Paul William Roberts

"Homeland" has been released

2006-10-10T15:25:00.000-04:00

Today, October 10, is the official release date for "Homeland". It should be available in all bookstores soon.

New novel, and Anonymous postings

2006-09-22T13:05:00.000-04:00

My new novel, Homeland, will be appearing in Canada in October. See my website for details.

I won't be allowing any more anonymous postings on this blog unless accompanied by an email address. We must all have the courage to stand up for our convictions, and be known for them.

2006-01-01T15:19:00.000-05:00

A Proposal by Colin Campbell Re: Oil Production

(The author of this document is Colin Campbell – see biographical information at the end. )

Soaring oil prices have drawn attention to the issue of the relative supply and demand for crude oil, which is the World’s premier fuel, having a central place in the modern economy.
Knowledge of petroleum geology has made great advances in recent years, such that the conditions under which this resource was formed in Nature are now well understood. In fact, it transpires that the bulk of the World’s current production comes from deposits formed in two brief and exceptional epochs, 90 and 150 million years ago. This fact alone tells us that oil is a finite resource, which in turn means that it is subject to depletion.
People ask: Are we running out of oil ? The simple answer is: Yes, we started doing that when we produced the first barrel. But Running Out is not the main issue as the reso urce will not be finally exhausted for very many years. The much more relevant question is: When will production reach a peak and begin to decline.
Depletion: Growth, Peak and Decline
Much debate and study has focused on the calculation of the date of peak, but this too misses the main point. It is not an isolated or pronounced peak but merely the highest point on a long and gentle production curve. It matters little if the actual peak came last year, if it will be passed this year, or in a few years’ time. The shock is the perception of the long, remorseless and terminal decline that follows, wh ich can hardly fail but have a major impact on the future of Mankind.
Without quibbling over precise dates, it is now evident that the First Half of the Age of Oil draws to a close. It lasted 150 years since the first wells were drilled for oil in Pennsylvania and on the shores of the Caspian, and saw the rapid expansion of industry, transport, trade and agriculture, allowing the World’s population to expand six-fold, exactly in parallel with oil. In addition, it made possible the growth of financial capital as banks lent more money than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Expansion offered collateral for To-day’s Debt. Many people came to think that it was money that made the world go round, when in reality it was a cheap and abundant supply of oil-based energy.
Distribution and Categories of Oil
The World’s oil is unevenly distributed for well-understood geological reasons, and some countries are less depleted than others. In fact, five countries bordering the Persian Gulf own almost half of the Regular Conventional Oil that is left to produce.
This category of oil has provided most to-date and will dominate all supply far into the future. Accordingly, the onset of its decline will have the greatest impact on the World situation. The other categories, including the tar-sands and heavy oils of Canada and Venezuela, deepwater oil, polar oil, and liquids derived from natural gas, are important too, because they will ameliorate the rate of overall decline after peak.
Unreliab le Information
If reliable information on past production and reserves in known fields were freely available in the public domain, the issues of peak production and the onset of decline would be entirely self-evident. Estimating the size of an oilfield early in its life poses no particular scientific or technical challenge, such estimates being routinely made by the oil industry.
The reporting of reserves is another matter, being much influenced by political and commercial pressures. Simply stated, the oil companies reported commercial reserves under strict Stock Exchange rules that were designed to prevent fraudulent exaggeration but smiled on conservative r eporting as laudable prudence. The companies, quite rightly, reported cautiously, preferring to smooth their assets and revise their reported reserves upwards over time, which gave a comforting, but very misleading, image of steady growth. It was widely, but wrongly, attributed to the remarkable technological progress that was achieved as well as to the scale of investment, when in reality it was primarily an artefact of reporting. The main impact of technology was to hold production higher for longer, which in fact accelerated depletion. The days of under-reporting are however now over, leading the major companies to merge and in some cases revise their reported reserves downwards.
Several major producing countries nationalised their oil industries in the 1970s, and found themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to cut production to support price, when they faced competition from growing production brought in by the international companies from new areas. In those days, there were still large new provinces to bring in, especially offshore. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) introduced a quota system to manage the allocation of production amongst its members. Reserve estimates became effectively State secrets in these countries. In the 1980s, some of them announced massive overnight increases in reported reserves, although nothing particular had changed in the oilfields themselves. It transpires that they may have been reporting the total found, not the remaining reserves, which would explain why the reports have barely changed since, despite substantial production.
Although the skills of a detective are called for to obtain reliable information, the general position can be determined within reasonable limits to permit and justify appropriate policy decisions and responses (See Appendix 1).
You have to find it before you can produce it
It is axiomatic to state that oil has to be found before it can be produced, meaning that production mirrors discovery after a time-lag. When a new area was opened to exploration, the first step was for the industry to secure the rights from the government concerned. The next step was to investigate the geology, examining the rocks at the surface, scanning the depths with seismic surveys and drilling exploratory boreholes, known as wildcat s, for more information. This work proceeded until a moment-of-truth was reached when the area either delivered its first discovery, or was found to lack the essential geology, in which case it remained forever barren, no matter how much investment was applied. It was normal for the larger fields to come in first, being too large to miss.
For these reasons, the production in any country tends to reach a peak close to the Midpoint of Depletion, when half the total endowment has been produced. The subsequent decline may be modelled on the general assumption that production will continue t o fall at the current Depletion Rate, namely annual production as a percentage of what is left. There are of course exceptional situations that have to be assessed on their merits.
Displaying laudable frankness, a Director of the World’s largest oil company has reported that the peak of world discovery, based on industry data with reserve revisions being properly backdated, was passed in the 1960s. (see Longwell H.,2002, The future of the oil and gas industry: past approaches, new challenges; World Energy 5/3). This information alone leaves little doubt that the corresponding peak of production is now imminent. The World started consuming more than it found in 1981, and the gap is widening, as illustrated in the above figure.
The Dawn of the Second Half of the Age of Oil
Putting it all together, with the best information available and a realistic depletion model, based on appropriate Depletion Rates, gives the following general picture as a sound and prudent basis for planning, notwithstanding the remaining uncertainties of detail.
The evidence demonstrates that the Second Half of the Age of Oil is dawning. It will be characterised by the decline of oil, and all that depends upon it. The decline itself is gradual at no more than 2-3% a year, such that production by 2020 will have fallen to approximately what it was in 1990. This, in itself, does not speak of any direct catastrophic collapse in supply, but the onset of decline does represent a turning point in history of unprecedented proportions.
Financial Implications
The First Half of the Age of Oil saw the growth of industrialisation and World trade, which was accompanied by the development of world trading currencies, provided first by the pound sterling and later the United States dollar. Control of such currencies became one of the principal benefits of empire as they delivered a large hidden rental to the issuing country. For example, the physical import of oil to the United States has been exactly matched by the expansion of domestic credit, which itself was little more than an expression of confidence in the current financial system. In a certain sense, the country obtained its supply of oil for free, paid for by debt based on the assumption of onward economic growth, whose validity is now put into question by declining energy supply. Financial factors cloud the issue.
The subject of Economics was devised to understand and manage finance and investment in this epoch of a growing economy. It was premised on the view that the Planet had near-limitless resources to be converted to Man’s use by his skill and enterprise. A liberalised market was held to ensure that supply must always match demand, and that one resource would seamlessly replace another as the need arose. Indeed, the Stone Age did not end for want of Stones, as Man moved on in a natural progression to use bronze, iron and steel for better tools and weapons. Yet, oil declines during the Second Half of the Age of Oil due to ineluctable resource constraints without sight of more efficient alternatives, suggesting that some basic reappraisal of econom ic thinking is called for, given the fundamental role of oil as a fuel for most economic activity. Indeed, new schools of thought are emerging that better address the reality imposed by Nature.
Economic and Political Impact
The Economics of the First Half of the Age of Oil had a major influence on the political evolution of this chapter in history. Many countries adopted democratic forms of government primarily dedicated to fostering economic growth in a competitive global market. Prosperity came to some countries that found themselves in control of the system, while poverty remained the lot of others, being exacerbated by the growth of large urban populati ons and the burden of debt. A perception of a new world of finite resources now presents itself, implying that one man’s wealth must mean another’s poverty.
This closing chapter in history was marked by two world wars, which, whatever the immediate causes, reflected the pressures and ambitions of economic hegemony. They were followed by the Cold War as the believers in free markets and central planning faced each other with threatening postures, each seeking to support its particular economic system and power. Lastly in its turn has come the so-called War of Terror as the United States seeks to support Israel and bring Middle East oil supplies under its control, facing many increasingly alienated peoples.
The 21st Century has dawned with these new tensions that, despite the many remarkable achievements, reflect a certain sense of excess and instability. The power of electronic communication has brought everyone into a global environment. Simple but happy people, who previously lived in relative isolation, have become subjected to relentless television imagery, making them feel resentful of the prosperous glitter of distant places. Cities everywhere have become choked with traffic, while vapour trails fill the sky from Rome to Rio. Population pressures have led to growing migration, which at first the wealthy nations welcomed as a means of holding down wages.
This brief chapter of history occurred at a time of high oil production, which in fact made the excesses possible. But now, no more than five years into the new Century, soaring oil demand, especially from the new industrial societies of India and China, begins to exceed productive capacity, leading to a radical increase in the price of oil, which has doubled in less than twelve months. It is important to stress that such high prices represent unintentional profiteering from shortage by oil companies and, especially, Middle East Governments, as the cost of production itself has not increased materially.
Under conventional economic reasoning, the high prices will themselves trigger new discovery and higher production rates, but in reality they may not do so. Even modest oilfields are profitable under low prices, so high prices make viable only the smallest new discoveries, adding a negligible amount to World supply. High oil price may not in fact encourage oil companies to produce at higher rates because it allows them to deliver satisfactory financial results while conserving their largely irreplaceable reserves. The Middle East governments, for their part, have little incentive to increase production, even if they had the resources to do so, as that would serve to lower World prices and hence their revenues.
It remains to be seen if further military intervention in the Middle East will occur and lead to sufficiently stable conditions for foreign oil companies to step in. An ironic silver lining attends continued instability insofar as more oil will be left in the ground for the future, when it will be desperately needed.
Although these few words hardly do justice to the many difficult circumstances facing the modern World, they do serve to emphasise the arrival of a turning point, which in turn imposes new responsibilities on Governments everywhere. The long-term decline of oil supply in the years ahead is not in doubt. Since the peak of production will not be evident as such until some years after it has occurred, Governments are well-advised to prepare rather than react. They urgently need to give serious attention to the management of the transition from the First to the Second Half of the Age of Oil, which threatens to be a time of great tension.
The most obvious objective is to cut consumption to match declining production. A Protocol to so achieve is laid out below in draft form.

THE DEPLETION PROTOCOL
WHEREAS the passage of history has recorded an increasing pace of change, such that the demand for energy has grown rapidly in parallel with the world population over the past two hundred years since the Industrial Revolution
WHEREAS the energy supply required by the population has come mainly from coal and petroleum, having been formed but rarely in the geological past, such resources being inevitably subject to depletion;
WHEREAS oil provides ninety percent of transport fuel, essential to trade, and plays a critical role in agriculture, needed to feed an expanding population;
WHEREAS oil is unevenly distributed on the Planet for well-understood geological r easons, with much being concentrated in five countries, bordering the Persian Gulf;
WHEREAS all the major productive provinces of the World have been identified with the help of advanced technology and growing geological knowledge, it being now evident that discovery reached a peak in the 1960s, despite technological progress, and a diligent search;
WHEREAS the past peak of discovery inevitably leads to a corresponding peak in production during the early years of the 21st Century, assuming no radical decline in demand;
WHEREAS the onset of the decline of this critical resource affects all aspects of modern life, such having grave political and geopolitical implications;
WHEREAS it is expedient to plan an orderly transition to the new World environment of reduced energy supply, making early provisions to avoid the waste of energy, stimulate the entry of substitute energies, and extend the life of the remaining oil;
WHEREAS it is desirable to meet the challenges so arising in a co-operative and equitable manner, such to address related climate change concerns, economic and financial stability and the threats of conflicts for access to critical resources.

NOW IT IS PROPOSED THAT
1. A Convention of Nations shall be called to consider the issue with a view to agreeing an Accord with the following objectives:
2.
a. to avoid profiteering from shortage, such that World oil prices may remain in reasonable relationship with production cost;
b. to allow poor countries to afford their imports;
c. to avoid destabilising financial flows arising from excessive oil prices;
d. to encourage consumers to avoid waste;
e. to stimulate the development of alternative energies.
3. Such an Accord shall have the following outline provisions:
a. No country shall produce oil at above its current Depletion Rate, such being defined as annual production as a percentage of the estimated amount left to produce;
b. Each importing country shall reduce its imports to match the current World Depletion Rate, deducting any indigenous production.
4. Detailed provisions shall cover the definition of the several categories of oil, exemptions and qualifications, and the scientific procedures for the estimation of Depletion Rate.
5. The signatory countries shall cooperate in providing information on their reserves, allowing full technical audit, such that the Depletion Rate may be accurately determined.
6. The signatory countries shall have the right to appeal their assessed Depletion Rate in the event of changed circumstances.

THE CHALLENGE OF NEGOTIATION AND AGREEMENT
The foregoing is no more than an outline draft to try to stimulate interest. What is needed is an imaginative senior politician, or national leader, who would grasp the essentials of what is described. He would likely have a scientific or technical background, or at least an open, inquiring and logical mind. He is unlikely to have had a training in classical economics.
The first step would be to look into the matter more closely, and try to assemble proper data and knowledge of the resource base, as outlined in Appendix 1. Here will be met the first challenge because official institutions will likely deliver bland “business-as-usual” scenarios, not them selves being fully qualified to delve into the inner workings of the oil industry. Approaches the oil companies direct he will be met by a façade of public relations. So, the best hope is to step behind the scenes and search out oil men who no longer have a vested interest in confusing the issue. The data provided in Appendix 1, including calculated Depletion Rates, may be taken as a starting point to be progressively revised and improved on the basis of proper technical audits of reserves and new transparency by countries supporting the initiative.
If these first obstacles can be overcome, a simple message from the unpackaged facts will soon reveal itself, opening the trail as more and more pieces in the puzzle fit together. That in turn will be followed by a certain sense of foreboding and depression, as the wider implication s for the future of Mankind are appreciated.
The politician may at this point abandon the mission in despair, but if he has the stamina to continue, he will find his resolve strengthened by a new urgency to take action. He will remember his responsibilities as a politician to lead and help his people prepare. He may start holding public meetings to address his constituents on the subject. If so, he may be surprised at their positive reaction: far from drumming him out of town, he will find himself touching a nerve in the intuitive common sense of ordinary people. He will be reminded of the famous words of Winston Churchill who proclaimed Put your trust in the people as he tried to persuade his country to prepare to defend itself from the advancing threat of war.
If, by good fortune, he should represent a relatively small country, he might find it possible to bring his colleagues in government on board to host a Conference. The response from others at first might be lukewarm but as he marches ahead he will find that other nations and institutions will not wish to be left out and ignored. A positive development comes when communities, cities and provinces take steps to cut energy consumption paving the way for national responses.
A certain momentum will build until a proper meeting of World leaders is convened. A draft Protocol will be tabled and meet general approval subject to further clarification and negotiation.
The first thrust of such negotiation will be to start to try to determine Depletion Rates for the principal countries. Depletion Rate is annual production as a percentage of what is left, that being Reserves plus the Yet-to-Find. The numbers at first may be uncertain, or fall within a range, but as the calculations are made, it will soon become apparent that production does have a defined depletion profile with peak followed by decline. The data in Appendix 1 may serve as a starting point. Asking these simple questions will make the need for such the Protocol entirely self-evident.
The detailed aspects of the practical implementation will need to be discussed. For example, it might be found expedient to exempt the Hea vy Oils of Canada and Venezuela. Means of fair allocation to respect existing commercial rights will have to be ironed out. The wider impacts on the economy and environment will have to be addressed.
At the end of the day, the countries of the world will be invited to sign up. Not all will do so, but this need not deter those that do, for they will clearly see that they emerge better prepared than the non-signatories living in the past.
As the politician, who launched the endeavour, looks back over the months of hard work, setbacks, frustr ations and rare successes, he will be able to console himself with the thought that it was a much needed job, well done. His grandchildren will come to be very proud of him, recognising how from a difficult and humble beginning he changed the course of history.

APPENDIX-1

Dr. Colin Campbell, SRA's Advisory Board, took a D.Phil in geology at Oxford in 1957, before joining the oil industry. His career took him to Trinidad, Colombia, Australia, Papua, United States, United Kingdom, Ireland and Norway working variously for Texaco, BP, Amoco, Shenandoah, Aran and Fina. He started as an exploration geologist and ended as an Executive Vice-President. A second career opened in 1990 with a study of depletion with consultations to industry and government. He has written four books, many scientific papers and articles, also giving lectures and broadcasts. He is the founder of ASPO (The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas), a network of scientists, now represented in most European countries.
[1] As proposed at the 2003 Pio Manzu Conference, and to be a central theme of the Pio Manzu Conference, Rimini, Italy on October 28-30, 2005, Submitted by ASPO IRELAND www.peakoil.ie

The Negative Return Economy: a Discourse on America's Black Budget

2005-12-30T18:27:00.000-05:00

Keep the people frightened
Of things they cannot know
Is the secret of the Tomb
If they knew what you and I know
They would know it is just men
Who rob them, cheat them, kill them
Then start it all again

Introduction
The United States government has operated a secret budgeting and spending program for decades outside the framework of the American Constitution. The institutional and political roots of this system of cland estine finance reach back to at least a century. The turn of the 19th and 20th centuries saw the consolidation of American industry and banking under the control of a restrictive cartel that for all practical purposes assumed control of the economy. The great magnates of American industry and finance in the late nineteenth century were superb practitioners of covert operations. Witness to this fact are the institutions set up during the twentieth century through which their descendants maintain control.

This paper is a summary of the structure of the American political economy which fits the facts better than the official model. Officially, American capitalism is characterised by democracy, opportunity, self-improvement, open and free markets, and constructive regulation for the public good, in short, happiness. Und er this construct America has never fought a war of aggression and harbours no designs to do so. Its leaders have the nation’s interests at heart, and its politicians listen to their constituencies. The truth is different. Why the United States is so widely misunderstood is due in part to a controlled educational system and media. As the system evolved over the decades, time lent it legitimacy spanning the political spectrum. Gustavus Meyers, author of the seminal work History of the Great American Fortunes and no panegyrist, believed – following Marx as did many on the left – that the consolidation of American industry was inevitable and that the men who accomplished it were acting their part in a predetermined historical evolution. Once monopoly control had been achieved, the proletariat would rise and its dictatorship would begin. We shy away from such determinism; nothing happens but as a consequence of what men do and choose to do. If Meyers were alive today, he would st ill be waiting.

Black Budget? What Black Budget?
At the time of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001 according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), Pentagon had incurred $3.4 trillion of “undocumentable transactions,” that is to say that there were $3.4 trillion worth of financial transactions for which there was no discernible purpose. The day before the attack, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that the lack of control over its budget was a greater danger to the national security of the United States than terrorism. After the attacks, the government stopped publicly disclosing information about “undocumentable transactions”.

Blame the Bookkeeper
The problem is not restricted to the Pentagon but affects the entire spectrum of government agencies and departments from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Defense Department. For a number of years the GAO has compiled a parallel set of books for the Federal Government called the Financial Report of the United States. This report attempts to impose “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles” to the government’s financial reporting process in order to give a clearer picture of the government’s actual assets and liabilities and thereby enable better planning. Neither the Pentagon nor the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to name just two, have ever been able to pass a GAO audit on this basis.

Significantly, the government does not employ double entry bookkeeping in the preparation of its accounts. This has been standard accounting practice since the seventeenth century, which classifies and tracks sources and uses of funds to create an accurate picture of a business (or public) enterprise. Today the Pentagon utilises no accountable means of tracking money authorised by Congress from its initial authorisation to its use, say in developing a fighter plane. Running a 21st century military machine using antique accounting methods is an anomalous situation with interesting implications, not least of which is that government agencies cannot, or will not, explain what they are doing with the money that is appropriated for their operations by Congress.

A similar state of affairs prevails at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It exists primarily, at least in law, to ensure that low income Americans have access to affordable housing, which HUD provides as well as both credit and credit insurance on a nationwide scale. Yet HUD has never compiled information on its activities so that it or anyone else can see, by place, whether or not its activities in that place make money, lose money, or are simply irrelevant.

Conflict of Interests
Few Americans are probably aware that Lockheed Martin, builder of the F22 air superiority fighter, is also a major outside contractor supplying financial control and accounting systems to the Pentagon. The Pentagon for its part is Lockheed Martin’s biggest customer. Th is example is by no means unique. Lockheed also has a subsidiary employed by HUD to administer housing in American cities, an unusual diversification for a corporation the majority of whose business is done with the military and intelligence agencies.[2]

Similarly Dyncorp (recently acquired by Computer Sciences Corporation) is another contractor that, like Lockheed, derives almost all its revenue from government security and military contracts. It is also a contractor supplying information technology to a variety of government agencies including the Pentagon, HUD, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and th e Department of Justice. At the Department of Justice it manages the case management software used by DOJ lawyers to manage investigations.[3]

A prime example of overlapping interests is Herbert “Pug” Winokur. Not only was he on Dyncorp’s board of directors but he is also the Enron director in charge of that company’s risk management committee, and a long-standing board member of the Harvard Management Corporation, which invests in HUD projects.

AMS Inc., a computer software firm hired by HUD in 1996 to take over the management of its internal software for accounting and financial control, presided in two short years over an explosion in undocumentable transactions of nearly $76 billion. AMS violated fiduciary and control practices by installing its own equipment and software with no parallel runs against the legacy software and accounting system. In those same two years, HUD’s management more than tripled the volume of loan and insurance business being pushed through the system. Anyone familiar with running such systems in a bank or an insurance company immediately understands that a decision such as this (for it had to be a decision) would result in huge losses.[4] Is this incompetence or design? Only the credulous would believe accident: the reward for Charles Rossotti, president of AMS, was to be named Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner at the Department of the Treasury, from which position he oversaw significant Treasury contract amendments to AMS. He was a direct beneficiary of this as a special White House waiver permitted Rossotti and his wife to retain their AMS stock.

Government’s response to criticism
The reaction of many people to the sorts of facts related above is to dismiss them as no more than evidence of incompetence and accident. The government does little to resist this sort of interpretation; on the contrary, it encourages it. For example, in response to calls for an investigation of its financial control, the Pentagon countered with an offer to investigate credit card abuse. Complaints about the performance of outside contractors such as AMS have been answered by a government-wide contract award to IBM for the standardisation of IT systems and practices. IBM, in turn, has awarded subcontracts to AMS, Lockheed, Dyncorp, SAIC and Accenture (formerly spun out from Arthur Andersen of Enron fame). It is these firms that have failed to provide systems that can pass a GAO audit. This manoeuvring and the government’s justifications affront common sense and are unethical. As private sector firms, they have to pass audits before their own accounts can be approved and reported to shareholders. Yet they routinely fail to meet the same standard for the government.

Often the government blames the previous, outgoing administration. However, consider that t he incoming Bush administration replaced all the senior Clinton political appointees except: the Comptroller of the Currency, John D. Hawke; IRS commissioner Charles Rossotti (formerly of AMS); Comptroller General David Walker (Formerly of Arthur Andersen[5]– see http://www.npr.org/programs/npc/2001/010423.dwalker.html) and CIA director George Tenet. In short, the key positions necessary for the control of the federal credit, financial control, audit and intelligence.
< /DIV>
This undisturbed transition from Democratic to Republican administrations represents a remarkable cross-party consensus, and highlights the real positions of power. With the exception of Rossotti, all these men are still in place in 2004. And Rossotti? He left the IRS to become a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group for information technology. A more richly symbolic and meaningful job move could scarcely be imagined. Carlyle’s business is global venture venture capital, which is to say it invests in corporate acquisitions all over the world with a speciality in arms manufacturers and technology. The large levels of undocumentable transactions at HUD and the Department of Defense inevitably inspire curiosity. Where is the money associated with those transactions? It is no great leap of imagination to wonder equally where the Carlyle Group raises the money with which to finance its acquisitions.[6]

The trusts are dead. Long live the trusts
The cartelisation of the American economy was for all intents and purposes completed by the end of the first decade of the twentieth century.[7] I n 1889, America’s leading banker JP Morgan held a meeting at his 5th Avenue mansion in New York. Its purpose was to reach a consensus whereby the owners of America’s railroads merged their competing interests.[8] This was no mere group of transportation executives agreeing to fix prices. The railroads also controlled the nation’s coalfields and oil supplies, and were tightly bound to the nation’s largest banks. The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1914 completed this process of consolidation. In effect, Congress ceded control of the US currency system and the federal credit to the banks, thereby officially recognizing the cartel. This placed a relatively small number of men in a po sition to set prices across the economy with a degree of control heretofore unknown in US history.

The banking cartel’s interest in war
American foreign policy and the wars that America has fought over the course of the twentieth century (including the Spanish American War in 1898[9] and the present War on Terror) have successfully extended the cartel’s control over the world economy. The American Civil War was fought to determine control of the US economy.[10] Most Americans would explain the last 150 years of warfare as sadly necessary for reasons beyond America’s control. The implication is that America has accumulated its preponderant international position by some providential accident and not by design. Arguments for a contrary view elicit derisive accusations of falling victim to “conspiracy theory.” Reassuringly, they believe that self-interested individuals and organisations are incapable of collaboration to achieve common ends. When JP Morgan sat the owners of America’s railroads around a table and hammered out a non-compete agreement, it was no accident. Similarly, neither have America’s wars been accidents; they have been far more profitable than is widely understood. T he US confiscated billions of dollars worth of German and Japanese war treasure at the end of World War Two. President Truman made a conscious decision to not reveal this to the public or repatriate it. Instead, it was used to finance covert operations.[11]

Command economy
Popular myth has it that the trusts were broken up in the first decade of the twentieth century thanks to the crusade of Theodore Roosevelt on behalf of the middle class. Roosevelt certainly used his public stance against “big business” to successfu lly bid for campaign money from the very businessmen whom he was attacking. This perhaps explains why he subsequently signed legislation repealing criminal penalties for those same businessmen. This is a common trait of “liberal” or “progressive” presidents. The second Roosevelt, Franklin, is remembered as the champion of the downtrodden, who put an end to the Great Depression. It was he who established the nation’s social security system which in reality was (and is) funded by a highly regressive tax on its beneficiaries. Matching contributions from business were allowed to be deducted as a business expense before tax which simply extended the regressive nature of the program by financing business’ share out of foregone tax revenue. Roosevelt, a superb politician, won a landslide victory on a platform of reform which he adroitly sidestepped fulfilling. Instead, he declared a national economic emergency, short-circuiting any constitutional challenge to his power in the court. He pro mptly defaulted on the gold clause in the government’s bond contracts, and established the Exchange Stabilisation Fund (ESF) in 1934. Ostensibly meant to promote dollar stability in the foreign exchanges, the Fund in practice was and is something quite different. It is exempt from reporting to Congress and is answerable only to the President and Secretary of the Treasury. It is, in short, an undisclosed fund that can tap federal credit.

Apparatus of a Command Economy
The establishment of the ESF was an extension of the same logic behind the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1914. The latter, the Fed, was also created in response to a crisis: the crash of 1907. The Wall Street legend credits JP Morgan’s genius and patriotism with saving the Nation. In reality, the crash and resulting depression enabled Morgan to destroy his competitors, buy up their assets and in the process revealed to the nation and the world just how powerful the banks and Morgan were. Not all were grateful, and some demanded legislative action to bring the federal credit and national monetary system under public oversight and control. In a campaign of masterful political legerdemain, the Federal Reserve was created in 1912 by an act of Congress to do just this. But by creating it as a private corporation owned by the banks, Congress effectively ceded to the banks a position even stronger than they had occupied before. Even today it is not widely understood that the Fed is a privately held business owned by the very interests that it nominally regulates. Thus the control of federal credit and the US monetary system and the rich flow of insider information that results from that control are veiled from public view and are privately controlled in secret which rather explains t he Delphic nature of the Fed’s chairman.

The extension of secret control was not limited to finance. The National Security Act of 1947 created the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Council (NSC) and consolidated control of the three armed services under one roof at the Pentagon. This merely served to extend this principle of secrecy to the field of “national security.” Like the Fed, the CIA was exempted from public disclosure of its budget and was given budgetary control over the entire intelligence community, while the National Security Council was set up as a policy-making body separate from the existing organs of state policy such as the State Department and the military commands reporting directly to the president.

The CIA Act of 1949 created a budget mechanism that allowed the CIA to spend as much money as it wanted “without regard to the provisions of law and regulations relating to the expenditure of government funds.” In short, the CIA has a way to fund anything –legal or illegal – behind the protection of national security law.[12]

Implementation
Having created the bureaucratic means to conceive and make policy in secret, the next development was to create the means to implement it. The main issue was how to control money flows in the national economy. The government’s solution was to assume a commanding position in the credit markets. To that end, it created first the Federal Housing Authority in 1934 (forerunner of HUD and now part of HUD)[13] and subsequently Ginnie Mae and then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to supply mortgage finance and insurance for homebuyers. The underlying political purpose is more subtle. Combined with the power of the Federal Reserve (i.e. the cartel) to set the price of money, the ESF, the GSEs, and latterly the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), have proven to be a powerful force for regulating money flows and demand in the US economy.

The military, too, was reformed with the adoption for the first time in American history of a wartime military budget and force structure in peacetime. In the early 60s this was fine tuned with the adoption of an explicit cost-plus acquisition process. The justification for this was, as usual, national security. This military budget has proven as effective in regulating the industrial sector as control over home finance has proven in regulating credit. Together they confer virtual control over the economy as conventionally measured in terms of money GDP.

Credit, credit, and more credit
A few moments reflection on the institutional structure briefly outlined above makes clear the central importance of the federal credit in underwriting it. The federal government underwrites the GSEs by extending to them a subsidised line of credit from the Treasury. An additional indirect subsidy in the form of lower borrowing costs flows from the belief in the marketplace that this constitutes an implicit government guarantee of their solvency. While this subject from time to time excites controversy, the truth is that the GSEs are not the only corporate entities benefiting from government support. Since the failure of Continental Illinois in the early 80s, the government has informally made it clear that it stands behind the banking system. This was made even more explicit with the bailout of Citibank in the early 90s and the implicit subsidy that the entire banking industry received as a result. Nor are financial institutions the only ones to enjoy this kind of support. Bo th Lockheed Martin and Chrysler have been effectively saved from insolvency by the taxpayer in the past, presumably due to their status as major defence contractors.

Such a system places a significant value premium on sheer size, if for no other reason than what the banking system cheerfully and disingenuously refers to as the “too-big-to-fail” doctrine. But for industrial firms, too, there is significant value in having a contracting relationship with the Pentagon. Not only is there the economic nirvana of cost-plus contracting but, if you are big enough, your fundamental business risk is underwritten for national security reasons. Thus, there is a tendency for firms to migrate their businesses to military rather than purely civilian markets; today the Boeing Company is a perfect case study of this in action. And a result is that civilian business in sector after sector has been driven into insolvency or into acquisition by the very national security industry that is ostensibly protecting them.[14]

The dynamics of cost-plus contracting are such that profits rise as costs rise.[15] This explains a great deal about the size of American military budgets, which have rise n inexorably over the years even as military preparedness has fallen.[16] But as we have seen, the losses in terms of lower productivity are felt across wide swaths of the economy as non-military contracting competition is squeezed out or acquired. Obviously these losses in the real economy have to be financed, producing a higher demand for credit than would otherwise be the case. Given declining productivity and a narrowing production base, it was inevitable that at some point net exports would become negative, a condition that the US entered in 1982 and which has intensified since. Today the US net foreign debt[17] is on the order of $3,000 billion (30% of GDP) and is increasing at a rate of some $500 billion per year (5% of GDP).[18]

Concentrating capital
To finance such a large foreign borrowing requirement without currency depreciation requires both the ability to contr ol as much of the national cash flow as possible as well as the collaboration of at least a few key foreign countries to achieve the same sort of control over international cash flows. In the latter case, this takes the form, in part, of ever larger amounts of intervention on the part of those countries running dollar surpluses and strong net export positions to prevent the markets from driving the dollar lower. In practice this means that they accumulate more and more dollars, which they in turn invest in US Treasury securities. Foreigners now own some 45% of US Treasury debt outstanding. In January this year the Bank of Japan intervened in the currency markets on behalf of Japan’s Ministry of Finance, purchasing a whopping $69 billion in that month alone, or more than 30% of its total intervention in 2003 which was itself a record year.

Current trends
All of this may seem to have little to do with the black budget, which most people associate with intelligence covert “black” operations. The truth, however, is that the black budget cannot be understood in isolation without understanding the political, historical and economic context from which it springs. One way of understanding this is by comparing trends. For example, in 1950 the Dow Jones Industrials stood at 200, and today the Dow is at 10,600. In 1950 narcotics trafficking was a relatively unknown crime in the United States. Today it is endemic, and not only in cities but in smaller towns and rural communities as well. In 1950 the US possessed most of the world’s gold and was the world’s biggest creditor. Today it is the world’s biggest debtor. In 1950 the US was a major exporter of industrial goods to the rest of the world. On current trends the US i s not self-sufficient in manufactured goods and will not even have a manufacturing industry worth the name by 2020.

Narcotics trafficking and the stock market
Is there a connection between these trends or are they random? It may seem strange to think of a positive correlation between narcotics trafficking and the stock market, but consider: in the late 90s the US Department of Justice estimated that the proceeds of such trade entering the US banking system were between $500 and $1.000 billion annually, or more than 5-10% of GDP. Now the proceeds of crime need to find a way into legitimate, that is legal, channels or they are worthless to the holders. If one further imagines that the banking system earns a fee of 1% for handling this flow (rather low considering that mon ey laundering is a seller’s market) then the profits for the banks from this activity are on the order of $5 to $10 billion. Applying Citigroup’s current stock market multiple of 15 or so to this yields a market capitalisation of anywhere from $65 to $115 billion. One can thus readily see the importance of the illegal drug trade to the financial services industry. As it happens, this trade in illegal profits is concentrated in four states: Texas, New York, Florida and California, or four Federal Reserve districts: Dallas, New York, Atlanta and San Francisco. Can anyone seriously suppose that the Fed is unaware of this if the Department of Justice is? It, after all, handles the flows.

Narcotics trafficking and the National Interest
One reason for the Fed’s silence is that agencies of the government itself have been involved in drug trafficking for sixty years or more.[19] For the purposes of understanding the black budget, one needs to be aware of the American practice of opening the American consumer market for drugs to foreign exporters in order to pursue strategic objectives abroad. The portability of narcotics and the huge price mark up from production to point of sale makes them a particularly useful source of financing for covert operations. Even more important is that the proceeds from narcotics sales fall completely outside conventional, constitutional channels of funding. This helps explain the ubiquitous presence of narcotics traffick ing in zones of conflict around the world, from Columbia to Afghanistan.[20]

Little examined, however, is the impact of narcotics trafficking on communities and economies at the point of sale. Consider, for example, the impact on real estate markets and financial services. Real estate is an attractive area in which to employ the cash surplus resulting from narcotics sales because it is, as an industry, entirely unregulated with respect to money laundering. Because cash is an acceptable and in some places familiar method of payment, large sums can be disposed of easily and with little comment. This can and does resul t in considerable distortion to local demand, and in turn provide fuel for real estate speculation and increased credit demand to finance it along with considerable opportunities for speculation and fraud.[21] The Iran Contra episode during the 1980s contained all these elements; although many are familiar with the sale of arms to Iran to provide cash to finance CIA backed guerrillas in Nicaragua and death squads in El Salvador, less well-known is the systematic looting of local financial institutions and narcotics sales in the US. Banking allows the application of leverage to the cash that is generated by “illegal” activity while simultaneously making it possible to launder the funds. And whe n a bank fails, it is the shareholders, uninsured depositors and the taxpayer who pick up the bill. The point here us that narcotics trafficking creates a milieu in which the incentives to engage in uneconomic activity are greater than those to engage in economic activity. In a word, the profits from stealing are higher than the profits from playing by the rules.

What counts from a public policy point of view in the cartelised economy is the ability to control and concentrate cash flows of any kind. To this end, it is less important that a bank fails than that the federal credit is available to make good the losses. In doing so, the cash cost of losses is shifted, or socialised, to the national taxpayer base. As long, therefore, as there are willing lenders to the Federal Government, the game can go on.

Technology gives an edge
Government’s power combined with advancing computer technology has over the last thirty years vastly simplified the task of managing the national--and by extension the international--cash flow. Politically, the American victory in the Second World War meant that the entire West and its dependencies were co-opted into the International Monetary Fund (IMF) negotiated at Bretton Woods in 1944. Forty-five years later, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 meant that for the first time in history there was no alternative monetary or political choice in the international arena. The British Empire had surrendered to the Americans precisely because America, represented an alternative to sterling, namely the dollar.

Today the US presides over a more or less fully closed global monetary system centred on the dollar. In practice this means that those countries within the system must exchange real value in the form of manufactures and commodities with the US cartel in exchange for dollars, which are no more than an accounting entry created out of thin air. This is analogous to a company with no assets exchanging watered stock for cash, and indeed this is no accident. It was a favoured technique by which the JP Morgans of the nineteenth century successfully financed the consolidation of American industry and finance. Today their heirs are busily dong the same thing, but on a global scale.

Technology has transformed the possibilities for creative management in banking. Its sheer number-crunching power has rendered the cost of iterative calculations to more or less zero. This has enabled the creation of a new sector in the industry, the derivatives business, which is nothing more than the breaking down of financial instruments such as stocks and bonds into their constitutive parts. This has increased the power of the banks many-fold, thanks to the cooperation of the Federal Reserve and Congress, who have allowed the banks to not only self-regulate their derivatives portfolios and businesses but have enacted rules to force other banks to use derivatives to “control” risk. In practice this has meant that the most profitable business of the banks has been moved off balance sheet, in effect creating a high level of s ecrecy in their business. It also confers a huge advantage on the largest banks to whom the others have to come for their derivatives. This has, in part, fuelled the manic consolidation in banking over the last twenty five years and has been applied with tremendous success internationally thanks to the imposition of the Basel Accords on money and banking which have forced other country’s financial institutions to either cooperate, which in practice has largely meant be acquired, or go out of business.

The banks’ tactics have been copied and refined by industry. An excellent example of this is the case of Enron, nominally an industrial company engaged in the production and transport of petroleum and natural gas, but which was transformed into a highly leveraged financial operation with a huge off balance sheet business trading derivatives. It s ecured a release from regulatory oversight by the time-tested method of purchasing lawmakers and by suborning its auditors. This gave it the power to restate earnings, virtually at will, simply by changing the assumptions on future interest rates embedded in the options, swaps and futures contracts constituting its unregulated derivatives book. Enron is a model also of the increasingly blurred distinction between the public and private sector. It employed as many as twenty CIA officers. One of its senior executives, Thomas White, was an army general before joining Enron and then left Enron to become Secretary of the Army. Enron executives were intimately involved with Vice President Richard Cheney’s energy task force. It is difficult to avoid concluding that Enron was anything other than a money-laundering operation employed in the interest of “National Security” on behalf of the cartel.

The US has embarked on a costly global military adventure the outcome of which is anything but certain. This marks the culmination of more than fifty years of nearly continuous overt and covert warfare. In this it is supported by the most sophisticated financing apparatus in history, capable of mobilising the cash generated from a wide variety of activities both open and covert. The price has been the progressive hollowing out of the American economy itself, and the progressive erosion of civil liberties and the rule of law. The black budget is not the cause of this but the means.

[1] Remark attributed to a Wall Street broker in 1895 describing J.P. Morgan. Gustavus Meyers (2002). History of the Great American Fortunes. University Press of the Pacific, Volume 3, p.225. Morgan, regularly portrayed as a patriot, was at the time deeply engrossed in relieving the government of its gold reserve.
[2] Lockheed’s contract was recently terminated by HUD--an action that the company is contesting.
[3] Dyncorp was appointed as well to run the Department of Justice’s asset forfeiture program in 1993, winning a $60 million five year contract to do so.
[4] For an insider’s account of the problems at HUD, see Catherine Austin Fitts, The Myth of th e Rule of Law at http://www.sandersresearch.com/.
[5] See http://www.npr.org/programs/npc/2001/010423.dwalker.html
[6] See Dan Briody (2003), The Iron Triangle, Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group. John Wiley & Sons: H oboken. ISBN 0-471-28108-5. Carlyle’s phenomenal success as an investment firm owes a great deal to its ability to lure former political figures and senior industry executives onto its executive team and advisory board. Examples are former US President George H.W. Bush and former British Prime Minister John Major; Frank Carlucci, former deputy director of the CIA and former Secretary of Defense; James Baker III, former Secretary of State; Richard Darman former director of the Office of Management and Budget; Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and present Secretary of State (a Carlucci protégé); William Kennard, former head of the Federal Communications Commission; Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Park Tae Joon, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea, and Louis Gerstner, former chairman of IBM. Of some interest as well has been the involvement of the Bin Laden family as major private investors in the Carly le Group, represented by Shafiq Bin Laden, a brother of Osama Bin Laden.
[7] For a brilliant history of the rise of America’s elite and its disenchantment with democracy and free markets, see Sven Beckert (2001). The Monied Metropolis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. ISBN 0521790395.
[8] Gustavus Meyers (2002). History of the Great American Fortunes, Volume 3. University Press of the Pacific: Honolulu. (Reprint of the 1910 edition), p.225.
[9] See Walter Karp ((1979). The Politics of War. Harper & Row: New York) for an analysis of the move to war in the case of both the war with Spain and WWI. Of particular interest here is Woodrow Wilson’s extension of a domestic security apparatus ostensibly to deal with a supposed foreign threat during war time. In fact, the draconian legislation and executive orders that created the FBI as a new appendage of the Department of Justice was hardly used during wartime, but were deployed after the war against domestic politica l opponents in the labour unions and the Progressive Movement.
[10] See Beckert, op. cit.
[11] See Tim Weiner ((1990) Blank Check: The Pentagon’s Black Budget, Warner Publishing) and Sterling and Peggy Seagrave ((2003) Gold Warriors, Verso Press: New York). There is ample evidence that these funds were invested and have grown substan tially in the years since, and are still used to further political and personal agendas.
[12] Seagrave, Sterling and Peggy, op. cit., pp 119-120. The use of National Security as a rationale for acts that would otherwise be considered unconstitutional and illegal has become embedded in the America legal system, a curious inversion of original intent. Franklin Roosevelt declared a national economic emergency in the 30s which was used to justify extraordinary measures by the executive, including the abrogation of the government’s obligations to redeem government debt I gold. The Supreme Court refused to hear a case contesting the administration’s action. More recently, the government intervened in a labour dispute between the International Longshoremen Workers Union and the Pacific Maritime Association, citing the Patriot Act of 2001 and equating the union’s position to economic “terrorism”. In fact, rather than the union striking, the PMA locked the union out of the ports. Government intervention was in the form of the direct intercession of Tom Ridge, head of the Department of Homeland Security to force the union to accede to PMA demands.
[13] Notably, this is the same year in which the Exchange Stabilisation Fund was set up.
[14] In a similar fashion, manufacturing firms have migrated into finance, finding it easier to make money by arbitrage than by competition. Thus General Motors manufactures cars as collateral for its leasing business; similarly GE or Boeing make as much or more money out of financing the purchase of their products than from making them.
[15] This is to say nothing of the wholesale transfer gratis of research under taken at the taxpayer’s expense; for example nuclear technology transferred to the power industry.
[16] See Franklin Spinney, The Defense Death Spiral, http://www.d-n-i.net/ for an in depth analysis of the micro economics of military procurement and its impact on force readiness.
[17] This is the cumulative borrowi ng from abroad to finance net exports (or the trade deficit if you prefer).
[18] The annual rate of increase is the current account deficit.
[19] See Alfred McCoy (1991). The Politics of Heroin in South East Asia. 2nd ed. Lawrence Hill Books: Brooklyn. ISBN 1556521251. McCoy documents thoroughly the genesis of US wartime coo peration with the mafia in Italy during WWII and its post-war toleration of narcotics trafficking in the US as a quid pro quo for the cooperation of Corsican and Italian organised crime in its covert war against the Communist Party in France and Italy. In Asia, it supported the opium and heroin business of a Chinese nationalist army in Burma after the Chinese Revolution in 1948. In Indochina the US supplanted French colonial rule after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, inheriting in the process French covert ties to opium production amongst the Hmong hill tribes. With overt American intervention in 1965 the importance of this traffic grew enormously, financing an escalation of the ground war in Laos.
See also Seagrave, Sterling and Peggy, op. cit. There is ample international precedent for American involvement in narcotics trafficking, beginning with the British organisation of opium production in Bengal two centuries ago and of its illegal distribution into China. For that matter, Japan turned Manchuria under its occupation into the biggest producer of opium and refined opiates in the world, the cash flow from which proved to be immensely useful to the operations of Japan’s Manchurian Army and intelligence services.
[20] Peter Dale Scott (2003). Drugs, Oil and War: the United States in Afghanistan, Columbia and Indochina. Rowman & Littlefield Pub: Oxford. ISBN 0742525228.
[21] See Roger Morris ((1999) Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America, Regnery Publishing) for a case study of the interaction of covert operations, narcotics trafficking, financial markets and politics in Arkansas during the governorship of Bill Clinton.

Website: http://www.paulwmroberts.com/

Stephen Harper and the Neo-Con

2005-12-30T18:24:00.000-05:00

Anyone tempted to vote for Stephen Harper simply as a way of turning that stale Ottawa soil to oxygenate it, think again. Harper is another front man for the less-visible Canadian version of so-called Neo-Conservatism, which needs to be understood a lot better than it currently is by all shades of political opinion here, particularly the Left, which, as always, underestimates its opponents' will to power.

Make no mistake: Neo-Conservatism is fascism, an updated Naziism with the anti-Jewish element replaced by an anti-Muslim bias. One reason that the Neo-Con movement has been able to absorb so many ex-Trotskyites --- from Christopher Hitchens back to Irving Kristol -- is that its totalitarian inclinations are startlingly similar to those of International Socialism. Bush's call for a "global democratic revolution" echoes Trotsky's "World socialistic revolution", and anyone who believes Bush meant through the deployment of peaceful methods for change, take a look at Iraq (150,000 dead civilians at least), Afghanistan (10,000, who knows?), et al, not to mention the Pentagon's $500 billion annual budget. Marx also stated that capitalism would pave the way for Socialism because its rapacious greed tends to lay bare the avarice and elitism concealed in its core. I doubt if he envisioned the Neo-Con twist, though, and also doubt that the ex-Trots are there to surf in on the Big Wave when it comes. I imagine most felt it was their last chance to see a global revolution of any kind.

Below I attach Donald Gutstein's superb article on the Neo-Cons and the Canadian connection for anyone wishing to see where Harper connects to them. During the last election I was following tracks that linked Harper with the Project for A New American Century (PNAC) via the pernicious and deceitful David Frum --- whose anti-Canadian actions would have seen him arrested as a traitor in any other time or place -- and heard rumors of campaign funding being ferried up. PNAC is ostensibly a right-wing think tank whose main thought is US world domination. If a single organization could be blamed for the war in Iraq, PNAC did more to foment it than any other body, just as they drafted the 2002 National Security Strategy, which enabled the war's logistics, and which began as a PNAC report. A horrible nexus of vested interests hovers around PNAC too, because what's the point of a right-wing ideology that doesn't engorge itself on that ceaseless torr ent of cash called 'Taxation'. Frum's idol, the despicable Richard Perle, a caricature of fraudulent dealings and taxpayer abuse, springs to mind. Perle was also, surprise, surprise, a partner of Conrad Black's in Hollinger, which peeled its shareholders like grapes, fleeced them and turned them inside out. Perle and Frum co-authored a book that can easily pass as a parody of post-Nazi prose, and is the financial equivalent of Rapture fiction.

Gutstein's article links the Canadian Neo-Cons both to their roots and to their current political and media lairs via Harper and a predictable bestiary of propagandists, liars and hacks, most of them, like timid little Andrew Coyne, sheltered at the ample trough of the National Embarassment, with one, the cowardly Marcus Gee, kept as an act of charity by the Globe and Mail. I have politely ignored them for long enough, while tolerating their squeals of rage, but it is time for a little blunt truth. The gang of them make Josef Goebbels and his pet ape Streicher seem brilliantly literary, though if your morning greed sheet were to be swapped for a copy of Der Sturmer you'd barely notice any change. A tissue of lies is always the same. Quick to condemn, the National Post is very slow to apologize for the months when its front page was pure fiction, as it tried to convince us to send our children to fight in Iraq. I wonder why Jonathan Kay didn't protest those facts? Being hardcore elitists who believe they are the chosen philosophical overlords --- and you're not -- Neo-Cons habitually lie about their motives. But that's okay, you see, because we wouldn't be able to understand the kind of realities they deal with. Let's underline this:

NEO-CONS USE LIES THE WAY OTHER POLITICIANS USE STATISTICS

Having been on the receiving end, I know this is true, just as I know the innuendo is another favorite tool. Andrew Coyne stated I had said the US killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did, which is true, a fact, and he knows it. So he did not exactly say it wasn't true, he implied it, which is enough for the kind of person who buys the Post for their news. Again like Hitler and his pals, the axis of innuendo consists of cowardly bullies. Both Coyne and Gee are as brave behind their stolid little columns as if they had a battalion of storm troopers to despatch. But to date neither have had the guts to debate me publically on the issue of their choice. Both had the chance -- and my door is ever open -- but Coyne sat like Miss Prism and said nothing at all, and Gee pretended to be too busy, busy, busy to do what he wasnt too busy for when the offer was an anonymous editorial. I will say this unequivocally, though: both these men are liars who are a disgrace to the profession of journalism, whose practice they know nothing about. But the Post doesnt know any better -- it will presumably deny Conrad Black was convicte d, if and when he is -- and the Globe is being loyal to its tattered remnant of an old hand. It is hard to condemn that, and Gee's tortured world-view is too well known to be read seriously.

But when journalism is so infected by vested corporate interests that it tolerates and encourages the printing of lies as news, we must all be concerned. We must all worry. The public are not as aware as they ought to be of the difference between news reporting and opinion pieces. In a column you can say whatever you want --- though ideally it ought not to be a pack of lies --- but it might be useful if its subjective nature were occasionally pointed out and contrasted with the front page. And the balance of political opinion ought to reflect its balance in society.

Normally, I would say quite happily that the Neo-Cons are entitled to hold their views, and I fundamentally believe they are. But they are not entitled to operate with a hidden agenda, behind a smokescreen of lies, pretending that the corporate media are too liberal. Like the pretenbce that America was 'liberating' the Iraqis, the pretence that media are a bastion of the left-wing is a clever device to deflect attention from the real issues. The current nonsense about Paul Martin's allegedly 'anti-American' comments is a good example.

If the media were doing their job, they would for a start denounce the term 'anti-American' as entirely inappropriate in the context of a political critique. Just as the term 'anti-Semitic' --- which is meaningless for an Arab -- cannot be applied to criticism of Israeli policies. Israel and America have long had an unnatural relationship, but lately it's been growing closer and they are begining to resemble one another. Next this objective media would stress that the Prime Minister did not criticize America. He said nothing even vaguely critical. What he said was that the US ought to ab ide by the GATT ruling on softwood lumber, and that the US ought to be more responsible globally when it came to pollution and the Kyoto Accord. That it ought to respect the views of virtually every other country. These statements are barely more radical than saying an administration ought to administer. It is in fact the American Ambassador who over-reacted, and who, indeed, was rude. Mr Martin ought to have sent him back to Washington, but in a country where US Customs commandeers the main airport and dictates how traffic should flow down University Avenue, it is not perhaps clear who can say what to whom.

This is where a pure and untainted media come in. They should have been the ones calling out colours of lust. They should have been the ones analysing statements. They should have told Harper he was full of shit to prolong the untruths. But they didn't. A truly free press would not be owned by big business interests. A society that cared about a f ree media would pass laws preventing anyone amassing a monoploy of TV outlets and newspapers. The very fact that someone is seen trying to create a monopoly ought to make it impossible for them to succeed. There can be no good motive for such a cruel killing. There can be no valid reason to wage war.

There should be no excuses for lying in national media, either. One strike, you're out, no matter how many runs you have or need. Truth is or ought to be sacred.

NOW READ DONALD GUTSTEIN ON THE NEO-CON
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What do close advisors to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachi ngs of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement.
Strauss, who died in 1973, believed in the inherent inequality of humanity. Most people, he famously taught, are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us.
In Washington, Straussians exert powerful influence from within the inner circle of the White House. In Canada, they roost, for now, in the so-called Calgary School, guiding Harper in framing his election strategies. What preoccupies Straussians in both places is the question of "regime change."
Strauss defined a regime as a set of governing ideas, institutions and traditions. The neoconservatives in the Bush administration, who secretly conspired to make the invasion of Iraq a certainty, had a precise plan for regime change. They weren't out to merely replace Saddam with an American puppet. They planned to make the system m ore like the U.S., with an electoral process that can be manipulated by the elites, corporate control over the levers of power and socially conservative values.
Usually regime change is imposed on a country from outside through violent means, such as invasion. On occasion, it occurs within a country through civil war. After the American Civil War, a new regime was imposed on the Deep South by the North, although the old regime was never entirely replaced.
Is regime change possible through the electoral process? It's happening in the U.S., where the neocons are succeeding in transforming the American state from a liberal democracy into a corporatist, theocratic regime. As Canada readies for a federal election, the question must be asked: Are we next?
The 'noble lie'
Strauss believed that allowing citizens to govern themselves will lead, inevitably, to terror and tyranny, as the Weimar Republic succumbed to the Nazis in the 1930s. A ruling elite of political philosophers must make those decisions because it is the only group smart enough. It must resort to deception -- Strauss's "noble lie" -- to protect citizens from themselves. The elite must hide the truth from the public by writing in code. "Using metaphors and cryptic language," philosophers communicated one message for the elite, and another message for "the unsophisticated general population," philosopher Jeet Heer recently wrote in the Globe and Mail. "For Strauss, the art of concealment and secrecy was among the greatest legacies of antiquity."
The recent outing of star New York Times reporter Judith Miller reveals how today's neocons use the media to conceal the truth from the public. For Straussians, telling Americans that Saddam didn't have WMD's and had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, but that we needed to take him out for geopolitical and ideological reasons you can't comprehend, was a non-starter. The people wouldn't get i t. Time for a whopper.
Miller was responsible for pushing into the Times the key neocon lie that Saddam was busy stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. This deception helped build support among Americans for the invasion of Iraq. Miller was no independent journalist seeking the truth nor a victim of neocon duplicity, as she claimed. She worked closely with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff and responsible for coordinating Iraq intelligence and communication strategy. Libby is a Straussian who studied under Paul Wolfowitz, now head of the World Bank, and before that, deputy secretary of defense, where he led the 'Invade Iraq" lobby. Wolfowitz studied under Strauss and Allan Bloom, Strauss's most famous student.
Miller cultivated close links to the neocons in the administration and at the American Enterprise Institute, the leading Washington-based neocon think tank. AEI played the key role outside government in fabricating intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq. Straussian Richard Perle, who chaired the Defence Policy Board Advisory Committee until he was kicked off because of a conflict of interest, is a senior fellow at AEI and coordinated its efforts. Miller co-wrote a book on the Middle East with an AEI scholar. Rather than being a victim of government manipulation, Miller was a conduit between the neocons and the American public. As a result of her reporting, many Americans came to believe that Saddam had the weapons. War and regime change followed.
'Regime change' in Canada
As in the U.S., regime change became a Canadian media darling. Before 9-11, the phrase appeared in Canadian newspapers less than ten times a year. It usually referred to changes in leadership of a political party or as part of the phrase "regulatory regime change." Less than a week after 9-11, the phrase began to be used in its Straussian sense, as if a scenario was being choreographed.
From 19 mentions in Canadian newspapers in 2001, regime change soared to 790 mentions in 2002 and 1334 mentions in 2003. With the Iraq invasion accomplished that year, usage tailed off in 2004 (291 mentions) and in 2005 (208 mentions to November 10).
There's one big difference between American and Canadian Straussians. The Americans assumed positions of power and influence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The Canadians have not had much opportunity to show (or is that hide?) their stuff. That may change with a Harper victory.
Paul Wolfowitz's teacher, Allan Bloom, and another Straussian, Walter Berns, taught at the University of Toronto during the 1970s. They left their teaching posts at Cornell University because they couldn't stomach the student radicalism of the '60s. At Toronto, they influenced an entire generation of political scientists, who fanned out to universities across the country.
Two of their students, Ted Morton and Rainer Knopff, went to the University of Calgary where they specialize in attacking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They claim the charter is the result of a conspiracy foisted on the Canadian people by "special interests." These nasty people are feminists, gays and lesbians, the poor, prisoners and refugee-rights groups who are advancing their own interests through the courts at the expense of the general public, these Straussians allege.
The problem with their analysis is that the special interest which makes more use of the courts to advance its interests than all these other groups combined -- business -- receives not a mention. Deception by omission is a common Straussian technique. The weak are targeted while the real culprits disappear.
Harper's mentors
Harper studied under the neocons at the University of Calgary and worked with them to craft policies for the fledgling Reform Pa rty in the late 1980s. Together with Preston Manning, they created an oxymoron, a populist party backed by business.
Ted Morton has turned his attention to provincial politics. He's an elected MLA and a candidate to succeed Premier Ralph Klein. But he did influence the direction of right-wing politics at the federal level as the Canadian Alliance director of research under Stockwell Day.
When Harper threw his hat in the ring for the leadership of the Alliance, Tom Flanagan, the Calgary School's informal leader, became his closest adviser. Harper and Flanagan, whose scholarship focuses on attacking aboriginal rights, entered a four-year writing partnership and together studied the works of government-hater Friedrich Hayek. Flanagan ran the 2004 Conservative election campaign and is pulling the strings as the country readies for the election.
Political philosopher Shadia Drury is an expert on Strauss, though not a follower. She was a member of Calg ary's political science department for more than two decades, frequently locking horns with her conservative colleagues before leaving in 2003 for the University of Regina.
Strauss recommended harnessing the simplistic platitudes of populism to galvanize mass support for measures that would, in fact, restrict rights. Does the Calgary School resort to such deceitful tactics? Drury believes so. Such thinking represents "a huge contempt for democracy," she told the Globe and Mail's John Ibbotson. The 2004 federal election campaign run by Flanagan was "the greatest stealth campaign we have ever seen," she said, "run by radical populists hiding behind the cloak of rhetorical moderation."
Straus and 'Western alienation'
The Calgary School has successfully hidden its program beneath the complaint of western alienation. "If we've done anything, we've provided legitimacy for what was the Western view of the country," Calgary Schooler Barry Cooper told journalist Marci McDonald in her important Walrus article. "We've given intelligibility and coherence to a way of looking at it that's outside the St. Lawrence Valley mentality." This is sheer Straussian deception. On the surface, it's easy to understand Cooper's complaint and the Calgary School's mission. But the message says something very different to those in the know. For 'St. Lawrence Valley mentality,' they read 'the Ottawa-based modern liberal state,' with all the negative baggage it carries for Straussians. And for 'Western view,' they read 'the right-wing attack on democracy.' We've provided legitimacy for the radical-right attack on the Canadian democratic state, Cooper is really saying.
A network is already in place to assist Harper in foisting his radical agenda on the Canadian people.
In 2003, he delivered an important address to a group called Civitas. This secretive organization, which has no web site and leaves little pape r or electronic trail, is a network of Canadian neoconservative and libertarian academics, politicians, journalists and think tank propagandists.
Harper's adviser Tom Flanagan is an active member. Conservative MP Jason Kenney is a member, as are Brian Lee Crowley, head of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and Michel Kelly-Gagnon of the Montreal Economic Institute, the second and third most important right-wing think tanks after the Fraser Institute.
Civitas is top-heavy with journalists to promote the cause. Lorne Gunter of the National Post is president. Members include Janet Jackson (Calgary Sun) and Danielle Smith (Calgary Herald). Journalists Colby Cosh, William Watson and Andrew Coyne (all National Post) have made presentations to Civitas.
The Globe and Mail's Marcus Gee is not mentioned in relation to Civitas but might as well be a member, if his recent column titled "George Bush is not a liar," is any evidence. In it, Gee repeats the lies the Bush neocons are furiously disseminating to persuade the people that Bush is not a liar.
Neo-con to Theo-con
The speech Harper gave to Civitas was the source of the charge made by the Liberals during the 2004 election -- sure to be revived in the next election -- that Harper has a scary, secret agenda. Harper urged a return to social conservatism and social values, to change gears from neocon to theocon, in The Report's Ted Byfield's apt but worrisome phrase, echoing visions of a future not unlike that painted in Margaret Atwood's dystopian work, A Handmaid's Tale.
The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values, Harper told the assembled conservatives. To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned fr om the party, he said, and alliances forged with ethnic and immigrant communities who currently vote Liberal but espouse traditional family values. This was the successful strategy counselled by the neocons under Ronald Reagan to pull conservative Democrats into the Republican tent.
Movement towards the goal must be "incremental," he said, so the public won't be spooked.
Regime change, one step at a time.
Donald Gutstein, a senior lecturer in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University, writes a regular media column for The Tyee.

A VOTE FOR STEPHEN HARPER IS LIKE GETTING A TEA-TOWELL FOR A BEDSHEET.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Website: http://www.paulwmroberts.com/

Bread and Circuses

2004-07-02T09:51:00.000-04:00

Take a look at this article by Robert Fisk called "Bread and Circus Trials in Iraq" -- well worth a read:
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07012004.html

THE FAKEOVER

2004-07-01T04:27:00.000-04:00

So in the end, America's enemies set the date. The handover of "full sovereignty" was secretly brought forward so that the ex-CIA intelligence officer who is now "Prime Minister" of Iraq could avoid another bloody offensive by America's enemies. What is supposed to be the most important date in Iraq's modern history was changed--like a birthday party--because it might rain on Wednesday.

Pitiful is the word that comes to mind. Here we were, handing "full sovereignty" to the people of Iraq ? "full", of course, providing we forget the 160,000 foreign soldiers whom the Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, has apparently asked to stay in Iraq, "full" providing we forget the 3,000 US diplomats in Baghdad who will constitute the largest US embassy in the world--without even telling the Iraqi people that we had changed the date.

Few, save of course for the Iraqis, understood the cruellest paradox of the event. For it was the new "Iraqi Foreign Minister" who chose to leak the "bringing forward" of sovereignty in Iraq at the Nato summit in Turkey. Thus was this new and unprecedented date in modern Iraqi history announced not in Baghdad but in the capital of the former Ottoman empire which once ruled Iraq. Alice in Wonderland could not have improved on this. The looking-glass reflects all the way from Baghdad to Washington. In its savage irony Ibsen might have done justice to the occasion. After all, what could have been more familiar than Allawi's appeal to Iraqis to fight "the enemies of the people".

Power was ritually handed over in legal documents. The new government was sworn in on the Koran. The US proconsul, Paul Bremer, formally shook hands with Mr Allawi and boarded his C130 to fly home, guarded by special forces men in shades.

It was difficult to remember that Mr Bremer was touted for his job more than a year ago because he was a "counter-terrorism" expert and that what he referred to as "dead-enders" [Baathist diehards] managed to turn almost an entire Iraqi population against the United States and Britain in just a few months.

According to Mr Allawi yesterday, the "dead-enders" and the "remnants" belonged to Saddam Hussein. Those of them who had not committed crimes could even join the new authorities, he announced. But it had already been made clear that Mr Allawi was pondering martial law, the sine qua non of every Arab dictatorship--this time to be imposed on an Arab state, heaven spare us, by a Western army led by an avowedly Christian government. Who was the last man to impose martial law on Iraqis? Wasn't it Saddam Hussein?

No, Mr Allawi and his chums--along with the convicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi, now dug up from his political grave--are not little Saddams. Indeed, it is Mr Allawi's claim to fame that he was a Saddam loyalist until he upped sticks and fled to London. He almost got assassinated by Saddam before--this by his own admission--he took the King's shilling (MI6) and the CIA's dollar and (again by his own admission) that of 12 other intelligence agencies.

Yesterday, Mr Allawi was talking of a "historical day". As far as the new Prime Minister is concerned, Iraqis were about to enjoy "full sovereignty". Those of us who put quotation marks around "liberation" in 2003 should now put quotation marks around "sovereignty". Doing this has become part of the reporting of the Middle East.

Perhaps most remarkable of all was Mr Allawi's demand that "mercenaries who come to Iraq from foreign countries" should leave Iraq. There are, of course, 80,000 Western "mercenaries" in Iraq, most of them wearing Western clothes. But of course, Mr Allawi was not speaking of these men. And herein lies a problem. There must come a time when we have to give up cliches, when we have to give up on the American nightmares. Al-Qa'ida does not have an original branch in Iraq. And the Iraqis didn't plan September 11, 2001.

But not to worry. The new Iraqi Prime Minister will soon introduce martial law --journalists who think they can escape criticism should reflect again--and thus we can all wait for a request for more American troops "at the formal request of the provincial government". Wait, then, for the first expulsion of journalists. Democratic elections will be held in Iraq, "it is hoped", within five months. Well, we shall see.

True, Mr Allawi promises a future Iraq with "a society of all Iraqis, irrespective of ethnicity, colour or religion." But the Iraqis who Mr Allawi promises to protect do not apparently include the 5,000 prisoners held in America's dubious camps across Iraq. At least 3,000 will remain captive, largely of the Americans.

There were many promises yesterday of a trial for Saddam Hussein and his colleagues although, not surprisingly, Iraqi lawyers felt there were other, more pressing issues to pursue. Paul Bremer abolished the death penalty in Iraq but Mr Allawi seems to want to bring it back. Asked whether Saddam might be executed, he remarked that "this is again something which is being debated in the judicial system in Iraq". He said, however, that he was in favour of capital punishment.

According to American sources, the United States has been putting pressure on Mr Allawi for at least two weeks in the hope that his ministries could--in theory, at least--function without US support. American advisers had already been withdrawn from many Iraqi institutions. Yet when he appeared yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke with words that might have come from George Bush. He warned "the forces of terror" that "we will not forget who stood with us and against us in this crisis". As the new "Cabinet" stepped forward to place their hands on the Koran, a large number of Iraqi flags lined the podium behind them--though not the strange blue and white banner which the former Interim Council had concocted two months ago.

The real problem for Mr Allawi is that he has to be an independent leader while relying upon an alien, Western and Christian force to support his rule. He cannot produce security without the assistance of an alien force. But he has no control over that force. He cannot order the Americans to leave. But here is the real question.

If Mr Allawi really intends to lead Iraq, the most powerful demonstration he could show would be to demand the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces. Within hours, he would be a hero in Iraq. The Americans would be finished. But does Mr Allawi have the wit to realise that this ultimate step might save him? Who can tell, at this critical and bloody hour? America's satraps have been known to turn traitor before. Yet the whole painful equation in Baghdad now is that Mr Allawi is relying on the one army whose evacuation he needs to prove his own credibility.

The Western occupying powers have left behind a raft of dubious legislation. Much of it allows Western companies to suck up the profits of reconstruction --an issue over which the Iraqis had no choice--and many people in the country have no interest in continuing Mr Bremer's occupation laws. No one, for example, is likely to spend a month in jail for driving without a licence. But why should US and other Western businesses have legal immunity from Iraqi law? When a British or American mercenary shoots dead an Iraqi, he cannot be taken to an Iraqi court.

But Mr Allawi relies upon these same mercenaries. Which is why, sadly and inevitably, he and his government will fail. The insurgency now has a life of its own--and a plan. If it can continue to maintain an independence struggle for nationalists within the Sunni Muslim areas north and west of Baghdad, then the Sunnis may also claim that they have the right to form Iraq's first independent, post-American government.

More Fascist Measures

2004-06-22T01:47:00.000-04:00

Calendar No. 499
108th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 108-258

======================================================================

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 FOR INTELLIGENCE AND
INTELLIGENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT, AND THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

_______

May 5, 2004.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Roberts, from the Select Committee on Intelligence, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. 2386]

The Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI or Committee),
having considered the original bill (S. 2386), to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and
the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System, and for other purposes reports an original bill without
amendment favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do
pass.

[Excerpt]

TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Section 501 removes the sunset provision associated with
Department of Defense authority to conduct commercial
activities necessary to provide security for intelligence
collection activities abroad. This authority was first granted
in 1991 (Public Law 102-88, Sec. 504) with a sunset date of
December 31, 1995. Since enactment in the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, the authority has been
extended on four occasions (Public Law 104-93, Public Law 105-
272, Public Law 106-398, and Public Law 107-314). Given these
four previous extensions and the importance of the authority to
Department of Defense intelligence activities, this provision
permanently extends the authority and the associated
requirements for the conduct of these activities.

[This is the domestic spying provision:]

Section 502 provides a necessary Defense intelligence
exemption to a provision of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a).
Section 552a(e)(3) of Title 5, United States Code, requires
each agency that maintains a system of records to inform each
individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form
which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form
that can be retained by the individual, of:
(A) the authority (whether granted by statute, or by
executive order of the President) which authorizes the
solicitation of the information and whether disclosure
of such information is mandatory or voluntary;
(B) the principal purpose or purposes for which the
information is intended to be used;
(C) the routine uses which may be made of the
information * * *; and
(D) the effects on [the individual], if any, of not
providing all or any part of the requested information.
To improve the ability of intelligence personnel of the
Department of Defense to recruit sources, it is necessary for
Defense intelligence personnel, without having to divulge their
affiliation with the Department or the U.S. Government, to
approach potential sources and collect personal information
from them to determine their suitability and willingness to
become intelligence sources.
The DCI has recognized that compliance with the
requirements of Section 552a(e)(3) has the potential to
threaten operational relationships, compromise the safety of
intelligence officers, and jeopardize intelligence sources and
methods. Pursuant to Section 552a(j)(1), the DCI has exempted
all systems of records maintained by CIA from the requirements
of Section 552a(e)(3). See 32 C.F.R. 1901.62(b). Section
552a(j)(2) grants a similar exemption to law enforcement
personnel. Compliance with Section 552a(e)(3) poses similar
risks to Defense intelligence personnel and to the Defense
Department's human intelligence mission.
Section 503 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-359) granted Defense
intelligence personnel a very limited exemption from Section
552a(e)(3), i.e., the exemption is limited to a single
``initial assessment contact outside the United States.''
Current counterterrorism operations highlight the need for
greater latitude for assessing potential intelligence sources,
both overseas and within the United States. Amending the
Privacy Act to give Defense intelligence officers the same
protection enjoyed by CIA when assessing and recruiting sources
should serve to protect these officers and shield their
operations. This should improve the Defense Department's
ability to conduct successful human intelligence operations.

[End excerpt]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - INTELLIGENCE

June 15, 2004 - 7:52 p.m.

Back to the Future: Pentagon Poised for Domestic Intelligence Ops
By Justin Rood, CQ Staff

The gloves will be off for domestic military intelligence operations if a provision inserted in the Senate's 2005 intelligence authorization bill (S 2386) stays in the legislation, civil liberties experts and privacy advocates say.

The Pentagon has long had the authority to conduct intelligence within the United States to protect its military personnel or bases against an attack, according to experts. But, during the Vietnam War, a scandal broke out when it was revealed that military agents had spied on civilians as well as soldiers for their political beliefs instead of their threat to the Defense Department's security.

Following the 1970 revelations of Christopher Pyle, then a graduate student at Columbia University, that the Pentagon spied against antiwar groups in the 1960s, Congress held hearings that resulted in recommendations that the Defense Department be barred from conducting domestic intelligence. But no new laws were created specifically prohibiting the practice.

"The Pentagon gave [Congress] strong assurances they would not return to domestic spying on civilian political activity," Pyle, now a professor at Mount Holyoke College, said by telephone Tuesday.

In 1974, the Privacy Act (PL 93-579) was signed into law, requiring representatives from most government agencies - including the Defense Department - to identify themselves when they collect information on U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens, and to identify the purpose of their information collection.

But language inserted in the Senate version of the intelligence authorization bill would exempt the Defense Department from those provisions, opening the door to an expanded authority to surreptitiously collect information on U.S. residents.

The change is necessary "to improve the ability of intelligence personnel of the Department of Defense to recruit sources," according to the committee report accompanying the bill.

Defense Department compliance with the Privacy Act provisions "poses . . . risks to Defense intelligence personnel and to the Defense Department's human intelligence mission," the report states.

There is also the risk of not being able to get people to talk to them.

"Typically," Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) spokesman Donald Black explained, "people are more inclined to open up and offer information if they don't feel threatened, quote unquote."

"Scratch that last comment," Black added. "People are more inclined to be open in a casual conversation, as opposed to if they feel like they're being interrogated."

An official with the Office of the Secretary of Defense put it more directly (but only on the condition that neither his name nor his title be used, because, he said, he had not spoken with an expert on the topic).

"In some cases, when you reveal you're an intelligence agent, people no longer talk to you," the official said. "If a person has nothing to hide, then they should have no reason not to talk to you."

DIA's Black explained that military intelligence agents would still be "obligated by the same rules" to tell people what information had been collected about them, if they requested it.

When asked if an agent might pose as a professor or activist or adopt another persona to obtain information, Black said no. "They aren't going to approach anyone under false pretenses."

Doing so, Black said, is a violation of ethics and practice. "It is not our function to operate that way," Black said.

"We're not trying to find out secret information on people's lives," said the DIA spokesman. "It's to enable us to make contacts with people in the U.S. who might have information that would be helpful in preventing harm or damage to our country, our security."

Domestic Disturbance?

"It does look like they are clearing the way for domestic intelligence collection," said Pyle, a former Army intelligence officer.

Civil liberties advocates share Pyle's view, and voiced concern.

"Keep in mind that the Privacy Act requirements only apply when U.S. citizens are involved," said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based privacy group. "What are the circumstances under which DOD intelligence agents would be dealing with U.S. citizens? That's where the concern comes from," Sobel said.

The Pentagon does not have a clear answer to Sobel's question. It insists that its domestic intelligence operations are strictly limited to analysis of information gathered by others - leaving Sobel and others to wonder why it needs an exemption to the Privacy Act.

Since its inception in October 2002, Northcom, the Pentagon's new Northern Command for U.S. and Canadian operations, has drawn the attention of civil liberties advocates wary of military - especially military intelligence - operations on U.S. soil.

"Other -coms - Southcom, for example, has enormous intelligence capabilities," said Joe Onek, a lawyer and policy specialist at the Washington, D.C.-based Open Society Policy Center, backed by liberal philanthropist George Soros, referring to the Pentagon's Southern Command. Southcom oversees defense operations in South and Central America. "Does Northcom intend to replicate it, and go into full-scale spying against the U.S.?" Onek wondered.

Although the scale of Northcom's current activities is not clear, its intent is discernible: Northcom is in the process of completing a $29 million intelligence center in Colorado Springs, Colo., staffed by intelligence analysts and connected to classified national security databases at other federal agencies.

"It's a matter of keeping up with the Joneses," said Pyle. "Everybody wants to collect their own intelligence, they don't want to rely on other people's intelligence. They can always get cut off, or they may not get it quick enough."

Pentagon representatives have insisted that Northcom's intelligence capability is limited to fusion and analysis.

"Our intelligence capability is purely analytical," a Northcom official told CQ Homeland Security last October.

Pyle reacted skeptically.

"That's what the Army intelligence command told its superiors in the 1960s, and it turned out not to be true," said Pyle, who now teaches constitutional law.

Men in Gray

Military intelligence operations in the United States "is one of the grayest of the gray areas," said Jim Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties organization.

Dempsey, an expert in intelligence policy, said he feels the draft language raises questions on top of questions.

"The military isn't supposed to be collecting information in the United States in the first place," Dempsey said. "But what about Northern Command? What are the rules that apply to them?

"It is dangerous to be creating exceptions when we don't even know what the rules are," Dempsey said.

There is one law that appears to clearly limit the Pentagon's ability to spy on Americans: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the Defense Department from engaging in law enforcement activity, and various court rulings have applied that to surveillance functions in support of law enforcement efforts.

The Senate Select Intelligence Committee reported the authorization bill on May 5, and it was referred to the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees on May 7.

The House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee is slated to mark up its version of the authorization bill in closed session on June 16.

In a curious twist of history, the ranking member, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., was staff director for the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights in the mid-1970s, when the body held its hearings into the military's intelligence abuses almost 30 years ago.

Harman's office did not return several calls Tuesday seeking comment on the matter.

Justin Rood can be reached via jrood@cq.com

Source: CQ Homeland Security
© 2004 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved

Write to Rumsfeld (or drop in if you are in Washington)

2004-06-22T01:37:00.000-04:00

DONALD RUMSFELD,
2206 KALORAMA ROAD NW
WASHINGTON, DC

and also

PAUL D. WOLFOWITZ,
5444 NEVADA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20015

and

RICHARD N. PERLE,
660 MARYLAND AVENUE NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20002

When you consider how many homes these people have helped to destroy, the destruction of their privacy seems trivial.

Office of Special Plans

2004-06-22T01:34:00.000-04:00

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.

The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.

The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.

James Bamford, A Pretext for War, 2004:

The blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically, the plan was orignally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benhamin Netanyahu. ... Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force's plan. But now, with the election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their preemptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.
Perle became chairman of the reinvigorated and powerful Defense Policy Board, packing it with like-minded neoconservative super-hawks anxious for battle. Feith was appointed to the highest policy position in the Pentagon, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Wurmser moved into a top policy position in the State Department before later becoming Cheney's top Middle East expert.

With the Pentagon now under Secretary of Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz -- both of whom had also long believed that Saddam Hussein should have been toppled during the first Gulf War -- the war planners were given free rein. What was needed, however, was a pretext -- perhaps a major crisis. "Crises can be opportunities," wrote Wurmser in his paper calling for an American-Israeli preemptive war throughout the Middle East. ...

As the move toward war began gaining momentum in late August 2002, Feith created another new organization, the Office of Special Plans. Its purpose was to conduct advance war planning for Iraq and one of its most important responsibilities was "media strategy." Above all, the office was Top Secret. Picked to head the OSP was still another longtime Perle protégé, Abram N. Shulsky.

Freedom of Information

2004-06-13T07:14:00.000-04:00

If you believe that FOI means you have the freedom to request any information, think again. There follows a list of documents obtained through FOI and next to them the actual secret document before censors got to it".
................................................................

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSGPH --CPUA 10/28/85 08:54:52
To: NSGPH --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 10/25/85 18:59

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: NSC Chop on Nicaragua Initiatives
Have advised Elliott that we concur in the two propsed and urged that they
also endorse [Two lines deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]
B NSC Chop on Nicaragua Initiatives

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSGPH --CPUA 10/28/85 08:54:52
To: NSGPH --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 10/25/85 18:59

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: NSC Chop on Nicaragua Initiatives
Have advised Elliott that we concur in the two propsed and urged that they
also endorse several additional reconnaissance overflights of Nicaragua
[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]
B NSC Chop on Nicaragua Initiatives

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 11/20/85 21:27:39
To: NSJMP --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 08/31/85 13:26

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: PRIVATE BLANK CHECK
Wrap Up as of 2030 EDT.
The Israelis will deliver 80 Mod Hawks [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] at noon
on Friday 22 Nov. These 80 will be loaded aboard three chartered aircraft,
owned by a proprietarywhich will take off at two hour intervals for Tabriz.
The aircraft will file for overflight through the [Deleted, (b)(1)(s)
exemption] PIB? enroute to Tabriz from [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]
Appropriate arrangements have been made with the proper [Deleted, (b)(1)(s)
exemption] air control personnel. Once the aircraft have been launched, their
departure will be confirmed by Ashghari who will call Kangarlu who will call
[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] who will direct [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]
in Beirut to collect the five rpt five Amcits from Hizballah and deliver tnem
to the U.S. Embassy. There is also the possibility that they will hand over
the French hostage who is very ill.
There is a requirement for 40 additional weaps of the same nomenclature for a
total requirement of 120. $18M in payment for the first 80 has been deposited
in the appropriate account. No acft will land in Tabriz until the AMCITS have
been delivered to the embassy. The Iranians have also asked to order
additional items in the future and have been told that they will be considered
after this activity has succeeded. All transfer arrangements have been made
by Dick Secord, who deserves a medal for his extraordinary short notice
efforts.

Replenishment arrangenments are being made through the MOD purchasing office
in NYC. There is to say the least, considerable anxiety that we will somehow
delay on their plan to purchase 120 of these weapons in the next few days.
IAW your instructions I have told their agent that we will sell them 120 items
at a price that they can meet. I have further told them that we will make no
effort to move on their purchase LOA request until we have all five AMCITS
safely delivered. In short the pressure is on them.

Tomorrow we will dispatch a covert hostage debrief team to Wiesbaden, under
cover of an exercise. Reggie will be told [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]
EUCOM will be told to prepare a C-141 for four-hour alert to pick up any
hostages who may be released over the weekend. All of the parties above will
be told that we have info (from the same source which advised us of Wier's
release) that some, if not all, AMCIT hostages will be turned over [Deleted,
(b)(1)(s) exemption] between now and Sunday.

As soon as we have the release confirmed, we need to move quickly with Defense
to provide the 120 missiles the Israelis want to buy. They are very concerned
that they are degrading their defense capability, and in view of the Syrian
shoot-down yesterday the PM has placed considerable pressure on both Rabin and
Kimche for very prompt replacement. Both called several times today.

There is the distinct possibility that at the end of the week we will have
five Americans home and the promise of no future hostage takings in exchange
for selling the Israelis 120 Mod HAWKS. Despite the difficulty of making all
this fit inside a 96-hour window, it isn't that bad a deal -- [Deleted,
(b)(1)(s) exemption] Warm regards. Recommend pass to RCM after review.
North.

J PRIVATE BLANK CHECK

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 11/20/85 21:27:39
To: NSJMP --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 08/31/85 13:26

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: PRIVATE BLANK CHECK
Wrap Up as of 2030 EDT.
The Israelis will deliver 80 Mod Hawks to Lisbon at noon on Friday 22 Nov.
These 80 will be loaded aboard three chartered aircraft, owned by a
proprietarywhich will take off at two hour intervals for Tabriz. The aircraft
will file for overflight through the [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] PIB [?]
enroute to Tabriz from Lisbon. Appropriate arrangements have been made with
the proper [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] air control personnel. Once the
aircraft have been launched, their departure will be confirmed by Ashghari who
will call Kangarlu who will call Nickham [?] (DCM in Damascus) who will direct
IRG commander in Beirut to collect the five rpt five Amcits from Hizballah and
deliver tnem to the U.S. Embassy. There is also the possibility that they
will hand over the French hostage who is very ill.
There is a requirement for 40 additional weaps of the same nomenclature for a
total requirement of 120. $18M in payment for the first 80 has been deposited
in the appropriate account. No acft will land in Tabriz until the AMCITS have
been delivered to the embassy. The Iranians have also asked to order
additional items in the future and have been told that they will be considered
after this activity has succeeded. All transfer arrangements have been made
by Dick Secord, who deserves a medal for his extraordinary short notice
efforts.

Replenishment arrangenments are being made through the MOD purchasing office
in NYC. There is to say the least, considerable anxiety that we will somehow
delay on their plan to purchase 120 of these weapons in the next few days.
IAW your instructions I have told their agent that we will sell them 120 items
at a price that they can meet. I have further told them that we will make no
effort to move on their purchase LOA request until we have all five AMCITS
safely delivered. In short the pressure is on them.

Tomorrow we will dispatch a covert hostage debrief team to Wiesbaden, under
cover of an exercise. Reggie will be told [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]
EUCOM will be told to prepare a C-141 for four-hour alert to pick up any
hostages who may be released over the weekend. All of the parties above will
be told that we have info (from the same source which advised us of Wier's
release) that some, if not all, AMCIT hostages will be turned over [Deleted,
(b)(1)(s) exemption] between now and Sunday.

As soon as we have the release confirmed, we need to move quickly with Defense
to provide the 120 missiles the Israelis want to buy. They are very concerned
that they are degrading their defense capability, and in view of the Syrian
shoot-down yesterday the PM has placed considerable pressure on both Rabin and
Kimche for very prompt replacement. Both called several times today.

There is the distinct possibility that at the end of the week we will have
five Americans home and the promise of no future hostage takings in exchange
for selling the Israelis 120 Mod HAWKS. Despite the difficulty of making all
this fit inside a 96-hour window, it isn't that bad a deal -- [Deleted,
(b)(1)(s) exemption] Warm regards. Recommend pass to RCM after review.
North.

J PRIVATE BLANK CHECK

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSFH --CPUA 12/09/85 08:39:13
To: NSFH --CPUA

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: ACTION [Deleted, (b)(1)(2)(s) exemption] on [Deleted, (b)(1)(2)(s)
exemption]
Wd you pls see if you can quietly obtain the referenced memo # [Deleted,
(b)(2)(s) exemption]
*** Forwarding note from NSJT --CPUA 11/25/85 16:16 ***
To: NSOLN --CPUA

NOTE FROM: Jackie Tillman
SUBJECT: ACTION [Deleted, (b)(1)(2)(s) exemption] on [Deleted, (b)(1)(2)(s)
exemption]
Ollie, don't miss the last sentence of page 1 of this memorandum because that
must be where the ballgame is going to be played.
ACTION [Deleted, (b)(1)(2)(s) exemption] on [Deleted, (b)(1)(2)(s)
exemption]

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSFH --CPUA 12/09/85 08:39:13
To: NSFH --CPUA

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: ACTION 9452 on Angola
Wd you pls see if you can quietly obtain the referenced memo #9452
*** Forwarding note from NSJT --CPUA 11/25/85 16:16 ***
To: NSOLN --CPUA

NOTE FROM: Jackie Tillman
SUBJECT: ACTION 9452 on Angola
Ollie, don't miss the last sentence of page 1 of this memorandum because that
must be where the ballgame is going to be played.
ACTION 9542 on Angola

MSG FROM: NSJMP --CPUA TO: NSOLN --CPUA 01/08/86 11:45:57
To: NSOLN --CPUA OLLIE NORTH

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER
SUBJECT: [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]
PLEASE DO NOT REVEAL TO THE PENTAGON THAT [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] WAS
IN TO SEE ME LAST NIGHT. IT WAS A CHANCE MEETING AND I DO NOT WANT TO GET HIM
IN TROUBLE. HE DID RAISE ON ITEM THAT BOTHERS ME. HE SAID THAT ON THE PAST
SEVERAL [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] THEIR PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN
[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] TEAMS. IS THERE A REASON FOR THIS? CAN WE
STRAIGHTEN IT OUT?
[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]

MSG FROM: NSJMP --CPUA TO: NSOLN --CPUA 01/08/86 11:45:57
To: NSOLN --CPUA OLLIE NORTH

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER
SUBJECT: DELTA FORCE
PLEASE DO NOT REVEAL TO THE PENTAGON THAT THE DELTA COMMANDER WAS IN TO SEE ME
LAST NIGHT. IT WAS A CHANCE MEETING AND I DO NOT WANT TO GET HIM IN TROUBLE.
HE DID RAISE ON ITEM THAT BOTHERS ME. HE SAID THAT ON THE PAST SEVERAL
[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] THEIR PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN
[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] TEAMS. IS THERE A REASON FOR THIS? CAN WE
STRAIGHTEN IT OUT?
DELTA FORCE

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJC --CPUA 02/13/86 21:03:50
To: NSJC --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 02/13/86 09:30

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: [Deleted, (b)(1)(3)(s) exemption]
Have talked directly to his boss, Buck Revell and told Buck that we do not
want to scare this guy off and asked Revell to have [Deleted, (b)(7)(c)
exemption] or his boss to contact you to determine what problem may be. There
were no mutterings this time over obstruction of justice, but it may be good
to have a quiet conversation w/ [Deleted, (b)(7)(c) exemption] to see if maybe
he is calling to advise that his [Deleted, (b)(7)(c) exemption] guidance had
changed and what he is now thinking about. Regards, North
[Deleted, (b)(1)(3)(s) exemption]

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJC --CPUA 02/13/86 21:03:50
To: NSJC --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 02/13/86 09:30

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: FBI versus CIA over [Deleted, (b)(1)(3)(s) exemption]
Have talked directly to his boss, Buck Revell and told Buck that we do not
want to scare this guy off and asked Revell to have Nestor or his boss to
contact you to determine what problem may be. There were no mutterings this
time over obstruction of justice, but it may be good to have a quiet
conversation w/ Nestor to see if maybe he is calling to advise that his
(Nestor's) guidance had changed and what he is now thinking about. Regards,
North
FBI versus CIA over [Deleted, (b)(1)(3)(s) exemption]

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRCM --CPUA 02/27/86 08:54:13
To: NSRCM --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 02/22/86 17:11

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: How are things?
Just returned last night from mtg w/ [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] in
Frankfurt. If nothing else the meeting serves to emphasize the need for direct
copntact with these people rather than continue the process by which we deal
through intermediaries like Gorbanifahr. Because CIA wd not provide a
translator for the sessions, we used Albert Hakim, an AMCIT who runs the
European operation for our Nicaraguan resistance support activity. Tom Twetten
accompanied so that I wd have someone along who wd provide an "objective"
account.

Throughout the session, Gorbanifahr intentionally distorted much of the
translation and had to be corrected by our man on occasions so numerous that
[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] finally had Albert translate both ways.
Assesment of mtg & agreement we reached as follows: --[Deleted, (b)(1)(s)
exemption] has authority to make his own decisions on matters of great import.
--He does not have to check back w/ Tehran on decisions take. -- The govt. of
Iran is terrified of a new Soviet threat. --They are seeking a rapprochment
but are filled w/ fear & mistrust. --All hostages will be released during rpt
during the next meeting. --They want next mtg urgently and have suggested
Qeshm Is. off Bandar Abbas. --They are less interested in the Iran/Iraq war
than we originally believed. --They want technical advice more than arms or
intelligence. --Tech advice shd be on commercial & military maintenence - not
mil tactics --They committed to end anti-U.S. terrorism. --They noted the
problems of working thru intermediaries & prefer dir. contact -- [Deleted,
(b)(1)(s) exemption] noted that this was first USG/GOI contact in more than
5yrs. Vy important-- [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] recognizes risks to both
sides -- noted need for secrecy. --[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] stressed
that there were new Sov. moves/threats that we were unaware of while all of
this could be so much smoke, I believe that we may well be on the verge of a
major breakthrough - not only to go to this meeting which has no agenda other
than to listen to each other to release the hostages and start the process.
Have briefed both JMP and Casey -- neither very enthusiastic despite
Twetten/North summary along lines above. Believe that you shd be chartered to
go early next wf - or maybe this weekend - but don't know how to make this
happen. Have not told JMP that this note is being sent. Help. Pls call on
secure yr earliest convenience. Warm, but fatigued regards, North
2 How are things?

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRCM --CPUA 02/27/86 08:54:13
To: NSRCM --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 02/22/86 17:11

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: How are things?
Just returned last night from mtg w/ Kangarlu in Frankfurt. If nothing else
the meeting serves to emphasize the need for direct copntact with these people
rather than continue the process by which we deal through intermediaries like
Gorbanifahr. Because CIA wd not provide a translator for the sessions, we used
Albert Hakim, an AMCIT who runs the European operation for our Nicaraguan
resistance support activity. Tom Twetten accompanied so that I wd have someone
along who wd provide an "objective" account.

Throughout the session, Gorbanifahr intentionally distorted much of the
translation and had to be corrected by our man on occasions so numerous that
Kangarlu finally had Albert translate both ways. Assesment of mtg & agreement
we reached as follows: --Kangarlu has authority to make his own decisions on
matters of great import. --He does not have to check back w/ Tehran on
decisions take. -- The govt. of Iran is terrified of a new Soviet threat.
--They are seeking a rapprochment but are filled w/ fear & mistrust. --All
hostages will be released during rpt during the next meeting. --They want next
mtg urgently and have suggested Qeshm Is. off Bandar Abbas. --They are less
interested in the Iran/Iraq war than we originally believed. --They want
technical advice more than arms or intelligence. --Tech advice shd be on
commercial & military maintenence - not mil tactics --They committed to end
anti-U.S. terrorism. --They noted the problems of working thru intermediaries
& prefer dir. contact --K. noted that this was first USG/GOI contact in more
than 5yrs. Vy important-- K. recognizes risks to both sides -- noted need for
secrecy. --K. stressed that there were new Sov. moves/threats that we were
unaware of while all of this could be so much smoke, I believe that we may
well be on the verge of a major breakthrough - not only to go to this meeting
which has no agenda other than to listen to each other to release the hostages
and start the process. Have briefed both JMP and Casey -- neither very
enthusiastic despite Twetten/North summary along lines above. Believe that you
shd be chartered to go early next wf - or maybe this weekend - but don't know
how to make this happen. Have not told JMP that this note is being sent. Help.
Pls call on secure yr earliest convenience. Warm, but fatigued regards, North
2 How are things?

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRCM --CPUA 02/27/86 20:11:51
To: NSRCM --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 02/27/86 16:02

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: Exchanges
Since the missive of this morning, met w/ Casey, JMP, Twetten, Clair George
and all have now agreed to press on. Believe we are indeed headed in the right
direction. Just finished lengthy session w/ JMP he indicated that he has
passed substance to you and has given me dates that you are not avail.

Will endeavor to sched. mtg so that these do not conflict but noted to JMP
that it was their call as to date of mtg. Just rec'd msg fm Secord via secure
device we are using. [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] has again reaffirmed that
once we have set a date we shall have a very pleasant surprise. Dick & I
believe that they may be preparing to release one of the hostages early. Dick
also indicated that yr counterpart at the mtg wd be Rafsanjani. Nice crowd you
run with! God willing Shultz will buy onto this tomorrow when JMP brief him.
With the grace of the good Lord and a little more hard work we will very soon
have five AMCITS home and be on our way to a much more positive relationship
than one which barters TOWs for lives.

I value our frienship and confidence very highly and did not mean to infer
that you revealed these exchanges. By asking that you not indicate same to JMP
I was only informing that I had not told him anything of it so as not to
compromise myself at a point in time when he needs to be absolutely certain
that this can work. He is, as only you can know, under tremendous pressure on
this matter and very concerned that it go according to plan. My part in this
was easy compared to his. I only had to deal with our enemies. He has to deal
with
the cabinet.Many thanks for yr trust. Warm regards, North
Exchanges

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRCM --CPUA 02/27/86 20:11:51
To: NSRCM --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 02/27/86 16:02

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: Exchanges
Since the missive of this morning, met w/ Casey, JMP, Twetten, Clair George
and all have now agreed to press on. Believe we are indeed headed in the right
direction. Just finished lengthy session w/ JMP he indicated that he has
passed substance to you and has given me dates that you are not avail.

Will endeavor to sched. mtg so that these do not conflict but noted to JMP
that it was their call as to date of mtg. Just rec'd msg fm Secord via secure
device we are using. Kangarlu has again reaffirmed that once we have set a
date we shall have a very pleasant surprise. Dick & I believe that they may be
preparing to release one of the hostages early. Dick also indicated that yr
counterpart at the mtg wd be Rafsanjani. Nice crowd you run with! God willing
Shultz will buy onto this tomorrow when JMP brief him. With the grace of the
good Lord and a little more hard work we will very soon have five AMCITS home
and be on our way to a much more positive relationship than one which barters
TOWs for lives.

I value our frienship and confidence very highly and did not mean to infer
that you revealed these exchanges. By asking that you not indicate same to JMP
I was only informing that I had not told him anything of it so as not to
compromise myself at a point in time when he needs to be absolutely certain
that this can work. He is, as only you can know, under tremendous pressure on
this matter and very concerned that it go according to plan. My part in this
was easy compared to his. I only had to deal with our enemies. He has to deal
with
the cabinet.Many thanks for yr trust. Warm regards, North
Exchanges

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSFH --CPUA 04/21/86 11:44:01
To: NSFH --CPUA

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: SYSTEM II 90316
Please so stamp. What is it?
*** Forwarding note from NSBTM --CPUA 04/21/86 10:15 ***
To: NSFH --CPUA

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: BRIAN T MERCHANT
SUBJECT: SYSTEM II 90316
State Dept called & asked that this paper be stamped SECRET. It came in as
unclassified.

Thaks.

cc: NSOLN --CPUA NSPWL --CPUA
t SYSTEM II 90316

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSFH --CPUA 04/22/86 12:26:58
To: NSFH --CPUA

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: Sy II [Deleted, (b)(2) exemption]
Please bring this in as soon as it gets here.
*** Forwarding note from NSWGH --CPUA 04/22/86 12:09 ***
To: NSOLN --CPUA

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: WILMA HALL
SUBJECT: Sy II [Deleted, (b)(2) exemption]

Is being returned to you with note from Don:

Ollie, please redo the [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] to reflect the
President's clear guidance to [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] and to avoid
[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]

cc: NSRBM --CPUA

Sy II [Deleted, (b)(2) exemption]

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSVMC --CPUA 04/30/86 18:08:04
To: NSVMC --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 04/30/86 16:08

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: Libyan [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]
At one of those mtgs several weeks ago, I offered [Two lines deleted,
(b)(1)(s) exemption] The CIA spurned the offer. [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]
Libyan [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSVMC --CPUA 04/30/86 18:08:04
To: NSVMC --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 04/30/86 16:08

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: Libyan Radios
At one of those mtgs several weeks ago, I offered the use of a Danish flag
600dwt merchant ship w/ a foreign crew of 4 as a platform for the radio. For
a nominal fee, the master wd have taken the equipment plus techs aboard as a
service to our country. The CIA spurned the offer. The ship is available
now.
Libyan Radios

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSVMC --CPUA 05/05/86 15:28:30
To: NSVMC --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 05/05/86 11:48

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: Your Ship
If someone will simply give me [One and a half lines deleted, (b)(1)(s)
exemption] in two weeks -- not two months. Why don't we just forget aboutthe
cost and we'll do it ourselves. Can you get the above for me?
r Your Ship

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSVMC --CPUA 05/05/86 15:28:30
To: NSVMC --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 05/05/86 11:48

-- SECRET --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: Your Ship
If someone will simply give me the tapes of what you want, and the frequency
you want it broadcast on, I will cause the broadcasts to begin in two weeks --
not two months. Why don't we just forget aboutthe cost and we'll do it
ourselves. Can you get the above for me?
r Your Ship

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 06/03/86 11:42:43
To: NSJMP --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 05/31/86 10:21

-- TOP SECRET --

NOTE FROM: TRIP XXXX
Subject: HOSTAGES
Fully agree that if the current effort fails to achieve release then such a
mission should be considered. You will recall that we have not had much sucess
with this kind of endeavor in the past, however. [One line deleted, (b)(1)(s)
exemption] Copp undertook to see what could be done thru one of the earlier
[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] contacts. Dick has been working with Nir on
this [One line deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] Dick rates the possibility of
success on this operation as 30%, but that's better than nothing.

In regard to U.S. military rescue ops, JCS has steadfastly refused to go
beyond the initial thinking stage unless we can develop some hard intelligence
on their whereabouts. We already have [Two lines deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]
If we are really serious, we should start by getting CIA to put a full time
analyst on the HLTF and then organizing a planning cell- preferably not in the
pentagon, but at CIA, to put the operation together. Dick, who has been in
Beirut, and who organized the second Hcan[?] mission, is convinced that such
an operation could indeed be conducted. My concern in this regard is that JCS
wd insist on using most of the [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] in such an
undertaking. If you want me to task this thru the OSG we will do so, but
urge that we start by you having Casey staff the HLTF as directed.
@ HOSTAGES

MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 06/03/86 11:42:43
To: NSJMP --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 05/31/86 10:21

-- TOP SECRET --

NOTE FROM: TRIP XXXX
Subject: HOSTAGES
Fully agree that if the current effort fails to achieve release then such a
mission should be considered. You will recall that we have not had much sucess
with this kind of endeavor in the past, however. After CIA took so long to
organize and then botched the Kilburn effort. Copp undertook to see what could
be done thru one of the earlier DEA developed Druze contacts. Dick has been
working with Nir on this and now has three people in Beirut and a 40 man Druze
force working "for" us. Dick rates the possibility of success on this
operation as 30%, but that's better than nothing.

In regard to U.S. military rescue ops, JCS has steadfastly refused to go
beyond the initial thinking stage unless we can develop some hard intelligence
on their whereabouts. We already have [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] one ISA
officer in Beirut but no effort has been made to insert personnel since we
withdrew the military mission to the LAF?. If we are really serious, we should
start by getting CIA to put a full time analyst on the HLTF and then
organizing a planning cell- preferably not in the pentagon, but at CIA, to put
the operation together. Dick, who has been in Beirut, and who organized the
second Hcan? mission, is convinced that such an operation could indeed be
conducted. My concern in this regard is that JCS wd insist on using most of
the tier 2 and 3 forces in such an undertaking. If you want me to task this
thru the OSG we will do so, but urge that we start by you having Casey staff
the HLTF as directed.
@ HOSTAGES

FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 09/10/86 08:32:46
To: NSJMP --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 09/02/86 16:03

-- CONFIDENTIAL --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: Iran
Ref our discussion yesterday on Don Gregg's interviews with the Wash Post and
NYT: Don and I had a rather lengthy discussion of the issue yesterday, and
last night he called to ask what I thought of his responding to a USN&W
request for an interview on the matter. I told him that he ought to refer them
to Bob Oakley - who is - by agreement in the community - the public spokesman
on our C/T policy, etc. He said he would. This morning, Doug Menarchik advised
that Don et al were meeting with Italian journalistsre implementation of the
VP task force report. I have a call in to Don who is not in yet. I am
increasingly concerned about this independent operation. In addition to the
points in the paper to you yesterday there are the following additional
matters: -- we are working a [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] effort on the
[Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] in [Three lines deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption]

-- We also have a politicallyexplosive perception of a rift between RR and the
VP on the implementation of the VP Task Force report. Terrorism is a volatile
enough issue without the press creating divisions where there are none. NSDD
207 charges you with the responsibility for implementing the report - n not
Don Gregg. If someone wants a story on that they shd see you.

Would you, at yr earliest convenience, talk to the VP and urge that we put a
stop to thgis craziness. It is doing nothing to help - and is potentially very
damaging. V/R, North
2 Iran

FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 09/10/86 08:32:46
To: NSJMP --CPUA

*** Reply to note of 09/02/86 16:03

-- CONFIDENTIAL --

NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH
Subject: Iran
Ref our discussion yesterday on Don Gregg's interviews with the Wash Post and
NYT: Don and I had a rather lengthy discussion of the issue yesterday, and
last night he called to ask what I thought of his responding to a USN&W
request for an interview on the matter. I told him that he ought to refer them
to Bob Oakley - who is - by agreement in the community - the public spokesman
on our C/T policy, etc. He said he would. This morning, Doug Menarchik advised
that Don et al were meeting with Italian journalistsre implementation of the
VP task force report. I have a call in to Don who is not in yet. I am
increasingly concerned about this independent operation. In addition to the
points in the paper to you yesterday there are the following additional
matters: -- we are working a very sensitive public diplomacy effort on the
[Three lines deleted, (b)(1)(c)]

-- We also have a politicallyexplosive perception of a rift between RR and the
VP on the implementation of the VP Task Force report. Terrorism is a volatile
enough issue without the press creating divisions where there are none. NSDD
207 charges you with the responsibility for implementing the report - n not
Don Gregg. If someone wants a story on that they shd see you.

Would you, at yr earliest convenience, talk to the VP and urge that we put a
stop to thgis craziness. It is doing nothing to help - and is potentially very
damaging. V/R, North

MSG FROM: NSGVE --CPUA TO: PROFSADM--CPUA 03/02/87 08:08:19
To: PROFSADM--CPUA

FROM: GEORGE VAN ERON
Subject: classifying PROF notes
Please do. the one closest to their hearts is to set up a system that will NOT
allow the staff to send a prof note without indicating its classification. IF
that is possible, I need it to be as easy to do with mlnimal interruption or
loss of response time. A check list would be excellent i.e.
Unclas/Conf/Secr/TopSecret/Codeword.
Please march on as quickly as possible. thanks.
*** Forwarding note from PROFSADM--CPUA 03/02/87 08:01 ***
To: NSGVE --CPUA G. Van Eron

From: Profs Office
Phone X6330, Rm 448 OEOB
Subject: classifying PROF notes

I'll start working on this today.
*** Forwarding note from NSGVE --CPUA 02/25/87 07:06 ***

FROM: GEORGE VAN ERON
Subject: classifying PROf notes
We can start next week. I got a new 'order' yesterday from management to work
it out. I am most interested in the immediate one that would allow us to have
standard line in our personal profile i.e. This Note is classified (blank)
with the capability to overrlde. I used to be able to do that. Check with John
or someone..Thanks. (FYI: I discussed this with McGovern yesterday since my
heirarchy wants me to get something going on this next week.) thanks.
*** Forwarding note from PROFSADM--CPUA 02/24/87 09:51 ***
To: NSGVE --CPUA G. Van Eron

From: Profs Office
Phone X6330, Rm 448 OEOB
Subject: classifying PROf notes

If I start working on it now, PROFS version 2 may not be ready to come up this
weekend. Your call.
*** Forwarding note from NSGVE --CPUA 02/24/87 09:50 ***
To: PROFSADM--CPUA

FROM: GEORGE VAN ERON
Subject: classifying PROF notes
let's put it this way -- they want the notes appropriately classified. the
sooner the better. Can you work it in....can we talk about the options this
afternoon.
*** Forwarding note from PROFSADM--CPUA 02/24/87 08:55 ***
To: NSGVE --CPUA G. Van Eron

From: Profs Office
Phone X6330, Rm 448 OEOB
Subject: classifying PROF notes

I'll give them all some thought, do you want this to have priority over
bringing up the new version of PROFS ?
*** Forwarding note from NSGVE --CPUA 02/20/87 15:43 ***
To: PROFSADM--CPUA

FROM: GEORGE VAN ERON
SUBJECT: classifying PROF notes

Please explore: Can we centrally locate the following data on the top and
bottom of each note: This note is classified: (and then allow the remainder of
the line to be filled in with the appropriate classfication -- I tried but I
cannot enter the data after the word classified.

Also, can you set the above up so that the originator cannot get off the note
until he entered something on that line......

Also can you have a check menu created for a note where we can check off teh
appropriate classification.

please advise. thanks.

cc: NSGVE --CPUA

MSG FROM: NSGVE --CPUA TO: PROFSADM--CPUA 03/13/87 09:24:32
To: PROFSADM--CPUA BISHOP --VAXC

FROM: GEORGE VAN ERON
SUBJECT: VP Userids
Grant Green approved allowing the VP's foreign affairs staff to have access to
PROFS, we are giving them 4 userids.

Owens is the only one that will receive electronic cable traffic. At some
point, as you know, electronic cables will be exclusively on the VAX. Can
someone take a look-see down there and find out if you can give him a VT.

Beyond the hardware, I continue to be concerned that whoever has a VT has
access to ALL cables. As you know, Grant is also concerned about that
specifically for the NSC but it becomes even more critlcal as VP users come on
board. we need the software that will block unlimited access to the cables.
Please advise. thanks.

cc: NSGVE --CPUA NSGSG --CPUA
NSWRP --CPUA

VP userids

If it walks, talks and yacks like a Stooge...

2004-06-12T17:16:00.000-04:00

The Quality of Quislings

These are not America's puppets. This is a terrific list and really good government, and we're very pleased with the names that emerged.

-- Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor

The selection of Ghazi al-Yawer as the president of "sovereign" Iraq has been spun by the mainstream media as a victory for the more independent-minded members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council over the Coalition Provisional Authority (i.e., U.S. occupation regime) headed by Paul Bremer III, as well as Lakhdar Brahimi, special adviser to UN General-Secretary Kofi Annan. The latter two are said to have strongly favored octogenarian Adnan Pachachi (whose father, uncle, and father-in-law were all Iraqi premiers) for the largely ceremonial post. Sunni nationalist, former foreign minister (in the 1960s), long-time resident of the United Arab Emirates and London, adviser to of Jordan's King Abdullah, leader of the Iraqi Independent Democrats Movement, fluent English-speaker, frequent traveler to America and reliably pro-U.S., Pachachi seemed to enjoy greater popularity than al-Yawer and for that reason might provide the new (puppet) government greater legitimacy.

Bremer is depicted as lecturing the IGC on the superiority of his candidate, the one also favored by Brahimi (whose daughter, by the way, is engaged to marry a son of King Abdullah), and delaying the vote by a day to get his way. However, the story goes, the IGC showed surprising independence (during negotiations described as "bitter," "frantic," and "grueling"), insisting on al-Yawer, whom the Americans only reluctantly accepted to fill the job, after Pachachi, offered it, declined citing "elements in the Iraqi political class who were against me." (Subsequently, Pachachi has blamed his rival and long-time CIA operative Ahmad Chalabi---now on the outs with the Bush administration and accused of serving as an Iranian spy---for sabotaging his candidacy through a "shabby conspiracy" to depict him as "a puppet of the U.S."

President Bush states simply that Brahimi, as assigned, made the selection. "I had no role in picking, zero," he said June 1. "It was Mr. Brahimi's selections." But Brahimi for his part asserts, "Bremer is the dictator of Iraq. He has the money. He has the signature. Nothing happens without his agreement in this country" CNN on the other hand, cites an Iraqi-American businessman, who says that since the Governing Council selected al-Yawar instead of Pachachi "I don't think it's really a puppet government." That lets the U.S. off the hook and allows CNN to declare confidently: "The bottom line: Iraqis politicians took control of this process."

Then there's the (more important) prime minister's position. Brahimi initially wanted Hassain al-Shahristani, a devout Shiite close to Imam Ali al-Sistani (whose support could be crucial to U.S. plans) and nuclear scientist imprisoned under Saddam Hussein. He fit the bill specified by Washington: "a Shia Muslim who was not too close to any faction or party, but also not so much of a technocrat that he had no political standing." But initial reports in Washington that he had been chosen for the post were contradicted by Brahimi after al-Shahristani allegedly turned down the offer. Reportedly his Persian surname was an issue. Instead (again) the Governing Council had its way and chose, with enthusiasm, Dr. Ayad Allawi, a British-educated neurosurgeon, secular Shiite, and leader of the Iraqi National Accord, again showing its independence from the U.S. (But asked about the selection, Brahimi states diplomatically, "The Americans were governing this country, so their view was certainly taken into consideration. Whether Dr Allawi was their choice, whether they manoeuvered to get him, you know, in position--- that, I think, you better ask them.") The Guardian reports he "was taken off guard" by the selection that Bush, as noted above, attributes to him.

Okay, anyway, so who are these Iraqi-chosen independent helmsmen of sovereign Iraq? Ghazi al-Yawer, civil engineer, nephew to the chieftain of the powerful Shammar tribe and descendent of Iraqi parliamentarians, studied at Georgetown University in the United States and then in Saudi Arabia, where he lived in exile for two decades. He was (is?) vice-president of Hicap Technology, a telecommunications and perimeter security systems company in Riyadh. With flowing gown and Arab headdress, he may strike a more sympathetic chord among Iraqi nationalists than Allawi, who prefers western suits. He has been depicted repeatedly as "a critic of the occupation," and indeed criticized the first draft of the Anglo-American UN resolution supporting the establishment of an interim regime in Iraq. The plan, he declared "falls short" in failing to restore full sovereignty to Iraq, and by allowing only limited control over U.S. troops in the country. He has condemned U.S. tactics in Fallujah and stated that the U.S. is responsible for the deplorable security situation in the country. "We blame the United States 100 percent for the security in Iraq. They occupied the country, disbanded the security agencies and for 10 months left Iraq's borders open for anyone to come in without a visa or even a passport." But he has also stated "We should remember our friends who fell during the battle to liberate Iraq" and expressed opposition to attacks on U.S. and other foreign troops. Since his position is largely ceremonial, his criticism of the opposition may actually serve the latter's interests, by providing a show of harmless dissent abetting the global projection of a Free Iraq.

Al-Yawer is participating in the Group of Eight meeting in Georgia. Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia were also invited but declined to attend, considering the invitations demeaning. This is because they came in connection with the "Greater Middle East Initiative" (supposedly for "democracy") that Bush has been peddling since the fall of 2002, and which plainly represents interference in sovereign states' affairs. Al-Yawer's presence shows his willingness to join such reliables as Jordan, Tunisia and Bahrain in contributing legitimacy to the trumpeted "democratic" Initiative, which is really, of course, a neocon-initiated "regime change" project. "We're pulling for him," said Bush in Georgia. "I'm going to thank him for having the courage to stand up and lead and tell him that America will help him." In turn, al-Yawer says, "We are working together. These people are in our country to help us." Almost sounds like a cozy relationship.

What of Ayad Allawi, the more important figure? He is even more Washington's stooge, by common report a longtime MI-6 and CIA operative. A Baath Party member from his teens, he studied in Britain in the 1960s, when, according to a classmate quoted by al-Jazeera, he "spent his time dealing with assassins, doing the dirty work for the Iraqi government, until his time was up and he became their target." He became a "close aide" to Saddam Hussein, but had a falling out with the Iraqi leader by the 1970s, after which he went into exile in Britain and made his services available to MI-6. There, in 1978, he narrowly escaped death in an assassination attempt. He forged a relationship with the CIA; according to Samuel R. Berger, national security adviser in the Clinton administration, "Unlike [Ahmad] Chalabi, he was someone who was trusted by the regional governments. He was less flamboyant, less promotional."

The CIA and MI-6 backed Allawi's organization, the Iraqi National Accord.

The Washington Post (June 8) cites "several former intelligence officials" as stating that that organization "intent on deposing Saddam Husseinsent agents into Baghdad in the early 1990's to plant bombs and sabotage government facilities under the direction of the C.I.A."

Former CIA officer Robert Baer recalls that a bombing during that period "blew up a school bus; schoolchildren were killed." In the mid-1990s, Baghdad claimed that terrorists had exploded a bomb in a movie theater, producing many civilian casualties; CIA officials state that Allawi's group was the only such organization engaging in bombings and sabotage at that time. It almost sounds as if the new Prime Minister has a background in terrorism.

In 2002, Allawi's Iraqi National Accord received attention when it passed on to the British government a report that Saddam's regime could fire germ warfare missiles as far as Cyprus within 45 minutes of giving the order. Published in a dossier in September 2002, the report helped prepare British public opinion for the Iraq war. In January 2004 a New York spokesman for Allawi acknowledged this was in fact "a crock of shit." Almost sounds like the new Prime Minister is a bald-faced liar. And then there's the story about that supposed top-secret, hand-written memo by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service revealed to the world last December. I have referred to it as "the neocons' dream memo" since it implausibly describes a three-day "work programme" undertaken by none other than Chief 9-11 Hijacker Mohammed Atta at a Baghdad base of Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal in 1991, and refers to a "Niger shipment" of some unspecified material arriving in Iraq via Libya and Syria.

Who confirmed the authenticity of the memo, released through the Iraqi Governing Council? Why, none other than Dr. Allawi! And since each element of the putative al-Tikriti memo had been already debunked by U.S. intelligence, and only kept afloat by the most duplicitous of the neocons, it almost sounds like the Prime Minister is an especially shameless bald-faced liar and abject puppet of his imperialist sponsors. (Interesting, too, that it first appeared in The Daily Telegraph, owned by Conrad Black, and part of the Hollinger Group on whose board of directors sits Richard Perle, Black buddy and leading warmongering neocon.)

In his speech to the nation following his appointment, Allawi thanked the occupation "led by the Americans who have sacrificed so much to liberate us." (Other new government officials have avoided such effusive language, knowing how it grates on the sensibilities of average Iraqis.) He declared that the nation will need further help "in defeating the enemies of Iraq." I must doubt that this gentleman is in any way less useful to the ongoing imperialist project in Iraq than Mr. al-Shahristani might have been had he been appointed to the post, or that al-Yawer is appreciably less useful than Pachachi might have been. While their compatriots accused of complicity in "insurgency" against an illegal invading force are paraded naked, smeared with excrement, piled into naked pyramids, raped and murdered, these gentlemen are generously accorded the veneer of dignity. Such dignity is necessary to confer some credibility, and thus compensate for the credibility gap unexpectedly produced by the unfortunate exposure of the occupiers' true face. So Allawi and al-Yawer, the face of Iraqi sovereignty, no puppets, mind you, but men (in Bush's words) "with the courage to stand up and lead" with America's courageous help.

Canada Involved in Transfer of Nuclear Materials to France by USA

2004-06-12T17:05:00.000-04:00

7 June 2004

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Federal Register: June 7, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 31818]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jn04-44]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Nonproliferation Policy; Proposed Subsequent
Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of subsequent arrangement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of section 131
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The
Department is providing notice of a proposed ``subsequent arrangement''
under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic
Energy between the United States and Canada and Agreement for
Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United
States and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM).
This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 813,600 kg
of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride, 550,000 kg of which is
uranium, from Cameco Corporation, Port Hope, Ontario, Canada, to
Eurodif Production (Eurodif), Pierrelatte France. The material, which
is now located at Cameco Corp., Port Hope, Ontario, will be transferred
to Eurodif for enrichment. Upon completion of the enrichment, the
material will be used at Electricite de France as reactor fuel. Cameco
Corp. originally obtained the uranium hexafluoride under the UF6 Feed
Component Implementation Contract.
In accordance with section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement is not
inimical to the common defense and security.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen
days after the date of publication of this notice.

For the Department of Energy.
Kurt Siemon,
Acting Director, Office of Nonproliferation Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-12764 Filed 6-4-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

Australian Warrior of Conscience Charged -- Details

2004-06-12T16:57:00.000-04:00

10 June 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:00:42 -0400
From: DoD News
Subject: Guantanamo Detainee Charged

NEWS RELEASE from the United States Department of Defense

No. 564-04
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jun 10, 2004
Media Contact: (703)697-5131
Public/Industry Contact: (703)428-0711

Guantanamo Detainee Charged

The Department of Defense announced today that three charges were approved against Guantanamo detainee David Hicks of Australia who will be tried by military commission. The charges include: conspiracy to commit war crimes; attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent and aiding the enemy. Hicks is the third Guantanamo detainee charged.

Hicks is alleged to have attended a number of al Qaida terrorist training courses at various camps in Afghanistan, including an advanced course on surveillance, in which he conducted surveillance of the U.S. and British embassies in Kabul, Afghanistan. It is also alleged that after viewing TV news coverage in Pakistan of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the United States, he returned to Afghanistan to rejoin his al Qaida associates to fight against U.S., British, Canadian, Australian, Afghan, and other coalititon forces. It is alleged Hicks armed himself with an AK-47 automatic rifle, ammunition, and grenades to fight against coalition forces.

Hicks is presumed innocent of any criminal charges unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at a military commission. A trial date and commission panel members will be selected at a later time.

Military commission procedures provide for a full and fair trial to include: the presumption of innocence; a requirement for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; representation by a military defense counsel free of charge with the option to retain a civilian defense counsel at no expense to the U.S. government; an opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses; a prohibition against drawing an adverse inference if an accused chooses not to testify; and an appeal to a review panel. Military commissions have historically been used to try violations of the law of armed conflict and related offenses.

Additionally, based on the specific facts and circumstances of Hicks’ case: if convicted, the prosecution will not seek the death penalty; the security and intelligence circumstances of Hicks’ case are such that it would not warrant monitoring of conversations between him and his counsel; Hicks has access to an Australian lawyer with appropriate security clearance as a foreign attorney consultant; subject to any necessary security restrictions, two appropriately cleared family members of Hicks will be able to attend the trial, as well as representatives of the Australian government; if Hicks is convicted, the Australian government, as well as the defense team, may make submissions to the review panel on appeal; and the U.S. and Australian government will continue to work towards putting arrangements in place to transfer Hicks, if convicted, to Australia to serve any penal sentence in accordance with Australian and U.S. law.

Specifics of Hicks’ charges [below].

Information on the other detainees charged is available at:

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040224-0363.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040610cs.pdf

[5 pages.]
______________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES
v.

DAVID MATTHEW HICKS
a/k/a Abu Muslim al Austraili
a/k/a Muhammed Dawood
)
)
)
)
)
)
) CHARGES:
CONSPIRACY;
ATTEMPTED MURDER BY AN
UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT;
AIDING THE ENEMY
______________________________________________________________________

David Matthew Hicks (a/k/a Abu Muslim al Austraili, a/k/a Muhammed Dawood) is a person subject to trial by Military Commission. At all times material to the charges:

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction for this Military Commission is based on the President's determination of July 3, 2003 that David Matthew Hicks (a/k/a Abu Muslim al Austraili, a/k/a Muhammed Dawood, hereinafter "Hicks") is subject to his Military Order of November 13, 2001.

2. Hicks' charged conduct is triable by a military commission.

BACKGROUND

3. Hicks was born on August 7, 1975 in Adelaide, Australia.

4. On or about May 1999, Hicks traveled to Tirana, Albania and joined the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary organization fighting on behalf of Albanian Muslims. Hicks completed basic military training at a KLA camp and engaged in hostile action before returning to Australia.

5. While in Australia. Hicks converted from Christianity to Islam. On or about November 1999, he traveled to Pakistan where, in early 2000, he joined a terrorist organization known as Lashkar e Tayyiba (LET). or "Army of the Righteous."

a. LET is the armed wing of Markaz Dawa al Irshad (a/k/a Markaz Jamat al Dawa), a group formed by Hafiz Mohammed Saeed and others.
b. LET's known goals include violent attacks against property and nationals (both military and civilian) of India and other countries in order to seize control of Indian-held Kashmir and violent opposition of Hindus, Jews, Americans, and other Westerners.

c. Starting around 1990, LET established training camps and guest houses, schools, and other operations primarily in Pakistan and Afghanistan for the purpose of training and supporting violent attacks against property and nationals (both military and civilian) of India and other countries.

d. Since 1990, members and associates of LET have conducted numerous attacks on military and civilian personnel and property in Indian-controlled Kashmir and India.

e. In 1998, Saeed called for holy war against the United States after U.S. missile attacks against terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan killed LET members.

f. On April 23, 2000, in a bulletin posted on the internet, LET claimed that it recently killed Indian soldiers and destroyed an Indian government building, both in Indian Kashmir.

6. After joining LET, Hicks trained for two months at LET's Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan. His training included weapons familiarization and firing, map reading and land navigation, and troop movements.

7. Following training at Mosqua Aqsa, Hicks, along with LET associates, traveled to a border region between Pakistani-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces.

8. On or about January 2001, Hicks, with funding and a letter of introduction provided by LET, traveled to Afghanistan to attend al Qaida terrorist training camps.

9. On or about early December 2001, Hicks was captured near Baghlan, Afghanistan.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS (AL QAIDA)

10. Al Qaida ("the Base"), was founded by Usama bin Laden and others in or about 1989 for the purpose of opposing certain governments and officials with force and violence.

11. Usama bin Laden is recognized as the emir (prince or leader) of al Qaida.

12. A purpose or goal of al Qaida, as stated by Usama bin Laden and other al Qaida leaders, is to support violent attacks against property and nationals (both military and civilian) of the United States and other countries for the purpose of, inter alia, forcing the United States to withdraw its forces from the Arabian Peninsula and in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel.

13. Al Qaida operations and activities are directed by a shura (consultation) council composed of committees, including: political committee; military committee; security committee; finance committee; media committee; and religious/legal committee.

14. Between 1989 and 2001, al Qaida established training camps, guest houses, and business operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries for the purpose of training and supporting violent attacks against property and nationals (both military and civilian) of the United States and other countries.

15. In August 1996, Usama bin Laden issued a public "Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans," in which he called for the murder of U.S. military personnel serving on the Arabian peninsula.

16. In February 1998, Usama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and others, under the banner of "International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders," issued a fatwa (purported religious ruling) requiring all Muslims able to do so to kill Americans -- whether civilian or military -- anywhere they can be found and to "plunder their money."

17. On or about May 29, 1998, Usama bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."

18. Since 1989 members and associates of al Qaida, known and unknown, have carried out numerous terrorist attacks, including, but not limited to: the attacks against the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998; the attack against the USS COLE in October 2000; and the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

CHARGE 1: CONSPIRACY

19. David Matthew Hicks (a/k/a Abu Muslim al Austraili, a/k/a Muhammed Dawood, hereinafter "Hicks"), in Afghanistan, from on or about January 1, 2001 to on or about December 2001, willfully and knowingly joined an enterprise of persons who shared a common criminal purpose and conspired and agreed with Muhammad Atef (a/k/a Abu Hafs al Masri), Saif al Adel, Usama bin Laden, and other members and associates of the al Qaida organization, known and unknown, to commit the following offenses triable by military commission: attacking civilians; attacking civilian objects; murder by an unprivileged belligerent; destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent; and terrorism.

20. In furtherance of this enterprise and conspiracy, Hicks and other members of al Qaida committed the following overt acts:

a. On or about January 2001, Hicks, with funding and a letter of introduction provided by LET, traveled to Afghanistan to attend al Qaida terrorist training camps. Upon arriving in Afghanistan, Hicks went to an al Qaida guest house, where he met Ibn Sheikh al Libi, a top-ranking al Qaida member, and others. Hicks turned in his passport and indicated that he would use the kunya, or alias. "Muhammed Dawood."
b. Hicks then traveled to and trained at al Qaida's al Farouq camp located outside Qandahar, Afghanistan. In al Qaida's eight-week basic training course, Hicks trained in weapons familiarization and firing, land mines, tactics, topography, field movements. and basic explosives.

c. On or about April 2001, Hicks returned to al Farouq and trained in al Qaida's guerilla warfare and mountain tactics training course. This seven-week course included: marksmanship; small team tactics; ambush; camouflage; rendezvous techniques; and techniques to pass intelligence to al Qaida operatives.

d. While Hicks was training at al Farouq, Usama bin Laden visited the camp on several occasions. During one visit, Hicks questioned bin Laden regarding the lack of English al Qaida training material; accepting bin Laden's advice, Hicks began to translate the training camp materials from Arabic to English.

e. After Hicks completed his first two al Qaida training courses, Muhammad Atef (a/k/a Abu Hafs al Masri), then the military commander oral Qaida, summoned and interviewed Hicks about his background and the travel habits of Australians. Saif al Adel, then the deputy commander of Al Qaida, was also present at interview. At the conclusion of this meeting, Muhammed Atef recommended Hicks for attendance at al Qaida's urban tactics training course at Tarnak Farm.

f. On or about June 2001, Hicks traveled to Tarnak Farm and participated in this course. A mock city was located inside the camp, where trainees were taught how to fight in an urban environment. Training also included: marksmanship; use of assault and sniper rifles; rappelling; kidnapping techniques; and assassination methods.

g. On or about August 2001, Hicks participated in an advanced al Qaida course on information collection and surveillance in an apartment in Kabul, Afghanistan. This course included "practical application" where Hicks and others conducted surveillance of various targets in Kabul, including the U.S. and British embassies, and submitted reports.

h. Following the information collection and surveillance course, Muhammed Atef again interviewed Hicks, and asked if he would be willing to undertake a "martyr mission," meaning an attack wherein Hicks would kill himself as well as the targets of the attack.

i. At an al Qaida guest house in Qandahar, as well as at al Qaida training camps and other locations in Afghanistan, Hicks received instruction from al Qaida associates on their interpretation of Islam, the meaning and obligations of jihad, and other topics.

j. On or about early September 2001, Hicks traveled to Pakistan to visit a friend. After watching television footage of the September 11,2001 attacks on the United States, Hicks returned to Afghanistan to rejoin his al Qaida associates.

k. Arriving in Qandahar, Afghanistan, Hicks reported to Saif al Adel, who was assigning individuals to locations where they were to tight alongside other al Qaida associates against U.S. and Coalition forces. Given a choice of three different locations, Hicks chose to join a group of al Qaida fighters near the Qandahar Airport. Armed with an AK-47 automatic rifle, ammunition, and grenades, Hicks traveled with his al Qaida associates to the Qandahar Airport.

l. On or about October 2001, after Coalition bombing operations commenced, Hicks joined an armed group outside the airport, where they guarded a Taliban tank.

m. After guarding the tank for approximately one week, Hicks, still armed with the AK-47 rifle, ammunition, and grenades, traveled with an LET acquaintance to Konduz, Afghanistan, arriving around November 9, 2001. There, he joined others, including John Walker Lindh, who were engaged in combat against Coalition forces.

CHARGE 2: ATTEMPTED MURDER BY AN UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT

21. David Matthew Hicks (a/k/a Abu Muslim al Austraili, a/k/a Muhammed Dawood), in Afghanistan between on or about September 11, 2001 and December 1, 2001, as a perpetrator, co-conspirator, member of an enterprise of persons who shared a common criminal purpose, an aider or abettor, or some combination thereof, attempted to murder divers persons by directing small arms fire, explosives, and other means intended to kill American, British, Canadian, Australian, Afghan, and other Coalition forces, while he did not enjoy combatant immunity and such conduct taking place in the context of and associated with armed conflict.

CHARGE 3: AIDING THE ENEMY

22. David Matthew Hicks (a/k/a Abu Muslim al Austraili, a/k/a Muhammed Dawood), in Afghanistan between on or about January 1, 2001, and December 1, 2001, intentionally aided the enemy, to wit: al Qaida and the Taliban, such conduct taking place in the context of and associated with armed conflict.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phone Uncle Sam if you have a problem with his behaviour

2004-06-12T16:45:00.000-04:00

Any Other Country Would Have Been Asked to Remove its Embassy until civilized behavior could be guarranteed, but since we are not much less of a colony than Iraq will be three weeks hence, we ought to take advantage of the facilities and call the Empire (collect) whenever there's something we need them to explain. Ask someone there to explain the "Status of Forces" agreement they have with the host nations of their 750 bases worldwide. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that they are really in control of all those countries...

American Embassy - Ottawa, Canada
1-613-238-5335

Ottawa - Vancouver Suboffice
American Consulate - Vancouver
1-604-685-4311

Bad is Good

2004-06-12T16:42:00.000-04:00

10 June 2004

Powell "Very Disturbed" by Errors in 2003 Terrorism Report
Revisions will show increase in number of attacks, casualties

Secretary of State Colin Powell says he is very disturbed by errors in the 2003 edition of the department's annual terrorism report, but he indicated that corrections will be made following a thorough review.

During an appearance with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh at the State Department June 10, the secretary was asked how the inaccuracies in the report occurred. "It was a combination of errors both at the new Terrorist Threat Information Center, as they were transitioning into the job and building their organization, and errors prepping the report that, frankly, we didn't catch over here," he said.

Powell pledged to correct whatever should be corrected in the report issued in April and turned aside a reporter's effort to ascribe the problem to political motivations. "I can assure you it had nothing to do with putting out anything but the most honest, accurate information we can," he said.

During the June 10 State Department briefing spokesman Richard Boucher also addressed the department's review of the report. "Base on our review, we have determined that the data in the report is incomplete and in some cases incorrect," he said.

Boucher said State Department officials did not check and verify the data sufficiently.

The Terrorist Threat Integration Center is revising the 2003 statistics. The preliminary review "indicate that the figures for the number of attacks and casualties will be up sharply from what was published," the spokesman said.

"As soon as we are in a position to, we will issue corrected numbers, a revised analysis, and revisions to the report," he said.

Following is the text of Boucher's statement:

(begin text)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
June 10, 2004

STATEMENT BY RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN

Correction to Global Patterns of Terrorism Will be Issued

After learning of possible discrepancies in the first week of May, the Department of State and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center initiated a review of the data published in the 2003 edition of "Patterns of Global Terrorism." A May 17th letter from Congressman {Henry] Waxman [Democrat, California] added impetus to our efforts.

The data in the report was compiled by the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which was established in January 2003 and includes elements from the CIA, FBI and Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. Based on our review, we have determined that the data in the report is incomplete and in some cases incorrect. Here at the Department of State, we did not check and verify the data sufficiently.

At our request, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center is revising the statistics for calendar year 2003. While we are still checking data for accuracy and completeness, we can say that our preliminary results indicate that the figures for the number of attacks and casualties will be up sharply from what was published. As soon as we are in a position to, we will issue corrected numbers, a revised analysis, and revisions to the report.

(end text)

Comments from God Welcome

2004-06-02T17:22:00.000-04:00

The President

[[Page 30813]]

Proclamation 7791 of May 26, 2004

Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day, 2004

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

For more than two centuries, Americans have been called
to defend the founding ideals of our democracy. On
Memorial Day, a grateful Nation remembers the proud
patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of
liberty's blessings.

From the opening battles of the American Revolution
through the turmoil of the Civil War, to World War I,
World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, to the Persian Gulf
and today's operations in the war on terror in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world, the members of
our military have built a tradition of honorable and
faithful service. As we observe Memorial Day, we
remember the more than one million Americans who have
died to preserve our freedom, the more than 140,000
citizens who were prisoners of war, and all those who
were declared missing in action. We also honor our
veterans for their dedication to America and their
sacrifice.

This year, we honor many heroes by observing the 60th
anniversary of D-Day on the beaches of Normandy, and by
dedicating the National World War II Memorial in
Washington, D.C. In a radio address on June 6, 1944,
President Franklin Roosevelt described these service
members as the ``pride of our Nation,'' who struggled
to preserve our civilization. The fallen from that
fateful day and that war will always be remembered.
They hold a cherished place in the history of the
United States and in the memories of the people they
liberated.

Today, all who wear the uniform of the United States
are serving at a crucial hour in history, and each has
answered a great call to serve our Nation on the front
lines of freedom. As we continue to fight terrorism and
promote peace and freedom, let us pray for the safety
and strength of our troops, for God's blessing on them
and their families, and for those who have lost loved
ones.

On this Memorial Day, we honor all of our fallen
soldiers, their commitment to our country, and their
legacy of patriotism and sacrifice. By giving their
lives in the cause of freedom, these heroes have
protected and inspired all Americans.

In respect for their devotion to America, the Congress,
by a joint resolution approved on May 11, 1950, as
amended (64 Stat. 158), has requested the President to
issue a proclamation calling on the people of the
United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of
prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on
that day when the people of the United States might
unite in prayer. The Congress, by Public Law 106-579,
has also designated the minute beginning at 3:00 p.m.
local time on that day as a time for all Americans to
observe the National Moment of Remembrance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the
United States of America, do hereby proclaim Memorial
Day, May 31, 2004, as a day of prayer for permanent
peace, and I designate the hour beginning in each
locality at 11:00 a.m. of that day as a time to unite
in prayer. I also ask all Americans to observe the
National Moment of Remembrance beginning

[[Page 30814]]

at 3:00 p.m. local time on Memorial Day. I urge the
press, radio, television, and all other media to
participate in these observances.

I also request the Governors of the United States and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the appropriate
officials of all units of government, to direct that
the flag be flown at half-staff until noon on this
Memorial Day on all buildings, grounds, and naval
vessels throughout the United States, and in all areas
under its jurisdiction and control. I also request the
people of the United States to display the flag at
half-staff from their homes for the customary forenoon
period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
twenty-sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord two
thousand four, and of the Independence of the United
States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.

(Presidential Sig.)B

[FR Doc. 04-12403
Filed 5-27-04; 11:22 am]

The Anti-Chalabi Faction Rises?

2004-05-22T01:35:00.000-04:00

Does the raid on Bush II's ex-tyrant-in-waiting's house signify the ascendency of the (largely Pentagon/CIA) faction who have always insisted Chalabi was...well, what he is, a vengeful con-man willing to tell any lie to advance himself? Or is it a purely internal Iraqi affair? Dudley Doright Powell, ever the yes-man soldier, seems to have been tirelessly plotting with his Pentagon masters for the day when the INC's ringmaster would fall from grace; but will it change anything? I firmly believe the economic/oil factors behind this massive crime are such that no matter what has been put in place, it will require permanent military muscle to keep the lid on and the oil flowing. The end of the House of Sa'ud is probably catalytical here. And that is just a matter of when not if. The whole Bush II energy policy predicated on hugely increased consumption of oil appears to be constructed around Iraq-the-colony as a necessity not a idle dream. I will not believe otherwise until we see a complete exodus of all US and US-loyal troops, which includes the various militia and security apparatus assigned to such as Halliburton, the interim quislings, the major oil wells, and other sine qua non of the Cheney-Wolfowitz gambit.

How Much Longer Do We Watch the Iraq Show?

2004-05-18T06:48:00.000-04:00

The U.S. is clearly in deep trouble. It is not going to cut and run. It will not listen to advice. The atrocities mount up on both sides (though America is responsible for all of them). Where is a multilateral cry of HALT! from the civilized nations? Where are attempts to put together an Arab coalition to go in and replace the Anglo-American one? What sort of things can we do? What sort ought we to be doing?

Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners

2004-05-11T02:39:00.000-04:00

20 million Iraqis have been abused by America, and for thirteen years. Anyone who thinks that psychological or sexual abuse of a few prisoners is worse than 500,000 children under the age of five dying from malnutrition, 200,000 civilians dying in the bombing during two criminal wars and throughout the sham peace between them, really does not understand war. How much longer are our politicians going to hide in their kindergarten and pretend America, our southern neighbour, is basically a good guy? The grim record shows otherwise, and it is time for the rest of the civilized world to start treating the United States like the outlaw state it is. A trade embargo would be a good start; that and for everyone outside the US to convert their dollar holdings into Euros. 50 % of all US dollars in circulation are held outside America. A sell-off would cause the value of the dollar to plummet. I think we would find them suddenly far more humble in the face of economic ruin. They may have an invincible war machine, but their economy is on the wane and their currency is very vulnerable. Besides, they have been practising the same tactic on the Third World for decades.