and the United Nations Security Council," says Wilkerson, who helped prepare the address. The NOW report, which airs days before the third anniversary of Powell's speech, examines the serious doubts that existed about the key evidence being used by the American government at the very time Powell's speech was being planned and delivered. "I recall vividly the Secretary of State walking into my office," Wilkerson tells NOW. "He said: 'I wonder what will happen if we put half a million troops on the ground in Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and don't find a single weapon of mass destruction?'" In fact, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. NOW, hosted by David Brancaccio, airs Friday nights at 8:30 on PBS (check local listings). -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] US Realignment With Sunnis Is Far Advanced
"Now we have won over the Sunni political leadership. The next step is to win over the insurgents." As this sweeping definition of the U.S. political objective indicates, these talks are no longer aimed at splitting off groups that are less committed to the aim of U.S. withdrawal, as the Pentagon has favoured since last summer. Instead, the administration now appears to be prepared to make some kind of deal with all the major insurgent groups." "There is more concern [on both sides] about the domination by Iran of Iraq." "Going that far would conflict with White House assurances only a few weeks ago of U.S. "victory" in the Iraq war." "Shiite leaders believe the shift in U.S. policy is intended to actually reinstall a Baathist government in Baghdad. Taki hinted strongly to the Monitor that the SCIRI is planning to use force if necessary to defend the present government. "We are threatening that maybe in the future we will use other means," he said, "because we have true fear." Then he added, "I am prepared to go down into the streets and take up arms and fight to prevent the Baathist dictators and terrorists from coming back to power." So much for CICBush43's fighting on to "victory" in Iraq trumpeted at his Grand Old Opery appearance Monday. Instead of invading Iraq for ego and oil, the U.S. could have finished the job of fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan by pouring in troops sufficient to root out the Taliban and their al_Qaeda trainers and shock units. That would have led to a strong U.S. presence on the Iran border at a time when the U.S. already knew of the joint Iran-North Korea uranium enrichment program and associated Iranian nuclear facilities. With Hussein, who hated them, along with NATO member Turkey, on their other borders, the Iranians would have been under severe pressure to avoid an embargo on its oil and economy. Iran might have let its nuclear program go if faced with the destruction of its economy, an invasion force on its Eastern border and the possibility of Hussein taking the opportunity to renew war in the West if the U.S. started hostilities. Of course, Halliburton, illegally doing big business in Iran via a Mideast subsidiary would have been caught in the middle, suffered mightily and impacted Cheney's stock. THUS, CICBush43's ego urge to be bigger than Daddy and Cheney's oil greed (his energy policy group in April 2001 requested Iraq oil infrastructure documents from the Energy Dept) won out. Hussein is gone; replaced by a vicious insurgency we now are suing for peace to try and avoid Iran essentially taking over Iraq and becoming the largest oil producer in the world. Heck, we and the Sunnis, along with the Kurds just might end up defending democracy and oil against those pesky, election-winning Shiites and al-Qaeda too. Maybe...but al-Qaeda is already moving its cadres out of Iraq back to Afghanistan to support the Taliban so their intelligence on this is probably better than ours. David Bier http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31965 US Realignment With Sunnis Is Far Advanced Analysis by Gareth Porter* WASHINGTON, Jan 30 (IPS) - Two major revelations this past week show how far the George W. Bush administration has already shifted its policy toward realignment with Sunni forces to balance the influence of pro-Iranian Shiites in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad revealed in an interview with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius that he has put the future of military assistance to a Shiite-dominated government on the table in the high-stakes U.S. effort to force Shiite party leaders to give up control over key security ministries. Khalilzad told Ignatius that, unless the "security ministries" in the new Iraqi government are allocated to candidates who are "not regarded as sectarian", the United States would be forced to reevaluate its assistance to the government. "We are saying, if you choose the wrong candidates, that will affect U.S. aid," Khalilzad said. Khalilzad had previously demanded that the Interior Ministry be given to a non-sectarian candidate, but he had not backed up those demands with the threat of withdrawal of assistance. He has also explicitly added the Defence Ministry to that demand for the first time. Implied in Khalilzad's position is the threat to stop funding units that are identified as sectarian Shiite in their orientation. That could affect the bulk of the Iraqi army as well as the elite Shiite police commando units which are highly regarded by the U.S. military command. Khalilzad's decision to make the U.S. threat public was followed by the revelation by Newsweek in its Feb. 6 issue that talks between the United States and "high level" Sunni insurgent leaders have already begun at a U.S. military base in Anbar province and in Jordan and Syria. Khalilzad told
[osint] Iraqi militants active in Afghanistan
"There is a big group coming from Iraq," Azad said in a satellite telephone interview with the Associated Press. "They're linked to Al Qaeda and have fought against US forces in Iraq. They have been ordered to come here. Many are suicide attackers." http://www.dawn.com/2006/02/03/top16.htm February 3, 2006Friday Muharram 4, 1427 Iraqi militants active in Afghanistan KABUL, Feb 2: Several Al Qaeda militants are coming from Iraq to take part in the insurgency in Afghanistan; a provincial governor said on Thursday after interrogating an Iraqi caught sneaking into the country illegally. The warning came amid an upsurge in suicide attacks, with the latest involving a bomber dressed as a woman who killed five Afghans at an army checkpoint in eastern Afghanistan. More militants were expected to be trying to enter the country, said Ghulam Dusthaqir Azad, the governor of the south-western province of Nimroz. He made the comment after interrogating an alleged Iraqi member of Al Qaeda caught while sneaking into the country. "There is a big group coming from Iraq," Azad said in a satellite telephone interview with the Associated Press. "They're linked to Al Qaeda and have fought against US forces in Iraq. They have been ordered to come here. Many are suicide attackers." It was not immediately possible to confirm the information from officials in Kabul. The defence minister and a spokesman for the Interior Ministry did not answer their phones. A spokesman for the US military, Lt-Mike Cody, said: "We don't discuss detainees or intelligence matters." Rise in suicide attacks in recent months has fuelled suspicion that militants could be copying tactics of insurgents in Iraq. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Bungled Peace-Building Opens Door to Terrorism
"There is a great fear that unstable states and post-war societies provide an ideal breeding ground for terrorist training and activity," said Albrecht Schnabel, a senior fellow with the Research Programme on Human Security in Bern, Switzerland. "Yet almost three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is characterised by chaos, violence and disintegration. The methods used to rebuild Iraq's security sector are simply making matters worse," "Instead of stabilising places like Iraq, international efforts to centralise power are creating a more fragile security environment than ever before," "We weren't trying to pick on the U.S. here," said Schnabel. "But they did overestimate the difficulty of the peace-building process and optimistically hoped for the best." http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31987 Bungled Peace-Building Opens Door to Terrorism Stephen Leahy BROOKLIN, Canada, Jan 31 (IPS) - Washington's attempts to bring security to Iraq and Afghanistan are not only making life harder for local people, they are breeding more terrorists, warn international security experts. Under its anti-terrorism agenda, the U.S. has centralised power and security in post-conflict Iraq and Afghanistan, which ironically creates perfect conditions for terrorists and criminals. "There is a great fear that unstable states and post-war societies provide an ideal breeding ground for terrorist training and activity," said Albrecht Schnabel, a senior fellow with the Research Programme on Human Security in Bern, Switzerland. "Yet almost three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is characterised by chaos, violence and disintegration. The methods used to rebuild Iraq's security sector are simply making matters worse," he told IPS. Schnabel is co-editor of a new book, "Security Sector Reform and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding", published by United Nations University press and written by an international group of academics and military commanders who examine the record and challenges of security sector reform in post-conflict societies. "Instead of stabilising places like Iraq, international efforts to centralise power are creating a more fragile security environment than ever before," Schnabel said. The United States is avoiding widely recognised peace-building processes that involve external military powers quickly creating a basic security environment and then allowing domestic peace- and nation-building efforts to succeed. It takes several years to develop reliable internal security institutions that have the support of the population, as was achieved in Bosnia and East Timor, Schnabel acknowledged. "It's a difficult transition and countries and their people are vulnerable to terrorism and exploitation," he said, adding however, that by putting its own domestic security interests first, the U.S. has created a lose-lose situation. "The overall objective of external military forces in post-conflict societies is to eliminate violence in the society," said David Carment, director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Canada's Carleton University. "The U.S. focus in Afghanistan is to eliminate terrorists and their bases," Carment, who did not contribute to the book, said in an interview. That different focus can compromise efforts by international participants to bring peace, he said. The recent U.S. tactic of rearming some warlords in parts of Afghanistan and using them to fight the Taliban has angered rival warlords who had turned in their weapons under a U.N.-sponsored disarmament programme in 2003 and 2004. "You can't build a nation by supporting warlords," said Schnabel. Carment calls recent U.S.-led efforts to target Afghanistan's opium trade "simplistic" and predicted that violence in the region will escalate and hurt local people. "It will take a minimum of five to 10 years before there will be any signs of stability across Afghanistan," he said. Schnabel estimates that full democracy is at least 20 years in the future. Meanwhile, the time frame for stability in Iraq is an open question. What has happened in Iraq over the past three years violates many of the recommendations in the book, which draw on experiences in the post-conflict environments of Macedonia, Bosnia, Russia, Georgia, Northern Ireland, El Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia, Chile, Haiti and on the African continent. "Internal forces must be put under democratic control, restructured and retrained to become an asset, not a liability, in the long-term peace-building process," the authors state. "Security sector reform efforts are only successful when external actors are able and willing to stay the course and support an irrevocable process towards security consolidation and security sector reform, and where national and local authorities are committed and able to sustain such progress once external actors retreat." "We weren't trying to pick on the U.S. here," said Schnabel. "But they did overestimate the d
[osint] CIA Expands Use of Drones in Terror War
"Paradoxically, as a result of our success the target has become even more decentralized, even more diffused and presents a more difficult target no question about that," "A U.N. report in the wake of the 2002 strike in Yemen called it "an alarming precedent [and] a clear case of extrajudicial killing" in violation of international laws and treaties." "The CIA's failed Jan. 13 attempt to assassinate Al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri in Pakistan was the latest strike in the "targeted killing" program, a highly classified initiative that officials say has broadened as the network splintered and fled Afghanistan." "I think [the] attack was a major screw-up, because so many kids died. It raises questions about the entire process," said Guiora, who now a professor at Case Western Law School and director of its Institute for Global Security Law and Policy." Those pesky international laws and those darn treaties that the U.S. Constitution makes the "supreme law of the land" so that CICBush43 can ignore them...just like Nixon. David Bier http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-predator29jan29,0,5819230.story?coll=la-headlines-world >From the Los Angeles Times THE NATION CIA Expands Use of Drones in Terror War 'Targeted killing' with missile-firing Predators is a way to hit Al Qaeda in remote areas, officials say. Host nations are not always given notice. By Josh Meyer Times Staff Writer January 29, 2006 WASHINGTON Despite protests from other countries, the United States is expanding a top-secret effort to kill suspected terrorists with drone-fired missiles as it pursues an increasingly decentralized Al Qaeda, U.S. officials say. The CIA's failed Jan. 13 attempt to assassinate Al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri in Pakistan was the latest strike in the "targeted killing" program, a highly classified initiative that officials say has broadened as the network splintered and fled Afghanistan. The strike against Zawahiri reportedly killed as many as 18 civilians, many of them women and children, and triggered protests in Pakistan. Similar U.S. attacks using unmanned Predator aircraft equipped with Hellfire missiles have angered citizens and political leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. Little is known about the targeted-killing program. The Bush administration has refused to discuss how many strikes it has made, how many people have died, or how it chooses targets. No U.S. officials were willing to speak about it on the record because the program is classified. Several U.S. officials confirmed at least 19 occasions since Sept. 11 on which Predators successfully fired Hellfire missiles on terrorist suspects overseas, including 10 in Iraq in one month last year. The Predator strikes have killed at least four senior Al Qaeda leaders, but also many civilians, and it is not known how many times they missed their targets. Critics of the program dispute its legality under U.S. and international law, and say it is administered by the CIA with little oversight. U.S. intelligence officials insist it is one of their most tightly regulated, carefully vetted programs. Lee Strickland, a former CIA counsel who retired in 2004 from the agency's Senior Intelligence Service, confirmed that the Predator program had grown to keep pace with the spread of Al Qaeda commanders. The CIA believes they are branching out to gain recruits, financing and influence. Many groups of Islamic militants are believed to be operating in lawless pockets of the Middle East, Asia and Africa where it is perilous for U.S. troops to try to capture them, and difficult to discern the leaders. "Paradoxically, as a result of our success the target has become even more decentralized, even more diffused and presents a more difficult target no question about that," said Strickland, now director of the Center for Information Policy at the University of Maryland. "It's clear that the U.S. is prepared to use and deploy these weapons in a fairly wide theater," he said. Current and former intelligence officials said they could not disclose which countries could be subject to Predator strikes. But the presence of Al Qaeda or its affiliates has been documented in dozens of nations, including Somalia, Morocco and Indonesia. High-ranking U.S. and allied counter-terrorism officials said the program's expansion was not merely geographic. They said it had grown from targeting a small number of senior Al Qaeda commanders after the Sept. 11 attacks to a more loosely defined effort to kill possibly scores of suspected terrorists, depending on where they were found and what they were doing. "We have the plans in place to do them globally," said a former counter-terrorism official who worked at the CIA and State Department, which coordinates such efforts with other governme
[osint] Afghanistan battle leaves 25 dead
"Abdul Qoudoas, the district chief of Musa Qala, was killed by Taleban fighters fleeing after a 12-hour battle in the neighbouring Sangeen district. Helmand's deputy governor told the BBC that at one point, he and 100 soldiers were surrounded by 200 Taleban." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4680260.stm Afghanistan battle leaves 25 dead A district governor is among 25 people killed after a fierce battle between Afghan troops and Taleban fighters in Afghanistan, officials say. Abdul Qoudoas, the district chief of Musa Qala, was killed by Taleban fighters fleeing after a 12-hour battle in the neighbouring Sangeen district. Helmand's deputy governor told the BBC that at one point, he and 100 soldiers were surrounded by 200 Taleban. It is the most serious fighting between the two sides for two years. Five police officers and some 20 Taleban fighters are said to have been killed in the fighting in Helmand province. Taleban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf denied reports of Taleban deaths, saying only two fighters had been wounded. Mirwais Afghan of the BBC Pashto service, who has been to the area, says most of the villagers have fled. "The actual fighting is over in Sangeen but a search operation is ongoing," Afghan interior ministry spokesman, Yousuf Stanizai, is quoted as saying by AFP. "The area has been sealed off." An estimated 600 Afghan government troops along with 200 policemen have been rushed to the area, the deputy governor of Helmand province, Haji Mullah Mir, told the BBC. American soldiers are also present, he said. Troops retreat The deputy governor said he and the surrounded troops only managed to break through the Taleban after 200 more soldiers arrived to help them. He said the fighting started after a local police commander travelled to Helmand's Sangeen district in pursuit of Taleban forces from the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah. Mr Mir and his detachment came to the police commander's aid, but found themselves surrounded when the Taleban attacked from four different points. US military aircraft are also said to have dropped bombs on the area. He said troops retreated because they said civilians could have been killed if the fighting continued. Earlier this month, an Afghan aid worker was killed in Helmand by suspected Taleban members. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/4680260.stm Published: 2006/02/04 11:42:57 GMT -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Gun battle in Taliban stronghold
"The battle is the most serious fighting for two years and will raise concerns over the situation in which British forces will find themselves. Several thousand troops are to be deployed in the poppy-growing province this year to expand Afghanistan's Nato-led peacekeeping force." Sounds like the Taliban, augmented by al-Qaeda small unit leaders, is building up forces and establishing bases in the Helmand province and surrounding areas in anticipation of the arrival of British troops. David Bier http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1702514,00.html Gun battle in Taliban stronghold Antony Barnett Sunday February 5, 2006 The Observer The volatile Afghan region where more than 3,000 British troops are being deployed has erupted in violence, leading to the death of 25 people after a major battle between Taliban insurgents and US and Afghan government forces, according to provincial sources yesterday. Hundreds of villagers fled their homes on Friday after 200 Taliban launched a series of attacks in the southern povince of Helmand. The battle is the most serious fighting for two years and will raise concerns over the situation in which British forces will find themselves. Several thousand troops are to be deployed in the poppy-growing province this year to expand Afghanistan's Nato-led peacekeeping force. US and Afghan troops had sealed off a village several miles from the town of Josh Aali, where US aircraft dropped bombs on Friday. Officials said the bombs hit Taliban positions, but several villagers said there had been civilian casualties. According to local reports, bullet casings littered the ground and bloodstains could be seen. The deputy governor of Helmand, Mullah Mir, said an estimated 600 government troops along with 200 policemen had been rushed to the area. Twenty Taliban were killed and 20 wounded, said Mir, while five policemen were killed and 16 wounded. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: 'We have always said British troops are being sent to carry out a different role to the US military. But they have the right equipment to provide the necessary security.' Full coverage Special report: Afghanistan http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/afghanistan/0,,548335,00.html Interactive guide British troops in Afghanistan http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/flash/0,,1698844,00.html News guide Afghanistan: online media http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/worldnewsguide/asia/page/0,,622912,00.html Links Afghanistan Online http://www.afghan-web.com/ US Library of Congress: Afghanistan resources http://www.loc.gov/rr/international/amed/afghanistan/afghanistan.html CIA factbook: Afghanistan http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html Wikipedia: Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Good Hamas, Bad Hamas
"Their spokesmen issue reasonable-sounding statements like Mussa Abu Marzuk, who Monday, Feb. 6, promised to honor previously signed agreements, but then reversed himself with a qualifier - "only if they suit our interests." Marzuk sounds just like CICBush43 signing legislation into law requiring him to do (or not do as with torture) certain things, and right afterward issuing a signing statement saying he would only comply with the law he just signed if it was in his interest to do so. David Bier http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1142 Good Hamas, Bad Hamas DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 6, 2006, 7:49 PM (GMT+02:00) Hamas leaders are laying down a smoke screen of contradictory statements to lower resistance in the West and Israel to their forthcoming formation of a new Palestinian government. Their spokesmen issue reasonable-sounding statements like Mussa Abu Marzuk, who Monday, Feb. 6, promised to honor previously signed agreements, but then reversed himself with a qualifier - "only if they suit our interests." Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is going along with this tactic. While pretending to lay down conditions for Hamas to lead a government, he is in fact giving way to Hamas demands. The concessions he is in the process of making to the Islamic terrorists contradict his pledges to US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, King Abdullah of Jordan and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak last week to make Hamas recognize Israel and disarm before entrusting the terrorist group with government. Palestinian and intelligence sources have revealed to DEBKAfile the demands Abu Mazen faced when he met Hamas leaders Mahmoud a-Zahar and Ismail Haniya in Gaza Saturday, Feb. 4. They want the civil affairs portfolio held by Mohammad Dahlan because it controls Palestinian exchanges with Israeli officials on a whole gamut of issues from coordination on civic affairs to day-to-day problems. They also want the interior ministry with the Palestinian police and the preventive intelligence services. A-Zahar said Hamas would merge the two ministries. The handover of Dahlan's functions and management of Palestinian relations with Israel would place Jerusalem in the position of willy-nilly dealing with Hamas, laying out funds to meet Palestinian needs and cutting out any other Palestinian contacts. Even Abu Mazen would find himself upstaged. The two amalgamated ministries would be the most powerful body in the Palestinian Authority, which is why Hamas is willing to forego control of all other Palestinian security and intelligence services and leave them to Abu Mazen. Once all the Palestinian police stations and every branch of Preventive Security are in Hamas hands, the Islamic group will attain two objectives: direct control of the Palestinian and the breakup of the power bases supporting the two Fatah strongmen, Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub. The plan is to finish these two long-ruling officials for good. The new rulers will also have the tools for controlling West Bank traffic arteries in the areas under Palestinian rule and the C zones where Israel has the say on security. It will be in Hamas's power to create daily friction with Israel military and police forces on the spot and Israel inhabitants. All three will have no choice but to do business with Hamas in order to make life bearable. The Gaza-based Hamas leaders fly to Cairo to meet their Damascus-based superiors to plot their next steps. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[osint] Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee
"Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican." http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm Issue Date: February 6-12, 2006, Posted On: 2/6/2006 Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee Presidential adviser Karl Rove carried his files and luggage after arriving with President Bush in Dallas on Feb. 3. (L.M. Otero/AP) The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee�s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping. Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November. "It's hardball all the way," a senior GOP congressional aide said. The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings. Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove's message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections. "He's [Rove] lining them up one by one," another congressional source said. Mr. Rove is leading the White House campaign to help the GOP in November�s congressional elections. The sources said the White House has offered to help loyalists with money and free publicity, such as appearances and photo-ops with the president. Those deemed disloyal to Mr. Rove would appear on his blacklist. The sources said dozens of GOP members in the House and Senate are on that list. So far, only a handful of GOP senators have questioned Mr. Rove's tactics. Some have raised doubts about Mr. Rove's strategy of painting the Democrats, who have opposed unwarranted surveillance, as being dismissive of the threat posed by al Qaeda terrorists. "Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Your Taboo, Not Mine
"...the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance--and they have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech? Nonnegotiable." "Blasphemy, moreover, is common in the Muslim world, and sanctioned by Arab governments. The Arab media run cartoons depicting Jews and the symbols of the Jewish faith with imagery indistinguishable from that used in the Third Reich. But I have yet to see Jews or Israelis threaten the lives of Muslims because of it." Although there are some cracks in the non-negotiability of freedom of speech in the U.S. (as a dead soldier's mother and a Congressman's wife found out at the State of the Union speech last week), nothing here is remotely like the Muslim urge to kill or destroy anything they deem offends Muhammad. Definitely not a religion of peace, when its founder advised "Smite the infidel about the neck" and his adherents, however moderate they might claim to be in quiet moments, still take that exhortation literally. When upset there seems, for them, to be no middle ground or tolerance built in to the Koran. At least as it is interpreted and taught by the vast majority of imams and ayatollahs today. Absent that middle ground for negotiation and tolerance, with only cartoons despising God, Christ and Jews permitted in Muslim lands without equal time for those critical of Muhammad, it appears we are indeed headed for a collision of civilizations. David Bier http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156609,00.html Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 Your Taboo, Not Mine The furor over cartoons of Muhammad reveals the zealot's double standard By ANDREW SULLIVAN The iconic image of last week was in the Gaza Strip. It was of a Palestinian gunman astride the local office of the European Union. All the diplomatic staff had fled, tipped off ahead of time. The source of the militant's ire? A series of satirical cartoons originally published in Denmark. Yes, cartoons. A Danish paper, a while back, had commissioned a set of cartoons depicting the fear that many writers and artists in Europe feel when dealing with the subject of Islam. To Western eyes, the cartoons were not in any way remarkable. In fact, they were rather tame. One showed Muhammad with his turban depicted as a bomb--not exactly a fresh image to describe Islamic terrorism. Another used a simple graphic device: it showed Muhammad surrounded by two women in full Muslim garb, their eyes peering out from an oblong space in their black chadors. And on Muhammad's face there was an oblong too, blacking out his eyes. The point was that Islam has a blind spot when it comes to women's freedom. Crude but powerful: exactly what a political cartoon is supposed to be. The result was an astonishing uproar in the Muslim world, one of those revealing moments when the gulf between our world and theirs seems unbridgeable. Boycotts of European goods are in force; demonstrators in London held up signs proclaiming EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO MOCK ISLAM and BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST; the editor of the French newspaper France-Soir was fired for reprinting the drawings; Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the publication; and protesters set fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus. The Egyptian ambassador to Denmark expressed disbelief that the government would not prevent further reprinting. Freedom of the press, the Egyptian explained, "means the whole story will continue and that we are back to square one again. The government of Denmark has to do something to appease the Muslim world." Excuse me? In fact, the opposite is the case. The Muslim world needs to do something to appease the West. Since Ayatullah Khomeini declared a death sentence against Salman Rushdie for how he depicted Muhammad in his book The Satanic Verses, Islamic radicals have been essentially threatening the free discussion of their religion and politics in the West. Rushdie escaped with his life. But Pim Fortuyn, a Dutch politician who stood up against Muslim immigrant hostility to equality for women and gays, was murdered on the street. Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who offended strict Muslims, was killed thereafter. Several other Dutch politicians who have dared to criticize the intolerance of many Muslims live with police protection. Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're blasphemy--the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a political point, then the cal
[osint] Soldier pays for armor
"Army demanded $700 from city man who was wounded" ""I last saw the [body armor] when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter," Rebrook said. "They took it off me and burned it." "They said that I owed them $700," Rebrook said. "It was like `thank you for your service, now here's the bill for $700.' I had to pay for it if I wanted to get on with my life." Once you are wounded seriously enough for discharge, apparently you drop into the category of trash; unworthy of any "support the troops" efforts by desk jockey officers in the States. The wounded end up going through trauma, not just once, but often many times with this kind of stuff, pay screwups, inability to get proper medical treatment and VA refusal to grant claims which veterans can't hire lawyers to pursue. David Bier http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2006020623 February 07, 2006 Soldier pays for armor # Army demanded $700 from city man who was wounded By Eric Eyre Staff writer The last time 1st Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook IV saw his body armor, he was lying on a stretcher in Iraq, his arm shattered and covered in blood. A field medic tied a tourniquet around Rebrook's right arm to stanch the bleeding from shrapnel wounds. Soldiers yanked off his blood-soaked body armor. He never saw it again. But last week, Rebrook was forced to pay $700 for that body armor, blown up by a roadside bomb more than a year ago. He was leaving the Army for good because of his injuries. He turned in his gear at his base in Fort Hood, Texas. He was informed there was no record that the body armor had been stripped from him in battle. He was told to pay nearly $700 or face not being discharged for weeks, perhaps months. Rebrook, 25, scrounged up the cash from his Army buddies and returned home to Charleston last Friday. "I last saw the [body armor] when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter," Rebrook said. "They took it off me and burned it." But no one documented that he lost his Kevlar body armor during battle, he said. No one wrote down that armor had apparently been incinerated as a biohazard. Rebrook's mother, Beckie Drumheler, said she was saddened and angry when she learned that the Army discharged her son with a $700 bill. Soldiers who serve their country, those who put their lives on the line, deserve better, she said. "It's outrageous, ridiculous and unconscionable," Drumheler said. "I wanted to stand on a street corner and yell through a megaphone about this." Rebrook was standing in the turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle when the roadside bomb exploded Jan. 11, 2005. The explosion fractured his arm and severed an artery. A Black Hawk helicopter airlifted him to a combat support hospital in Baghdad. He was later flown to a hospital in Germany for surgery, then on to Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital in Washington, D.C., for more surgeries. Doctors operated on his arm seven times in all. But Rebrook's right arm never recovered completely. He still has range of motion problems. He still has pain when he turns over to sleep at night. Even with the injury, Rebrook said he didn't want to leave the Army. He said the "medical separation" discharge was the Army's decision, not his. So after eight months at Fort Hood, he gathered up his gear and started the "long process" to leave the Army for good. Things went smoothly until officers asked him for his "OTV," his "outer tactical vest," or body armor, which was missing. A battalion supply officer had failed to document the loss of the vest in Iraq. "They said that I owed them $700," Rebrook said. "It was like `thank you for your service, now here's the bill for $700.' I had to pay for it if I wanted to get on with my life." In the past, the Army allowed to soldiers to write memos, explaining the loss and destruction of gear, Rebrook said. But a new policy required a "report of survey" from the field that documented the loss. Rebrook said he knows other soldiers who also have been forced to pay for equipment destroyed in battle. "It's a combat loss," he said. "It shouldn't be a cost passed on to the soldier. If a soldier's stuff is hit by enemy fire, he shouldn't have to pay for it." Rebrook said he tried to get a battalion commander to sign a waiver on the battle armor, but the officer declined. Rebrook was told he'd have to supply statements from witnesses to verify the body armor was taken from him and burned. "There's a complete lack of empathy from senior officers who don't know what it's like to be a combat soldier on the ground," Rebrook said. "There's a whole lot of people w
[osint] The Worst-Case Scenario
"If you really had a major attack you probably would need much more than that. One estimate we made was that we'd need 10 million doses." Who made the decision to buy 100,000 doses instead of 10 million? It was Stewart Simonson, the man who oversees Project Bioshield. Simonson is a Republican political appointee who, before running Project Bioshield, was a lawyer for Amtrak. Republicans as well as Democrats have criticized his management of the program. "Secretary Simonson just appears to be over his head on this particular issue," says Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, who chairs the committee that oversees Project Bioshield. Davis, who usually supports the administration, is taking the unusual step of calling in this story for Simonson's removal from Bioshield. He says Simonson lacks the necessary technical and scientific background, and compares him to Michael Brown, the former FEMA director who resigned after Hurricane Katrina. "Oh, I think that we're seeing the same kind of issues," says Davis. "Michael Brown had been before our committee prior to Katrina and exhibited the same kind of arrogance, a lack of expertise. This is a serious job at this point, and I think we need to have professionals filling it, not political appointees." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/27/60minutes/main1245714.shtml The Worst-Case Scenario Jan. 29, 2006(CBS) We can no longer ignore the worst-case scenario of a nuclear terrorist attack on an American city. Osama bin Laden has made it clear he wants to obtain nuclear weapons and use them against us. The 9/11 Commission considers such an attack the No. 1 threat today, not because it's the most likely disaster scenario, but because it would be the most devastating. The chairman of the 9/11 Commission even says he expects to see such an attack on an American city in his lifetime. Hundreds of thousand of people could die in a nuclear attack, but hundreds of thousands of others could be saved. That's because the Pentagon after decades of searching believes it has found a drug to treat radiation exposure. Why isn't that drug available? Correspondent Ed Bradley reports. What would happen if terrorists managed to detonate a nuclear device in a major U.S. city? Hundreds of thousands of people would suffer from acute radiation exposure. They would be at long-term risk of developing cancer, but most deaths would be from damage to the bone marrow, infections and internal bleeding. Pentagon scientists discovered a possible treatment for radiation sickness after testing a drug made by Hollis-Eden, a small biotech company in San Diego. "In the summer of 2001, the military came and visited us and they said, 'You know we've been testing your drug and we've been looking for a drug like this for 40 years,' " says Bob Marsella, the company's vice president. Was the military interested in the drug for troops? "Yes," says Marsella. "Two weeks after 9/11, they came and visited us again and said, 'We'd like to develop this now, not only for troops but for civilians.' " Hollis-Eden's drug, Neumune, was not FDA-approved, but the Pentagon had been testing it on mice, dogs and monkeys, where it stopped the lethal bleeding and infections caused by radiation exposure. The Pentagon decided the drug was in a class by itself and stated in a letter to 60 Minutes: "NEUMUNE seems to be the most efficacious, least toxic and most comprehensive in its effects." "And then we started to look at the impact a nuclear bomb would have on a city and how many people would be exposed and potentially use this product," Marsella says. "And we started looking at the numbers. They were staggering. They were in the millions of doses, so we thought to ourselves, this could potentially be a very big market." Marsella and his boss, Richard Hollis, knew it was a market with only one initial buyer: the U.S. government. They had to convince potential investors that Washington would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy their drug. "We started circulating in Washington, and there was a lot of support for a medical countermeasure that could save human lives in the event there's a nuclear 9/11," says Hollis. "But we couldn't get it funded," he says. "So we were here in Washington trying to figure out how we were going to get it done and, coincidentally, we were here for the State of the Union when the president addressed it." "I ask you tonight to add to our future security with a major research and production effort to guard our people against bio-terrorism called Project Bioshield," President Bush said during his 2003 speech. "Project Bioshield" provided nearly $6 billion to create a biodefense industry. The program gave drug companies a powerful incentive to come up with new drugs to be used in the event of terrorist attacks. For the first time, there would be a guaranteed market for drugs if they tested successfully. It was the assurance Hollis-Eden had been waiting for. "So you h
[osint] Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy
"Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020," said Mona Sahlin, minister of sustainable development. "There shall always be better alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline." Sadly, the US will probably be oil dependent until it runs out. The CICBush43 budget proposal in 2007 for alternative energy research merely restores the cuts he made from Clinton funding levels which were miniscule to start with. It amounts to about one fifth the cost of building ONE nuclear power plant whose fuel wastes will require millions in yearly costs to store...for virtually forever. Aside from the new law that permits tax credits for installation of solar and energy saving equipment by homeowners starting this year, CICBush43 is not dedicated, on a realistic national level, to alternative energy. He is most focused on industrialists who build nuclear power plants and his oil patch buddies who will continue to earn gigantic profits out of our pockets for many decades. David Bier http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.html Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy · 15-year limit set for switch to renewable energy · Biofuels favoured over further nuclear power John Vidal, environment editor Wednesday February 8, 2006 Guardian Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations. The attempt by the country of 9 million people to become the world's first practically oil-free economy is being planned by a committee of industrialists, academics, farmers, car makers, civil servants and others, who will report to parliament in several months. The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises. "Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020," said Mona Sahlin, minister of sustainable development. "There shall always be better alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline." According to the energy committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, there is growing concern that global oil supplies are peaking and will shortly dwindle, and that a global economic recession could result from high oil prices. Ms Sahlin has described oil dependency as one of the greatest problems facing the world. "A Sweden free of fossil fuels would give us enormous advantages, not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations in oil prices," she said. "The price of oil has tripled since 1996." A government official said: "We want to be both mentally and technically prepared for a world without oil. The plan is a response to global climate change, rising petroleum prices and warnings by some experts that the world may soon be running out of oil." Sweden, which was badly hit by the oil price rises in the 1970s, now gets almost all its electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric power, and relies on fossil fuels mainly for transport. Almost all its heating has been converted in the past decade to schemes which distribute steam or hot water generated by geothermal energy or waste heat. A 1980 referendum decided that nuclear power should be phased out, but this has still not been finalised. The decision to abandon oil puts Sweden at the top of the world green league table. Iceland hopes by 2050 to power all its cars and boats with hydrogen made from electricity drawn from renewable resources, and Brazil intends to power 80% of its transport fleet with ethanol derived mainly from sugar cane within five years. Last week George Bush surprised analysts by saying that the US was addicted to oil and should greatly reduce imports from the Middle East. The US now plans a large increase in nuclear power. The British government, which is committed to generating 10% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2012, last month launched an energy review which has a specific remit to consider a large increase in nuclear power. But a report by accountants Ernst & Young yesterday said that the UK was falling behind in its attempt to meet its renewables target. "The UK has Europe's best wind, wave and tidal resources yet it continues to miss out on its economic potential," said Jonathan Johns, head of renewable energy at Ernst & Young. Energy ministry officials in Sweden said they expected the oil committee to recommend further development of biofuels derived from its massive forests, and by expanding other renewable energies such as wind and wave power. Sweden has a head start over most countries. In 2003, 26% of all the energy consumed came from renewable sources - the EU average
[osint] Unrest in Nigeria's Delta region could fuel rise in oil prices
"...a spokesman for Asari's militant faction, the Niger Delta People's Volunteer Service, said more attacks were certain if the government and oil companies didn't address people's concerns. "If the Nigerian government thinks this is all a joke," Onegiya Erekosima said, "I cannot predict what will happen tomorrow." "If down the line there are a few more attacks, you can go from 10 to 20 percent off in a matter of days," said Sebastian Spio-Garbrah, a West Africa analyst with the Eurasia Group. "Thirty percent is not entirely unlikely." "If that were to happen, it would send shock waves through a world oil market that's already stretched by rapidly rising demand and fears that Iran will cut oil exports because of global condemnation of its nuclear program. Nigeria is the world's eighth-biggest oil exporter and the fifth-biggest supplier to the United States." Nigeria oil production drops could push oil to over $75 a barrel. Nigeria, coupled with an inevitable conflict between the U.S. and Iran, would translate here to oil over $100 a barrel...possibly even up to $150 a barrel with gasoline climbing into the $4 a gallon range. Yes sir, it is definitely going to be a difficult Global War on Terror, or as the Pentagon now calls it: The Long War. Had CICBush43 actually focused on winning the GWOT by completely pacifying Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaeda as he was required, and limited to doing, by the Congressional 9/11 resolution, the U.S. would have had thousands of troops there on the Iranian border, free to heavily pressure that "Axis of Evil" member into giving up its nuclear program. Instead, he invaded Iraq which was zero threat and did not (according to the 9/11 Commission) support the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S. Now, we have an entire field army bottled up in the Iraq quagmire with Persian Gulf supply lines, and the troops themselves, vulnerable to Iran blockade or even attack. And CICBush43 with little real leverage or ability to pressure Iran, with its mostly underground bunkered nuclear program, to do anything...except hate. Better plan your driving for efficiency and get ready for lower home thermostat settings here in Bushworld. David Bier http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/world/13786888.htm Posted on Fri, Feb. 03, 2006 Unrest in Nigeria's Delta region could fuel rise in oil prices By Shashank Bengali Knight Ridder Newspapers PORT HARCOURT, Nigeria - The militia commander wanted to be very clear: January's attacks on Western oil companies in Nigeria's crude-rich Delta region - including one in which four Westerners were held hostage for 19 days - were only the beginning. "Trust me," he said by phone from a hideout somewhere in the Delta's maze of creeks, "by the end of this month you will see serious action." An idle threat? In the swampy Delta, home to some of the world's most productive oil fields but also to millions of people living in extreme poverty, no one is willing to say so. Anger at the lack of access to oil wealth long has fueled militant attacks in Nigeria's main oil-producing region, but January saw the worst spate of violence in several years. Oil companies withdrew hundreds of employees from the region during the well-orchestrated campaign of robberies, pipeline explosions and kidnappings, which cut Nigeria's daily production of 2.4 million barrels by 10 percent. The primary target was the Anglo-Dutch giant Royal Dutch Shell, which controls nearly half of Nigeria's output. Company officials said half the reduced production had been restored. But the militant group that claimed responsibility for January's campaign is promising that February will be worse. In a phone interview Friday, a man who identified himself as one of the commanders of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta repeated threats to throw off Nigeria's oil production by 30 percent this month. If that were to happen, it would send shock waves through a world oil market that's already stretched by rapidly rising demand and fears that Iran will cut oil exports because of global condemnation of its nuclear program. Nigeria is the world's eighth-biggest oil exporter and the fifth-biggest supplier to the United States. The commander declined to be identified, citing security. But people who are acquainted with the militants, who have sympathizers throughout Port Harcourt, vouched for his position. Analysts said it wouldn't take much to sink Nigeria's production well below last month's 10 percent shortfall. "If down the line there are a few more attacks, you can go from 10 to 20 percent off in a matter of days," said Sebastian Spio-Garbrah, a West Africa analyst with the Eurasia Group. "Thirty percent is not entirely unlikely." The militants, said to number in the
[osint] Boehner Rents Apartment Owned by Lobbyist in D.C.
"John Milne does not lobby John Boehner on any issue and has not lobbied him on any issue during the time period in which John has been renting the property," he said. Seymour added that he does not know if other members of Milne's mCapitol Management firm have lobbied Boehner. "We really have no idea on this one," he said. "We'd have to know who else works for those firms, which we don't offhand. It's possible the answer is yes, but we don't know." An incredible response from a senior staffer for a Congressman who at one point eight years ago, was reprimanded for handing out tobacco lobbyist checks to other members on the House Floor. A worthy replacement for DeLay...at least as far as lobbying firms are concerned. Reform will be interesting; especially since Boehner has already frowned on forbidding members to accept travel from lobbying firms. Business as usual in Bushworld... David Bier http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701913_pf.html Boehner Rents Apartment Owned by Lobbyist in D.C. By Thomas B. Edsall and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, February 8, 2006; A03 Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who was elected House majority leader last week, is renting his Capitol Hill apartment from a veteran lobbyist whose clients have direct stakes in legislation Boehner has co-written and that he has overseen as chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee. The relationship between Boehner, John D. Milne and Milne's wife, Debra R. Anderson, underscores how intertwined senior lawmakers have become with the lobbyists paid to influence legislation. Boehner's primary residence is in West Chester, Ohio, but for $1,600 a month, he rents a two-bedroom basement apartment near the House office buildings on Capitol Hill owned by Milne, Boehner spokesman Don Seymour said yesterday. Boehner's monthly rent appears to be similar to other rentals of two-bedroom English basement apartments close to the House side of the Capitol in Southeast, based on a review of apartment listings. Milne's clients -- including restaurant chains and health insurance companies -- hired him to lobby on issues at the heart of Boehner's work, including minimum-wage increases, small-business tax breaks and tax-free savings accounts to help cover insurance costs, congressional lobbying records show. In the weeks preceding last week's GOP leadership elections, Boehner acknowledged his close ties to the lobbying community, but he assured Republican lawmakers that all of his relationships were ethical and he campaigned on a platform of change and reform. Seymour reiterated that message last night. "John Milne does not lobby John Boehner on any issue and has not lobbied him on any issue during the time period in which John has been renting the property," he said. Seymour added that he does not know if other members of Milne's mCapitol Management firm have lobbied Boehner. "We really have no idea on this one," he said. "We'd have to know who else works for those firms, which we don't offhand. It's possible the answer is yes, but we don't know." House members may not accept anything from lobbyists worth more than $50. If Boehner is paying market-rate rent, it would appear he is not violating that rule. Boehner's work closely coincides with the interests of Milne. In 2002, the House approved the Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act, a tax measure originally drafted by Boehner, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) and Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.) as the Back to Work Act. The measure eventually was signed into law. Lobbying disclosure forms indicate that one of Milne's clients, Fortis Health Plans, hired him to lobby the Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act. Another client, the Buca di Beppo chain of Italian restaurants, hired Milne to push the Small Business Tax Fairness Act, which would allow restaurants to deduct the cost of investments at a faster pace. The measure was introduced by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.) in 2003, with Boehner as one of 15 co-sponsors. Many of its provisions have since become law. Fortis, now called Assurant Health, also asked Milne to push Health Savings Accounts, the tax-free savings accounts established by Congress to help with health care costs not covered by high-deductible plans. Boehner is a proponent of such accounts, which President Bush is targeting for a major expansion. Buca di Beppo and another restaurant chain, Parasole Restaurant Holdings Inc., also hired Milne to lobby on the minimum wage and tax credits for tips, issues directly under the Education and the Workforce Committee's purview. The restaurant industry has long fought minimum-wage increases, seeking instead to augment restaurant wages with tips that become more valuable if they can avoid tax
[osint] Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry
"Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international communications of people inside the United States believed to have links with terrorists. The congresswoman's discomfort with the operation appears to reflect deepening fissures among Republicans over the program's legal basis and political liabilities. Many Republicans have strongly backed President Bush's power to use every tool at his disposal to fight terrorism, but 4 of the 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voiced concerns about the program at a hearing where Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Monday." You can bet Wilson is real concerned about the political liability factor as she is facing a dead heat at this point for re-election. (http://www.madridforcongress.com/node/513) and is having to deal with charges that she speaks out against pornography but accepted $47,000 in campaign contributions from firms that profit from it. (http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=34). Oh well, Republicans have a 16 seat margin in the House and Boehner is reforming lobbying rules, so one less Republican incumbent won't matter...or will it? Anyway, it is likely Wilson to take a hard line against NSA, regardless of Rove's threats to blacklist Republicans who do that because she is probably already on it from opposing other Bushworld proposals. It is Darwin's rules after all...and impeachment actions do start in the House. David Bier http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nsa.html February 8, 2006 Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry By ERIC LICHTBLAU WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 A House Republican whose subcommittee oversees the National Security Agency broke ranks with the White House on Tuesday and called for a full Congressional inquiry into the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program. The lawmaker, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why. Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international communications of people inside the United States believed to have links with terrorists. The congresswoman's discomfort with the operation appears to reflect deepening fissures among Republicans over the program's legal basis and political liabilities. Many Republicans have strongly backed President Bush's power to use every tool at his disposal to fight terrorism, but 4 of the 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voiced concerns about the program at a hearing where Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Monday. A growing number of Republicans have called in recent days for Congress to consider amending federal wiretap law to address the constitutional issues raised by the N.S.A. operation. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for one, said he considered some of the administration's legal justifications for the program "dangerous" in their implications, and he told Mr. Gonzales that he wanted to work on new legislation that would help those tracking terrorism "know what they can and can't do." But the administration has said repeatedly since the program was disclosed in December that it considers further legislation unnecessary, believing that the president already has the legal authority to authorize the operation. Vice President Dick Cheney reasserted that position Tuesday in an interview on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." Members of Congress "have the right and the responsibility to suggest whatever they want to suggest" about changing wiretap law, Mr. Cheney said. But "we have all the legal authority we need" already, he said, and a public debate over changes in the law could alert Al Qaeda to tactics used by American intelligence officials. "It's important for us, if we're going to proceed legislatively, to keep in mind there's a price to be paid for that, and it might well in fact do irreparable damage to our capacity to collect information," Mr. Cheney sa
[osint] Gonzales on warrantless wiretaps: we wanted something even worse
"...Senator Lindsey Graham, who yesterday called the justification "very dangerous in terms of its application for the future," and "When I voted for it [the joint resolution], I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche" "And, if Bush is so eager to attack judges who "legislate from the bench," can't the Senate go after him for "judging from the Oval Office"?" Definitely, opposition to the NSA spying is not confined to those pesky liberals. David Bier http://www.stephensonstrategies.com/2006/02/07.html#a709 Gonzales on warrantless wiretaps: we wanted something even worse (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020600195.html?sub=AR) We should accept the Bush Administration's warrant-less wiretaping program -- because what they really wanted to do was even worse. That seems to have been the logic (?) behind Atty. General Gonzales' testimony yesterday (remember, folks, this guy's still on the short list if there's another vacancy on the Supreme Court. Take your vitamins, Justice Stevens!) before the Judiciary Committee. Here's the guy's justification, as reported by the WaPo: "Gonzales also suggested in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the administration had considered a broader effort that would include purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail but abandoned the idea in part due to fears of the negative public reaction. 'Think about the reaction, the public reaction that has arisen in some quarters about this program,' Gonzales told Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). 'If the president had authorized domestic surveillance as well, even though we're talking about al Qaeda-to-al Qaeda, I think the reaction would have been twice as great. And so there was a judgment made that this was the appropriate line to draw in ensuring the security of our country and the protection of the privacy interests of Americans.'" So bad PR was the deterrent? How about, Mr. Attorney General (who swore to uphold it) the Constitution as a reason why either scheme was flat out wrong? As a public service to those public officials who seem to have never studied it, we reprint here the Fourth Amendment (and handy hyperlinks to the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution (http://www.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=132&const=11_amd_04) discussion thereof, which some Executive Branch employees might want to explore at length): "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " Is that wording ambiguous? Doesn't seem so to me. And, if Bush is so eager to attack judges who "legislate from the bench," can't the Senate go after him for "judging from the Oval Office"? Back to the substance. Gonzales refused to answer dozens of questions about the program or -- get this -- "whether President Bush has authorized other types of warrantless searches or surveillance in the United States." When will the other shoe drop about any other un-authorized programs -- and what's in that shoe? (http://www.cia.gov/spy_fi/item15.html) Gonzales again fell back on the Administration's 42-page justification for the program, and cited Joint Resolution 23 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html) as the justification. I went back and re-read the Resolution, especially the key phrase, "... the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks." I can't for the life of me see how, by any means, this program constitutes "necessary and appropriate force," especially if Bush gets to act as judge and jury without judicial or Congressional review. Here's the deal, folks. As heinous, IMHO, this program is in its own right as a violation of the 4th Amendment, history will judge that if it goes unchecked, the far bigger problem is the precedent it creates for future presidents of any party or ideology to ignore Constitutional limits on their authority and the balance of powers. That's why it's also opposed by conservatives such as Bob Barr, (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/16/sitroom.03.html) David Keene of the American Conservative Union, (http://www.conservative.org/) and Senator Lindsey Graham, who yesterday called the justification "very dangerous in terms of
[osint] Fatah gunmen abducted the Egyptian naval attachéto put Hamas leaders on the spot
"The day after the Hamas election victory last month, 50 Egyptian military instructors departed the Gaza Strip as a safety precaution and because they judged hopeless any chance of training or setting up any Palestinian unit that they could control." http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1868 Fatah gunmen abducted the Egyptian naval attaché to put Hamas leaders on the spot and derail their Cairo talks for a new government February 9, 2006, 1:47 PM (GMT+02:00) The kidnapped envoy, Husam al-Musali, is liaison officer between the Egyptian Embassy and armed Palestinian groups. In Cairo, Egyptian intelligence minister Omar Suleiman is conducting intensive negotiations with Hamas leader on an acceptable format for the next Palestinian government. He will no doubt demand Hamas show its authority by obtaining the captured Egyptian officer's release. This Hamas is in no position to do. The Hebrew daily Ma'ariv reported Thursday, Feb. 9, that Cairo had withdrawn the large Egyptian military mission stationed in the Gaza Strip since late last year. This is partly confirmed. The day after the Hamas election victory last month, 50 Egyptian military instructors departed the Gaza Strip as a safety precaution and because they judged hopeless any chance of training or setting up any Palestinian unit that they could control. Left in place were only three Egyptian generals and security guards to protect them and the Egyptian Embassy staff. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen suddenly throws open Jericho lock-up
"Abu Mazen thus renews Yasser Arafat's revolving-door policy for terrorists..." http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1869 Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen suddenly throws open Jericho lock-up and frees 56 convicted terrorists February 9, 2006, 3:11 PM (GMT+02:00) Among the men freed without prior notice are 26 Islamic Jihad members from northern and central Samaria, who plotted and masterminded suicide bombings in Hadera, Netanya, and Kfar Saba in 2005. Also released were 13 members of the PA General Intelligence Service, loyal to Col. Tewfik Tirawri, and 17 members of the PA Military Police all of whom participated in terrorist attacks. Abu Mazen thus renews Yasser Arafat's revolving-door policy for terrorists, while Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni call Hamas a terrorist organization and speak about the need to call Hamas a terrorist organization and fight terrorism. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information
"...Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified
information, including details of the NIE, to defend the
administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war."
"A defendant can make a claim that he is just a victim of Washington
politics or doing the bidding for someone else," said Richman, the
former prosecutor, "But there may be limits to a jury's sympathy when
that defendant himself was so high-ranking. Given Libby's position in
the White House, the jury is less likely to view him as a sacrificial
lamb than as a sacrificial ram."
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm#
Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006
Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter)
Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized"
by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to
disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush
administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go
to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and
to court records.
According to sources with firsthand knowledge, Cheney authorized
Libby to release additional classified information, including details
of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence
in making the case for war.
Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized
to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National
Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to
develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in
federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand
knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a
broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President
Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier
encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with
journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the
war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional
classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the
administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.
Previous coverage of the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas
(http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/waas.htm)
Libby testified to the grand jury that he had been authorized to share
parts of the NIE with journalists in the summer of 2003 as part of an
effort to rebut charges then being made by former U.S. Ambassador
Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration had misrepresented
intelligence information to make a public case for war.
Wilson had been sent on a CIA-sponsored mission to investigate
allegations that the African nation of Niger had sold uranium to Iraq
to develop a nuclear weapon. Despite the fact that Wilson reported
back that the information was most likely baseless, it was still used
in the President's 2003 State of the Union speech to make the case for
war.
But besides sharing details of the NIE with reporters during the
effort to rebut Wilson, Libby is also accused of telling journalists
that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had worked for the CIA. Libby and
other Bush administration officials believed that if Plame played a
role in the selection of her husband for the Niger mission, that fact
might discredit him.
A federal grand jury indicted Libby on October 28, 2005, on five
counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of
justice, alleging that he concealed his role in leaking information
about Plame to the media. He resigned his positions as chief of staff
and national security adviser to Cheney the same day. Libby has never
claimed that Cheney encouraged him to disclose information about Plame
to the media.
In a January 23 letter, related to discovery issues for Libby's
upcoming trial, Fitzgerald wrote to Libby's attorneys: "Mr. Libby
testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in
which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate
("NIE")
in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and
July 2003.
We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby
testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE
to the press by his superiors."
Although it is not known if Cheney had told the special prosecutor
that he had authorized Libby to leak classified information to
reporters, Dan Richman, a professor of law at Fordham University and a
former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, said,
"One certainly would not expect Libby, as part of his defense, to
claim some sort of clear authorization from Cheney where none existed,
because that would clearly risk the government
[osint] IRAQ: Suspected bird flu case appears in south
"The boy developed symptoms on 1 February and died four days later after being hospitalised for severe pneumonia." "Our team has already reached Kurdistan [in northern Iraq] to help with prevention programmes and evaluate the situation in the area," said Maria Cheng, a spokeswoman for the WHO in Geneva. "This new case in the south of Iraq is going to be analysed in UK laboratories." The Bird Flu is spreading in the hard to quarantine Iraq war zone just brimming with insurgents, terrorists, smugglers and displaced persons. It keeps getting closer to U.S. and British troops in Iraq. Hopefully, the strain will not mutate into a human-to-human version any time soon as it would be all to easy to reach America and Western Europe via returning military personnel. Then we will all be fighting a war. David Bier http://web.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleNr=9258&LangNr=12&LNNr=28&RNNr=70 8 Feb 2006 IRAQ: Suspected bird flu case appears in south BAGHDAD, 8 February (IRIN) - Laboratory tests are to be carried out on blood samples from a 13-year-old boy from the southern city of Ammarah, who died from bird flu-like symptoms on 5 February. "Our team has already reached Kurdistan [in northern Iraq] to help with prevention programmes and evaluate the situation in the area," said Maria Cheng, a spokeswoman for the WHO in Geneva. "This new case in the south of Iraq is going to be analysed in UK laboratories." Ammarah is some 360 km southeast of the capital, Baghdad, The boy developed symptoms on 1 February and died four days later after being hospitalised for severe pneumonia. Although no poultry deaths had been reported in the area, pet birds kept by the family reportedly died when the symptoms first emerged, the WHO reported. "After unofficial laboratory tests, we confirmed the case and requested urgent help from the Ministry of Health and the WHO," said Dr Ali Abdullah of Ammarah's main hospital. In northern Iraq, a 15-year-old girl died of bird flu on 17 January in the town of Raniya, along with two other suspected cases of the H5N1 virus, including the girl's uncle, according to a statement from the WHO. Samples from the girl's uncle are currently being tested at WHO facilities in the UK, although the specimens already tested positive for H5N1 infection in a local laboratory. The WHO has confirmed that seven patients are now being treated for similar symptoms in hospitals in Sulaimaniyah, in northern Iraq. Most of the patients reported a history of direct contact with poultry, the health organisation stated. Local medical workers say that many more cases are suspected in the north. Dr Ahmed Talbiti, an infections specialist in Sulaimaniyah, said there had been concern about a total of 26 suspected cases in the north, but that 15 had already been confirmed as negative. The rest, he added, are currently being tested in local laboratories. Prevention procedures, meanwhile, have been ongoing. About one million birds and chickens have been culled so far, according to local officials, which have led to requests by local farmers for compensation. "We're taking all the required procedures to protect ourselves, using masks, gloves and special clothes when culling birds," said Avan Awaz, a senior official in northern Iraq's prevention programme. Additional supplies were sent by the US government to aid prevention programmes and are expected to reach the north by the end of the week, Awaz added. A team from the WHO is also analysing samples to investigate the possibility of a virus mutation, which could lead to human-to-human transmission of the disease. Direct contact with infected poultry, or objects contaminated by their faeces, is presently considered the primary route of human infection, according to the WHO. To date, most human cases have occurred in rural areas where many households keep poultry. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted
[osint] Mehlis Report on the Hariri assassination II
"In late October 2005, the commission was approached by another new witness, who has submitted a comprehensive and coherent statement regarding plans to assassinate Mr. Hariri. The witness has been assessed to be credible and the information he has submitted to be reliable. The information is detailed and has undergone cross-checking measures, which, so far, have confirmed the information in the statement. -- The statement from the witness strengthens the evidence confirmed to date against the Lebanese officers in custody, as well as high-ranked Syrian officers." http://www.mideastweb.org/mehlis_report2.htm Mehlis Report on the Hariri assassination II: REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1595 (2005) - December 10, 2005 Introduction On February 14, 2005, former Lebanese Premiere Rafiq Hariri was assassinated in a huge bomb explosion in Beirut. Suspicion fell on the Syrians, who had occupied Lebanon for 30 years, and who were refusing to leave despite UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which called for Syrian withdrawal. Hariri was a very wealthy man who had used his wealth to rebuild Lebanon after the Lebanese civil war. Initially he cooperated with the Syrian occupiers, but he had become an opponent of continued Syrian occupation. A Mr Abu Adass from an unknown group called al nasra wal-jihad fee bilad Al-Sham took "credit" for the assassination, but nobody had ever heard of this group and the man's story was not believable. It appeared to be part of a plot to turn suspicion away from Syria. Anti-Zionists blamed Israel. However, it seemed that the explosion, which took place in downtown Beirut in the midst of a well-protected motorcade, could not have been done without the collusion of Lebanese and Syrian authorities. It would be difficult to acquire and conceal large quantities of explosives under the watchful eyes of Syrian intelligence. Following extensive demonstrations in Lebanon, the Syrian government agreed to end the occupation of Lebanon. However, it was apparent that number of Syrian intelligence personnel remained in Lebanon. A number of prominent Lebanese personalities whose opinions and positions were inconvenient for the Syrian government were killed in various explosions. A large number of armed Palestinians belonging to groups sympathetic to Syria infiltrated the Lebanese refugee camps, causing alarm in the Lebanese government and in the Palestinian National Authority. Lebanese army tanks surrounded the camps. The UN was called upon to investigate and began doing so a relatively long time after the fact, establishing UNIIIC - The UN Independent Investigative Commission. As expected, much of the evidence was obscured or removed from the seen. Nonetheless, the preliminary report (http://www.mideastweb.org/mehlis_report.htm) of investigator Detlev Mehlis was able to reach some tentative conclusions regarding Syrian involvement in the assassination. Mehlis asked for an extension, until December. He has now recommended an additional extension and resigned his commission. Meanwhile, the Syrians have reportedly burned every document associated with the assassination of Hariri. They also staged a televised recantation of testimony by one of the witnesses, a Mr Husam Taher Husam. The UNIIIC report states that apparently Mr. Hussam's relatives were arrested and threatened in order to produce the recantation. As the report was being released, a prominent Lebanese newspaper editor, Gebran Tueni, whose opposition to Syria was outspoken, was murdered in other assassination. The current report reinforces the evidence of the first report, but asks for more time to complete the investigation. The report found that a high Syrian official had ensured that pro-Syrian forces in Lebanon had a plentiful supply of weapons to begin violence as a distraction from any outcry caused by the murder of Hariri. Two vital witnesses connected with the disappearance of Mr Addas have also disappeared into Syria apparently, and the Syrians refuse to produce them, according to the report. Syria has also failed to produce vital documents requested by the commission. Key points of the report: -- UNIIC has been approached by a number of witnesses with potentially critical information about the assassination ... Given that their information is still in the process of being evaluated and the need to protect their identities to ensure their safety, this report does not detail the information they have provided. -- In late October 2005, the commission was approached by another new witness, who has submitted a comprehensive and coherent statement regarding plans to assassinate Mr. Hariri. The witness has been assessed to be credible and the information he has submitted to be reliable. The information is detailed and has undergone cross-checking measures, which, so far, have confirmed the information in the statement. -- The statement
[osint] Cheney Spearheaded Effort to Discredit Wilson
"I don't know Joe Wilson," Cheney said, in response to Russert, who quoted Wilson as saying there was no truth to the Niger uranium claims. "I've never met Joe Wilson. And Joe Wilson - I don't who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back ... I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him." Given the facts that have come out, much to Cheney's chagrin, that statement is just simply incredible. David Bier http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020906J.shtml Cheney Spearheaded Effort to Discredit Wilson By Jason Leopold t r u t h o u t | Report Thursday 09 February 2006 Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley led a campaign beginning in March 2003 to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for publicly criticizing the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, according to current and former administration officials. The officials work or had worked in the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council in a senior capacity and had direct knowledge of the Vice President's campaign to discredit Wilson. In interviews over the course of two days this week, these officials were urged to speak on the record for this story. But they resisted, saying they had already testified before a grand jury investigating the leak of Wilson's wife, covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, and added that speaking out against the administration and specifically Vice President Cheney would cause them to lose their jobs and subject their families to vitriolic attacks by the White House. The officials said they decided to speak out now because they have become disillusioned with the Bush administration's policies regarding Iraq and the flawed intelligence that led to the war. They said their roles, along with several others at the CIA and State Department, included digging up or "inventing" embarrassing information on the former Ambassador that could be used against him, preparing memos and classified material on Wilson for Cheney and the National Security Council, and attending meetings in Cheney's office to discuss with Cheney, Hadley, and others the efforts that would be taken to discredit Wilson. A former CIA official who has worked in the counter-proliferation division, and is familiar with the undercover work Wilson's wife did for the agency, said Cheney and Hadley visited CIA headquarters a day or two after Joseph Wilson was interviewed on CNN. These were the first public comments Wilson had made about Iraq. He said the administration was more interested in redrawing the map of the Middle East to pursue its own foreign policy objectives than in dealing with the so-called terrorist threat. "The underlying objective, as I see it, the more I look at this, is less and less disarmament, and it really has little to do with terrorism, because everybody knows that a war to invade and conquer and occupy Iraq is going to spawn a new generation of terrorists," Wilson said in a March 2, 2003, interview with CNN. "So you look at what's underpinning this, and you go back and you take a look at who's been influencing the process. And it's been those who really believe that our objective must be far grander, and that is to redraw the political map of the Middle East," Wilson added. This was the first time that Wilson had spoken out publicly against the administration's policies. It was two and a half weeks before the start of the Iraq war. But it wasn't Wilson who Cheney was so upset about when he visited the CIA in March 2003. During the same CNN segment in which Wilson was interviewed, former United Nations weapons inspector David Albright made similar comments about the rationale for the Iraq war and added that he believed UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to search the country for weapons of mass destruction. The National Security Council and CIA officials said Cheney had visited CIA headquarters and asked several CIA officials to dig up dirt on Albright, and to put together a dossier that would discredit his work that could be distributed to the media. "Vice President Cheney was more concerned with Mr. Albright," the CIA official said. "The international community had been saying that inspectors should have more time, that the US should not set a deadline. The Vice President felt Mr. Albright's remarks would fuel the debate." The officials said a "binder" was sent to the Vice President's office that contained material that could be used by the White House to discredit Albright if he continued to comment on the administration's war plans. However, it's unclear whether Cheney or other White House officials used the info
[osint] DeLay Rejoins House Appropriations Committee
"Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA," "Mr. DeLay was also given a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA, a top priority for Mr. DeLay because the Johnson Space Center in Houston is in his district." My how dedicated the Republican leadership is to lobbying reform and ethics in government. A more cynical set of appointments would be hard to uncover, short of finding out a bank robber was put on a banking regulatory commission. They are doing everything possible to ensure DeLay gets reelected; conviction or no conviction in his Texas trial. David Bier http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/politics/09delay.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print February 9, 2006 DeLay Rejoins House Appropriations Committee By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 (AP) Representative Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House after being indicted in Texas on campaign fund-raising charges, was rewarded by party leaders Wednesday with a seat on the Appropriations Committee. Mr. DeLay, who was a member of the powerful committee until becoming majority leader in 2003, was able to rejoin the panel because of a vacancy created after the resignation of Representative Randy Cunningham, Republican of California. Mr. Cunningham pleaded guilty in November to charges relating to accepting $2.4 million in bribes for government business and other favors. Mr. DeLay was also given a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA, a top priority for Mr. DeLay because the Johnson Space Center in Houston is in his district. "Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA," said Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, referring to the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency who resigned after the flawed federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Burton added, "Republicans in Congress just can't seem to resist standing by their man." Republican leaders named Representative Howard P. McKeon of California as chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee. The majority leader, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, vacated that post after winning a campaign to succeed Mr. DeLay. Mr. McKeon is a seven-term conservative who has a generally good relationship with educators. He wrote a 2001 law to remove disincentives for workers who would have lost part of their Social Security benefits when switching jobs to become public school teachers. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Bush Offers Details of 2002 Plot in Defense of Terror Strategy
"Their plot was derailed in early 2002, when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key Al Qaeda operative," he said. "Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target and how Al Qaeda hoped to execute it." Please note that the NSA domestic spying and the CIA had nothing to do with detecting the plot. Had a foreign nation's intelligence service not detected it, an airplane might have indeed crashed into an LA skyscraper. Especially since the AF general that was in charge of NORAD on 9/11 was still there and presumably no more skilled at directing the intercept of hijacked aircraft in early 2002 than in September, 2001. Although CICBush43 later deemed him fully qualified to be promoted up one star and put in command of NORTHCOM which is responsible for Homeland Security. Another day in Bushland. David Bier http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/politics/09cnd-bush.html February 9, 2006 Bush Offers Details of 2002 Plot in Defense of Terror Strategy By DAVID STOUT WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 President Bush defended his anti-terrorist policies anew today, asserting that the United States and its allies had foiled a terrorist plot meant to bring down a Los Angeles building that is the tallest in the United States west of the Mississippi River. Mr. Bush said that just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, terrorists planned to hijack another airplane by using "shoe bombs" to breach the cockpit door. Their target, had the hijacking been carried out, would have been the U.S. Bank Tower, the president said. (Government counterterrorism officials have acknowledged before that the tower would be a particularly inviting target.) Osama bin Laden himself was involved in the plot, which was to be carried out by Southeast Asian men on the assumption that they would not arouse as much suspicion as Middle Easterners, Mr. Bush told the National Guard Association here. "Their plot was derailed in early 2002, when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key Al Qaeda operative," he said. "Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target and how Al Qaeda hoped to execute it." "This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the ringleaders and other known operatives who had been recruited for this plot," Mr. Bush said. The U.S. Bank Tower, formerly named the Library Tower after the nearby Los Angeles Central Library, is 1,018 feet tall and topped by a glass crown that is illuminated at night. The building, completed in 1989, was "destroyed" by alien invaders in the 1996 movie "Independence Day." The independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks said in its 2004 report that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 assaults on New York City and Washington, had originally envisioned an even broader assault on America, with as many as 10 hijacked aircraft flying into buildings on both coasts. And last October, government counterterrorism officials provided further details, saying that Mr. Mohammed and a terrorist ally, Riduan Isamuddin (better known as Hambali), had planned a new spate of attacks after Sept. 11 and that Los Angeles was in their sights. Counterterrorism officials said months ago that the Los Angeles skyscraper (Mr. Bush mistakenly called it the "Liberty Tower") would be a logical target for a West Coast attack, although Mr. Bush had not spoken in detail before about the officials' suspicions. Given the building's iconic status, it is easy to see why America-haters would rejoice at seeing it fall as some rejoiced when the Twin Towers in New York collapsed. The president's national security adviser, Frances Townsend, told reporters later today that the West Coast plot was originally to have been part of the Sept. 11 attacks, but that Al Qaeda could not train enough agents by that deadline. She said investigators did not known what flight or kind of plane the plotters were zeroing in on or even if their planning had reached that stage. Ms. Townsend, who spoke to reporters on a conference call, declined to say whether the secret surveillance of electronic communications between people in the United States and terror suspects abroad had played a role in finding the terror cell involved. "We use all available sources and methods in the intelligence community, but we have to protect them, and so I'm not going to talk about what we did or did not use in this particular case," she said. The president did not use the National Guard speech to defend the surveillance program undertaken by the National Security Agency since he took office. But he did defend his general anti-terrorist policies in several ways. He said, for example, that his "aggressive strategy of bringing the war to the terrorists" had not cost the United States international support but, rather, had enhanced
[osint] Italy may put CIA agents on trial in absentia
"If no helpful action has been taken by early March -- as appears increasingly likely -- then prosecutors will close their investigation, the well-placed source said. "The next step will be to go to trial," he said. The European Parliament and the Council of Europe are watching the Italian case carefully as they move ahead with their own investigations into suspected U.S. anti-terrorism operations, including running secret prisons in eastern Europe." The risk the CIA operatives face is that, if convicted in absentia, they would still be convicted criminals and thus fugitives from justice subject to arrest and extradition if they travel to any nation, probably including Canada and certainly Mexico, other than the U.S. Their days of traveling anywhere, or even taking a cruise, would definitely be over as they could never be certain that cruise or vacation they just "won" is not a honey trap set by the Italian courts. Even their status here might change, depending on who gets elected or appointed to what. And, depending on what the other european authorities do, the operatives might have lots of company in that limbo. David Bier http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-09T134356Z_01_L09730143_RTRUKOC_0_US-ITALY-CIA-KIDNAP.xml&archived=False Italy may put CIA agents on trial in absentia Thu Feb 9, 2006 8:43 AM ET By Phil Stewart MILAN (Reuters) - Milan prosecutors expect to launch procedures within a month that could put 22 CIA agents accused of kidnapping a Muslim cleric in Milan on trial in absentia, a senior judicial source said. The source, who asked not to be named, said prosecutors were growing tired of perceived foot-dragging by Washington and Rome over requests that would advance their investigation -- one of several European probes into suspected U.S. covert operations. The United States has still not responded to a request in January by Italy for judicial assistance in the case, which could potentially allow Italian prosecutors to travel there to question suspects and gather evidence. Neither has Italy's government responded to a request in November from prosecutors to seek the extradition of the agents from the United States. If no helpful action has been taken by early March -- as appears increasingly likely -- then prosecutors will close their investigation, the well-placed source said. "The next step will be to go to trial," he said. The European Parliament and the Council of Europe are watching the Italian case carefully as they move ahead with their own investigations into suspected U.S. anti-terrorism operations, including running secret prisons in eastern Europe. German and Swiss prosecutors are also looking into other accusations of U.S. covert transport of detainees, a process known as "rendition". An Italian trial of the 22 agents could potentially open a wealth of evidence in the case to the public, showing how terrorism suspect Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr was grabbed off a Milan street in 2003 in broad daylight. Prosecutors will count on the de facto testimony of Nasr himself, who briefly recounted the ordeal in conversations picked up in an Italian phone-tap. He has said he was flown to Egypt and tortured during interrogation. Italian investigators have accused Nasr of ties to al Qaeda and a Milan judge has issued a warrant for his arrest. He has been held by Egyptian authorities, his lawyer has said. Even if the 22 CIA agents are tried, investigations into the kidnapping will continue. More CIA accomplices in the kidnapping will be identified, the source said, thanks to evidence they left behind. At the heart of the prosecutors' case are cell phone records. Following the web of conversations, the investigators were able to identify a network they say planned the kidnapping. "Not all of the telephones used have yet been identified to specific people, so the investigations continue," he said. All of the 22 CIA agents are likely to have left Europe since Italy issued arrest warrants against them last year which are valid across the entire 25-nation European Union. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil li
[osint] Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data
"Mueller and Justice officials went to Lamberth, who agreed that day to expedited procedures to issue FISA warrants for eavesdropping, a government official said. The requirement for detailed paperwork was greatly eased, allowing the NSA to begin eavesdropping the next day on anyone suspected of a link to al Qaeda, every person who had ever been a member or supporter of militant Islamic groups, and everyone ever linked to a terrorist watch list in the United States or abroad, the official said." Wow! That is a huge list they started with and includes lots of American people on the lists in error, including news reporters, Senators, government officials and just plain Americans. And that is only the starting list that the FISA court set up expedited procedures for. We can only wonder how big the later NSA domestic spying list has grown. Although the FBI grousing about thousands of dead end leads they had to chase down every month, certainly gives us a clue it is pretty gigantic and probably, because of the data mining of primary, secondary and tertiary people on the list, well beyond the scope of the basic wiretapping authorized under the FISA statute. No wonder CICBush43 went around the FISA judges...and Congress...and us. Congressman Wilson has demanded an NSA inquiry, but doubtful she will get one going before she gets dumped out of her subcommittee (oversees NSA) chairmanship by the Republican leadership. Meanwhile, defense attorneys for terror suspects are filing lawsuits and motions like crazy to overturn verdicts and throw out evidence that might be tainted by illegal wiretaps. David Bier http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data Program May Have Led Improperly to Warrants By Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, February 9, 2006; A01 Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events. The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen. The two heads of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court were the only judges in the country briefed by the administration on Bush's program. The president's secret order, issued sometime after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, allows the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls and e-mails between people in the United States and contacts overseas. James A. Baker, the counsel for intelligence policy in the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, discovered in 2004 that the government's failure to share information about its spying program had rendered useless a federal screening system that the judges had insisted upon to shield the court from tainted information. He alerted Kollar-Kotelly, who complained to Justice, prompting a temporary suspension of the NSA spying program, the sources said. Yet another problem in a 2005 warrant application prompted Kollar-Kotelly to issue a stern order to government lawyers to create a better firewall or face more difficulty obtaining warrants. The two judges' discomfort with the NSA spying program was previously known. But this new account reveals the depth of their doubts about its legality and their behind-the-scenes efforts to protect the court from what they considered potentially tainted evidence. The new accounts also show the degree to which Baker, a top intelligence expert at Justice, shared their reservations and aided the judges. Both judges expressed concern to senior officials that the president's program, if ever made public and challenged in court, ran a significant risk of being declared unconstitutional, according to sources familiar with their actions. Yet the judges believed they did not have the authority to rule on the president's power to order the eavesdropping, government sources said, and focused instead on protecting the integrity of the FISA process. It was an odd position for the presiding judges of the FISA court, the secret panel created in 1978 in response to a public outcry over warrantless domestic spying by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. The court's appointees, chosen by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, were generally veteran jurists with a pro-government bent, and their classified work is considered a powerful
[osint] US plans massive data sweep
"Little-known data-collection system could troll news, blogs, even e-mails. Will it go too far?" "The core of this effort is a little-known system called Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE). Only a few public documents mention it. ADVISE is a research and development program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), part of its three-year-old "Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment" portfolio. The TVTA received nearly $50 million in federal funding this year." "One element of the NSA's domestic spying program that has gotten too little attention is the government's reportedly widespread use of data-mining technology to analyze the communications of ordinary Americans," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D) of Wisconsin in a Jan. 23 statement." "There has to be more and better congressional oversight," says Rep. Curt Weldon (R) of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the House committee overseeing the Department of Homeland Security. "But there can't be oversight till Congress understands what data-mining is. There needs to be a broad look at this because they [intelligence agencies] are obviously seeing the value of this." Yet another agency in the act besides NSA to mount a massive data mining program to monitor you and me; not just terrorists. Guess they have to be ready in case one of us common folk go postal. David Bier from the February 09, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.html US plans massive data sweep Little-known data-collection system could troll news, blogs, even e-mails. Will it go too far? By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor The US government is developing a massive computer system that can collect huge amounts of data and, by linking far-flung information from blogs and e-mail to government records and intelligence reports, search for patterns of terrorist activity. The system - parts of which are operational, parts of which are still under development - is already credited with helping to foil some plots. It is the federal government's latest attempt to use broad data-collection and powerful analysis in the fight against terrorism. But by delving deeply into the digital minutiae of American life, the program is also raising concerns that the government is intruding too deeply into citizens' privacy. "We don't realize that, as we live our lives and make little choices, like buying groceries, buying on Amazon, Googling, we're leaving traces everywhere," says Lee Tien, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "We have an attitude that no one will connect all those dots. But these programs are about connecting those dots - analyzing and aggregating them - in a way that we haven't thought about. It's one of the underlying fundamental issues we have yet to come to grips with." The core of this effort is a little-known system called Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE). Only a few public documents mention it. ADVISE is a research and development program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), part of its three-year-old "Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment" portfolio. The TVTA received nearly $50 million in federal funding this year. DHS officials are circumspect when talking about ADVISE. "I've heard of it," says Peter Sand, director of privacy technology. "I don't know the actual status right now. But if it's a system that's been discussed, then it's something we're involved in at some level." Data-mining is a key technology A major part of ADVISE involves data-mining - or "dataveillance," as some call it. It means sifting through data to look for patterns. If a supermarket finds that customers who buy cider also tend to buy fresh-baked bread, it might group the two together. To prevent fraud, credit-card issuers use data-mining to look for patterns of suspicious activity. What sets ADVISE apart is its scope. It would collect a vast array of corporate and public online information - from financial records to CNN news stories - and cross-reference it against US intelligence and law-enforcement records. The system would then store it as "entities" - linked data about people, places, things, organizations, and events, according to a report summarizing a 2004 DHS conference in Alexandria, Va. The storage requirements alone are huge - enough to retain information about 1 quadrillion entities, the report estimated. If each entity were a penny, they would collectively form a cube a half-mile high - roughly double the height of the Empire State Building. But ADVISE and related DHS technologies aim to do much more, according to Joseph Kielman, manager of the TVTA portfolio. The key
[osint] What if we promise not to show the records to Karl Rove?
"It's interesting and disappointing that other search engines would provide this material. It's what we've been worried about all along. The fact that Google is refusing the subpoena...my initial reaction is three cheers for Google. But there is a sidebar to this. Part of the reason these problems come up is because this data is being retained in the first place.'' http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/01/what_if_we_prom.html January 18, 2006 What if we promise not to show the records to Karl Rove? If you don't regularly anonymize your Google cookie (http://www.imilly.com/google-cookie.htm) and purge your personalized search history, now might be a good time to start (then again, in this day and age, why bother?). (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13647591.htm) The Department of Justice on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to comply with a subpoena issued last year for search records stored in its databases. (http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/13657386.htm) The DOJ argues that the information it has requested, which includes one million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from a one-week period, is essential to its upcoming defense of the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (think of the children!). (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=12789) Google has so far refused to comply with the subpoena, saying the release of such information would violate the privacy of its users. "Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,'' Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, told The Mercury News. "[We plan to fight the government's effort] "vigorously.'' Here's hoping the company prevails. The release of such records sets a truly unsettling precedent. And if the goverment's claim that other, unspecified search engines have already agreed to release similar information proves true, we have already lost our footing on a very slippery, very dangerous slope. Said privacy advocate Lauren Weinstein, (http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2006/01/18/googles_privacy_fight_with_the_government.html#more) "It's interesting and disappointing that other search engines would provide this material. It's what we've been worried about all along. The fact that Google is refusing the subpoena...my initial reaction is three cheers for Google. But there is a sidebar to this. Part of the reason these problems come up is because this data is being retained in the first place.'' UPDATE: Here's the federal government's motion to compel Google to turn over user search data to the Justice Department: Motion to Compel (Gonzales v. Google, Inc.) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/gonzgoog11806m.html) -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] We come to power with gun in hand!
"The Palestinian rifle proved its power to evict the Jews from the Gaza Strip when Israel carried out its evacuation," Meshaal declared. "Unless we use force, no one will talk to us. At this moment, Palestinian government belongs to the force whose platform pledges warfare." http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1879 "We come to power with gun in hand!" Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal declared at a rally in Qatar Friday night, Feb. 10 February 10, 2006, 11:41 PM (GMT+02:00) "The Palestinian rifle proved its power to evict the Jews from the Gaza Strip when Israel carried out its evacuation," Meshaal declared. "Unless we use force, no one will talk to us. At this moment, Palestinian government belongs to the force whose platform pledges warfare." DEBKAfile's political sources describe the rush of events Friday as blowing away the last remnants of the Middle East policies charted in Washington and Jerusalem. Our Moscow sources report Meshaal made his speech after Russia's special Middle East envoy Alexander Kalugin personally handed him President Putin's invitation to visit the Russian capital. He then received a pile of invitations from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait and Syria. Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan said he justified the Russian-French position. "I too invite Hamas leaders to Ankara," he said. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Three more lawmakers linked to Abramoff
"We can't ask the most vulnerable Republican incumbent member of Congress in the House to put something in writing that can be made public," Volz wrote. "The congresswoman's office has already put the request in and you would think that would be enough!!!" http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Lobbyist_Probe.html SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Lobbyist_Probe.html Saturday, February 11, 2006 · Last updated 4:28 a.m. PT Three more lawmakers linked to Abramoff By TONI LOCY AND PETE YOST ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITERS photo Lobbyist Jack Abramoff leaves Federal Court in Washington Jan. 3, 2006, after pleading guilty to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, and agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors investigating the influence peddling that has threatened powerful members of the U.S. Congress. At right, his attorney Abbe Lowell. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/aponline/8481.765ABRAMOFF-REID.sff.jpg WASHINGTON -- Three members of Congress have been linked to efforts by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a former General Services Administration official to secure leases of government property for Abramoff's clients, according to court filings by federal prosecutors on Friday. The filings in U.S. District Court do not allege any wrongdoing by the elected officials but list them in documents portraying David Safavian, a former GSA chief of staff, as an active adviser to Abramoff, giving the lobbyists tips on how to use members of Congress to navigate the agency's bureaucracy. Abramoff is cooperating with federal investigators in a wide-ranging probe of corruption on Capitol Hill that threatens several powerful members of Congress and their staff members. Last month, he pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud. Safavian is charged with lying to a GSA ethics officer when he said Abramoff was not seeking business with the agency at the time the lobbyist paid for Safavian and several others to go on a golf outing to Scotland in August 2002. At the time of the trip, prosecutors said, Abramoff was trying to get GSA approval for leases of the Old Post Office Pavilion in Washington for an Indian tribe to develop and for federal property in Silver Spring, Md., for use by a Jewish school. Two of the elected officials referred to in Friday's filings have been identified in published reports as Reps. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, and Don Young, R-Alaska. According to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, the two representatives wrote to the GSA in September 2002, urging the agency to give preferential treatment to groups such as Indian tribes when evaluating development proposals for the Old Post Office. LaTourette maintains he did nothing improper by advocating special opportunities for certain small businesses in areas known as HUBzones, or Historically Underutilized Business zones. His spokeswoman, Deborah Setliff, said that the letter was reviewed by Young's chief of staff and counsel and that it did not advocate any particular business over another. A spokesman for Young did not return telephone calls. Friday's filings by prosecutors refer to a third member of Congress, Rep. Shelly Moore Capito, R-W.Va. Her name appears in e-mails that suggest she was trying to help Abramoff secure a GSA lease for land in Silver Spring for a religious school. Capito claims to know nothing about the effort. "The action taken by her former chief of staff was done without her knowledge, approval or consent," said her spokesman, Joel Brubaker. "She was not aware of any contact with GSA of any type on this matter." Mark Johnson, Capito's former chief of staff, said he did not bring the issue to Capito's attention. He said he was contacted by Neil Volz, a colleague of Abramoff's and a former chief of staff for Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. Johnson said Volz asked him to check on the status of a project involving the GSA. Johnson said he believes he called a friend at the GSA but doesn't recall the outcome. Prosecutors included the e-mails in documents filed in response to a request by Safavian's lawyers to dismiss the indictment against him. Safavian's lawyers want a federal judge to throw out the charges on grounds there is no evidence of wrongdoing. In their filing, prosecutors laid out a series of contacts between Abramoff and Safavian that show the former GSA official gave inside information and advice to the lobbyist. Safavian used his personal e-mail during business hours to communicate with Abramoff several times, according to prosecutors. He also edited the draft of a letter that was probably sent under LaTourette and Young's names. And Safavian advised Abramoff to tell his wife to use her maiden name during a meeting with GSA officials so she wouldn't draw attention to her politically connected husband's involvement in the project. In a July 23, 2002, e-mail to a GSA official, Safavian
[osint] Abramoff's Charity Began at Home
"One of the most disturbing elements of this whole sordid story is the blatant misuse of charities in a scheme to peddle political influence," said Mark Everson, commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service." "Abramoff and a partner, Michael P.S. Scanlon, a onetime aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), admitted bilking Indian tribes out of tens of millions of dollars and attempting to bribe public officials. They used a network of charities and other nonprofits some existing, some they created to forge a full-service influence-peddling operation." "There was the time he laundered money through a religious group's accounts to try to bribe a congressional aide. He diverted funds from a youth athletic foundation to bankroll a golf junket for a congressman and to bolster the bank account of his Washington restaurant. He used two other nonprofits to line his own pockets with millions of dollars defrauded from clients." Guess who else has been using a charity for political purposes? Yes, Tom DeLay. Hey, why wouldn't he...it was working for Jack and Mike, a former DeLay aide as was Mr. Rudy who got greased and his wife who got hired. And DeLay gets rewarded this week by the Republican gang...oops, House leaders with committee seats on Appropriations (a seat vacated by convicted criminal Cunningham (also a Republican))and the subcommittees that oversee NASA in his home district and the Department of Justice which is investigating him. What's wrong with that picture? Looks like a real "Boehner" to me... David Bier http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-charities11feb11,0,5568579.story?coll=la-home-headlines >From the Los Angeles Times Abramoff's Charity Began at Home The lobbyist admits he used nonprofits to evade taxes, pad his pockets and bribe officials. By Chuck Neubauer and Richard B. Schmitt Times Staff Writers February 11, 2006 WASHINGTON In his own way, disgraced super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff engaged in many charitable endeavors over the course of his decade-long career as a Washington insider. There was the time he laundered money through a religious group's accounts to try to bribe a congressional aide. He diverted funds from a youth athletic foundation to bankroll a golf junket for a congressman and to bolster the bank account of his Washington restaurant. He used two other nonprofits to line his own pockets with millions of dollars defrauded from clients. Charities are supposed to advance the public interest, which is why they aren't taxed. But Abramoff, by his own admission, used them to evade taxes, enrich himself and bribe public officials, according to a plea agreement he signed with federal prosecutors in January. "One of the most disturbing elements of this whole sordid story is the blatant misuse of charities in a scheme to peddle political influence," said Mark Everson, commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Abramoff's use and misuse of nonprofits played a key role in each of the three counts of his indictment: conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion. He admitted evading $1.7 million in income taxes over three years, in part by using nonprofits to conceal personal income from the IRS. The fast-growing ranks of tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations are tailor-made for operators like Abramoff. The number of tax-exempt groups in the United States has tripled over the last three decades, but nonprofit groups usually pay no tax, so there is little incentive for the IRS to keep an eye on them. The lack of oversight is especially meaningful in Washington, where trade associations, public-interest groups and grass-roots lobbying organizations all have tax-exempt status under generous IRS rules designed to foster public debate. Members of Congress are also getting into the act and forming their own charities. Abramoff and a partner, Michael P.S. Scanlon, a onetime aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), admitted bilking Indian tribes out of tens of millions of dollars and attempting to bribe public officials. They used a network of charities and other nonprofits some existing, some they created to forge a full-service influence-peddling operation. They included: The Capital Athletic Foundation, created by Abramoff as a sports-oriented youth charity. He funded it with millions improperly diverted from his lobbying clients and treated it as his "personal piggy bank," a lawmaker said, spending money on pet projects that had nothing to do with its stated purpose. The American International Center, a bogus "international think tank" at a beach house near Rehoboth Beach, Del. Abramoff and Scanlon used the center to collect millions from their lobbying clients and then send it to their personal bank accounts. Toward Tradition, a nonprofit in Mercer Island, Wash., that promotes "traditional Judeo
[osint] Bush Reveals Rationale Behind Surveillance
"I wake up every morning thinking about a future attack, and therefore, a lot of my thinking, and a lot of the decisions I make are based upon the attack that hurt us," "I take my oath of office seriously. I swear to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States," Bush said. Nice words about his oath, but actions speak louder than lip service. David Bier http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1603961 Bush Reveals Rationale Behind Surveillance In Candid Remarks to Fellow Republicans, Bush Talks About Rationale Behind Surveillance By JENNIFER LOVEN The Associated Press CAMBRIDGE, Md. - President Bush defended his warrantless eavesdropping program Friday, saying during what he thought were private remarks that he concluded that spying on Americans was necessary to fill a gap in the United States' security. "I wake up every morning thinking about a future attack, and therefore, a lot of my thinking, and a lot of the decisions I make are based upon the attack that hurt us," Bush told the House Republican Caucus, which was in retreat at a luxury resort along the Choptank River on Maryland's Eastern Shore. The president said he asked the National Security Agency to devise a way to gather intelligence on terrorists' potential activities, and the result was the super-secret spy outfit's program to monitor the international e-mails and phone calls of people inside the United States with suspected ties to terrorists overseas. Bush said lawyers in the White House and at the Justice Department signed off on the program's legality, and "we put constant checks on the program." "I take my oath of office seriously. I swear to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States," Bush said. The president's comments on the NSA eavesdropping came after six minutes of remarks intended for public consumption. In them, Bush stroked lawmakers with thanks and gave a gentle push for his 2006 priorities in a scaled-back version of last month's State of the Union address. "I'm looking forward to working with you. And I'm confident we'll continue the success we have had together," he said. "So I've come to say thanks for your hard work in the past and thanks for what we're going to do to make this country continue to be the greatest country on the face of the Earth." He indirectly pressed his call difficult in an election year for Congress to approve $70 billion in savings from benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and payments to farmers over the next five years, and to cut dozens of other programs that the White House has determined don't produce results. "It's hard work, to cut out and cut back on programs that don't work," Bush said. "Every program sounds beautiful in Washington, D.C. until you start analyzing the results." Reporters then were ushered out "I support the free press, let's just get them out of the room," Bush said so the president could speak privately to his fellow Republicans. "I want to share some thoughts with you before I answer your questions," said Bush, unaware that microphones were still on and were allowing those back in the White House press room to eavesdrop on his eavesdropping defense. "First of all, I expect this conversation we're about to have to stay in the room. I know that's impossible in Washington." That was not to be and it was telling that the president chose the controversial NSA program as the first topic to raise out of reporters' earshot. Even so, there was no substantive difference between those statements and the series of public speeches he has given recently on the program. The eavesdropping program has come under fire from Republicans as well as Democrats. They argue that Bush already has the authority to monitor such communications through existing law that requires a warrant from a secret court set up to act quickly, or even after the fact. Bush has argued that the system isn't nimble enough. The titular head of the Republican Party faced a House GOP Caucus in turmoil. With most of Congress up for re-election in November, the House GOP is just off a bruising fight to replace former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, is grappling with reforming the time-honored congressional tradition of funding individual pet projects known as earmarks, and faces potentially damaging revelations in an ongoing public corruption investigation centered on a high-flying lobbyist with extensive ties to Republicans. Though the lawmakers gave Bush a standing ovation and interrupted his remarks several times with applause, questions in the private setting typically are sharper than in public get-togethers. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said that Bush kept his prepared remarks brief so that he would have extra time for
[osint] General faults U.S. on Iraqi military
"I was very surprised to receive a mission so vital to our exit strategy so late," Eaton said. "I would have expected this to have been done well before troops crossed the line of departure. That was my first reaction: We're a little late here." "We set out to man, train and equip an army for a country of 25 million - with six men," Eaton said. He worked into the autumn with "a revolving door of individual loaned talent that would spend between two weeks and two months," and never received even half the 250 professional staff members he had been promised." Eaton's broad assessment of the problems he confronted was seconded by Walter Slocombe, sent by the Bush administration to Baghdad for six months to serve as the senior civilian adviser on national security and defense. Slocombe, an under secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, said, "I have to agree with General Eaton, that it was hard to get the resources we needed out there. There was not a broad enough sense of urgency in Washington." Problem was, CICBush43, Cheney and the Bushworld gang were delusional. Since the two top guys had never spent a day in a combat zone, they had no concept of what it meant to not just invade a nation, defeat its army and subjugate its people, but then have to OCCUPY and RUN the nation while at the same time abolishing ALL of its political, governmental and military infrastructures. Thus our chickenhawk leader sent no forces skilled in either local pacification and control or nationbuilding, other than Bremer's feeble Green Zone crew and a scattering of folks like Eaton, to actually replace the abolished infrastructures. Without local civil and political direction, chaos resulted everywhere. Criminal gangs rampant. Embryonic insurgent groups free to loot unguarded Iraqi ammo dumps of arms, ammunition and the makings of IEDs (that kill at least half of all U.S. casualties) in such large quantities that the insurgent groups, now grown huge and highly skilled, will be able to kill Americans (and each other) efficiently in Iraq for decades with most of the disillusioned Iraqis cheering them on. And that new Iraqi army? It is finally growing now but is so sectarian that its primary fate will be to provide the U.S. trained and armed cadres for the Shiite and Kurd forces in the slowly arriving civil war. Another day in Bushworld... David Bier http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/10/news/army.php General faults U.S. on Iraqi military By Thom Shanker The New York Times SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2006 WASHINGTON The American general in charge of training the new Iraqi military after Baghdad fell says the Bush administration's strategy to use those forces to replace departing U.S. soldiers was hobbled from its belated start by poor pre-war planning and insufficient staff and equipment. The account of Major General Paul Eaton, who retired on Jan. 1 after 33 years in the U.S. Army, suggests that commanders in Iraq might by now have been much closer to President George W. Bush's goal of withdrawing American forces if they had not lost much of the first year's chance to begin building a capable force. Eaton's views, drawn from an essay he is preparing for publication and from interviews in which he spoke out publicly for the first time, were broadly affirmed by Pentagon and other civilian officials involved at the time. They agreed that the mission also was slowed by conflicting visions from senior Pentagon and administration officials, civilian administrators in Baghdad and the former top commander of the military's Central Command, which carried out the invasion. While he criticized others for decisions that led to what he called a "false start," Eaton accepted responsibility for the most visible setback in the training, when a battalion of the new Iraqi Army dissolved in April 2004 as it was sent into its first major battle. After that embarrassment, which Eaton said he might have headed off, Pentagon officials sent Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who had commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion and the early occupation, to review the program and then to take over the training mission after Eaton completed his yearlong tour. "Paul Eaton and his team did an extraordinary amount for the Iraqi Security Force mission," said Petraeus, now commander of the army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. "They established a solid foundation on which we were able to build as the effort was expanded very substantially and resourced at a much higher level." Eaton was commander of all army infantry training at Fort Benning, Georgia, when he was told on May 9, 2003 - just over a week after Bush's "mission accomplished" speech - to hurry to Baghdad, where he was to set up and then command an organization to rebuild Iraq's military. &q
[osint] UAE Co. Poised to Oversee Six U.S. Ports
"The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement to The Associated Press." "America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets," Schumer said. "Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties." "When you have a foreign government involved, you are injecting foreign national interests," Kreitzer said. "A country that may be a friend of ours today may not be on the same side tomorrow. You don't know in advance what the politics of that country will be in the future." "Last month, the White House appointed a senior DP World executive, David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America." Politics will win out over actual on the ground security of ports every time. Here it is, over four years after 9/11 and virtually all of the ports do not even have a completed security risk assessment package, much less significantly upgraded physical security. And screening of cargo containers is still about five percent of the incoming containers. Add on-site ability to collect intelligence and manipulate records, containers and cargo and you have a recipe for a whopper of a port attack or the capability to ease terrorists and their equipment or WMD into the U.S. undetected. Wonder how much DP World contributed to political campaigns CICBush43 is interested in? Also, wonder who sits on that committee and their connections to DP World or UAE? David Bier http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060211/ports_security.html?.v=2 UAE Co. Poised to Oversee Six U.S. Ports Saturday February 11, 9:41 am ET By Ted Bridis, Associated Press Writer Company From United Arab Emirates Poised to Oversee Six American Ports Due to Sale WASHINGTON (AP) -- A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism. The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. The $6.8 billion sale is expected to be approved Monday. The British company is the fourth largest ports company in the world and its sale would affect commercial U.S. port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement to The Associated Press. The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company. The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security. The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. But the UAE, a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi peninsula, was an important operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington, the FBI concluded. Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat whose district includes the New York port, urged the administration to consider the sale carefully. "America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets," Schumer said. "Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties." Last month, the White House appointed a senior DP World executive, David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America. Critics of the proposed purchase said a port operator complicit in smuggling or terro
[osint] Made-in-Canada threat worries CSIS
"The perception that the West is attacking Islam on multiple fronts continues to anger the Muslim world and contributes to support for radical views. Converts in particular are prone to extreme views because of their new-found zeal," "Iraq would provide a training ground, and those coming home would be "well-trained, highly effective, dangerous people," Judd said." Yes indeed, CICBush43 invading Iraq has certainly made Americans safer and less vulnerable to al-Qaeda. Unless, of course, you add in countless fanatic combat veterans of Iraq, well-versed in, and fully capable of countering, U.S. military tactics as demonstrated daily in Iraq. David Bier http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139611813114&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724 Made-in-Canada threat worries CSIS Feb. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM MICHELLE SHEPHARD STAFF REPORTER The head of Canada's spy service has called Iraq a "post-graduate faculty for terrorism," but it's the threat from what are known as home-grown terrorists that most worries Canadian security services. Jim Judd, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told the Toronto Star in an interview last year the spy agency was aware of Canadians who had gone to Iraq to join the insurgency and was concerned about their eventual return to Canada. Iraq would provide a training ground, and those coming home would be "well-trained, highly effective, dangerous people," Judd said. However, CSIS believes fewer than 10 Canadians have gone to fight in Iraq. A far more disturbing trend, security officials say, is what is developing inside Canada's borders citizens who may never have travelled abroad but have been motivated to extremism through radical websites and Internet chat rooms. Prisons have become a worry for Canadian security services trying to root out home-grown radicalism. An internal 2004 CSIS report entitled Canadian Converts to Radical Islam says such home-grown converts are particularly dangerous because of their familiarity with Western society. "The perception that the West is attacking Islam on multiple fronts continues to anger the Muslim world and contributes to support for radical views. Converts in particular are prone to extreme views because of their new-found zeal," states the report, obtained under access-to-information legislation. The case most often cited as an example of this phenomenon involves Mohamed Jabarah, a former St. Catharines, Ont., Catholic school student who is now in a New York jail after reportedly pleading guilty to terrorism charges at a secret hearing. Jabarah reportedly confessed to acting as an intermediary between Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah, a group believed responsible for bombings in Southeast Asia, including the Oct. 12, 2002, Bali blast that killed 202 people. Saudi Arabian security forces killed Jabarah's older brother, Abdul Rahman Jabarah, in 2003. The 23-year-old was accused of being one of the key organizers of a May 2003 bombing that attacked a Riyadh residential complex that mainly housed foreigners. Prisons have also become a worry for security services trying to root out radicals. John MacLaughlan, the director of Canada's Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, said in a recent interview that the "captive audience" in prisons provides fertile ground for recruiters because of inmates' sense of "wanting to belong to something that is bigger." A CSIS report on the issue discusses the phenomenon in the United States and Europe, citing the example of the so-called "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, who converted to "radical Islam" while in a youth detention facility. A section in the report, entitled Radical Islam in Canadian Prisons, was censored before being released to the Star. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section
[osint] The Shoe (Bomb) on the Other Foot
"For crass political reasonsnamely to advance his position on the National Security Agency spying storythe president chose to use a speech to the National Guard Association to disclose details of a 2002 "shoe bomb" plot to blow up the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles. While the plot had been revealed in general terms in the past, the White House this week arranged for Bush's counterterrorism adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, to explain to reporters in a conference call exactly the kind of details that Goss claimed on the op-ed page helped the enemy. "We are at risk of losing a key battle," Goss wrote. "The battle to protect our classification system." "Let's get this straight. The president and administration officials will suddenly talk about details of the foiled plotdetails that were highly classified until now. But they won't say if the controversial NSA program was involved. Given their new willingness to talk at length about the case, can anyone seriously doubt that had the NSA eavesdropping cracked this case, they would have mentioned that? Simply saying that the NSA helped foil the plotif it hadwould not have compromised "sources and methods." You can bet that if this were an NSA case, we'd know it." "The president is allowed to declassify whatever he wants; that's one of the privileges of being president. So in this caseunlike the NSA's warrantless eavesdroppingthere is no issue of Bush breaking the law. But let's be clear on what this was: a deliberate effort to use declassification for partisan purposes, in this case, defending the administration's policy on NSA surveillance, which Karl Rove says publicly will be a big part of the 2006 midterm campaign." "Feeling some pressure three quarters into his op-ed piece to offer even one example of how media coverage has jeopardized an intelligence operation, Goss hauls out the same chestnut Bush used in a press conference last monththe revelation that Osama bin Laden's satellite phone had been tapped. The implication was that once the evil American media revealed this fact, bin Laden stopped using the phone and was harder to catch. In fact, bin Laden gave up his satphone after President Bill Clinton used coordinates from the phone to bomb him in 1998. It was Clinton's missiles, not the media, that convinced the Al Qaeda leader he needed a more secure way to communicate." It is obvious from court documents in the Libby case about Plame's outing, that he will fall back on CICBush43's, and to a lesser extent, Cheny's authority to declassify. But that won't make the obstruction of justice and false statements items go away. Plus it raises the issue of his superiors commiting treason or other high misdemeanors (especially if CIA operatives or the agents they run died or were tortured because of the disclosures) by such declassification. No wonder CIA has not conducted a formal damage assessment of the Plame outing as you can bet Porter Goss was ordered not to comply with the law requiring one. David Bier http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11279032/site/newsweek/ The Shoe (Bomb) on the Other Foot President Bush's revelation about a foiled bomb plot shows the dangers of declassification for purely partisan purposes. WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY By Jonathan Alter Newsweek Updated: 6:37 p.m. ET Feb. 10, 2006 Feb. 10, 2006 - Poor Porter Goss. First, the longtime Florida congressman leaves his safe seat to become director of the CIA, only to find that he's been neutered by a new bureaucratic setup where he reports to John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. Then he writes an op-ed piece decrying intelligence leaks in The New York Times on Friday, the exact same day as a story appears identifying today's biggest leaker of antiterrorism secrets in WashingtonPresident George W. Bush. For crass political reasonsnamely to advance his position on the National Security Agency spying storythe president chose to use a speech to the National Guard Association to disclose details of a 2002 "shoe bomb" plot to blow up the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles. While the plot had been revealed in general terms in the past, the White House this week arranged for Bush's counterterrorism adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, to explain to reporters in a conference call exactly the kind of details that Goss claimed on the op-ed page helped the enemy. "We are at risk of losing a key battle," Goss wrote. "The battle to protect our classification system." That system is at particular risk when it is exploited for political purposes. The president is allowed to declassify whatever he wants; that's one of the privileges of being president. So in this caseunlike the NSA's warrantless eavesdroppingthere is no issue of Bush
[osint] Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq
"In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized. As the national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, I witnessed all of these disturbing developments. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq By Paul R. Pillar >From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006 Summary: During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, writes the intelligence community's former senior analyst for the Middle East, the Bush administration disregarded the community's expertise, politicized the intelligence process, and selected unrepresentative raw intelligence to make its public case. PAUL R. PILLAR is on the faculty of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. Concluding a long career in the Central Intelligence Agency, he served as National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005. A DYSFUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP The most serious problem with U.S. intelligence today is that its relationship with the policymaking process is broken and badly needs repair. In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized. As the national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, I witnessed all of these disturbing developments. Public discussion of prewar intelligence on Iraq has focused on the errors made in assessing Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons programs. A commission chaired by Judge Laurence Silberman and former Senator Charles Robb usefully documented the intelligence community's mistakes in a solid and comprehensive report released in March 2005. Corrections were indeed in order, and the intelligence community has begun to make them. At the same time, an acrimonious and highly partisan debate broke out over whether the Bush administration manipulated and misused intelligence in making its case for war. The administration defended itself by pointing out that it was not alone in its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and active weapons programs, however mistaken that view may have been. In this regard, the Bush administration was quite right: its perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services. But in making this defense, the White House also inadvertently pointed out the real problem: intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs did not drive its decision to go to war. A view broadly held in the United States and even more so overseas was that deterrence of Iraq was working, that Saddam was being kept "in his box," and that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections program to supplement the sanctions already in place. That the administration arrived at so different a policy solution indicates that its decision to topple Saddam was driven by other factors -- namely, the desire to shake up the sclerotic power structures of the Middle East and hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region. If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades. A MODEL UPENDED The proper relationship between intelligence gathering and policymaking sharply separates the two functions. The intelligence community collects information, evaluates its credibility, and combines it with other information to help make sense of situations abroad that could affect U.S. interests. Intelligence officers decide which topics should get their limited collection and analytic resources according to both their own judgments and the concerns of policymakers. Policymakers thus influence which topics intelligence agencies address but not the conclusions that they reach. The intelligence community, meanwhile, limits its judgments to what is happening or what might happen overseas, avoiding policy judgments about what the United States should do in
[osint] Republican Speaks Up, Leading Others to Challenge Wiretaps
"I think the argument that somehow, in passing the use-of-force resolution, that that was authorizing the president and the administration free rein to do whatever they wanted to do, so long as they tied it to the war on terror, was a bit of a stretch," she said. "And I don't think that's what most members of Congress felt they were doing." "Ms. Wilson and at least six other Republican lawmakers are openly skeptical about Mr. Bush's assertion that he has the inherent authority to order the wiretaps and that Congress gave him the power to do so when it authorized him to use military force after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." "At the age of 45, Ms. Wilson has considerable credentials in national security. She is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and a former Air Force officer. A Rhodes Scholar, Ms. Wilson obtained a master's degree and doctorate in international relations. She also worked as an arms control negotiator for the National Security Council under the first President Bush." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/politics/11wilson.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1139711672-FdkrgkYtj7QZIH9uVr2R4A February 11, 2006 Republican Speaks Up, Leading Others to Challenge Wiretaps By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 When Representative Heather A. Wilson broke ranks with President Bush on Tuesday to declare her "serious concerns" about domestic eavesdropping, she gave voice to what some fellow Republicans were thinking, if not saying. Now they are speaking up and growing louder. In interviews over several days, Congressional Republicans have expressed growing doubts about the National Security Agency program to intercept international communications inside the United States without court warrants. A growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and are calling for revamping the FISA law. Ms. Wilson and at least six other Republican lawmakers are openly skeptical about Mr. Bush's assertion that he has the inherent authority to order the wiretaps and that Congress gave him the power to do so when it authorized him to use military force after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House, in a turnabout, briefed the full House and Senate Intelligence Committee on the program this week, after Ms. Wilson, chairwoman of the subcommittee that oversees the N.S.A., had called for a full-scale Congressional investigation. But some Republicans say that is not enough. "I don't think that's sufficient," Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said. "There is considerable concern about the administration's just citing the president's inherent authority or the authorization to go to war with Iraq as grounds for conducting this program. It's a stretch." The criticism became apparent on Monday, when Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was the sole witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing on the legality of the eavesdropping. Mr. Gonzales faced tough questioning from 4 of the 10 Republicans on the panel, including its chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. By week's end, after Ms. Wilson became the first Republican on either the House or the Senate Intelligence Committees to call for a Congressional inquiry, the critics had become a chorus. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said the more she learned about the program, the more its "gray areas" concerned her. Mr. Specter said he would draft legislation to put the issue in the hands of the intelligence surveillance court by having its judges rule on the constitutionality of the program. Even Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican and Judiciary Committee member who has been a staunch supporter of the eavesdropping, said that although he did not think the law needed revising, Congress had to have more oversight. "The administration has gone a long way in the last couple of days to assure people that this highly classified program is critical to the protection of the nation," Mr. Hatch said. "I think they've more than made a persuasive case. The real question is how do we have oversight?" In part, the backlash is a symptom of Congressional muscle flexing; a sort of mutiny on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have been frustrated by the way Mr. Bush boldly exercises his executive authority. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who has also criticized the program, said Ms. Wilson's comments were "a sign of a growing movement" by lawmakers to reassert the power of the legislature. "This is sort of a Marbury v. Madison moment between the executive and the legislative branch," Mr. Graham said in a reference to the 1803 Supreme Court decision in which the court granted itself the power to declare laws unconstitutional. "I think there's two things going on," said Mr. Graham, a Judiciary Committee member. "There's an abandonment of you-broke-the-law rhetoric by
[osint] CIA chief sacked for opposing torture
"...he opposed detaining Al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad, sending them to other countries for interrogation and using forms of torture such as "water boarding", intelligence sources have claimed." "Since the appointment of Goss, the CIA has lost almost all its high-level directors amid considerable turmoil." "AB "Buzzy" Krongard, a former executive director of the CIA who resigned shortly after Goss's arrival, said the leaks were unlikely to stop soon, despite proposals to subject officers to more lie detector tests." "History will judge how good an idea it was to destroy the teams and the programmes that were in place." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036182,00.html The Sunday TimesFebruary 12, 2006 CIA chief sacked for opposing torture Sarah Baxter and Michael Smith, Washington The CIA's top counter-terrorism official was fired last week because he opposed detaining Al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad, sending them to other countries for interrogation and using forms of torture such as "water boarding", intelligence sources have claimed. Robert Grenier, head of the CIA counter-terrorism centre, was relieved of his post after a year in the job. One intelligence official said he was "not quite as aggressive as he might have been" in pursuing Al-Qaeda leaders and networks. Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counter-terrorism at the agency, said: "It is not that Grenier wasn't aggressive enough, it is that he wasn't `with the programme'. He expressed misgivings about the secret prisons in Europe and the rendition of terrorists." Grenier also opposed "excessive" interrogation, such as strapping suspects to boards and dunking them in water, according to Cannistraro. Porter Goss, who was appointed head of the CIA in August 2004 with a mission to "clean house", has been angered by a series of leaks from CIA insiders, including revelations about "black sites" in Europe where top Al-Qaeda detainees were said to have been held. In last Friday's New York Times, Goss wrote that leakers within the CIA were damaging the agency's ability to fight terrorism and causing foreign intelligence organisations to lose confidence. "Too many of my counterparts from other countries have told me, `You Americans can't keep a secret'." Goss is believed to have blamed Grenier for allowing leaks to occur on his watch. Since the appointment of Goss, the CIA has lost almost all its high-level directors amid considerable turmoil. AB "Buzzy" Krongard, a former executive director of the CIA who resigned shortly after Goss's arrival, said the leaks were unlikely to stop soon, despite proposals to subject officers to more lie detector tests. Krongard said it was up to President George Bush to stop the rot. "The agency has only one client: the president of the United States," he said. "The reorganisation is the way this president wanted it. If he is unwilling to reform it, the agency will go on as it is." "History will judge how good an idea it was to destroy the teams and the programmes that were in place." -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Revealed: the terror prison US is helping build in Morocco
"The construction of the new compound, run by the Direction de la Securité du Territoire (DST), the Moroccan secret police, adds to a substantial body of evidence that Morocco is one of America's principal partners in the secret "rendition" programme in which the CIA flies prisoners to third countries for interrogation." "A recent inquiry into rendition by the Council of Europe, led by Dick Marty, the Swiss MP, highlighted a pattern of flights between Washington, Guantanamo Bay and Rabat's military airport at Sale. French intelligence and diplomatic sources said the most recent such flight was in the first week in December, when four suspects were seen being led blindfolded and handcuffed from a Boeing 737 at Sale and transferred into a fleet of American vehicles." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036185,00.html The Sunday TimesFebruary 12, 2006 Revealed: the terror prison US is helping build in Morocco Tom Walker Rabat and Sarah Baxter THE United States is helping Morocco to build a new interrogation and detention facility for Al-Qaeda suspects near its capital, Rabat, according to western intelligence sources. The sources confirmed last week that building was under way at Ain Aouda, above a wooded gorge south of Rabat's diplomatic district. Locals said they had often seen American vehicles with diplomatic plates in the area. The construction of the new compound, run by the Direction de la Securité du Territoire (DST), the Moroccan secret police, adds to a substantial body of evidence that Morocco is one of America's principal partners in the secret "rendition" programme in which the CIA flies prisoners to third countries for interrogation. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other groups critical of the policy have compiled dossiers detailing the detention and apparent torture of radical Islamists at the DST's current headquarters, at Temara, near Rabat. A recent inquiry into rendition by the Council of Europe, led by Dick Marty, the Swiss MP, highlighted a pattern of flights between Washington, Guantanamo Bay and Rabat's military airport at Sale. French intelligence and diplomatic sources said the most recent such flight was in the first week in December, when four suspects were seen being led blindfolded and handcuffed from a Boeing 737 at Sale and transferred into a fleet of American vehicles. Morocco's membership of a so-called "coalition of the willing" has led to tension within the kingdom, where Mohammed VI, 42, is trying to suppress a wave of Islamic fundamentalism, most powerfully expressed in the Casablanca bombings of May 2003, in which 12 suicide bombers all of them Moroccan killed more than 40 people. More than 3,000 suspected radical Islamists have been arrested since, but some of the country's higher-profile Al-Qaeda sympathisers have been released, including Abdallah Tabarak, a former bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden. While much of the media is said to have been infiltrated by the DST, a few publications that dare to question official policy have accused the government of allowing Morocco to become "the CIA's dustbin". Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary who described Morocco and Tunisia yesterday as "long-standing friends and constructive partners" in the fight against terrorism is due to visit today. Among the topics expected to be discussed with officials is the opening of a new FBI office in Morocco. Last Friday the country witnessed its first protests against the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. They were highly organised and controlled but created a sense of apprehension in the capital before Rumsfeld's talks. Morocco has an estimated 30,000 policemen for a population of 30m and many people seem scared of speaking to strangers. A Sunday Times reporter was photographed by men with mobile phone cameras at least three times last week but was never directly challenged. "It's like a web they let you spin away and like that they believe they get more information," said the French intelligence source. The presence of minders made asking questions around Ain Aouda almost impossible, but at a restaurant adjoining a newly built mosque nearby, elderly men supping mint tea while they watched the African Nations Cup were clearly angry about the project. "We've seen nothing but Americans for five months," complained one wizened figure before being told by his friends to be quiet. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT Ya
[osint] First Photo of Bush and Abramoff
"Abramoff has told friends, "I was standing right next to the window and after the picture was taken, the President came over and shook hands with me, and we chatted and joked." "White House had initially said there was no record of disgraced lobbyist at 2001 meeting" Abramoff did lobbying work for CICBush43 when he was the governor of Texas so it would be surprising if he did not know Abramoff. A photo gallery including the subject photo is available at the Time orginal story URL for those wishing to view the photo. David Bier http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1158908,00.html Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 First Photo of Bush and Abramoff White House had initially said there was no record of disgraced lobbyist at 2001 meeting By ADAM ZAGORIN AND MATTHEW COOPER/WASHINGTON Just how close was the relationship between the White House and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff? The Bush Administration again faced questions about those ties after an e-mail Abramoff sent a journalist friend surfaced last week in which Abramoff wrote that he had met President Bush almost a dozen times over the past five years, and even received an invitation to the President's Crawford, Texas ranch along with other large political donors. Bush "has one of the best memories of any politician I have ever met," Abramoff mused in the e-mail last month, adding that, He "saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids." The White House, however, has continued to assert that the President had no recollection of ever meeting Abramoff. When TIME reported in January that it had viewed unpublished photographs of Abramoff with Bush, aides responded that the pictures meant nothing since the President is photographed with thousands of supporters and White House visitors every year. Now, finally, the first such photo has come to light. It shows a bearded Abramoff in the background as Bush greets an Abramoff client, Raul Garza, who was then the chairman of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Bush senior advisor Karl Rove looks on. The photograph was provided to TIME by Mr. Garza. The meeting took place in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House on May 9, 2001. Told about the photograph in January, the White House said it had no record that Abramoff was present at the meeting. Shown the photograph today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the White House had still found no record of Abramoff's presence but confirmed that it is Abramoff in the picture. McClellan told TIME: "The president has taken countless, tens of thousands of pictures at home and abroad over the last five years. As we've said previously a photo like this has no relevance to the Justice Department's investigation (of Abramoff)." This meeting, however, was a relatively small gathering attended by some two dozen people, including Garza and another Indian tribal leader who was Abramoff's client. At least two tribes, the Coushatta of Louisiana and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw, contributed $25,000 each to the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Grover Norquist, a well-known conservative ally of the White House. Garza, who is also known by his Indian name, Makateonenodua.com, meaning "black buffalo," is under federal indictment for allegedly embezzling more than $300,000 from his tribe. Talking about the photo, Abramoff has told friends, "I was standing right next to the window and after the picture was taken, the President came over and shook hands with me, and we chatted and joked." A photograph of that scene as described by Abramoff was shown to TIME two weeks ago. Abramoff's lawyers have said that their client has long had photographs of himself with Bush, but that he has no intention of releasing any of them. Abramoff would not comment on the matter. Benigno Fitial, the governor of the Northern Mariana Islands, told TIME he attended the 2001 meeting as well. Then an Abramoff client, the governor recalled asking the President a question about tax policy as part of a discussion among the small group after Bush had given a short speech on the subject. Fitial was seeking low-tax and relaxed labor regulations for the Northern Marianas at the time. Fitial said he used a photograph of himself with President Bush taken at the meeting in his campaign for governor. Fitial recalled that the President was "very gracious" at the session. "He knew quite a few of the people in the room; I know that because he called them by their first name. The responses showed that the President was no stranger to these people, he said. "And the response was very warm on both sides." -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks
[osint] Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn
"Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists." http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/02/12/iran_is_prepared_to_retaliate_experts_warn/ Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | February 12, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists. US and Israeli officials have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to thwart its nuclear ambitions. Among the options are airstrikes on suspected nuclear installations or covert action to sabotage the Iranian program. But military and intelligence analysts warn that Iran -- which a recent US intelligence report described as ''more confident and assertive" than it has been since the early days of the 1979 Islamic revolution -- could unleash reprisals across the region, and perhaps even inside the United States, if the hard-line regime came under attack. ''When the Americans or Israelis are thinking about [military force], I hope they will sit down and think about everything the ayatollahs could do to make our lives miserable and what we will do to discourage them," said John Pike, director of the think tank GlobalSecurity.org, referring to Iran's religious leaders. ''There could be a cycle of escalation." President Bush has said military force should be the last resort in international efforts to deter Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Yet Bush has stated unequivocally that the United States would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear arsenal, which the CIA estimates could be in place in three to 10 years. Iran maintains its nuclear program is solely aimed at producing electricity, not weapons. Israel, which Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has threatened to annihilate, asserts that Tehran is much closer to going nuclear and has been far more direct with its counter-threats. The Israel Defense Forces, which destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, has said it is perfecting ways to launch a preventative strike against Iranian nuclear sites, including outfitting its Air Force with American-made, bunker-busting munitions. US intelligence officials have said that Iran, which fought a war with Iraq from 1980-1988 that cost one million lives, still has the most threatening armed forces in the immediate region. Its combined ground forces are estimated at about 800,000 personnel. The CIA has concluded that Iran is steadily enhancing its ability to project its military power, including by threatening international shipping. But it is Iran's unconventional weapons and tactics -- rather than its conventional military -- that would pose the greatest threat, according to the intelligence officials. Bush's new intelligence chief, John D. Negroponte, outlining the conclusions reached by a variety of US spy agencies, warned in his first overall annual threat assessment this month to Congress that Iran is capable of sparking a much wider conflict it comes under threat. A major worry: newly acquired long-range missiles. Obtained with the assistance of North Korea, the Shahab 3 could strike Israel and perhaps even hit the periphery of Europe, according to a recent report by the Pentagon's National Air and Space Intelligence Center. The missiles could also be tipped with chemical warheads and threaten US military bases in the region. Iran is believed to have at least 20 launchers that are frequently moved around the country to avoid detection. ''Iran has an extensive missile-development program and has received support from entities in Russia, China, and North Korea," the Pentagon report said, estimating their range to be at least 800 miles. New missile designs under development could travel 400 miles farther, it said, while Iran purchased at least a dozen X-55 cruise missiles from Ukraine in 2001 that are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead as far as Italy. Meanwhile, Iranian agents and members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, widely believed to have a large presence in Iraq, could attempt to foment an uprising by the their fellow Shi'ite majority in Iraq or join insurgents in directly attacking US troops there, Negroponte warned. He reported that Tehran has ''constrained" itself in Iraq because it is generally satisfied with the political trends in favor of the Shi'ite majority and to avoid giving the United States another excuse to attack Iran. But that could change if Iran were targeted militarily. A leading Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr, whose militia has clashed with US troops and rival Shi'ite groups, vowed in a
[osint] Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say
"It slowly dawned on them that the collaboration between Pakistan, North Korea and Iran was an ongoing and serious problem," Pike said. "It was starting to sink in on them that it was one program doing business in three locations and that anything one of these countries had they all had." All the more astounding because Debkafile, using Israeli sources, was reporting a joint North Korea-Iran nuclear program with Pakistan technical support in late 2002, long before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Could it be that, instead of simple irritation at Wilson by Cheney, the real primary reason Plame was outed, was that Cheney and CICBush43, aside from his "Axis of Evil" SOTU speech, did not want Iran's nuclear program exposed because it would interfere with their desires to invade Iraq? Any public leak of an advanced Iranian nuclear effort would have mandated U.S. focus on Iran instead of Iraq, eliminating any attempt to control its oil or get CICBush43 one up on his dad by completing the task, CICBush43 thought his dad failed to do and burnishing the younger Bush's reputation he sought as a "warrior President". Plame's program, now set back at least ten years, was apparently about to connect the dots concerning the Iran program and its attempts to obtain Niger uranium. Interesting that there WAS an internal damage assessment but it was never provided to Congress as required. Porter Goss appears to be covering for either Cheney, CICBush43, or both. David Bier http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say 02/13/2006 @ 10:25 am Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna Iran http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/02/03/iran.weapons/story.iran.revolution.gif The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned. According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran. Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program. While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran. Plame declined to comment through her husband, Joseph Wilson. Valerie Plame first became a household name when her identity was disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. The column came only a week after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, had written an op-ed for the New York Times asserting that White House officials twisted pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Her outing was seen as political retaliation for Wilson's criticism of the Administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program. Her case has drawn international attention and resulted in the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is leading the probe, is still pursuing Deputy Chief of Staff and Special Advisor to President Bush, Karl Rove. His investigation remains open. The damages Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame's work. They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation. Plame's team, they added, would have come in contact with A.Q. Khan's network in the course of her work on Iran. While Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss has not submitted a formal damage assessment to Congressional oversight committees, the CIA's Directorate of Operations did conduct a serious and aggressive investigation, sources say. Intelligence sources familiar with the damage assessment say that what is called a "counter intelligence assessment to agency operations" was conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt. Former CIA counterintelligence officer Larry Johnson
[osint] Senators concerned over CIA leak report
"I don't think anybody should be releasing classified information, period, whether in the Congress, executive branch or some underling in some bureaucracy," said Allen, who appeared with Reed on "Fox News Sunday." "I think this calls into question in terms of Fitzgerald's investigation of the conduct of the vice president and others," Reed said. "I think he has to look closely at their behavior." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_CIA_Leak.html SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_CIA_Leak.html Sunday, February 12, 2006 · Last updated 8:19 p.m. PT Senators concerned over CIA leak report THE ASSOCIATED PRESS photo Vice President Dick Cheney, center, accepts a rifle from National Rifle Association President Kayne Robinson, right, and NRA Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, after concluding his keynote address to the 133rd annuanl NRA convention in this April 17, 2004 file photo in Pittsburgh. Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday Feb. 12, 2006. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/aponline/46821.39CHENEY-HUNTING-ACCIDENT.sff.jpg WASHINGTON -- Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald should investigate Vice President Dick Cheney and others in the CIA leak probe if they authorized an aide to give secret information to reporters, Democratic and Republican senators said Sunday. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., called the leak of intelligence information "inappropriate" if it is true that unnamed "superiors" instructed Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to divulge the material on Iraq. Sen. George Allen, R-Va., said a full investigation is necessary. "I don't think anybody should be releasing classified information, period, whether in the Congress, executive branch or some underling in some bureaucracy," said Allen, who appeared with Reed on "Fox News Sunday." According to court documents disclosed last week, Libby told a federal grand jury that he disclosed in July 2003 the contents of a classified National Intelligence Estimate as part of the Bush administration's defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq. Fitzgerald said in the documents it was his understanding that "Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors." The White House has refused to comment on the case. "I think this calls into question in terms of Fitzgerald's investigation of the conduct of the vice president and others," Reed said. "I think he has to look closely at their behavior." Allen expressed confidence in Fitzgerald, whom he called "a very articulate, professional prosecutor." "And I think the facts will lead wherever they lead, and I think he will prosecute as appropriate," Allen said. Libby, 55, was indicted on charges that he lied to FBI agents and the grand jury about how he learned CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity and when he told reporters. He is not charged with leaking classified information. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[osint] Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over "Inherent" Presidential Powers:
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to offer what may have been the weakest legal argument for presidential power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance since Nixon's Justice Department invoked the views of King George III. King George III's take on the matter did not carry any weight either. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals could barely believe the Nixon Justice Department was serious. The panel reminded the government's lawyers that warrantless searches were among the very reasons the colonies fought for their independence. As for the reaction to the Gonzales testimony, a New York Times editorial described it as "a daylong display of cynical hair-splitting, obfuscation, disinformation and stonewalling." The Times also noted committee chairman Arlen Specter's analysis of the Attorney General's legal position: It "just defies logic." "Warrantless wiretapping, moreover, is not just a separation-of-powers violation; it is also a federal crime. I suspect we will hear more from Chairman Specter on this issue, for he has great respect for the rule of law." http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20060210.html Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over "Inherent" Presidential Powers: His Attempt to Swing the Pendulum Back Began Long Before 9/11 By JOHN W. DEAN Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 Vice President Dick Cheney has stirred up an old fight in Washington. He sent a rookie, however, to make his case publicly. It did not work. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to offer what may have been the weakest legal argument for presidential power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance since Nixon's Justice Department invoked the views of King George III. King George III's take on the matter did not carry any weight either. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals could barely believe the Nixon Justice Department was serious. The panel reminded the government's lawyers that warrantless searches were among the very reasons the colonies fought for their independence. As for the reaction to the Gonzales testimony, a New York Times editorial described it as "a daylong display of cynical hair-splitting, obfuscation, disinformation and stonewalling." The Times also noted committee chairman Arlen Specter's analysis of the Attorney General's legal position: It "just defies logic." The Illogic Of the Bush Administration's Position on Congress' Law and Views Chairman Specter is correct. Gonzales' position is that the President can make his own rules, notwithstanding the existence of a federal statute - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) - that is directly on point, expressly prohibiting warrantless electronic surveillance. For the Attorney General to defend such a view defies "the equilibrium of our constitutional system" to use Chairman Specter's words - treating Congress' clear word on the matter, as if had never been spoken at all. Warrantless wiretapping, moreover, is not just a separation-of-powers violation; it is also a federal crime. I suspect we will hear more from Chairman Specter on this issue, for he has great respect for the rule of law. Equally illogical is Vice President Dick Cheney's position -- and if anyone does not believe that Cheney is not behind this ruckus, they do not know Cheney or his history. Let me start by describing his give-no-quarter stance. After the Attorney General's testimony concluded, and given the doubts expressed about it by both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, PBS newsman Jim Lehrer asked Cheney if President Bush would cooperate with Congress to "settle some of the legal disputes about the NSA surveillance program?" Cheney responded with a polite, hell no. (Incidentally, this was Cheney's first interview with other than a conservative news person.) "We believe, Jim, that we have all the legal authority we need," Cheney said. "[The President] indicated the other day he's willing to listen to ideas from the Congress, and certainly they have the right and the responsibility to suggest whatever they want to suggest." Column continues below ↓ The President will listen to ideas and suggestions from the Congress, but he will not follow a law it has written (and a prior President has signed into law) on the subject? This is not exactly a logical stance. Congresswoman Wilson's Call For Details: Initially Resisted, Finally Addressed Nor is the on-again/off-again stance the administration has taken regarding whether it will even share with Congress the details of the NSA surveillance program. The off-again stance was simply absurd. With every indication suggesting that the President directed the NSA to violate federal law, the Administration seemed to maintain that Congress somehow lacked even the authority to investigate the most basic facts relating to the illegality: Who, what, when, where and how. At first, the Administration
[osint] Inquiry Into Wiretapping Article Widens
"...a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program," "What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate about the proper balance between security and liberty a debate that many government officials of both parties, and in all three branches of government, seem to regard as in the national interest." "...conservatives have attacked the disclosure of classified information as an illegal act, demanding a vigorous investigative effort to find and prosecute whoever disclosed classified information." "An outgrowth of the Fitzgerald investigation is that the gloves are off in leak cases," said George J. Terwilliger III, former deputy attorney general in the administration of the first President Bush. "New rules apply." Interesting the Plame case should be mentioned as it appears from recent reports, that either Cheney or CICBush43, or both, sent Libby, and possibly Rove and others, to deliberately out Plame. One wonders if those "conservatives" include that disclosure of classfied information as an illegal act? Especially since it destroyed the U.S. surveillance program on the Iranian nuclear program. A program that might have been easily squashed earlier, will probably require military force and resultant economic and military warfare that will impact us all significantly. And probably require going to a declared war against Iran with suspension of Americans' civil rights by what will then (at present there is NO Constitutionally declared war and thus no "wartime powers") be a legitimately "wartime" president. David Bier http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/politics/12inquire.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1139866307-+559dwedYc79oEiw9/+LKw February 12, 2006 Inquiry Into Wiretapping Article Widens By DAVID JOHNSTON WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country's law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials. The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said. People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges. The inquiry is progressing as a debate about the eavesdropping rages in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act." Others, like Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, have expressed the hope that reporters will be summoned before a grand jury and asked to reveal the identities of those who provided them classified information. Mr. Goss, speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Feb. 2, said: "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve nothing less." The case is viewed as potentially far reaching because it places on a collision course constitutional principles that each side regards as paramount. For the government, the investigation represents an effort to punish those responsible for a serious security breach and enforce legal sanctions against leaks of classified information at a time of heightened terrorist threats. For news organizations, the inquiry threatens the confidentiality of sources and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference. Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and he defended the paper's reporting. "Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security. "What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate about the proper balance between security and liberty a debate that many government officials of both parties, and in all three branches of government, seem to regard as in the national interest." Civil liberties groups and Democratic lawmakers as well as some
[osint] For one Marine, torture came home
"...young Afghans some visible in blue jumpsuits in his photos had been rounded up and brought to the site by a CIA special operations team. The CIA officers made no great secret of what they were doing, he said, but were dismissive of the Marines and pulled rank when challenged. Jeff said he had been told by soldiers who had been present that the detainees were being interrogated and tortured, and that they were sometimes given psychotropic drugs. Some, he believed, had died in custody. What disturbed him most, he said, was that the detainees were not Taliban fighters or associates of Osama bin Laden. "By the time we got there," Jeff said, "the serious fighters were long gone." Jeff had other stories to tell as well. He said the CIA team had put detainees in cargo containers aboard planes and interrogated them while circling in the air. He'd been on board some of these flights, he said, and was deeply disturbed by what he'd seen." http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-bardach12feb12,0,7968152.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions >From the Los Angeles Times For one Marine, torture came home By Ann Louise Bardach February 12, 2006 ABOUT A YEAR and a half ago, a 40-year-old former Marine sergeant named Jeffrey Lehner, recently returned from Afghanistan, phoned and asked to meet with me. Since his return he had been living with his father, a retired pharmacist, in the Santa Barbara home where he was raised. I first heard about Jeff from an acquaintance of mine who was dating him and who told me that he was deeply distressed about what he had seen on his tours in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East. We met for lunch at a restaurant on Canon Perdido in downtown Santa Barbara. Jeff was focused, articulate and as handsome as a movie star. He was quite wound-up, but utterly lucid. There was no way I could have known that day the depths of Jeff's unhappiness, no way I could have predicted the tragedy that would follow. I listened closely to his story and, while I was surprised by what I heard, I had no particular reason to disbelieve him. He had joined the Marines enthusiastically, he told me, and served as a flight mechanic for eight years. Not long after 9/11, he began helping to fly materials into Afghanistan with the first wave of U.S. troops. In the beginning, Jeff supported the administration's policies in the region. But over time, that began to change. As we talked, Jeff brought out an album of photos from Afghanistan. He pointed to a series of photographs of a trailer and several huts behind a barbed-wire fence; these were taken, he said, outside a U.S. military camp not far from the Kandahar airport. He told me that young Afghans some visible in blue jumpsuits in his photos had been rounded up and brought to the site by a CIA special operations team. The CIA officers made no great secret of what they were doing, he said, but were dismissive of the Marines and pulled rank when challenged. Jeff said he had been told by soldiers who had been present that the detainees were being interrogated and tortured, and that they were sometimes given psychotropic drugs. Some, he believed, had died in custody. What disturbed him most, he said, was that the detainees were not Taliban fighters or associates of Osama bin Laden. "By the time we got there," Jeff said, "the serious fighters were long gone." Jeff had other stories to tell as well. He said the CIA team had put detainees in cargo containers aboard planes and interrogated them while circling in the air. He'd been on board some of these flights, he said, and was deeply disturbed by what he'd seen. Was Jeff telling me the truth? As a reporter who writes investigative articles, I get calls frequently from people with unusual stories sometimes spot-on accurate ones, sometimes personal vendettas and sometimes paranoid, crazy stories. Jeff seemed truthful, and he had told the same stories almost verbatim to several friends and family members. But I was worried because at the time, I hadn't heard about such abuses in Afghanistan, and Jeff's stories were hard to verify. More worrisome, Jeff was seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, and I wondered whether he could withstand the scrutiny his allegations would generate. PTSD's symptoms can include anxiety, deeply frightening thoughts, a sense of helplessness or flashbacks. Jeff's case apparently stemmed, according to Jim Nolan, a fellow veteran and a friend from Jeff's PTSD support group, from witnessing the "unspeakable," and from his inability to stop what he knew to be morally wrong. His case was compounded, his friends said, by strong feelings of "survivor's guilt" involving the crash of a KC-130 transport plane into a mountain in January 2002 killing eight men in his unit. He'd been scheduled to be on the flight and had been reassigned at the last minute. As part of the ground crew that attended to the plane's maintenance, he blamed himself. Afterward, h
[osint] The Fallen Legion
"Casualties of the Bush Administrationthe casualties of the Bush administration are legion. The numbers of government careers wrecked, disrupted, adversely affected, or tossed into turmoil as a result of this administration's wars, budgets, policies, and programs is impossible to determine. Although every administration leaves bodies strewn in its wake, none in recent memory has come close to the Bush administration in producing so many public statements of resignation, dissatisfaction, or anger over treatment or policies. The aforementioned list of casualties includes among the best known of those who have resigned or left the administration under pressure (although not necessarily those who have suffered most from their acts). Perhaps no one knows exactly how many government workers, at all levels, have fallen in the face of the Bush administration. Those mentioned above are just a few of the highest profile members of this as yet uncounted legion, just a few of the names we know." Actual quotes by the individuals listed are included and are worth reading to get a sense of what has been happening behind the scenes in CICBush43's administration. Comments about the invasion of Iraq and its adverse impact on the war on terror are particularly enlightening. This is the first of what now amounts to a three part, but open ended series. David Bier http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=28817 Tomgram: Nick Turse, Casualties of the Bush Administration As the American toll in Iraq climbs toward 2,000 dead and 15,000 wounded, and the horror of those shortened or constricted lives continues to sink deep into American communities, various memorials to the fallen -- American soldiers, journalists, contractors, and sometimes Iraqis as well -- have sprung to life. Arrays of combat boots; labyrinths and candlelit displays for the dead; actual walls and "walls" on-line; newspaper "walls" as well as walls of words; not to speak of websites with ever-growing military and civilian casualty counts. The American Friends Service Committee, for example, has an exhibit, "Eyes Wide Open," that has long traveled the country, featuring "a pair of boots honoring each U.S. military casualty, a field of shoes and a Wall of Remembrance to memorialize the Iraqis killed in the conflict, and a multimedia display exploring the history, cost and consequences of the war." The exhibit began with just over 500 combat boots and now features almost 2,000. Informal memorials and citizens' efforts are part of the growing movement against George Bush's Iraq War. Walls of every sort are being built. In Asheville, North Carolina, for example, as part of a "peace park," townspeople have been building their own Iraq Wall with each "sponsored" stone representing one American who has died there. Planned also is "a memorial to the Iraqi dead, presently estimated at over 100,000." Sometimes these projects are very personal, even individual, ranging from spontaneous displays of candles on beaches to, in the case of one reader who wrote in to Tomdispatch, a garden/labyrinth of the American dead built in her own backyard. These "walls," each with its own character, all influenced by architect Maya Lin's Vietnam Wall in Washington (which movingly reflected a grim American disaster and defeat), are signs of a growing sense that this war is a horror and a dishonor to which the honorable have fallen (a sense backed strongly by the latest opinion polls). But the particular dishonor this administration has brought down on our country calls out for other "walls" as well. Perhaps, for instance, we need some negative walls built, stone by miserable stone, to cronyism, corruption, and incompetence. In the next few weeks (as in the last few), we seem certain to see the dishonor of this administration spread around widely. In addition to the Iraq situation, ever devolving into further chaos and anarchy, there was, of course, the recent catastrophic failure of FEMA; then the squalid fall of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as "the Hammer" got hammered. There is the ongoing fiasco of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's sale of family stock in a "blind trust" just before its price plummeted. He's now under investigation for possible violations of insider trading laws and the SEC has just subpoenaed his "personal records and documents." Soon, it seems, there will be dishonor to go around as the expected Fitzgerald indictments in the Plame case come down. (Caught in the crosshairs of Plame case scandal is the New York Times, a paper tied in knots and at war with itself, which managed to loose both former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's famed op-ed on Saddam's nonexistent Niger yellowcake and Judith Miller, the near-neocon journalist whose reporting helped bring us to the edge of the
[osint] Re: Declaration of War (a reminder)
The Congressional authorization was NOT a Declaration of War under the U.S. Constitution but merely a bill authorizing force against al Qaeda and anyone who supported their attack on the United States. David Bier --- In osint@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > _President Signs Authorization for Use of Military Force bill_ > (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010918-10.html) > > > _Home_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/index.html) > _News & > Policies_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/) > _September 2001_ > (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/) > (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010918-10.html) > (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010918-10.html#) > > For Immediate Release > Office of the Press Secretary > September 18, 2001 > President Signs Authorization for Use of Military Force bill > Statement by the President > Today I am signing Senate Joint Resolution 23, the "Authorization for Use of > Military Force." > On September 11, 2001, terrorists committed treacherous and horrific acts of > violence against innocent Americans and individuals from other countries. > Civilized nations and people around the world have expressed outrage at, and > have unequivocally condemned, these attacks. Those who plan, authorize, > commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests -- > including those who harbor terrorists -- threaten the national security of the > United States. It is, therefore, necessary and appropriate that the United > States exercise its rights to defend itself and protect United States > citizens both at home and abroad. > In adopting this resolution in response to the latest terrorist acts > committed against the United States and the continuing threat to the United States > and its citizens from terrorist activities, both Houses of Congress have > acted wisely, decisively, and in the finest traditions of our country. I thank > the leadership of both Houses for their role in expeditiously passing this > historic joint resolution. I have had the benefit of meaningful consultations > with members of the Congress since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and I > will continue to consult closely with them as our Nation responds to this > threat to our peace and security. > Senate Joint Resolution 23 recognizes the seriousness of the terrorist > threat to our Nation and the authority of the President under the Constitution to > take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United > States. In signing this resolution, I maintain the longstanding position of the > executive branch regarding the President's constitutional authority to use > force, including the Armed Forces of the United States and regarding the > constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. > Our whole Nation is unalterably committed to a direct, forceful, and > comprehensive response to these terrorist attacks and the scourge of terrorism > directed against the United States and its interests. > GEORGE W. BUSH > THE WHITE HOUSE, > September 18, 2001. > > * > * > * > Rev. Jim Sutter (a/k/a Groandalf) > > Cleveland, Ohio USA > _http://revjimsutter.blogspot.com_ (http://revjimsutter.blogspot.com/) > (frequently updated) > > Fair winds and following seas to our lost sailors and Marines. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more informa
