Diplomats Will Be Shifted to Hot Spots
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that she will shift hundreds of Foreign Service positions from Europe and Washington to difficult assignments in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere as part of a broad restructuring of the diplomatic corps that she has dubbed "transformational diplomacy."
The State Department's culture of deployment and ideas about career advancement must alter now that the Cold War is over and the United States is battling transnational threats of terrorism, drug smuggling and disease, Rice said in a speech at Georgetown University. "The greatest threats now emerge more within states than between them," she said. "The fundamental character of regimes now matters more than the international distribution of power. "
As part of the change in priorities, Rice announced that diplomats will not be promoted into the senior ranks unless they accept assignments in dangerous posts, gain expertise in at least two regions and are fluent in two foreign languages, citing Chinese, Urdu and Arabic as a few preferred examples.
Rice noted that the United States has nearly as many State Department personnel in Germany -- which has 82 million people -- as in India, with 1 billion people. As a first step, 100 jobs in Europe and Washington will be immediately shifted to expanded embassies in countries such as India, China and Lebanon.
Many of these diplomats had been scheduled to rotate into coveted posts in European capitals this summer, and the sudden change in assignment has caused some distress, State Department officials said.
Officials said that ultimately as many as one-third of the 6,400 Foreign Service positions could be affected in the coming years.
Separately, today Rice plans to unveil a restructuring of U.S. foreign assistance, including announcing the nomination of Randall L. Tobias as the new administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Officials said Rice plans to elevate the USAID post, giving Tobias -- a former Eli Lilly chief executive who now heads the administration's global AIDS relief program -- an office and a planning staff in the State Department.
Rice will designate Tobias as having a rank equivalent of deputy secretary of state.
Although the move stops short of merging USAID with State, it is intended to draw the agency closer into the department's fold, the officials said. Additionally, the new director will be given broader authority over a range of foreign assistance accounts now managed by separate entities.
"Effectively, this will allow a single person to have visibility into these various accounts," a State official said.
Anticipating such a change, some outside the government have warned that it could result in a greater politicization of foreign assistance.
"We're concerned that the same priority won't be given to long-term development as resources are siphoned to support shorter-term diplomatic or military objectives," said Jim Bishop, a senior officer of InterAction, the largest coalition of non-governmental U.S. aid groups.
But State Department officials described the restructuring as necessary to reverse a growing fragmentation of foreign assistance programs in recent years and to ensure more effective and focused spending overseas.
The two announcements -- combined with changes announced Tuesday to streamline the movement of people and goods across U.S. borders -- are intended to fill in the details of Rice's promise to make what she calls transformational diplomacy the hallmark of her tenure as secretary of state.
"These proposals are part of the secretary's continuing strategy to dramatically increase America's engagement and dialogue with the world," said Jim Wilkinson, senior adviser to Rice.
Rice has described the notion of transformational diplomacy as a shift from merely reporting on events to influencing them to foster the growth of democratic states worldwide.
Under the plan outlined yesterday, Rice will expand the U.S. presence by encouraging the spread of new one-person diplomatic outposts, now located in a few cities such as Alexandria, Egypt, and Medan, Indonesia.
"There are nearly 200 cities worldwide with over 1 million people in which the United States has no formal diplomatic presence," Rice said. "This is where the action is today."
(Why does it have to be US presence, unless to serve to fulfill the bigger US agenda?) BU*SH*IT
The move is intended to bring U.S. diplomats -- now often barricaded in fortified embassies -- closer to the mood in the streets.
The State Department will also expand the use of interactive Web sites maintained by diplomats to communicate with foreign citizens, promote the creation of rapid-reaction forces to deal with regional problems and seek to work more closely with military officers to promote the stability of nations after conflicts, Rice said.
21.1.06
Iran Denies Shifting Assets From Europe | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 21.01.2006
Iran Denies Shifting Assets From Europe Europe Deutsche Welle 21.01.2006
or they are lying...
Iran on Saturday denied it has shifted funds out of Europe due to fears of economic sanctions over its nuclear program after a swirl of contradictory reports on whether such transfers had taken place.
A deputy central bank chief categorically denied that Iran was moving foreign currency out of Europe to Southeast Asia. The comments appeared to flatly contradict previous reported remarks by the bank's president.
"At the moment, Iran does not have any schedule to transfer its foreign exchange accounts to the named countries," Mohammad-Jafar Mojarad told the state news agency IRNA when asked if Iran has transferred the accounts to Asia.
Conflicting statements
The head of the central bank, Ebrahim Sheibani, had reportedly said on Wednesday that Iran was moving funds from Europe elsewhere after Western demands to freeze Iranian assets as a result of the conflict over Iran's decision to resume nuclear research.
The international crisis over Iran's nuclear program escalated when the Islamic republic resumed sensitive uranium enrichment research on Jan. 10, despite calls by European negotiators to maintain a halt to such activities.
"We transfer foreign currency reserves related to all sectors including oil foreign exchanges to wherever it is good for us and we have started this transfer," Sheibani was quoted as saying.
Iran is expected to earn at least $40 billion (33 billion euros) from oil production this year. In the past, Iran has deposited its oil revenues in European banks.
Sheibani himself, however, on Saturday rejected the idea that such transfers had already taken place, even though he left the door open for such a possibility in the future.
"We will transfer Iran's foreign accounts whenever we believe it is necessary," Sheibani told state television.
US: Transfer a sign of growing isolation
The United States said on Friday that any Iranian move to transfer currency deposits away from Europe would be a sign of growing isolation. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said such market maneuvers would not deter moves to refer its nuclear activities to the UN Security Council.
"I think it is an indication that Iran is further isolating itself from the rest of the world," McCormack told a press briefing. "I don't know what it is that they hope to accomplish by doing this."
London, Paris and Berlin called an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency for Feb. 2 as Western countries aim to gather support for referring Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
Admadinejad calls for sanctions (who's a bigger nut case... Admadinejad or Bush?)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meanwhile called on Islamic states to use their economic power against the West.
"Along with the political war, there's an big, hidden economic war going on and Islamic states should use their potential to cut off the hands of the enemy," he said.
According to news reports, Iranian leaders have also threatened that the nuclear stand-off might provoke an oil crisis.
Willing to compromise?
But despite the rhetoric, Tehran seems willing to work out a diplomatic compromise behind the scenes.
Citing high-ranking government sources, German magazin Der Spiegel reported Saturday that German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier received a message from the Iranian government, saying that Iran would be willing to negotiate a joint venture uranium enrichment program with Russia and China.
Russia had suggested establishing such a program outside Iran to alleviate Western fears of Iran using the technology to build nuclear weapons.
(Have you seen Russia's SS 27?)
Russia's SS-27 Makes Bush's Missile Defense A Fantasy
(As indicated in a previous blog)
or they are lying...
Iran on Saturday denied it has shifted funds out of Europe due to fears of economic sanctions over its nuclear program after a swirl of contradictory reports on whether such transfers had taken place.
A deputy central bank chief categorically denied that Iran was moving foreign currency out of Europe to Southeast Asia. The comments appeared to flatly contradict previous reported remarks by the bank's president.
"At the moment, Iran does not have any schedule to transfer its foreign exchange accounts to the named countries," Mohammad-Jafar Mojarad told the state news agency IRNA when asked if Iran has transferred the accounts to Asia.
Conflicting statements
The head of the central bank, Ebrahim Sheibani, had reportedly said on Wednesday that Iran was moving funds from Europe elsewhere after Western demands to freeze Iranian assets as a result of the conflict over Iran's decision to resume nuclear research.
The international crisis over Iran's nuclear program escalated when the Islamic republic resumed sensitive uranium enrichment research on Jan. 10, despite calls by European negotiators to maintain a halt to such activities.
"We transfer foreign currency reserves related to all sectors including oil foreign exchanges to wherever it is good for us and we have started this transfer," Sheibani was quoted as saying.
Iran is expected to earn at least $40 billion (33 billion euros) from oil production this year. In the past, Iran has deposited its oil revenues in European banks.
Sheibani himself, however, on Saturday rejected the idea that such transfers had already taken place, even though he left the door open for such a possibility in the future.
"We will transfer Iran's foreign accounts whenever we believe it is necessary," Sheibani told state television.
US: Transfer a sign of growing isolation
The United States said on Friday that any Iranian move to transfer currency deposits away from Europe would be a sign of growing isolation. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said such market maneuvers would not deter moves to refer its nuclear activities to the UN Security Council.
"I think it is an indication that Iran is further isolating itself from the rest of the world," McCormack told a press briefing. "I don't know what it is that they hope to accomplish by doing this."
London, Paris and Berlin called an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency for Feb. 2 as Western countries aim to gather support for referring Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
Admadinejad calls for sanctions (who's a bigger nut case... Admadinejad or Bush?)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meanwhile called on Islamic states to use their economic power against the West.
"Along with the political war, there's an big, hidden economic war going on and Islamic states should use their potential to cut off the hands of the enemy," he said.
According to news reports, Iranian leaders have also threatened that the nuclear stand-off might provoke an oil crisis.
Willing to compromise?
But despite the rhetoric, Tehran seems willing to work out a diplomatic compromise behind the scenes.
Citing high-ranking government sources, German magazin Der Spiegel reported Saturday that German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier received a message from the Iranian government, saying that Iran would be willing to negotiate a joint venture uranium enrichment program with Russia and China.
Russia had suggested establishing such a program outside Iran to alleviate Western fears of Iran using the technology to build nuclear weapons.
(Have you seen Russia's SS 27?)
Russia's SS-27 Makes Bush's Missile Defense A Fantasy
(As indicated in a previous blog)
Iran Shifts Funds Out of E.U. Banks
Iran Shifts Funds Out of E.U. Banks
yesterdays news...
PARIS, Jan. 20 -- Facing threats of international economic sanctions over its nuclear program, Iran has started moving its foreign currency reserves out of European banks, according to the chief of the Islamic republic's Central Bank.
"We transfer the foreign exchange reserves to wherever we deem fit," the bank governor, Ebrahim Sheibani, told Iranian journalists, the semiofficial Iranian Students' News Agency reported Friday. "We have begun transferring."
(yes, you already told us that)
Sheibani dodged questions about where the money was being sent, the news agency said. He spoke on Wednesday, but his comments had not been reported.
International analysts estimate that Iran has $35 billion to $50 billion in banks outside the country.
The shift of funds comes as European countries and the United States are pressing for international action against Iran for resuming uranium enrichment research. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, has called an emergency session for Feb. 2 to consider the issue.
European diplomats said this week that the European Union and the United States did not have the necessary support for measures that would result in immediate economic sanctions against Iran.
But Iranian officials appear to be trying to avoid a repeat of the losses the country suffered when President Jimmy Carter froze all Iranian assets in the United States after Iranian students took 52 Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Iranian authorities estimated that the country lost $14 billion in assets after the freeze, including cash, oil seized from ships in transit and 1.6 million ounces of gold in the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.
The escalating tension over Iran's nuclear program contributed to a surge in oil prices this week, reaching about $67 a barrel Thursday, the highest price in four months. Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil exporter.
Some Iranian officials have suggested Iran could retaliate against any international financial sanctions by reducing its oil flows. The Associated Press reported Friday that Iran's Oil Ministry said it was pushing the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to cut its overall production but said the call was related to anticipated declines in oil demand in the second quarter of 2006, not the nuclear dispute.
Although the United States maintains economic sanctions against Iran, the Islamic republic has cultivated strong business ties with Russia, China, India and Western European countries, including France.
Iran triggered the current crisis nearly two weeks ago when officials ordered inspectors from the IAEA to remove seals they had put on equipment at an enrichment plant at Natanz two years ago.
Iran maintains it would use enriched uranium only to generate electricity, but U.S. and E.U. officials have said they believe Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons.
For the last two years, France, Britain and Germany have been trying to persuade Iran to stop the controversial aspects of its nuclear program. But relations have chilled, and no discussions have taken place for months.
yesterdays news...
PARIS, Jan. 20 -- Facing threats of international economic sanctions over its nuclear program, Iran has started moving its foreign currency reserves out of European banks, according to the chief of the Islamic republic's Central Bank.
"We transfer the foreign exchange reserves to wherever we deem fit," the bank governor, Ebrahim Sheibani, told Iranian journalists, the semiofficial Iranian Students' News Agency reported Friday. "We have begun transferring."
(yes, you already told us that)
Sheibani dodged questions about where the money was being sent, the news agency said. He spoke on Wednesday, but his comments had not been reported.
International analysts estimate that Iran has $35 billion to $50 billion in banks outside the country.
The shift of funds comes as European countries and the United States are pressing for international action against Iran for resuming uranium enrichment research. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, has called an emergency session for Feb. 2 to consider the issue.
European diplomats said this week that the European Union and the United States did not have the necessary support for measures that would result in immediate economic sanctions against Iran.
But Iranian officials appear to be trying to avoid a repeat of the losses the country suffered when President Jimmy Carter froze all Iranian assets in the United States after Iranian students took 52 Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Iranian authorities estimated that the country lost $14 billion in assets after the freeze, including cash, oil seized from ships in transit and 1.6 million ounces of gold in the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.
The escalating tension over Iran's nuclear program contributed to a surge in oil prices this week, reaching about $67 a barrel Thursday, the highest price in four months. Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil exporter.
Some Iranian officials have suggested Iran could retaliate against any international financial sanctions by reducing its oil flows. The Associated Press reported Friday that Iran's Oil Ministry said it was pushing the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to cut its overall production but said the call was related to anticipated declines in oil demand in the second quarter of 2006, not the nuclear dispute.
Although the United States maintains economic sanctions against Iran, the Islamic republic has cultivated strong business ties with Russia, China, India and Western European countries, including France.
Iran triggered the current crisis nearly two weeks ago when officials ordered inspectors from the IAEA to remove seals they had put on equipment at an enrichment plant at Natanz two years ago.
Iran maintains it would use enriched uranium only to generate electricity, but U.S. and E.U. officials have said they believe Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons.
For the last two years, France, Britain and Germany have been trying to persuade Iran to stop the controversial aspects of its nuclear program. But relations have chilled, and no discussions have taken place for months.
Pentagon Analyst Given 121/2 Years In Secrets Case
Pentagon Analyst Given 121/2 Years In Secrets Case
Oh those official secrets....
A former Defense Department analyst was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison yesterday for passing government secrets to two employees of a pro-Israel lobbying group and to an Israeli government official in Washington.
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said Lawrence A. Franklin did not intend to harm the United States when he gave the classified data to the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, one of Washington's most influential lobbying organizations. When he pleaded guilty, Franklin, an Iran specialist, said he was frustrated with the direction of U.S. policy and thought he could influence it through "back channels."
I believe, I accept, your explanation that you didn't want to hurt the United States, that you are a loyal American," said Ellis, who added that Franklin was "concerned about certain threats to the United States" and thought he had to hand information about the threats to others to bring it to the attention of the National Security Council.
But Franklin still must be punished, Ellis said, because he violated important laws governing the non-disclosure of secret information.
"It doesn't matter that you think you were really helping," Ellis said as he sentenced Franklin to 151 months -- 12 1/2 years -- in prison. "That arrogates to yourself the decision whether to adhere to a statute passed by Congress, and we can't have that in this country."
The sentence fell at the low end of the federal sentencing guidelines, which called for a term as long as 188 months. "It could have been tougher,"' said Michael Greenberger, a former Justice Department official who heads the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland.
The sentencing in U.S. District Court in Alexandria closed one chapter of a long-running investigation into an alleged conspiracy to obtain and illegally pass classified information to foreign officials and reporters.
But with the case still shrouded in secrecy, yesterday's hearing cast no new light on the information Franklin provided, whether its transmission harmed the United States and whether anyone will be charged other than the two lobbyists, who have been fired by AIPAC and are awaiting trial.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin V. Di Gregory told Ellis that Franklin had reason to believe that the information could be used against the United States.
"When you disclose national defense information to people not entitled to receive it," he said, "the U.S. government loses control of that information and there is no way to know in whose hands it might fall." (..someone might find out the truth...the US has soooo many secrets)
Plato Cacheris, Franklin's attorney, emphasized that Franklin is "a longtime dedicated public servant" who has had "a long and distinguished career." Cacheris said that Franklin has been cooperating extensively with investigators and that he expects the government to file a motion later to reduce Franklin's sentence.
Franklin pleaded guilty in October to three counts: conspiracy to communicate national defense information, conspiracy to communicate classified information to an agent of a foreign government, and unlawful retention of national defense information.
Court documents said Franklin provided classified data -- including information about a Middle Eastern country's activities in Iraq and weapons tests conducted by a foreign country -- to the lobbyists and to an unnamed "foreign official."
The Middle Eastern country was not named, but Franklin disclosed at his plea hearing that some of the material related to Iran. He also said in court that the foreign official was Naor Gilon, who was the political officer at the Israeli Embassy before being recalled last summer. Israeli officials have said they are cooperating in the investigation, and they denied any wrongdoing.
Franklin is expected to testify against the two former AIPAC lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, at their trial, which is scheduled for April.
Rosen, of Silver Spring, is charged with two counts related to unlawful disclosure of national defense information obtained from Franklin and other unidentified government officials on topics including Iran, Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. Rosen was AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues and was instrumental in making the committee a formidable political force.
Weissman, of Bethesda, faces one count of conspiracy to illegally communicate national defense information.
The FBI monitored a series of meetings between Franklin and the former AIPAC officials dating back to early 2003, multiple sources familiar with the investigation have said. At one of those meetings, a session at the Pentagon City mall in Arlington in July 2004, Franklin warned Weissman that Iranian agents were planning attacks against U.S. soldiers and Israeli agents in Iraq, sources said.
Franklin had faced a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. Ellis said Franklin would not have to go to jail until he finished his cooperation with the government.
Oh those official secrets....
A former Defense Department analyst was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison yesterday for passing government secrets to two employees of a pro-Israel lobbying group and to an Israeli government official in Washington.
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said Lawrence A. Franklin did not intend to harm the United States when he gave the classified data to the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, one of Washington's most influential lobbying organizations. When he pleaded guilty, Franklin, an Iran specialist, said he was frustrated with the direction of U.S. policy and thought he could influence it through "back channels."
I believe, I accept, your explanation that you didn't want to hurt the United States, that you are a loyal American," said Ellis, who added that Franklin was "concerned about certain threats to the United States" and thought he had to hand information about the threats to others to bring it to the attention of the National Security Council.
But Franklin still must be punished, Ellis said, because he violated important laws governing the non-disclosure of secret information.
"It doesn't matter that you think you were really helping," Ellis said as he sentenced Franklin to 151 months -- 12 1/2 years -- in prison. "That arrogates to yourself the decision whether to adhere to a statute passed by Congress, and we can't have that in this country."
The sentence fell at the low end of the federal sentencing guidelines, which called for a term as long as 188 months. "It could have been tougher,"' said Michael Greenberger, a former Justice Department official who heads the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland.
The sentencing in U.S. District Court in Alexandria closed one chapter of a long-running investigation into an alleged conspiracy to obtain and illegally pass classified information to foreign officials and reporters.
But with the case still shrouded in secrecy, yesterday's hearing cast no new light on the information Franklin provided, whether its transmission harmed the United States and whether anyone will be charged other than the two lobbyists, who have been fired by AIPAC and are awaiting trial.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin V. Di Gregory told Ellis that Franklin had reason to believe that the information could be used against the United States.
"When you disclose national defense information to people not entitled to receive it," he said, "the U.S. government loses control of that information and there is no way to know in whose hands it might fall." (..someone might find out the truth...the US has soooo many secrets)
Plato Cacheris, Franklin's attorney, emphasized that Franklin is "a longtime dedicated public servant" who has had "a long and distinguished career." Cacheris said that Franklin has been cooperating extensively with investigators and that he expects the government to file a motion later to reduce Franklin's sentence.
Franklin pleaded guilty in October to three counts: conspiracy to communicate national defense information, conspiracy to communicate classified information to an agent of a foreign government, and unlawful retention of national defense information.
Court documents said Franklin provided classified data -- including information about a Middle Eastern country's activities in Iraq and weapons tests conducted by a foreign country -- to the lobbyists and to an unnamed "foreign official."
The Middle Eastern country was not named, but Franklin disclosed at his plea hearing that some of the material related to Iran. He also said in court that the foreign official was Naor Gilon, who was the political officer at the Israeli Embassy before being recalled last summer. Israeli officials have said they are cooperating in the investigation, and they denied any wrongdoing.
Franklin is expected to testify against the two former AIPAC lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, at their trial, which is scheduled for April.
Rosen, of Silver Spring, is charged with two counts related to unlawful disclosure of national defense information obtained from Franklin and other unidentified government officials on topics including Iran, Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. Rosen was AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues and was instrumental in making the committee a formidable political force.
Weissman, of Bethesda, faces one count of conspiracy to illegally communicate national defense information.
The FBI monitored a series of meetings between Franklin and the former AIPAC officials dating back to early 2003, multiple sources familiar with the investigation have said. At one of those meetings, a session at the Pentagon City mall in Arlington in July 2004, Franklin warned Weissman that Iranian agents were planning attacks against U.S. soldiers and Israeli agents in Iraq, sources said.
Franklin had faced a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. Ellis said Franklin would not have to go to jail until he finished his cooperation with the government.
In the Shadow of Bin Laden
In the Shadow of Bin Laden
With the timing and panache of a diabolical Scarlet Pimpernel, Osama bin Laden reminded the world yesterday that he is still out there and that he continues to shape the global political agenda as few others. Of course, there are searching questions to ask about the authenticity and timing of the al-Qaida leader's latest tape before the rest of the world can make a balanced judgment about Bin Laden's message. But there is no disputing that this was another audacious media and political coup of a high order. The most wanted man in the world has proved again that he has an unrivalled ability to cock a snook at the American-led global manhunt against him. Like it or not, yesterday's tape will burnish his legend with his admirers and enemies alike.
There seem, at first sight, to be four noteworthy aspects to his latest act of electronic defiance. The first is simply the reminder that Bin Laden is still in the game. It is nearly 14 months since his last taped message. The whole of 2005 passed without a public word from him. There had been speculation that this silence implied he was either dead, seriously ill or cornered. Now, at the start of a new year, that suddenly looks like yet another example of the familiar over-optimism that has characterised much of the US-led war on terror since 9/11. The second is the striking timing of a taped message. It is less than a week since the American airstrikes on the Pakistani village of Damadola, aimed at killing Bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. This may be pure good luck for al-Qaida - the logistical difficulties of getting such a tape into the hands of the broadcaster al-Jazeera without detection make it unlikely that the tape was made in the past week - but the timing enables Bin Laden to thumb his nose at his pursuers yet again.
But it is not just the fact of the message that matters. It is also its content. The two things that stand out here are the al-Qaida carrot and stick. The carrot is a so-called truce offer, in which the United States and its allies apparently withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan in return for some kind of al-Qaida ceasefire in the west. This will not be to be treated as a genuine truce offer, for it would provide al-Qaida with the time, space and place to resume planning a renewed terror campaign. There is, though, a political claim in this message that cannot be completely disregarded, designed to play into a naïve belief in some parts of the west that negotiations with Bin Laden may offer a way out of the terror and security-dominated world in which we now live.
The final point follows from this. At the heart of Bin Laden's message is the threat to unleash further terror attacks on American citizens in their homeland. Far from provoking a movement to appease the terrorists, this will surely do the reverse. It will play directly into the hands of those who insist that security must overwhelm all other considerations. It should not. Specifically, after yesterday's leak from the Foreign Office, it should not undermine the continuing anxiety about possible British involvement in the transport of terror suspects to third countries where they risk torture.
The Foreign Office memorandum revealed no doubt in official minds of the illegality of ignoring due process in the transport of terrorist suspects to countries where they might be tortured - hence the importance of Condoleezza Rice's assurances that the US will not act in breach of its own constitutional disavowal of torture, a much narrower definition than the obligations imposed by the UN convention against torture or the European convention on human rights. It may mean what is legal there would not be here.
Ms Rice says Europe is helping it take terrorists out of circulation. The government insists it has no evidence of rendition flights. It might prefer not to resolve this contradiction.
Bin Laden's intervention should not let it off the hook.
With the timing and panache of a diabolical Scarlet Pimpernel, Osama bin Laden reminded the world yesterday that he is still out there and that he continues to shape the global political agenda as few others. Of course, there are searching questions to ask about the authenticity and timing of the al-Qaida leader's latest tape before the rest of the world can make a balanced judgment about Bin Laden's message. But there is no disputing that this was another audacious media and political coup of a high order. The most wanted man in the world has proved again that he has an unrivalled ability to cock a snook at the American-led global manhunt against him. Like it or not, yesterday's tape will burnish his legend with his admirers and enemies alike.
There seem, at first sight, to be four noteworthy aspects to his latest act of electronic defiance. The first is simply the reminder that Bin Laden is still in the game. It is nearly 14 months since his last taped message. The whole of 2005 passed without a public word from him. There had been speculation that this silence implied he was either dead, seriously ill or cornered. Now, at the start of a new year, that suddenly looks like yet another example of the familiar over-optimism that has characterised much of the US-led war on terror since 9/11. The second is the striking timing of a taped message. It is less than a week since the American airstrikes on the Pakistani village of Damadola, aimed at killing Bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. This may be pure good luck for al-Qaida - the logistical difficulties of getting such a tape into the hands of the broadcaster al-Jazeera without detection make it unlikely that the tape was made in the past week - but the timing enables Bin Laden to thumb his nose at his pursuers yet again.
But it is not just the fact of the message that matters. It is also its content. The two things that stand out here are the al-Qaida carrot and stick. The carrot is a so-called truce offer, in which the United States and its allies apparently withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan in return for some kind of al-Qaida ceasefire in the west. This will not be to be treated as a genuine truce offer, for it would provide al-Qaida with the time, space and place to resume planning a renewed terror campaign. There is, though, a political claim in this message that cannot be completely disregarded, designed to play into a naïve belief in some parts of the west that negotiations with Bin Laden may offer a way out of the terror and security-dominated world in which we now live.
The final point follows from this. At the heart of Bin Laden's message is the threat to unleash further terror attacks on American citizens in their homeland. Far from provoking a movement to appease the terrorists, this will surely do the reverse. It will play directly into the hands of those who insist that security must overwhelm all other considerations. It should not. Specifically, after yesterday's leak from the Foreign Office, it should not undermine the continuing anxiety about possible British involvement in the transport of terror suspects to third countries where they risk torture.
The Foreign Office memorandum revealed no doubt in official minds of the illegality of ignoring due process in the transport of terrorist suspects to countries where they might be tortured - hence the importance of Condoleezza Rice's assurances that the US will not act in breach of its own constitutional disavowal of torture, a much narrower definition than the obligations imposed by the UN convention against torture or the European convention on human rights. It may mean what is legal there would not be here.
Ms Rice says Europe is helping it take terrorists out of circulation. The government insists it has no evidence of rendition flights. It might prefer not to resolve this contradiction.
Bin Laden's intervention should not let it off the hook.
Activists Vow to Shut Down Army Recruiting Sites
Activists Vow to Shut Down Army Recruiting Sites
Published on Friday, January 20, 2006 by the Inter Press Service by Haider Rizvi
Note: US activists are now being called terrorists.
NEW YORK - A leading coalition of peace groups in the United States is planning to stage nationwide protests against the U.S. war in Iraq on Mar. 19, the day when U.S.-led military forces invaded that country three years ago.
The group, which has organised a series of massive anti-war rallies in the past, says its renewed campaign will be focused on blocking U.S. military recruiting centres in hundreds of cities and towns across the country.
"This anniversary of the war is a provocation for us," Larry Holmes of the International Action Centre told a gathering of antiwar activists here this week.
"At this anniversary, we will start shutting down the military's recruiting centres," he added. Last October, several anti-war protesters, including 18 grandmothers of U.S.
soldiers, were arrested after they attempted to block the way into U.S. Army recruiting centres.
Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians are believed to have been killed. And according to official accounts, more than 2,100 U.S. soldiers have died and more than 16,000 been injured.
Organisers say in addition to targeting the U.S. presence in Iraq, this year's protests will also warn Washington against a possible military action against Iran. "We are threatening Iran when we have more nuclear weapons than anyone else," Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney-general and founder of the International Action Centre, who is helping represent former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, told activists.
"We kill, we murder, we torture, we assassinate, we can't go on like this," he said, adding that any U.S. military action in Iran would bring "nothing but more misery" for millions of people in the region.
The U.S. and other Western powers accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran denies that charge and asserts that its nuclear programme is aimed at generating electricity in accordance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Though not ruling out a possible military action against Iran, the former chief prosecutor of the United States said he believed that at the moment, the U.S. did not have the "military capacity to go into Iran".
Currently, more than 140,000 U.S. troops are based in Iraq, and the U.S. military's drive to recruit new soldiers at home is apparently failing to get a desirable response. "Closing down recruiting centres is getting important," Clark said, "because that's the way you can force your government to slash the military budget."
Washington's current annual military spending exceeds 400 billion dollars -- about half of what the entire world allocates for its defence-related activities.
In addition to massive loss of human life in Iraq, the ever-increasing cost of the war is another issue that seems to have added fuel to growing impatience in the U.S. with the George W. Bush administration.
A new study released this month suggests that the real cost of the U.S. war in Iraq is likely to be between one and two trillion dollars, an amount 10 times more than previously thought.
Written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, the report concludes that the U.S. government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.
The authors say their research is based on traditional estimates that include costs such as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops wounded in the conflict, as well as the impact on the U.S. economy.
During the early days of the war, the White House appeared certain that the cost would remain far less. In 2003, Larry Lindsey, a White House economic advisor, estimated the cost at around 200 billion dollars, which prompted the then-deputy chief of the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, to say that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction.
The Republican-dominated U.S. Congress has allocated 251 billion dollars for military operations, and its budget office now estimates that the Iraq war may cost another 230 billion dollars in the next 10 years.
Stiglitz and Bilmes say the Congressional estimates did not include some substantial future costs. For instance, they say the cost of lifetime care for the thousands of troops who have suffered brain injuries in the battlefield alone could run to 35 billion dollars.
And taking into account the spending on disability payments and demobilisation, the economists say it is likely that the budgetary cost alone could reach one trillion dollars.
They said their research did not include the cost of the war to the U.S. allies and Iraq. Activists say the enormous cost of war is not only adding to the burden of U.S. taxpayers, but making life harsher than ever before for millions of Iraqis as well.
"The Bush administration's war is coming back to the U.S. cities," said the IAC's Sara Flounders. "There are cuts in social programmes here. There is increased repression and domestic surveillance here." And in Iraq, she adds, "half of the population has no access to potable water.
The price of fuel in that oil-rich nation has increased six-fold and the electricity is available for two hours at best."
"The anger against the Bush administration is growing every where in the world," she said. "We will turn this anger into a massive movement to demand 'bring the troops home now.'"
...and he'll allow another massive strike on the USA.
Published on Friday, January 20, 2006 by the Inter Press Service by Haider Rizvi
Note: US activists are now being called terrorists.
NEW YORK - A leading coalition of peace groups in the United States is planning to stage nationwide protests against the U.S. war in Iraq on Mar. 19, the day when U.S.-led military forces invaded that country three years ago.
The group, which has organised a series of massive anti-war rallies in the past, says its renewed campaign will be focused on blocking U.S. military recruiting centres in hundreds of cities and towns across the country.
"This anniversary of the war is a provocation for us," Larry Holmes of the International Action Centre told a gathering of antiwar activists here this week.
"At this anniversary, we will start shutting down the military's recruiting centres," he added. Last October, several anti-war protesters, including 18 grandmothers of U.S.
soldiers, were arrested after they attempted to block the way into U.S. Army recruiting centres.
Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians are believed to have been killed. And according to official accounts, more than 2,100 U.S. soldiers have died and more than 16,000 been injured.
Organisers say in addition to targeting the U.S. presence in Iraq, this year's protests will also warn Washington against a possible military action against Iran. "We are threatening Iran when we have more nuclear weapons than anyone else," Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney-general and founder of the International Action Centre, who is helping represent former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, told activists.
"We kill, we murder, we torture, we assassinate, we can't go on like this," he said, adding that any U.S. military action in Iran would bring "nothing but more misery" for millions of people in the region.
The U.S. and other Western powers accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran denies that charge and asserts that its nuclear programme is aimed at generating electricity in accordance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Though not ruling out a possible military action against Iran, the former chief prosecutor of the United States said he believed that at the moment, the U.S. did not have the "military capacity to go into Iran".
Currently, more than 140,000 U.S. troops are based in Iraq, and the U.S. military's drive to recruit new soldiers at home is apparently failing to get a desirable response. "Closing down recruiting centres is getting important," Clark said, "because that's the way you can force your government to slash the military budget."
Washington's current annual military spending exceeds 400 billion dollars -- about half of what the entire world allocates for its defence-related activities.
In addition to massive loss of human life in Iraq, the ever-increasing cost of the war is another issue that seems to have added fuel to growing impatience in the U.S. with the George W. Bush administration.
A new study released this month suggests that the real cost of the U.S. war in Iraq is likely to be between one and two trillion dollars, an amount 10 times more than previously thought.
Written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, the report concludes that the U.S. government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.
The authors say their research is based on traditional estimates that include costs such as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops wounded in the conflict, as well as the impact on the U.S. economy.
During the early days of the war, the White House appeared certain that the cost would remain far less. In 2003, Larry Lindsey, a White House economic advisor, estimated the cost at around 200 billion dollars, which prompted the then-deputy chief of the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, to say that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction.
The Republican-dominated U.S. Congress has allocated 251 billion dollars for military operations, and its budget office now estimates that the Iraq war may cost another 230 billion dollars in the next 10 years.
Stiglitz and Bilmes say the Congressional estimates did not include some substantial future costs. For instance, they say the cost of lifetime care for the thousands of troops who have suffered brain injuries in the battlefield alone could run to 35 billion dollars.
And taking into account the spending on disability payments and demobilisation, the economists say it is likely that the budgetary cost alone could reach one trillion dollars.
They said their research did not include the cost of the war to the U.S. allies and Iraq. Activists say the enormous cost of war is not only adding to the burden of U.S. taxpayers, but making life harsher than ever before for millions of Iraqis as well.
"The Bush administration's war is coming back to the U.S. cities," said the IAC's Sara Flounders. "There are cuts in social programmes here. There is increased repression and domestic surveillance here." And in Iraq, she adds, "half of the population has no access to potable water.
The price of fuel in that oil-rich nation has increased six-fold and the electricity is available for two hours at best."
"The anger against the Bush administration is growing every where in the world," she said. "We will turn this anger into a massive movement to demand 'bring the troops home now.'"
...and he'll allow another massive strike on the USA.
New Anti-US Protests Rock Pakistan
New Anti-US Protests Rock Pakistan
Published on Friday, January 20, 2006 by Agence France Presse
New Anti-US Protests Rock Pakistan
not long ago, they were our allies...
Thousands of Pakistanis protested against a US airstrike targeting Al-Qaeda leaders, burning effigies of US President George Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
New Anti-US Protests Rock Pakistan (AFP) Around 2,000 demonstrators marched through the troubled tribal town of Wana and more than 1,000 led by hardliners in the northwestern city of Peshawar chanted "We are ready to support Osama and Zawahiri", police and witnesses said.
Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri was the target of last Friday's missile raid on a village near the Afghan border that killed 18 civilians and four Al-Qaeda operatives.
Nationwide protests also erupted last weekend after the attack, whose victims reportedly included Zawahiri's son-in-law and a bomb expert with a five-million-dollar US reward on his head.
"Musharraf cannot protect the country because he is protecting American interests," Abdul Ghaffar, a leader of the Muttahid Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) religious alliance, told the rally in central Peshawar on Friday.
Another MMA leader asked the prayer-cap wearing protestors to raise their hands if they were ready for jihad (holy war), and most members of the crowd raised their hands, witnesses said.
Protest leaders signed a petition calling on the government to shut down the US consulate in Peshawar as activists torched dummies of Bush and Musharraf.
"The demonstration was peaceful. Between 900 to 1,000 people participated," Peshawar police chief Habib-ur Rehman told AFP. Witnesses also put turnout at around 1,000.
In Wana, the main town in the South Waziristan tribal area, around 2,000 tribesmen marched through a main marketplace chanting "Death to America", "Allah is great" and "Stop killing innocent Muslims."
"The US action in Bajur shows our government's failure. It has got atom bombs and jets but it cannot stop foreign forces intruding into its territory," tribal elder Maulana Abdul Aziz told the crowd, referring to the Bajur tribal agency where the attack took place.
About 1,500 tribesmen in Mohamand tribal district bordering Afghanistan held another rally against the airstrike.
Hundreds of people also held demonstrations outside mosques in the eastern city of Lahore, near the border with India, after regular Friday prayers.
Earlier some 200 lawyers rallied outside the High Court building in Lahore while protesters gathered outside the headquarters of Pakistan's largest hardline religious party, Jamaat-i-Islami.
"We condemn the US airstrike in Bajur and we also condemn the government for its pro-American policies," party leader Amirul Azeem said in a speech.
Separately, lawyers in the central city of Multan boycotted courts to protest against the airstrikes and what they called Musharraf's pro-US policies.
"The US attack is a threat to the country's sovereignty. It seems our rulers have mortgaged Pakistan's independence with the United States," Muhammad Irfan Wyne, of the High Court Bar Association, told the rally.
Hardline Pakistani Islamic groups, which led last weekend's protests, have vowed to continue until the government expels all US troops who are helping with relief efforts after the devastating South Asian earthquake in October.
Pakistan has condemned the airstrike and lodged an official protest with the United States. It says it was given no prior warning.
Published on Friday, January 20, 2006 by Agence France Presse
New Anti-US Protests Rock Pakistan
not long ago, they were our allies...
Thousands of Pakistanis protested against a US airstrike targeting Al-Qaeda leaders, burning effigies of US President George Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
New Anti-US Protests Rock Pakistan (AFP) Around 2,000 demonstrators marched through the troubled tribal town of Wana and more than 1,000 led by hardliners in the northwestern city of Peshawar chanted "We are ready to support Osama and Zawahiri", police and witnesses said.
Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri was the target of last Friday's missile raid on a village near the Afghan border that killed 18 civilians and four Al-Qaeda operatives.
Nationwide protests also erupted last weekend after the attack, whose victims reportedly included Zawahiri's son-in-law and a bomb expert with a five-million-dollar US reward on his head.
"Musharraf cannot protect the country because he is protecting American interests," Abdul Ghaffar, a leader of the Muttahid Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) religious alliance, told the rally in central Peshawar on Friday.
Another MMA leader asked the prayer-cap wearing protestors to raise their hands if they were ready for jihad (holy war), and most members of the crowd raised their hands, witnesses said.
Protest leaders signed a petition calling on the government to shut down the US consulate in Peshawar as activists torched dummies of Bush and Musharraf.
"The demonstration was peaceful. Between 900 to 1,000 people participated," Peshawar police chief Habib-ur Rehman told AFP. Witnesses also put turnout at around 1,000.
In Wana, the main town in the South Waziristan tribal area, around 2,000 tribesmen marched through a main marketplace chanting "Death to America", "Allah is great" and "Stop killing innocent Muslims."
"The US action in Bajur shows our government's failure. It has got atom bombs and jets but it cannot stop foreign forces intruding into its territory," tribal elder Maulana Abdul Aziz told the crowd, referring to the Bajur tribal agency where the attack took place.
About 1,500 tribesmen in Mohamand tribal district bordering Afghanistan held another rally against the airstrike.
Hundreds of people also held demonstrations outside mosques in the eastern city of Lahore, near the border with India, after regular Friday prayers.
Earlier some 200 lawyers rallied outside the High Court building in Lahore while protesters gathered outside the headquarters of Pakistan's largest hardline religious party, Jamaat-i-Islami.
"We condemn the US airstrike in Bajur and we also condemn the government for its pro-American policies," party leader Amirul Azeem said in a speech.
Separately, lawyers in the central city of Multan boycotted courts to protest against the airstrikes and what they called Musharraf's pro-US policies.
"The US attack is a threat to the country's sovereignty. It seems our rulers have mortgaged Pakistan's independence with the United States," Muhammad Irfan Wyne, of the High Court Bar Association, told the rally.
Hardline Pakistani Islamic groups, which led last weekend's protests, have vowed to continue until the government expels all US troops who are helping with relief efforts after the devastating South Asian earthquake in October.
Pakistan has condemned the airstrike and lodged an official protest with the United States. It says it was given no prior warning.
Mood of Republicans Worry GOP Activists
Mood of Republicans Worry GOP Activists
Published on Friday, January 20, 2006 by the
Associated Press
by Ron Fournier
A growing number of Republican voters are frustrated by congressional spending and scandal, according to GOP leaders from across the country who worry that an "enthusiasm deficit" could cost the party control of Congress in November.
Some rank-and-file Republicans wonder what happened to the party that promised to reform Washington after taking control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years.
"We've seen the enemy, and he is us," said Tom Rath, a Republican National Committee member from New Hampshire describing the sentiments of some GOP voters.
"We have to get back to the basics. Let's talk about small government and reduced spending, and don't let the Democrats take those issues."
"I hear a lot of concern about increased spending and the need to reduce it — talk about getting back to the basics," said Kate Obenshain Griffin, chairwoman of the Virginia Republican Party.
Griffin, Rath and several other Republican activists attending a two-day RNC meeting said GOP voters in their states still strongly support President Bush.
They also insisted in interviews that Republicans were more likely than not to retain control of the House and the Senate in November.
But the possibility of losing Congress doesn't seem as remote as it once did. Many tried-and-true Republican voters are disenchanted with party leaders in Congress, and the sulky mood could suppress turnout in November, RNC members said.
Separately, private polling for Republicans suggest that government spending and political fallout from the Iraq war are causing anxiety among GOP voters.
Senior party officials inside and outside the White House fear that Washington scandal may hurt GOP turnout if average Republican voters believe that Congress' spending habits are partly the result of corruption.
That may be one reason why national party chairman Ken Mehlman told RNC members that corrupt politicians in either party should be rooted out and punished.
"The public trust is more important than party," he said in a speech prepared for delivery Friday.
The investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials.
Abramoff, who has admitted to conspiring to defraud his Indian tribe clients, has pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and is cooperating with prosecutors.
His ties to GOP congressional leaders and the White House pose a particular problem for Republicans.
Ten months before the midterm elections, Bush gets a chance to shape the political landscape with his State of the Union address Jan. 31. But there are a few clouds on the horizon that concern Republicans:
• A debate over immigration reform in Congress that threatens to divide the pro-business wing of the party from the anti-immigration conservatives.
• A May 15 deadline to sign up for a Bush-backed Medicare prescription drug program that has angered senior citizens, a formidable voting bloc in November.
• Revised budget deficit estimates are expected soon from the Congressional Budget Office and the White House. Bush will urge Congress to increase the $1.8 trillion debt limit in the next few weeks. These are all reminders that Republican-led Washington is awash in red ink.
Republican voters want their leaders to use control of Congress and the White House to implement a conservative agenda, and not get sidetracked by politics or scandal in Washington, RNC members said.
"There is frustration when people see internal struggles here in Washington and they don't see us get anything done on immigration and don't see us get anything done on the deficit," said DeMarus Carlson, an RNC member from Nebraska.
Party leaders fear that while conservative voters may become disengaged, liberal voters will be galvanized by their opposition to the Iraq war and their frustration with minority-party status.
"I talk about an enthusiasm deficit, and I think we have a little bit of that," Rath said of Republican voters. "They say we need to get our act together. They still love this president. But they want to see movement on the things that brought us to power. We took the government over and promised to fix things."
Outside the RNC, party strategists expressed the same concerns about voter turnout in November.
"They do love the president, but they have seen a Congress that doesn't seem to function well and they wonder what the heck is going on," said consultant Joe Gaylord, who helped Republicans seize control of the House in 1994 as an adviser to then-Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
"Whether it's an inability to communicate accurately or an unwillingness to solve the problems they were put in power to fix, people are confused," Gaylord said, "and that confusion could lead people to stay home in November."
Published on Friday, January 20, 2006 by the
Associated Press
by Ron Fournier
A growing number of Republican voters are frustrated by congressional spending and scandal, according to GOP leaders from across the country who worry that an "enthusiasm deficit" could cost the party control of Congress in November.
Some rank-and-file Republicans wonder what happened to the party that promised to reform Washington after taking control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years.
"We've seen the enemy, and he is us," said Tom Rath, a Republican National Committee member from New Hampshire describing the sentiments of some GOP voters.
"We have to get back to the basics. Let's talk about small government and reduced spending, and don't let the Democrats take those issues."
"I hear a lot of concern about increased spending and the need to reduce it — talk about getting back to the basics," said Kate Obenshain Griffin, chairwoman of the Virginia Republican Party.
Griffin, Rath and several other Republican activists attending a two-day RNC meeting said GOP voters in their states still strongly support President Bush.
They also insisted in interviews that Republicans were more likely than not to retain control of the House and the Senate in November.
But the possibility of losing Congress doesn't seem as remote as it once did. Many tried-and-true Republican voters are disenchanted with party leaders in Congress, and the sulky mood could suppress turnout in November, RNC members said.
Separately, private polling for Republicans suggest that government spending and political fallout from the Iraq war are causing anxiety among GOP voters.
Senior party officials inside and outside the White House fear that Washington scandal may hurt GOP turnout if average Republican voters believe that Congress' spending habits are partly the result of corruption.
That may be one reason why national party chairman Ken Mehlman told RNC members that corrupt politicians in either party should be rooted out and punished.
"The public trust is more important than party," he said in a speech prepared for delivery Friday.
The investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials.
Abramoff, who has admitted to conspiring to defraud his Indian tribe clients, has pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and is cooperating with prosecutors.
His ties to GOP congressional leaders and the White House pose a particular problem for Republicans.
Ten months before the midterm elections, Bush gets a chance to shape the political landscape with his State of the Union address Jan. 31. But there are a few clouds on the horizon that concern Republicans:
• A debate over immigration reform in Congress that threatens to divide the pro-business wing of the party from the anti-immigration conservatives.
• A May 15 deadline to sign up for a Bush-backed Medicare prescription drug program that has angered senior citizens, a formidable voting bloc in November.
• Revised budget deficit estimates are expected soon from the Congressional Budget Office and the White House. Bush will urge Congress to increase the $1.8 trillion debt limit in the next few weeks. These are all reminders that Republican-led Washington is awash in red ink.
Republican voters want their leaders to use control of Congress and the White House to implement a conservative agenda, and not get sidetracked by politics or scandal in Washington, RNC members said.
"There is frustration when people see internal struggles here in Washington and they don't see us get anything done on immigration and don't see us get anything done on the deficit," said DeMarus Carlson, an RNC member from Nebraska.
Party leaders fear that while conservative voters may become disengaged, liberal voters will be galvanized by their opposition to the Iraq war and their frustration with minority-party status.
"I talk about an enthusiasm deficit, and I think we have a little bit of that," Rath said of Republican voters. "They say we need to get our act together. They still love this president. But they want to see movement on the things that brought us to power. We took the government over and promised to fix things."
Outside the RNC, party strategists expressed the same concerns about voter turnout in November.
"They do love the president, but they have seen a Congress that doesn't seem to function well and they wonder what the heck is going on," said consultant Joe Gaylord, who helped Republicans seize control of the House in 1994 as an adviser to then-Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
"Whether it's an inability to communicate accurately or an unwillingness to solve the problems they were put in power to fix, people are confused," Gaylord said, "and that confusion could lead people to stay home in November."
Mood of Republicans Worry GOP Activists
Mood of Republicans Worry GOP Activists
Published on Friday, January 20, 2006 by the
Associated Press
by Ron Fournier
A growing number of Republican voters are frustrated by congressional spending and scandal, according to GOP leaders from across the country who worry that an "enthusiasm deficit" could cost the party control of Congress in November.
Some rank-and-file Republicans wonder what happened to the party that promised to reform Washington after taking control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years.
"We've seen the enemy, and he is us," said Tom Rath, a Republican National Committee member from New Hampshire describing the sentiments of some GOP voters.
"We have to get back to the basics. Let's talk about small government and reduced spending, and don't let the Democrats take those issues."
"I hear a lot of concern about increased spending and the need to reduce it — talk about getting back to the basics," said Kate Obenshain Griffin, chairwoman of the Virginia Republican Party.
Griffin, Rath and several other Republican activists attending a two-day RNC meeting said GOP voters in their states still strongly support President Bush.
They also insisted in interviews that Republicans were more likely than not to retain control of the House and the Senate in November.
But the possibility of losing Congress doesn't seem as remote as it once did. Many tried-and-true Republican voters are disenchanted with party leaders in Congress, and the sulky mood could suppress turnout in November, RNC members said.
Separately, private polling for Republicans suggest that government spending and political fallout from the Iraq war are causing anxiety among GOP voters.
Senior party officials inside and outside the White House fear that Washington scandal may hurt GOP turnout if average Republican voters believe that Congress' spending habits are partly the result of corruption.
That may be one reason why national party chairman Ken Mehlman told RNC members that corrupt politicians in either party should be rooted out and punished.
"The public trust is more important than party," he said in a speech prepared for delivery Friday.
The investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials.
Abramoff, who has admitted to conspiring to defraud his Indian tribe clients, has pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and is cooperating with prosecutors.
His ties to GOP congressional leaders and the White House pose a particular problem for Republicans.
Ten months before the midterm elections, Bush gets a chance to shape the political landscape with his State of the Union address Jan. 31. But there are a few clouds on the horizon that concern Republicans:
• A debate over immigration reform in Congress that threatens to divide the pro-business wing of the party from the anti-immigration conservatives.
• A May 15 deadline to sign up for a Bush-backed Medicare prescription drug program that has angered senior citizens, a formidable voting bloc in November.
• Revised budget deficit estimates are expected soon from the Congressional Budget Office and the White House. Bush will urge Congress to increase the $1.8 trillion debt limit in the next few weeks. These are all reminders that Republican-led Washington is awash in red ink.
Republican voters want their leaders to use control of Congress and the White House to implement a conservative agenda, and not get sidetracked by politics or scandal in Washington, RNC members said.
"There is frustration when people see internal struggles here in Washington and they don't see us get anything done on immigration and don't see us get anything done on the deficit," said DeMarus Carlson, an RNC member from Nebraska.
Party leaders fear that while conservative voters may become disengaged, liberal voters will be galvanized by their opposition to the Iraq war and their frustration with minority-party status.
"I talk about an enthusiasm deficit, and I think we have a little bit of that," Rath said of Republican voters. "They say we need to get our act together. They still love this president. But they want to see movement on the things that brought us to power. We took the government over and promised to fix things."
Outside the RNC, party strategists expressed the same concerns about voter turnout in November.
"They do love the president, but they have seen a Congress that doesn't seem to function well and they wonder what the heck is going on," said consultant Joe Gaylord, who helped Republicans seize control of the House in 1994 as an adviser to then-Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
"Whether it's an inability to communicate accurately or an unwillingness to solve the problems they were put in power to fix, people are confused," Gaylord said, "and that confusion could lead people to stay home in November."
Published on Friday, January 20, 2006 by the
Associated Press
by Ron Fournier
A growing number of Republican voters are frustrated by congressional spending and scandal, according to GOP leaders from across the country who worry that an "enthusiasm deficit" could cost the party control of Congress in November.
Some rank-and-file Republicans wonder what happened to the party that promised to reform Washington after taking control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years.
"We've seen the enemy, and he is us," said Tom Rath, a Republican National Committee member from New Hampshire describing the sentiments of some GOP voters.
"We have to get back to the basics. Let's talk about small government and reduced spending, and don't let the Democrats take those issues."
"I hear a lot of concern about increased spending and the need to reduce it — talk about getting back to the basics," said Kate Obenshain Griffin, chairwoman of the Virginia Republican Party.
Griffin, Rath and several other Republican activists attending a two-day RNC meeting said GOP voters in their states still strongly support President Bush.
They also insisted in interviews that Republicans were more likely than not to retain control of the House and the Senate in November.
But the possibility of losing Congress doesn't seem as remote as it once did. Many tried-and-true Republican voters are disenchanted with party leaders in Congress, and the sulky mood could suppress turnout in November, RNC members said.
Separately, private polling for Republicans suggest that government spending and political fallout from the Iraq war are causing anxiety among GOP voters.
Senior party officials inside and outside the White House fear that Washington scandal may hurt GOP turnout if average Republican voters believe that Congress' spending habits are partly the result of corruption.
That may be one reason why national party chairman Ken Mehlman told RNC members that corrupt politicians in either party should be rooted out and punished.
"The public trust is more important than party," he said in a speech prepared for delivery Friday.
The investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials.
Abramoff, who has admitted to conspiring to defraud his Indian tribe clients, has pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and is cooperating with prosecutors.
His ties to GOP congressional leaders and the White House pose a particular problem for Republicans.
Ten months before the midterm elections, Bush gets a chance to shape the political landscape with his State of the Union address Jan. 31. But there are a few clouds on the horizon that concern Republicans:
• A debate over immigration reform in Congress that threatens to divide the pro-business wing of the party from the anti-immigration conservatives.
• A May 15 deadline to sign up for a Bush-backed Medicare prescription drug program that has angered senior citizens, a formidable voting bloc in November.
• Revised budget deficit estimates are expected soon from the Congressional Budget Office and the White House. Bush will urge Congress to increase the $1.8 trillion debt limit in the next few weeks. These are all reminders that Republican-led Washington is awash in red ink.
Republican voters want their leaders to use control of Congress and the White House to implement a conservative agenda, and not get sidetracked by politics or scandal in Washington, RNC members said.
"There is frustration when people see internal struggles here in Washington and they don't see us get anything done on immigration and don't see us get anything done on the deficit," said DeMarus Carlson, an RNC member from Nebraska.
Party leaders fear that while conservative voters may become disengaged, liberal voters will be galvanized by their opposition to the Iraq war and their frustration with minority-party status.
"I talk about an enthusiasm deficit, and I think we have a little bit of that," Rath said of Republican voters. "They say we need to get our act together. They still love this president. But they want to see movement on the things that brought us to power. We took the government over and promised to fix things."
Outside the RNC, party strategists expressed the same concerns about voter turnout in November.
"They do love the president, but they have seen a Congress that doesn't seem to function well and they wonder what the heck is going on," said consultant Joe Gaylord, who helped Republicans seize control of the House in 1994 as an adviser to then-Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
"Whether it's an inability to communicate accurately or an unwillingness to solve the problems they were put in power to fix, people are confused," Gaylord said, "and that confusion could lead people to stay home in November."
U.S. Anti-Terror Efforts Hurting Ethnic, Religious Minorities Worldwide: Watchdog
U.S. Anti-Terror Efforts Hurting Ethnic, Religious Minorities Worldwide: Watchdog
Published on Friday, January 20, 2006 by OneWorld.net
UNITED NATIONS - The Bush administration's self-styled ''war on terror'' is undermining the rights of minority ethnic groups at home and abroad, according to a new assessment from a watchdog and advocacy group specializing in the rights of marginalized communities.
''The war on terror has produced areas of grave concern,'' Mark Lattimer, executive director of Minorities Rights Group International, told reporters Thursday at a news conference to launch the organization's ''State of the World Minorities 2006'' report.
The 215-page study, described as the first of its kind, says legislation to counter terrorism in the United States and Canada has had a negative impact on people of Middle Eastern and South Asian heritage.
It follows on the heels of Human Rights Watch's latest annual world report, in which the prominent watchdog warns that torture and mistreatment of prisoners have been deliberate parts of U.S. antiterrorism strategy and have undermined human rights worldwide.
According to Human Rights Watch's report, released Wednesday, the tactics are illegal and are ''fueling terrorist recruitment, discouraging public assistance of counterterrorism efforts, and creating a pool of unprosecutable detainees.''
The minority rights report says controversial legislation such as the USA Patriot Act, which allows ''indefinite detentions'' for terrorism suspects, has forced many Arab and Muslim families to leave North America for their home countries.
Additionally, the existing material witness law has deprived these communities of their civil rights, the group says. The law is based on the notion that if a court believes a witness's information to be 'material' to a criminal case, the witness can be locked up, but only for the time necessary for deposition.
However, according to the group's researchers, since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S. Department of Justice has ''manipulated'' this law by securing indefinite detentions of people whom the government wanted to investigate as possible terrorist suspects.
As a result, the document says, the U.S. government has imprisoned at least 70 men--all but one Muslim, at least three-quarters U.S. citizens, and 64 of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent.
The study suggests that the U.S.-led global war on terror also is being used to suppress minorities in places like Afghanistan and Russia's northern Caucasus.
It details how state authorities in many other regions are abusing the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.
''Around the world, civilians from minority communities are being prosecuted, tortured, and killed,'' Lattimer told reporters.
''Outrageously, some governments justify these practices as their contribution to the war on terror,'' he said.
The study places Iraq on top of the list of 15 countries where people from minority communities face the acute threat of persecution, discrimination, and mass killings.
In addition to continued tensions between Muslims from the Shia and Sunni sects, it notes that both the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad and rebel groups fighting the occupying forces continue to inflict harm on smaller communities.
''Following a flawed constitutional process and violence that has continued throughout December's elections, Iraqi Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmen, Christians, were found to be under greatest threat when assessed against indicators relating to political violence, group division, democracy, and governance,'' the report says.
It names Sudan as the place where minorities have the greatest reason to fear violence and persecution.
Other countries said to be the most serious violators of minority rights include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, Uganda, and Ethiopia.
The study also names Afghanistan, Burma, Indonesia, Russia, and the Philippines as places where ethnic and religious minorities suffer acutely from persecution and violence at the hands of state authorities and politically dominant groups.
As for Europe, the study finds that ''Muslim minorities have experienced an increase in police profiling and police violence since September 2001.''
Noting violations in South America, the authors say the term ''terrorist'' has in many places replaced ''communist'' as a label to justify suppression of the basic rights of indigenous people, and to avoid dialogue over issues such as land and resources, which communities native to the region have been demanding of settler-dominated national governments.
Some senior United Nations officials welcomed the London-based minority rights group's report, describing it as a major new contribution to the world body's knowledge about violations of minorities' rights.
''From the Americas to Europe to Asia to Africa, we can see the degradation in the rights of minorities threatens the security of whole societies,'' said Gay McDougall, the U.N. independent expert on minority issues.
''The prompt prevention of genocide or other mass violations require us to be much more aware of the ongoing situation faced by minorities,'' Juan Mendez, special advisor to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, wrote in the study's preface.
Mendez said the world body is seeking comprehensive approaches to minority issues while serving the cause of justice and democracy for whole societies.
Mendez and other U.N. officials are exploring whether a new international treaty could prove useful in protecting the rights of minorities globally.
Published on Friday, January 20, 2006 by OneWorld.net
UNITED NATIONS - The Bush administration's self-styled ''war on terror'' is undermining the rights of minority ethnic groups at home and abroad, according to a new assessment from a watchdog and advocacy group specializing in the rights of marginalized communities.
''The war on terror has produced areas of grave concern,'' Mark Lattimer, executive director of Minorities Rights Group International, told reporters Thursday at a news conference to launch the organization's ''State of the World Minorities 2006'' report.
The 215-page study, described as the first of its kind, says legislation to counter terrorism in the United States and Canada has had a negative impact on people of Middle Eastern and South Asian heritage.
It follows on the heels of Human Rights Watch's latest annual world report, in which the prominent watchdog warns that torture and mistreatment of prisoners have been deliberate parts of U.S. antiterrorism strategy and have undermined human rights worldwide.
According to Human Rights Watch's report, released Wednesday, the tactics are illegal and are ''fueling terrorist recruitment, discouraging public assistance of counterterrorism efforts, and creating a pool of unprosecutable detainees.''
The minority rights report says controversial legislation such as the USA Patriot Act, which allows ''indefinite detentions'' for terrorism suspects, has forced many Arab and Muslim families to leave North America for their home countries.
Additionally, the existing material witness law has deprived these communities of their civil rights, the group says. The law is based on the notion that if a court believes a witness's information to be 'material' to a criminal case, the witness can be locked up, but only for the time necessary for deposition.
However, according to the group's researchers, since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S. Department of Justice has ''manipulated'' this law by securing indefinite detentions of people whom the government wanted to investigate as possible terrorist suspects.
As a result, the document says, the U.S. government has imprisoned at least 70 men--all but one Muslim, at least three-quarters U.S. citizens, and 64 of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent.
The study suggests that the U.S.-led global war on terror also is being used to suppress minorities in places like Afghanistan and Russia's northern Caucasus.
It details how state authorities in many other regions are abusing the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.
''Around the world, civilians from minority communities are being prosecuted, tortured, and killed,'' Lattimer told reporters.
''Outrageously, some governments justify these practices as their contribution to the war on terror,'' he said.
The study places Iraq on top of the list of 15 countries where people from minority communities face the acute threat of persecution, discrimination, and mass killings.
In addition to continued tensions between Muslims from the Shia and Sunni sects, it notes that both the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad and rebel groups fighting the occupying forces continue to inflict harm on smaller communities.
''Following a flawed constitutional process and violence that has continued throughout December's elections, Iraqi Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmen, Christians, were found to be under greatest threat when assessed against indicators relating to political violence, group division, democracy, and governance,'' the report says.
It names Sudan as the place where minorities have the greatest reason to fear violence and persecution.
Other countries said to be the most serious violators of minority rights include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, Uganda, and Ethiopia.
The study also names Afghanistan, Burma, Indonesia, Russia, and the Philippines as places where ethnic and religious minorities suffer acutely from persecution and violence at the hands of state authorities and politically dominant groups.
As for Europe, the study finds that ''Muslim minorities have experienced an increase in police profiling and police violence since September 2001.''
Noting violations in South America, the authors say the term ''terrorist'' has in many places replaced ''communist'' as a label to justify suppression of the basic rights of indigenous people, and to avoid dialogue over issues such as land and resources, which communities native to the region have been demanding of settler-dominated national governments.
Some senior United Nations officials welcomed the London-based minority rights group's report, describing it as a major new contribution to the world body's knowledge about violations of minorities' rights.
''From the Americas to Europe to Asia to Africa, we can see the degradation in the rights of minorities threatens the security of whole societies,'' said Gay McDougall, the U.N. independent expert on minority issues.
''The prompt prevention of genocide or other mass violations require us to be much more aware of the ongoing situation faced by minorities,'' Juan Mendez, special advisor to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, wrote in the study's preface.
Mendez said the world body is seeking comprehensive approaches to minority issues while serving the cause of justice and democracy for whole societies.
Mendez and other U.N. officials are exploring whether a new international treaty could prove useful in protecting the rights of minorities globally.
Groups Worried About New US Aid Czar
Groups Worried About New US Aid Czar:
"WASHINGTON -The United States has unveiled a new plan for how it spends foreign aid dollars that links U.S. security to democracy and development overseas.
US President George W. Bush has chosen the US global AIDS assistance coordinator, Randall Tobias, pictured here in 2005, to lead the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the White House said(AFP/File/Goh Chai Hin)
But development activists fear the new overhaul could be ideologically motivated and criticised the appointment of a new aid director who they say had performed poorly in his previous position.
'In today's world, America's security is linked to the capacity of foreign states to govern justly and effectively,' U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday as she announced the plan. 'Our foreign assistance must help people get results.'
The new re-structuring plan unifies U.S. aid agencies, aid accounts and individual programmes under one director. President George W. Bush said he will appoint Randall Tobias, who now heads the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the U.S. global AIDS programme.
Tobias will also be the new administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and will oversee all U.S. foreign aid work. He will also carry the title of Deputy Secretary for Development.
Around 80 percent of all U.S. assistance goes through USAID and the State Department.
Tobias takes over USAID, which works in more than 100 countries with a 14-billion-dollar annual budget, from outgoing administer Andrew S. Natsios, whose resignation was announced last month.
He previously served as chairman, president and chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company. Officials from the State Department say the new changes will involve a sharper focus on the spread of democracy and the push not to have "failed states" without U.S. intervention.
Under the overhauled programme, Rice said, State Department officials and those from USAID, which has been independent since its founding in 1961, will have to exchange experiences and work.
Diplomats will now get training in "complicated foreign assistance programmes", she said. Rice said she will also initiate talks with Congress soon as to how the U.S. can better use its foreign assistance.
The State Department says that U.S. money should be used to empower developing countries to strengthen security, to consolidate democracy and to increase trade. Rice also said that Washington should further link its aid to defeat terrorist threats. (start by actually preventing them)
In her speech Thursday, she invoked the attacks of 9/11 and noted that the terrorists used the previously failed state of Afghanistan to launch their attacks. "In the final analysis, we must now use our foreign assistance to help prevent future Afghanistans -- and to make America and the world safer," she said.
Rice named terrorism, weapons proliferation, diseases, and trafficking in persons and drugs as global threats that require the U.S. to develop new diplomatic strategies. She said that without the new changes, U.S. foreign assistance may be ineffective.
"The current structure of America's foreign assistance risks incoherent policies and ineffective programmes and perhaps even wasted resources. We can do better and we must do better,"
Rice warned Thursday. But some civil society groups criticised the appointment of Tobias, citing his record in the fight against AIDS.
"Under his direction, HIV prevention programmes have shifted from being based in public health science to being dictated by the abstinence-only-until-marriage ideology of the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of the Washington-based Advocates for Youth.
Activists fear that too much ideology in the foreign aid system may derail other important programmes like family planning and population management. "As head of USAID, Ambassador Tobias will not only be responsible for AIDS funding, but also in charge of population and family planning programmes," concluded Wagoner.
"How will his anti-science ideology impact programmes vital to protecting the health of women and young people around the world?" Tobias' record in the fight against AIDS has also been marred by accusations of favouring drug corporations by displaying a preference for using more expensive, brand-name drugs instead of cheaper, safe generic versions that could have reached many more people in impoverished countries.
"An administrator of USAID should be committed to the most cost-effective and far-reaching response to such international challenges, rather than championing corporate interests and profits," said Ann-Louise Colgan, director for policy analysis and communications at Africa Action.
Advocacy groups have also expressed concerns that sensitive aid programmes will now be run by a pharmaceutical company executive with no experience in development work. "We feel that these concernsà must raise serious questions about Mr. Tobias' qualifications to run the U.S. Agency for International Development," said Colgan.
The new aid strategy announced by Rice is also part of an overarching restructuring of the State Department that Rice has called "transformational diplomacy".
This means U.S. diplomats will have to work directly with foreign citizens to help them "build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system".
Under the plan, areas previously not at the top of development priorities, like the Middle East and Islamic nations, where the U.S. claims it wants to spread democracy, will apparently take precedence. (take over and rule)
The secretary said that the new front lines of U.S. diplomacy are in the transitional countries of Africa, Latin America and the Middle East and emerging regional leaders like India, China, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia and South Africa.
Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service
"WASHINGTON -The United States has unveiled a new plan for how it spends foreign aid dollars that links U.S. security to democracy and development overseas.
US President George W. Bush has chosen the US global AIDS assistance coordinator, Randall Tobias, pictured here in 2005, to lead the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the White House said(AFP/File/Goh Chai Hin)
But development activists fear the new overhaul could be ideologically motivated and criticised the appointment of a new aid director who they say had performed poorly in his previous position.
'In today's world, America's security is linked to the capacity of foreign states to govern justly and effectively,' U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday as she announced the plan. 'Our foreign assistance must help people get results.'
The new re-structuring plan unifies U.S. aid agencies, aid accounts and individual programmes under one director. President George W. Bush said he will appoint Randall Tobias, who now heads the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the U.S. global AIDS programme.
Tobias will also be the new administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and will oversee all U.S. foreign aid work. He will also carry the title of Deputy Secretary for Development.
Around 80 percent of all U.S. assistance goes through USAID and the State Department.
Tobias takes over USAID, which works in more than 100 countries with a 14-billion-dollar annual budget, from outgoing administer Andrew S. Natsios, whose resignation was announced last month.
He previously served as chairman, president and chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company. Officials from the State Department say the new changes will involve a sharper focus on the spread of democracy and the push not to have "failed states" without U.S. intervention.
Under the overhauled programme, Rice said, State Department officials and those from USAID, which has been independent since its founding in 1961, will have to exchange experiences and work.
Diplomats will now get training in "complicated foreign assistance programmes", she said. Rice said she will also initiate talks with Congress soon as to how the U.S. can better use its foreign assistance.
The State Department says that U.S. money should be used to empower developing countries to strengthen security, to consolidate democracy and to increase trade. Rice also said that Washington should further link its aid to defeat terrorist threats. (start by actually preventing them)
In her speech Thursday, she invoked the attacks of 9/11 and noted that the terrorists used the previously failed state of Afghanistan to launch their attacks. "In the final analysis, we must now use our foreign assistance to help prevent future Afghanistans -- and to make America and the world safer," she said.
Rice named terrorism, weapons proliferation, diseases, and trafficking in persons and drugs as global threats that require the U.S. to develop new diplomatic strategies. She said that without the new changes, U.S. foreign assistance may be ineffective.
"The current structure of America's foreign assistance risks incoherent policies and ineffective programmes and perhaps even wasted resources. We can do better and we must do better,"
Rice warned Thursday. But some civil society groups criticised the appointment of Tobias, citing his record in the fight against AIDS.
"Under his direction, HIV prevention programmes have shifted from being based in public health science to being dictated by the abstinence-only-until-marriage ideology of the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of the Washington-based Advocates for Youth.
Activists fear that too much ideology in the foreign aid system may derail other important programmes like family planning and population management. "As head of USAID, Ambassador Tobias will not only be responsible for AIDS funding, but also in charge of population and family planning programmes," concluded Wagoner.
"How will his anti-science ideology impact programmes vital to protecting the health of women and young people around the world?" Tobias' record in the fight against AIDS has also been marred by accusations of favouring drug corporations by displaying a preference for using more expensive, brand-name drugs instead of cheaper, safe generic versions that could have reached many more people in impoverished countries.
"An administrator of USAID should be committed to the most cost-effective and far-reaching response to such international challenges, rather than championing corporate interests and profits," said Ann-Louise Colgan, director for policy analysis and communications at Africa Action.
Advocacy groups have also expressed concerns that sensitive aid programmes will now be run by a pharmaceutical company executive with no experience in development work. "We feel that these concernsà must raise serious questions about Mr. Tobias' qualifications to run the U.S. Agency for International Development," said Colgan.
The new aid strategy announced by Rice is also part of an overarching restructuring of the State Department that Rice has called "transformational diplomacy".
This means U.S. diplomats will have to work directly with foreign citizens to help them "build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system".
Under the plan, areas previously not at the top of development priorities, like the Middle East and Islamic nations, where the U.S. claims it wants to spread democracy, will apparently take precedence. (take over and rule)
The secretary said that the new front lines of U.S. diplomacy are in the transitional countries of Africa, Latin America and the Middle East and emerging regional leaders like India, China, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia and South Africa.
Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service
U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
Yahoo and others reveal queries from millions of people; Google refuses. Identities aren't included, but the data trove stirs privacy fears.
by Joseph Menn and Chris Gaither
SAN FRANCISCO — Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used.
The information turned over to Justice Department lawyers reveals a week's worth of online queries from millions of Americans — the Internet Age equivalent of eavesdropping on their inner monologues.
The subpoenaed data could, for example, include how many times people searched online for "apple pie recipes," "movie tickets 90012" or even "bomb instructions.
"The Internet companies said Thursday that the information did not violate their users' privacy because the data did not include names or computer addresses.
The disclosure nonetheless alarmed civil liberties advocates, who fear that the government could seek more detailed information later.
A Justice Department spokesman said the government was not interested in ferreting out names — only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography.
But the search-engine subpoenas come amid broader concerns over how much information the government collects and how the data are used.
Congress is debating an extension of the Patriot Act, which dramatically expanded the government's ability to obtain private data. And congressional hearings are expected soon on the legality of a National Security Agency program to track communications by U.S. citizens without prior court approval.
Privacy advocates said the opportunity to peruse search queries provided an unprecedented glimpse into people's private thoughts and habits. Virtually unknown a decade ago, search engines rapidly have become an integral part of daily life.
Search engines maintain "a massive database that reaches into the most intimate details of your life: what you search for, what you read, what worries you, what you enjoy," said Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"It's critical to protect the privacy of this information so people feel free to use modern tools to find information without the fear of Big Brother looking over their shoulder."
The issue came to light this week only when Google Inc., the most-used Internet search engine, fought its subpoena. Good for Google!
AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo also had been subpoenaed. Government lawyers filed a brief in U.S. District Court in San Jose seeking to force Google to comply.
Google's refusal was first reported by the San Jose Mercury News.Search engines and e-mail providers are asked for information on specific people in hundreds of cases yearly, both by law enforcement and in civil lawsuits.
They generally comply, and their privacy policies warn users that data can be turned over to authorities.Under a section of the Patriot Act expanding the use of so-called national security letters, companies such as Google can be asked to turn over potentially useful data — even about people who aren't suspected of wrongdoing — while being barred from disclosing those requests. But no previous case is known to have involved such a wide range of data.
"Their demand for information overreaches," said Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel. "We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this but were not able to, and we intend to resist their motion vigorously.
"The other search engines disclosed the information after narrowing the government's original request for two months' worth of searches to one week's worth. The week was not specified."We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said.
"We did not provide any personal information in response to the Department of Justice's subpoena. In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."A Microsoft spokeswoman said the company complied with the request "in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers. We were able to share aggregated query data … that did not include any personally identifiable information."
AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein said the Time Warner Inc. subsidiary initially rebuffed the Justice Department's requests and eventually provided "an aggregated and anonymous list of search terms….
What we gave them was something that was extremely limited, didn't have any privacy implications and is fairly common data." Beth Givens, director of the nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego, said those companies should have fought."Google and the other search engines," she said, "represent a very appealing honey pot for government investigators.
"In some ways, Google's action echoes Verizon Communications Inc.'s fight against the record industry two years ago. The record labels used a provision of a digital copyright law to demand the names of subscribers to Verizon's Internet service who were suspected of swapping music files illegally.
Verizon resisted, and a federal appeals court eventually agreed that the labels would have to sue individuals before forcing Verizon to turn over information on them. The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the government wanted an overview of what people look for online as part of its effort to restore an anti-pornography law that was struck down by the Supreme Court.
The Child Online Protection Act was adopted in 1998 after a similar law, the Communications Decency Act, was struck down on constitutional grounds. The Child Online Protection Act establishes fines and jail terms for businesses that publish sexually oriented material on the Web that is obscene or offensive, unless they weed out minors by demanding a credit card or other proof of age.
In 2004, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction against the law but sent the case back to a lower court in Pennsylvania. A majority of the high court wrote that the government could save the measure if it showed that the rules were more effective than Internet content filters at balancing the need to keep pornography from children against the free-speech rights of website operators.
Philip Stark, a UC Berkeley statistics professor working for the government, wrote in the San Jose court filing that the queries, along with a list of available websites, would help show what users were looking for and how often they found material that the government deemed harmful to minors.
The Justice Department also asked the Internet companies for the addresses to every website in their search-engine indexes, a request that was negotiated down to 1 million randomly chosen addresses. Government lawyers said they wanted that information to gauge the prevalence of websites that were harmful to minors and to measure the effectiveness of filtering software on those sites.
"We're not seeking any individual information regarding anybody who entered the query terms," Miller said. He did not respond to other questions, including whether the department would rule out seeking such information in the future and how the existing data would be used.
Google said, though, that the words in a single text query could lead the government to a searcher's identity."One can envision scenarios where queries alone could reveal identifying information," the company wrote in a letter objecting to the demand.
Users often search for information about themselves. More broadly, the company wrote, "Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept."
Google has tried to cast itself as an enlightened company, going so far as to tell investors that it planned to do business under a simple rule: "Don't be evil.
"But as Google has collected increasing amounts of information about its users, some observers have expressed concern that the company could break that rule by letting the data fall into the wrong hands or simply by complying with government demands."
Google could help protect its users … by limiting the information that is kept and how long it is stored," said the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Opsahl. "The easiest way to respond to a subpoena is by saying, "We don't have it.' "
BU*SH*IT I want my country back, get rid of this power monger menace to society!
WE ARE NOT FREE!
If its porn you are after all you have to do is look within 1 mile radius of the white house.
Yahoo and others reveal queries from millions of people; Google refuses. Identities aren't included, but the data trove stirs privacy fears.
by Joseph Menn and Chris Gaither
SAN FRANCISCO — Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used.
The information turned over to Justice Department lawyers reveals a week's worth of online queries from millions of Americans — the Internet Age equivalent of eavesdropping on their inner monologues.
The subpoenaed data could, for example, include how many times people searched online for "apple pie recipes," "movie tickets 90012" or even "bomb instructions.
"The Internet companies said Thursday that the information did not violate their users' privacy because the data did not include names or computer addresses.
The disclosure nonetheless alarmed civil liberties advocates, who fear that the government could seek more detailed information later.
A Justice Department spokesman said the government was not interested in ferreting out names — only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography.
But the search-engine subpoenas come amid broader concerns over how much information the government collects and how the data are used.
Congress is debating an extension of the Patriot Act, which dramatically expanded the government's ability to obtain private data. And congressional hearings are expected soon on the legality of a National Security Agency program to track communications by U.S. citizens without prior court approval.
Privacy advocates said the opportunity to peruse search queries provided an unprecedented glimpse into people's private thoughts and habits. Virtually unknown a decade ago, search engines rapidly have become an integral part of daily life.
Search engines maintain "a massive database that reaches into the most intimate details of your life: what you search for, what you read, what worries you, what you enjoy," said Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"It's critical to protect the privacy of this information so people feel free to use modern tools to find information without the fear of Big Brother looking over their shoulder."
The issue came to light this week only when Google Inc., the most-used Internet search engine, fought its subpoena. Good for Google!
AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo also had been subpoenaed. Government lawyers filed a brief in U.S. District Court in San Jose seeking to force Google to comply.
Google's refusal was first reported by the San Jose Mercury News.Search engines and e-mail providers are asked for information on specific people in hundreds of cases yearly, both by law enforcement and in civil lawsuits.
They generally comply, and their privacy policies warn users that data can be turned over to authorities.Under a section of the Patriot Act expanding the use of so-called national security letters, companies such as Google can be asked to turn over potentially useful data — even about people who aren't suspected of wrongdoing — while being barred from disclosing those requests. But no previous case is known to have involved such a wide range of data.
"Their demand for information overreaches," said Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel. "We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this but were not able to, and we intend to resist their motion vigorously.
"The other search engines disclosed the information after narrowing the government's original request for two months' worth of searches to one week's worth. The week was not specified."We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said.
"We did not provide any personal information in response to the Department of Justice's subpoena. In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."A Microsoft spokeswoman said the company complied with the request "in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers. We were able to share aggregated query data … that did not include any personally identifiable information."
AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein said the Time Warner Inc. subsidiary initially rebuffed the Justice Department's requests and eventually provided "an aggregated and anonymous list of search terms….
What we gave them was something that was extremely limited, didn't have any privacy implications and is fairly common data." Beth Givens, director of the nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego, said those companies should have fought."Google and the other search engines," she said, "represent a very appealing honey pot for government investigators.
"In some ways, Google's action echoes Verizon Communications Inc.'s fight against the record industry two years ago. The record labels used a provision of a digital copyright law to demand the names of subscribers to Verizon's Internet service who were suspected of swapping music files illegally.
Verizon resisted, and a federal appeals court eventually agreed that the labels would have to sue individuals before forcing Verizon to turn over information on them. The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the government wanted an overview of what people look for online as part of its effort to restore an anti-pornography law that was struck down by the Supreme Court.
The Child Online Protection Act was adopted in 1998 after a similar law, the Communications Decency Act, was struck down on constitutional grounds. The Child Online Protection Act establishes fines and jail terms for businesses that publish sexually oriented material on the Web that is obscene or offensive, unless they weed out minors by demanding a credit card or other proof of age.
In 2004, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction against the law but sent the case back to a lower court in Pennsylvania. A majority of the high court wrote that the government could save the measure if it showed that the rules were more effective than Internet content filters at balancing the need to keep pornography from children against the free-speech rights of website operators.
Philip Stark, a UC Berkeley statistics professor working for the government, wrote in the San Jose court filing that the queries, along with a list of available websites, would help show what users were looking for and how often they found material that the government deemed harmful to minors.
The Justice Department also asked the Internet companies for the addresses to every website in their search-engine indexes, a request that was negotiated down to 1 million randomly chosen addresses. Government lawyers said they wanted that information to gauge the prevalence of websites that were harmful to minors and to measure the effectiveness of filtering software on those sites.
"We're not seeking any individual information regarding anybody who entered the query terms," Miller said. He did not respond to other questions, including whether the department would rule out seeking such information in the future and how the existing data would be used.
Google said, though, that the words in a single text query could lead the government to a searcher's identity."One can envision scenarios where queries alone could reveal identifying information," the company wrote in a letter objecting to the demand.
Users often search for information about themselves. More broadly, the company wrote, "Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept."
Google has tried to cast itself as an enlightened company, going so far as to tell investors that it planned to do business under a simple rule: "Don't be evil.
"But as Google has collected increasing amounts of information about its users, some observers have expressed concern that the company could break that rule by letting the data fall into the wrong hands or simply by complying with government demands."
Google could help protect its users … by limiting the information that is kept and how long it is stored," said the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Opsahl. "The easiest way to respond to a subpoena is by saying, "We don't have it.' "
BU*SH*IT I want my country back, get rid of this power monger menace to society!
WE ARE NOT FREE!
If its porn you are after all you have to do is look within 1 mile radius of the white house.
20.1.06
A Town Becomes a Prison
A Town Becomes a Prison
*Inter Press Service*
Dahr Jamail and Arkan Hamed*
SINIYAH, Iraq, Jan 20 (IPS) -
People of Siniyah town 200 km north ofBaghdad are angry over a six-mile long sand wall constructed by the U.S.military to check attacks by rebels.*
"Our city has become a battlefield," 35 year-old engineer FuadAl-Mohandis told IPS at a checkpoint on the outskirts of the city.
"So many of our houses have been destroyed, and the Americans are placinglandmines in areas where they think there might be fighters, even thoughmost of the time it is near the homes of innocent civilians.
"Soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division have been coming under nearly daily attack from roadside bombs.Fuad said the U.S. military was now enforcing a curfew from 5pm. He said "so many explosions occur now which terrify our children.
"The U.S. military began to use bulldozers Jan. 7 to build a large sandbarrier around the town in an effort to isolate fighters who have been attacking U.S. patrols. Oil pipelines from the area which lead to Turkey have been regularly sabotaged by resistance groups.The drastic measures have enraged many of the 3,000 residents of the town.
"They think by these measures they can stop the resistance," Amer, a43-year-old clerk at the nearby Beji oil refinery told IPS. "But the Americans are creating more resistance by doing these things. The resistance will not stop attacking them unless they pull out of our country.
"The clerk said he had not been able to leave his house for several days,and was unable to work or to visit family members outside Siniyah. The U.S. military has named the project of building the huge sand wall'Operation Verdun' after a battle from World War I.
Occupation forces believe the city has become the main launching pad for attacks on their patrols, as well as mortar attacks on their nearby Summerall Base.Checkpoints have been set up near the town, with U.S. and Iraqi securityforces checking every car for weapons and explosives.
"We can't work any more, our income depends on distributing fuel," truckdriver Abdul Qadr told IPS at one of the checkpoints. "We are in a very bad situation. The city is isolated now and they are putting barricades everywhere to stop the fighters. Our houses are raided daily while they are searching for foreigners, yet they can't find any of them.
"Abdul Qadr, who grew up in Siniyah, told IPS he and his neighbours felt they were in a "concentration camp". That is also how residents of Fallujah and Samarra have described their towns after U.S. forces built similar walls around them. An 18 km long wall has been constructed by the U.S. military in Samarra,while Israeli-style military checkpoints remain in place in Fallujah.
The occupation forces have imposed similar measures also in other towns such as Al-Qa'im, Haditha, Ramadi, Balad, and Abu Hishma.While such security measures have been in place for some time in several towns, the attacks on security forces have only risen, to an average of more than 100 a day over recent months."The Americans think the fighters are coming from outside Iraq," said Qadr. "But they are not. Can't they see the only real solution is to let the people of a country rule themselves?"
Yes, I can see that. I do not support the American regime and am growing more ashamed to be a citizen here.
*Inter Press Service*
Dahr Jamail and Arkan Hamed*
SINIYAH, Iraq, Jan 20 (IPS) -
People of Siniyah town 200 km north ofBaghdad are angry over a six-mile long sand wall constructed by the U.S.military to check attacks by rebels.*
"Our city has become a battlefield," 35 year-old engineer FuadAl-Mohandis told IPS at a checkpoint on the outskirts of the city.
"So many of our houses have been destroyed, and the Americans are placinglandmines in areas where they think there might be fighters, even thoughmost of the time it is near the homes of innocent civilians.
"Soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division have been coming under nearly daily attack from roadside bombs.Fuad said the U.S. military was now enforcing a curfew from 5pm. He said "so many explosions occur now which terrify our children.
"The U.S. military began to use bulldozers Jan. 7 to build a large sandbarrier around the town in an effort to isolate fighters who have been attacking U.S. patrols. Oil pipelines from the area which lead to Turkey have been regularly sabotaged by resistance groups.The drastic measures have enraged many of the 3,000 residents of the town.
"They think by these measures they can stop the resistance," Amer, a43-year-old clerk at the nearby Beji oil refinery told IPS. "But the Americans are creating more resistance by doing these things. The resistance will not stop attacking them unless they pull out of our country.
"The clerk said he had not been able to leave his house for several days,and was unable to work or to visit family members outside Siniyah. The U.S. military has named the project of building the huge sand wall'Operation Verdun' after a battle from World War I.
Occupation forces believe the city has become the main launching pad for attacks on their patrols, as well as mortar attacks on their nearby Summerall Base.Checkpoints have been set up near the town, with U.S. and Iraqi securityforces checking every car for weapons and explosives.
"We can't work any more, our income depends on distributing fuel," truckdriver Abdul Qadr told IPS at one of the checkpoints. "We are in a very bad situation. The city is isolated now and they are putting barricades everywhere to stop the fighters. Our houses are raided daily while they are searching for foreigners, yet they can't find any of them.
"Abdul Qadr, who grew up in Siniyah, told IPS he and his neighbours felt they were in a "concentration camp". That is also how residents of Fallujah and Samarra have described their towns after U.S. forces built similar walls around them. An 18 km long wall has been constructed by the U.S. military in Samarra,while Israeli-style military checkpoints remain in place in Fallujah.
The occupation forces have imposed similar measures also in other towns such as Al-Qa'im, Haditha, Ramadi, Balad, and Abu Hishma.While such security measures have been in place for some time in several towns, the attacks on security forces have only risen, to an average of more than 100 a day over recent months."The Americans think the fighters are coming from outside Iraq," said Qadr. "But they are not. Can't they see the only real solution is to let the people of a country rule themselves?"
Yes, I can see that. I do not support the American regime and am growing more ashamed to be a citizen here.
Amnesty International
Amnesty International
yes, I have written them too...
Amnesty International Launches
'Tell the Truth About Torture, Mr. President' CampaignUrges Full, Honest Disclosure of U.S. Acts of Torture During State of the Union Address
WASHINGTON - January 19 - Amnesty International USA today kicked off its "Tell the Truth About Torture, Mr. President" campaign, building up to the State of the Union address on January 31.
During the two-week campaign, Amnesty International will enlist thousands of people to urge the president to be honest with all Americans about the U.S. government's use of torture in the "war on terror."
"The White House has dodged the truth about torture for too long," said Dr. William F. Schulz, Amnesty International's Executive Director. "With reports of torture in the news virtually every day, it is imperative the president and all in his administration end the secrecy and end the torture.
This campaign will allow thousands of Americans to demand that torture in our names is not committed again and insist that the president speak the truth in his State of the Union address about this heinous crime."
As the first campaign action, Amnesty International encourages the public to visit its Web site, www.amnestyusa.org, to sign a petition urging President Bush to tell the truth about the country's acts of torture here and abroad.
The Web petition is the first in a series of online and community activities in Washington and beyond the beltway that Amnesty International is initiating between now and the State of the Union. Actions are being planned for after Bush's address, as well.
Amnesty International is concerned that when President Bush last month signed the Anti-Torture Amendment - passed overwhelming by Congress - he also quietly issued a legal interpretation of the amendment through a "signing statement" asserting that he was not bound by the law under all circumstances.
"This mixed message from the administration is one more reason why Amnesty International is urging the Congress to establish a fully independent and impartial commission to conduct public investigations into the reports of abuse in U.S.-controlled detention centers, including secret ones, around the world and to offer preventive measures to stop torture," Schulz added.
And when we are done with him, have totally humiliated him, he will have his good old friend, Osama the alleged "Terrorist" Blow us to smitherines, Its all a big charade. Its been one huge charade since day 1.
yes, I have written them too...
Amnesty International Launches
'Tell the Truth About Torture, Mr. President' CampaignUrges Full, Honest Disclosure of U.S. Acts of Torture During State of the Union Address
WASHINGTON - January 19 - Amnesty International USA today kicked off its "Tell the Truth About Torture, Mr. President" campaign, building up to the State of the Union address on January 31.
During the two-week campaign, Amnesty International will enlist thousands of people to urge the president to be honest with all Americans about the U.S. government's use of torture in the "war on terror."
"The White House has dodged the truth about torture for too long," said Dr. William F. Schulz, Amnesty International's Executive Director. "With reports of torture in the news virtually every day, it is imperative the president and all in his administration end the secrecy and end the torture.
This campaign will allow thousands of Americans to demand that torture in our names is not committed again and insist that the president speak the truth in his State of the Union address about this heinous crime."
As the first campaign action, Amnesty International encourages the public to visit its Web site, www.amnestyusa.org, to sign a petition urging President Bush to tell the truth about the country's acts of torture here and abroad.
The Web petition is the first in a series of online and community activities in Washington and beyond the beltway that Amnesty International is initiating between now and the State of the Union. Actions are being planned for after Bush's address, as well.
Amnesty International is concerned that when President Bush last month signed the Anti-Torture Amendment - passed overwhelming by Congress - he also quietly issued a legal interpretation of the amendment through a "signing statement" asserting that he was not bound by the law under all circumstances.
"This mixed message from the administration is one more reason why Amnesty International is urging the Congress to establish a fully independent and impartial commission to conduct public investigations into the reports of abuse in U.S.-controlled detention centers, including secret ones, around the world and to offer preventive measures to stop torture," Schulz added.
And when we are done with him, have totally humiliated him, he will have his good old friend, Osama the alleged "Terrorist" Blow us to smitherines, Its all a big charade. Its been one huge charade since day 1.
Are You Ready to Be Bugged and Tortured By George W. Bush?
Are You Ready to Be Bugged and Tortured By George W. Bush?
It's not really terrorists George W. Bush wants to bug and torture. It's YOU. F-U!
It's not really terrorism he wants to fight. It's opposition from people he can't control. F-U!
It's not really US security he wants to protect. It's the power of his regime. F-U!
The Constitutional debate about whether these executive privileges are allowable in war is a smoke screen. F-U!
This isn't about war: It's about dictatorship. It’s about making power permanent by using private information against you, and by terrifying you with torture. F-U!
Team Bush believes it rules by Divine right. It has already re-defined "terrorist" to mean anyone who questions its power. It will use "anti-terrorist" wiretapping as a tool against anyone who dares oppose it. F-U!
All serious indicators show that "information" extracted by torture is virtually worthless in fighting terrorism. So is the information taken from wiretapping huge numbers of people, which Bush has been doing since before 9/11. F-U!
So ask yourself: if granted the power to torture, do you trust the Bush Administration---or any regime- - to refrain from torturing its political opponents? If granted the power to record private phone conversations, do you trust Karl Rove to not use this material against his political opponents? F-U!
Who will Bush go after first? Al Queda or the Quakers? Bin Laden or Cindy Sheehan? F-U! maybe me F*** YOU!
If Bush gets away with this, then it's simple: if you are too outspoken in opposing this regime's destruction of social security, or the natural environment, or the economy, you will sooner or later be subject to torture. F-U!
If Bush's phone buggers pick up information or statements taken out of context that can incriminate or make you look bad, Rove will not hesitate to leak them to FOX and use them for partisan purposes. F-U!
The Constitution of the United States is absolutely clear about banning these abuses. The patriotic Americans who demanded the Bill of Rights knew these powers must be outlawed to retain any hope of preserving our freedom and democracy. That's why they did so, clearly and explicitly. F-U!
Those who support giving Bush these powers are undoubtedly ready and willing to be tortured and bugged themselves. F-U!
As for the rest of us, there can be no compromise with tyranny. F-U!
Are you wondering how I really feel????
"Harvey Wasserman's History of the US" is available at
http://www.%20harveywasserman.com/, as is
"How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election and Is Rigging 2008", written with Bob Fitrakis.
It's not really terrorists George W. Bush wants to bug and torture. It's YOU. F-U!
It's not really terrorism he wants to fight. It's opposition from people he can't control. F-U!
It's not really US security he wants to protect. It's the power of his regime. F-U!
The Constitutional debate about whether these executive privileges are allowable in war is a smoke screen. F-U!
This isn't about war: It's about dictatorship. It’s about making power permanent by using private information against you, and by terrifying you with torture. F-U!
Team Bush believes it rules by Divine right. It has already re-defined "terrorist" to mean anyone who questions its power. It will use "anti-terrorist" wiretapping as a tool against anyone who dares oppose it. F-U!
All serious indicators show that "information" extracted by torture is virtually worthless in fighting terrorism. So is the information taken from wiretapping huge numbers of people, which Bush has been doing since before 9/11. F-U!
So ask yourself: if granted the power to torture, do you trust the Bush Administration---or any regime- - to refrain from torturing its political opponents? If granted the power to record private phone conversations, do you trust Karl Rove to not use this material against his political opponents? F-U!
Who will Bush go after first? Al Queda or the Quakers? Bin Laden or Cindy Sheehan? F-U! maybe me F*** YOU!
If Bush gets away with this, then it's simple: if you are too outspoken in opposing this regime's destruction of social security, or the natural environment, or the economy, you will sooner or later be subject to torture. F-U!
If Bush's phone buggers pick up information or statements taken out of context that can incriminate or make you look bad, Rove will not hesitate to leak them to FOX and use them for partisan purposes. F-U!
The Constitution of the United States is absolutely clear about banning these abuses. The patriotic Americans who demanded the Bill of Rights knew these powers must be outlawed to retain any hope of preserving our freedom and democracy. That's why they did so, clearly and explicitly. F-U!
Those who support giving Bush these powers are undoubtedly ready and willing to be tortured and bugged themselves. F-U!
As for the rest of us, there can be no compromise with tyranny. F-U!
Are you wondering how I really feel????
"Harvey Wasserman's History of the US" is available at
http://www.%20harveywasserman.com/, as is
"How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election and Is Rigging 2008", written with Bob Fitrakis.
Privacy Group to Sue Over US Eavesdropping Program
Privacy Group to Sue Over US Eavesdropping Program
A group that advocates privacy rights said on Wednesday it planned to sue the Justice Department to win the public release of documents related to President George W. Bush's domestic eavesdropping program.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, is the latest of a number of civil liberties organizations to take the federal government to court over the domestic spying program, which has caused an outcry among Republicans and Democrats alike.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed separate lawsuits on Tuesday, challenging the highly classified program that allows the National Security Agency to monitor U.S. citizens' international telephone and e-mail messages without first obtaining warrants.
EPIC said it would ask a federal district court in Washington on Thursday to order the release of related Justice Department documents that the government has failed to disclose under the Freedom of Information Act.
The 1966 FOIA law sets out procedures that allow the public to request the release of government documents and records.
EPIC submitted FOIA requests with four Justice Department offices including the Office of the Attorney General after the New York Times first reported the existence of the warrantless surveillance program on December 16.
The Justice Department said it responded quickly to EPIC's requests by agreeing to expedite the FOIA process. "The department continues to work in an expedited manner to meet this request," Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.
The Washington-based group contends that the Justice Department has played a key role in authorizing, implementing and overseeing the NSA program.
"The Administration has confirmed the existence of the program, but released very little information that sheds light on the key question (of) whether the government is acting illegally," EPIC general counsel David Sobel said in a statement.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it illegal for the U.S. government to spy on Americans in the United States without first getting approval from a secret federal court.
The program's existence has been acknowledged by Bush and defended by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is scheduled to appear at a February 6 hearing on the program before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Records sought by EPIC include an audit of the NSA program, a "checklist" guide used to determine whether an individual's phone or e-mail messages could be monitored, documents showing how information gleaned through eavesdropping had been used, and other legal opinions about the program.
A group that advocates privacy rights said on Wednesday it planned to sue the Justice Department to win the public release of documents related to President George W. Bush's domestic eavesdropping program.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, is the latest of a number of civil liberties organizations to take the federal government to court over the domestic spying program, which has caused an outcry among Republicans and Democrats alike.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed separate lawsuits on Tuesday, challenging the highly classified program that allows the National Security Agency to monitor U.S. citizens' international telephone and e-mail messages without first obtaining warrants.
EPIC said it would ask a federal district court in Washington on Thursday to order the release of related Justice Department documents that the government has failed to disclose under the Freedom of Information Act.
The 1966 FOIA law sets out procedures that allow the public to request the release of government documents and records.
EPIC submitted FOIA requests with four Justice Department offices including the Office of the Attorney General after the New York Times first reported the existence of the warrantless surveillance program on December 16.
The Justice Department said it responded quickly to EPIC's requests by agreeing to expedite the FOIA process. "The department continues to work in an expedited manner to meet this request," Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.
The Washington-based group contends that the Justice Department has played a key role in authorizing, implementing and overseeing the NSA program.
"The Administration has confirmed the existence of the program, but released very little information that sheds light on the key question (of) whether the government is acting illegally," EPIC general counsel David Sobel said in a statement.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it illegal for the U.S. government to spy on Americans in the United States without first getting approval from a secret federal court.
The program's existence has been acknowledged by Bush and defended by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is scheduled to appear at a February 6 hearing on the program before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Records sought by EPIC include an audit of the NSA program, a "checklist" guide used to determine whether an individual's phone or e-mail messages could be monitored, documents showing how information gleaned through eavesdropping had been used, and other legal opinions about the program.
Torture Flights: What No 10 Knew and Tried to Cover Up
Torture Flights: What No 10 Knew and Tried to Cover Up
Torture Flights: What No 10 Knew and Tried to Cover UpLeaked memo reveals strategy to deny knowledge of detention centers
by Richard Norton-Taylor
The government is secretly trying to stifle attempts by MPs to find out what it knows about CIA "torture flights" and privately admits that people captured by British forces could have been sent illegally to interrogation centers.
A hidden strategy aimed at suppressing a debate about rendition - the US practice of transporting detainees to secret centers where they are at risk of being tortured - is revealed in a briefing paper sent by the Foreign Office to No 10.
The note includes questions and answers on a number of issues. "Would cooperating with a US rendition operation be illegal?" it asks.
The document shows that the government has been aware of secret interrogation centers, despite ministers' denials. It admits that the government has no idea whether individuals seized by British troops in Iraq or Afghanistan have been sent to the secret centers.
Dated December 7 last year, the document is a note from Irfan Siddiq, of the foreign secretary's private office, to Grace Cassy in Tony Blair's office. It was obtained by the New Statesman magazine, whose latest issue is published today.
It was drawn up in response to a Downing Street request for advice "on substance and handling" of the controversy over CIA rendition flights and allegations of Britain's connivance in the practice.
"We should try to avoid getting drawn on detail", Mr Siddiq writes, "and to try to move the debate on, in as front foot a way we can, underlining all the time the strong anti-terrorist rationale for close cooperation with the US, within our legal obligations."
The document advises the government to rely on a statement by Condoleezza Rice last month when the US secretary of state said America did not transport anyone to a country where it believed they would be tortured and that, "where appropriate", Washington would seek assurances.
The document notes: "We would not want to cast doubt on the principle of such government-to-government assurances, not least given our own attempts to secure these from countries to which we wish to deport their nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism: Algeria etc."
The document says that in the most common use of the term - namely, involving real risk of torture - rendition could never be legal. It also says that the US emphasised torture but not "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment", which binds Britain under the European convention on human rights. British courts have adopted a lower threshold of what constitutes torture than the US has.
The note includes questions and answers on a number of issues. "Would cooperating with a US rendition operation be illegal?", it asks, and gives the response: "Where we have no knowledge of illegality, but allegations are brought to our attention, we ought to make reasonable inquiries". It asks:
"How do we know whether those our armed forces have helped to capture in Iraq or Afghanistan have subsequently been sent to interrogation centers?" The reply given is: "Cabinet Office is researching this with MoD [Ministry of Defence].
But we understand the basic answer is that we have no mechanism for establishing this, though we would not ourselves question such detainees while they were in such facilities".
Ministers have persistently taken the line, in answers to MPs' questions, that they were unaware of CIA rendition flights passing through Britain or of secret interrogation centers.
On December 7 - the date of the leaked document - Charles Kennedy, then Liberal Democrat leader, asked Mr Blair when he was first made aware of the American rendition flights, and when he approved them. Mr Blair replied: "In respect of airports, I do not know what the right honorable gentleman is referring to."
On December 22, asked at his monthly press conference about the US practice of rendition, the prime minister told journalists: "It is not something that I have ever actually come across until this whole thing has blown up, and I don't know anything about it." He said he had never heard of secret interrogation camps in Europe. But Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, recently disclosed that Whitehall inquiries had shown Britain had received rendition requests from the Clinton administration.
In 1998, Mr Straw, then home secretary, agreed to one request, but turned down another because the individual concerned was to be transported to Egypt. He agreed that Mohammed Rashed Daoud al-Owhali, suspected of involvement in the bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi, could be transported to the US for trial via Stansted, according to the briefing paper. Owhali was subsequently given a life sentence.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, which has demanded an inquiry into allegations of British collusion in rendition flights, said she was "deeply disappointed" by the memo. "The government seems more concerned about spinning than investigating our concerns," she said. She has written to Mr Straw saying the government must now give its full support to the inquiry conducted, at Liberty's behest, by the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Michael Todd.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said Mr Blair had fully endorsed Ms Rice's statement, yet the prime minister had clear advice that it might have been deliberately worded to allow for cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
"I am submitting an urgent question to the speaker and expect the foreign secretary to come to parliament to explain the government's position," he said.
"Evasion can no longer be sustained: there is now overwhelming evidence to support a full public inquiry into rendition."
Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP for Chichester and chairman of the parliamentary group on rendition, said last night: "All the experts who have looked at Rice's assurances have concluded that they are so carefully worded as to be virtually worthless. Relying on them, as the government appears to be doing, speaks volumes". He said his committee would pursue the issue.
Torture Flights: What No 10 Knew and Tried to Cover UpLeaked memo reveals strategy to deny knowledge of detention centers
by Richard Norton-Taylor
The government is secretly trying to stifle attempts by MPs to find out what it knows about CIA "torture flights" and privately admits that people captured by British forces could have been sent illegally to interrogation centers.
A hidden strategy aimed at suppressing a debate about rendition - the US practice of transporting detainees to secret centers where they are at risk of being tortured - is revealed in a briefing paper sent by the Foreign Office to No 10.
The note includes questions and answers on a number of issues. "Would cooperating with a US rendition operation be illegal?" it asks.
The document shows that the government has been aware of secret interrogation centers, despite ministers' denials. It admits that the government has no idea whether individuals seized by British troops in Iraq or Afghanistan have been sent to the secret centers.
Dated December 7 last year, the document is a note from Irfan Siddiq, of the foreign secretary's private office, to Grace Cassy in Tony Blair's office. It was obtained by the New Statesman magazine, whose latest issue is published today.
It was drawn up in response to a Downing Street request for advice "on substance and handling" of the controversy over CIA rendition flights and allegations of Britain's connivance in the practice.
"We should try to avoid getting drawn on detail", Mr Siddiq writes, "and to try to move the debate on, in as front foot a way we can, underlining all the time the strong anti-terrorist rationale for close cooperation with the US, within our legal obligations."
The document advises the government to rely on a statement by Condoleezza Rice last month when the US secretary of state said America did not transport anyone to a country where it believed they would be tortured and that, "where appropriate", Washington would seek assurances.
The document notes: "We would not want to cast doubt on the principle of such government-to-government assurances, not least given our own attempts to secure these from countries to which we wish to deport their nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism: Algeria etc."
The document says that in the most common use of the term - namely, involving real risk of torture - rendition could never be legal. It also says that the US emphasised torture but not "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment", which binds Britain under the European convention on human rights. British courts have adopted a lower threshold of what constitutes torture than the US has.
The note includes questions and answers on a number of issues. "Would cooperating with a US rendition operation be illegal?", it asks, and gives the response: "Where we have no knowledge of illegality, but allegations are brought to our attention, we ought to make reasonable inquiries". It asks:
"How do we know whether those our armed forces have helped to capture in Iraq or Afghanistan have subsequently been sent to interrogation centers?" The reply given is: "Cabinet Office is researching this with MoD [Ministry of Defence].
But we understand the basic answer is that we have no mechanism for establishing this, though we would not ourselves question such detainees while they were in such facilities".
Ministers have persistently taken the line, in answers to MPs' questions, that they were unaware of CIA rendition flights passing through Britain or of secret interrogation centers.
On December 7 - the date of the leaked document - Charles Kennedy, then Liberal Democrat leader, asked Mr Blair when he was first made aware of the American rendition flights, and when he approved them. Mr Blair replied: "In respect of airports, I do not know what the right honorable gentleman is referring to."
On December 22, asked at his monthly press conference about the US practice of rendition, the prime minister told journalists: "It is not something that I have ever actually come across until this whole thing has blown up, and I don't know anything about it." He said he had never heard of secret interrogation camps in Europe. But Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, recently disclosed that Whitehall inquiries had shown Britain had received rendition requests from the Clinton administration.
In 1998, Mr Straw, then home secretary, agreed to one request, but turned down another because the individual concerned was to be transported to Egypt. He agreed that Mohammed Rashed Daoud al-Owhali, suspected of involvement in the bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi, could be transported to the US for trial via Stansted, according to the briefing paper. Owhali was subsequently given a life sentence.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, which has demanded an inquiry into allegations of British collusion in rendition flights, said she was "deeply disappointed" by the memo. "The government seems more concerned about spinning than investigating our concerns," she said. She has written to Mr Straw saying the government must now give its full support to the inquiry conducted, at Liberty's behest, by the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Michael Todd.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said Mr Blair had fully endorsed Ms Rice's statement, yet the prime minister had clear advice that it might have been deliberately worded to allow for cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
"I am submitting an urgent question to the speaker and expect the foreign secretary to come to parliament to explain the government's position," he said.
"Evasion can no longer be sustained: there is now overwhelming evidence to support a full public inquiry into rendition."
Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP for Chichester and chairman of the parliamentary group on rendition, said last night: "All the experts who have looked at Rice's assurances have concluded that they are so carefully worded as to be virtually worthless. Relying on them, as the government appears to be doing, speaks volumes". He said his committee would pursue the issue.
Legal Rationale by Justice Dept. on Spying Effort - New York Times
Legal Rationale by Justice Dept. on Spying Effort - New York Times
MORE BU*SH*IT
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - The Bush administration offered its fullest defense to date Thursday of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, saying that authorization from Congress to deter terrorist attacks "places the president at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the N.S.A. activities (BU*SH*IT)
In a 42-page legal analysis, the Justice Department cited the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the writings of presidents both Republican and Democratic, and dozens of scholarly papers and court cases in justifying President Bush's power to order the N.S.A. surveillance program. (To make sure we don't know what they covered up)
With the legality of the program under public attack since its disclosure last month, officials said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales ordered up the analysis partly in response to what administration lawyers felt were unfair conclusions in a Jan. 6 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The Congressional report challenged virtually all the main legal justifications the administration had cited for the program.
Vice President Dick Cheney, meanwhile, once again defended the N.S.A. eavesdropping operation in a speech Thursday as "critical to the national security of the United States," even as House Democrats prepared to hold an unofficial hearing on Friday into a program that they charge is illegal and unconstitutional. Mr. Cheney is also scheduled to meet with Congressional leaders on Friday at a separate, closed-door briefing on the program.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts an open hearing on the eavesdropping on Feb. 6, Attorney General Gonzales is expected to testify. The session organized for Friday by Democrats is intended to spotlight critics of the program; administration officials will not use that forum to offer a defense.
The White House has invited some members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to attend a briefing on Friday, according to Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
The analysis released Thursday by the Justice Department, with comments from lawyers throughout the department, expanded on the legal arguments made in two still-classified legal opinions as well as in a slimmer letter that the department sent to Congress last month.
The basic thrust of the legal justification was the same - that the president has inherent authority as commander in chief to order wiretaps without warrants and that the N.S.A. operation does not violate either a 1978 law governing intelligence wiretaps or the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
This month's Congressional Research Service report was particularly critical of the administration's claim that the N.S.A. program was justified by a resolution passed by Congress three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, authorizing the use of "all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the terrorist acts. BU*SH*IT
The research service report found there was no indication that Congress intended to authorize warrantless wiretaps when it gave President Bush the authority to fight Al Qaeda and invade Afghanistan. But the Justice Department did not back away from its position in Thursday's report, saying the type of "signals intelligence" used in the N.S.A. operation clearly falls under the Congressional use-of-force authorization.
I've read enough, if the US had listened to pre 9/11 intelligence, instead of allowing 9/11 to happen we wouldn't be disputing the incessant power monger needs of this little menace to society, and his twisted, lying administration.
Isn't it convenient how Bush is getting so close to Impeachment, and Osama makes another apprearance...??? I wonder How much he paid Osama for that?
MORE BU*SH*IT
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - The Bush administration offered its fullest defense to date Thursday of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, saying that authorization from Congress to deter terrorist attacks "places the president at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the N.S.A. activities (BU*SH*IT)
In a 42-page legal analysis, the Justice Department cited the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the writings of presidents both Republican and Democratic, and dozens of scholarly papers and court cases in justifying President Bush's power to order the N.S.A. surveillance program. (To make sure we don't know what they covered up)
With the legality of the program under public attack since its disclosure last month, officials said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales ordered up the analysis partly in response to what administration lawyers felt were unfair conclusions in a Jan. 6 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The Congressional report challenged virtually all the main legal justifications the administration had cited for the program.
Vice President Dick Cheney, meanwhile, once again defended the N.S.A. eavesdropping operation in a speech Thursday as "critical to the national security of the United States," even as House Democrats prepared to hold an unofficial hearing on Friday into a program that they charge is illegal and unconstitutional. Mr. Cheney is also scheduled to meet with Congressional leaders on Friday at a separate, closed-door briefing on the program.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts an open hearing on the eavesdropping on Feb. 6, Attorney General Gonzales is expected to testify. The session organized for Friday by Democrats is intended to spotlight critics of the program; administration officials will not use that forum to offer a defense.
The White House has invited some members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to attend a briefing on Friday, according to Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
The analysis released Thursday by the Justice Department, with comments from lawyers throughout the department, expanded on the legal arguments made in two still-classified legal opinions as well as in a slimmer letter that the department sent to Congress last month.
The basic thrust of the legal justification was the same - that the president has inherent authority as commander in chief to order wiretaps without warrants and that the N.S.A. operation does not violate either a 1978 law governing intelligence wiretaps or the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
This month's Congressional Research Service report was particularly critical of the administration's claim that the N.S.A. program was justified by a resolution passed by Congress three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, authorizing the use of "all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the terrorist acts. BU*SH*IT
The research service report found there was no indication that Congress intended to authorize warrantless wiretaps when it gave President Bush the authority to fight Al Qaeda and invade Afghanistan. But the Justice Department did not back away from its position in Thursday's report, saying the type of "signals intelligence" used in the N.S.A. operation clearly falls under the Congressional use-of-force authorization.
I've read enough, if the US had listened to pre 9/11 intelligence, instead of allowing 9/11 to happen we wouldn't be disputing the incessant power monger needs of this little menace to society, and his twisted, lying administration.
Isn't it convenient how Bush is getting so close to Impeachment, and Osama makes another apprearance...??? I wonder How much he paid Osama for that?
U.S. Rejects Truce Offer From bin Laden - New York Times
U.S. Rejects Truce Offer From bin Laden - New York Times
How do you spell A**hole? = USA. Or perhaps this is like 9/11 where the US intentionally or even set up the attack, as a plight to get more money for the war effort. (They have to make it look legitimate even though the CIA was visiting Bin laden in the hospital...)
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Jan. 19 - Breaking more than a year's silence, Osama bin Laden warned Americans in an audiotape released on Thursday that Al Qaeda was planning more attacks on the United States, but he offered a "long truce" on undefined terms.
It was unclear when the recording, broadcast by the Arab satellite television station Al Jazeera, was made, but the Central Intelligence Agency verified its authenticity and said the station was probably right in saying that it dated from early December.
American officials said the release might have been timed to assure his followers that Mr. bin Laden was alive and well days after an American bombing of a house in a Pakistani village where senior Qaeda officials were said to have been killed.
In the tape, Mr. bin Laden addressed the American people directly, saying of his supporters, "Our situation is getting better while yours is getting worse." "My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them," he began.
"Bush said, 'It is better to fight them on their land than their fighting us on our land.' I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no letup, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor." He said the lack of Qaeda attacks in the United States since Sept. 11 was not related to improved security, and he pointed to terrorist attacks in Europe as evidence that his fighters could penetrate all such barriers.
As to what attacks Americans can expect, he said, "The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through, with God's permission."
Vice President Dick Cheney, asked by Fox News about the tape, said it now seemed likely that Mr. bin Laden, whom some had believed dead, was alive. But, the vice president said, Mr. bin Laden has clearly had trouble getting his message out and added, "We don't negotiate with terrorists." "I think you have to destroy them," he said. "It's the only way to deal with them." BU*SH*IT
Mr. bin Laden offered the American people a vague truce, saying "both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan." Later in the statement he quotes from a book which calls for an end to what he termed "
American interference in the nations of the world." The statement noted that American opinion polls had shown the nation's desire to withdraw its troops from Iraq and its feeling that it is better that Americans "don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours."
Regarding an American withdrawal, he said, "There is no shame in this solution which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign."
Nearly all of the video and audiotapes attributed to Mr. bin Laden in the past have turned out to be authentic. His voice, this time, sounded somewhat more labored, lacking the energetic quality typical of earlier recordings.
There was also a pronounced echo as if he had been inside a room, in contrast to previous recordings that seemed to have been made outdoors or in large spaces. Like some of his other recordings, this one made reference to recent events, including in this case to a report in a British newspaper in November that President Bush wanted to bomb the headquarters of Al Jazeera in Qatar, a claim dismissed by both the American and British governments.
The bin Laden broadcast comes just days after the United States launched airstrikes on a Pakistani village aimed at Mr. bin Laden's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Mr. Zawahiri was not at the site, but two senior members of Al Qaeda and the son-in-law of Mr. Zawahiri were among those killed in the strikes in remote northeastern Pakistan, Pakistani officials said.
The attacks caused anger across Pakistan, particularly in the autonomous tribal regions, and led the government to condemn the intrusion. Some analysts saw the message as a triumph for the leader of Al Qaeda. "The fact that he was able to record the message, deliver it and broadcast is in itself a victory for him," said Muhammad Salah, Cairo bureau chief for the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat and an expert on Islamist groups. Mr. bin Laden typically chooses his timing and messages carefully to prove a point, Mr. Salah said. "He is playing on the American people's desire to get out of Iraq and the Islamic fundamentalist swamp," he said. "And he is telling Bush that 'I am winning and I am still there.' " (or tell the American people Bush is paying me to say this and will allow another attack)
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters that President Bush had been told about the tape on Thursday morning after an appearance in Virginia. Mr. McClellan said American intelligence agencies were trying to determine whether the tape provided clues about Al Qaeda's operations. "If there is any actionable intelligence, we will act on it," Mr. McClellan said. (just as they did with pre-9/11 intelligence)
"We are winning," he said. "Clearly Al Qaeda and the terrorists are on the run, and that is why it is important that we do not let up, and do not stop, until the job is done." Mr. McClellan added: "We continue to act on all fronts to win the war on terrorism, and we will. The president is fully committed to do everything within his power to prevent attacks, and to defeat the terrorists. We are taking the fight to the enemy, we are working to advance freedom and democracy, to defeat their evil ideology."
Mr. bin Laden's message said his followers were not afraid of further American attacks because "a swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain," but he promised the same treatment for Americans as they had given others. "This says the man is still very much in action," said Riad Kahwaji, founder of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, a security research firm in Dubai. "He's saying the war is still on, and he's talking about ongoing plans for operations and strikes elsewhere. He's also mentioning recent events to give authenticity to the recording that it is recent and he is keeping up to date with developments." (The CIA is keeping him up to date)
Mr. bin Laden was last heard from in an audio recording in December 2004, in which he called for Iraqis to boycott the elections in January 2005. That broadcast prompted President Bush to take the unusual step of responding to the message, declaring that the call by Mr. bin Laden made the stakes in the Iraqi elections clear.
Iraqi Voting Found to Be Flawed but Mostly Fair; Sunnis Are Skeptical (January 20, 2006)
Full Text of the bin Laden Tape (January 19, 2006) It was unclear
How do you spell A**hole? = USA. Or perhaps this is like 9/11 where the US intentionally or even set up the attack, as a plight to get more money for the war effort. (They have to make it look legitimate even though the CIA was visiting Bin laden in the hospital...)
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Jan. 19 - Breaking more than a year's silence, Osama bin Laden warned Americans in an audiotape released on Thursday that Al Qaeda was planning more attacks on the United States, but he offered a "long truce" on undefined terms.
It was unclear when the recording, broadcast by the Arab satellite television station Al Jazeera, was made, but the Central Intelligence Agency verified its authenticity and said the station was probably right in saying that it dated from early December.
American officials said the release might have been timed to assure his followers that Mr. bin Laden was alive and well days after an American bombing of a house in a Pakistani village where senior Qaeda officials were said to have been killed.
In the tape, Mr. bin Laden addressed the American people directly, saying of his supporters, "Our situation is getting better while yours is getting worse." "My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them," he began.
"Bush said, 'It is better to fight them on their land than their fighting us on our land.' I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no letup, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor." He said the lack of Qaeda attacks in the United States since Sept. 11 was not related to improved security, and he pointed to terrorist attacks in Europe as evidence that his fighters could penetrate all such barriers.
As to what attacks Americans can expect, he said, "The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through, with God's permission."
Vice President Dick Cheney, asked by Fox News about the tape, said it now seemed likely that Mr. bin Laden, whom some had believed dead, was alive. But, the vice president said, Mr. bin Laden has clearly had trouble getting his message out and added, "We don't negotiate with terrorists." "I think you have to destroy them," he said. "It's the only way to deal with them." BU*SH*IT
Mr. bin Laden offered the American people a vague truce, saying "both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan." Later in the statement he quotes from a book which calls for an end to what he termed "
American interference in the nations of the world." The statement noted that American opinion polls had shown the nation's desire to withdraw its troops from Iraq and its feeling that it is better that Americans "don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours."
Regarding an American withdrawal, he said, "There is no shame in this solution which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign."
Nearly all of the video and audiotapes attributed to Mr. bin Laden in the past have turned out to be authentic. His voice, this time, sounded somewhat more labored, lacking the energetic quality typical of earlier recordings.
There was also a pronounced echo as if he had been inside a room, in contrast to previous recordings that seemed to have been made outdoors or in large spaces. Like some of his other recordings, this one made reference to recent events, including in this case to a report in a British newspaper in November that President Bush wanted to bomb the headquarters of Al Jazeera in Qatar, a claim dismissed by both the American and British governments.
The bin Laden broadcast comes just days after the United States launched airstrikes on a Pakistani village aimed at Mr. bin Laden's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Mr. Zawahiri was not at the site, but two senior members of Al Qaeda and the son-in-law of Mr. Zawahiri were among those killed in the strikes in remote northeastern Pakistan, Pakistani officials said.
The attacks caused anger across Pakistan, particularly in the autonomous tribal regions, and led the government to condemn the intrusion. Some analysts saw the message as a triumph for the leader of Al Qaeda. "The fact that he was able to record the message, deliver it and broadcast is in itself a victory for him," said Muhammad Salah, Cairo bureau chief for the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat and an expert on Islamist groups. Mr. bin Laden typically chooses his timing and messages carefully to prove a point, Mr. Salah said. "He is playing on the American people's desire to get out of Iraq and the Islamic fundamentalist swamp," he said. "And he is telling Bush that 'I am winning and I am still there.' " (or tell the American people Bush is paying me to say this and will allow another attack)
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters that President Bush had been told about the tape on Thursday morning after an appearance in Virginia. Mr. McClellan said American intelligence agencies were trying to determine whether the tape provided clues about Al Qaeda's operations. "If there is any actionable intelligence, we will act on it," Mr. McClellan said. (just as they did with pre-9/11 intelligence)
"We are winning," he said. "Clearly Al Qaeda and the terrorists are on the run, and that is why it is important that we do not let up, and do not stop, until the job is done." Mr. McClellan added: "We continue to act on all fronts to win the war on terrorism, and we will. The president is fully committed to do everything within his power to prevent attacks, and to defeat the terrorists. We are taking the fight to the enemy, we are working to advance freedom and democracy, to defeat their evil ideology."
Mr. bin Laden's message said his followers were not afraid of further American attacks because "a swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain," but he promised the same treatment for Americans as they had given others. "This says the man is still very much in action," said Riad Kahwaji, founder of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, a security research firm in Dubai. "He's saying the war is still on, and he's talking about ongoing plans for operations and strikes elsewhere. He's also mentioning recent events to give authenticity to the recording that it is recent and he is keeping up to date with developments." (The CIA is keeping him up to date)
Mr. bin Laden was last heard from in an audio recording in December 2004, in which he called for Iraqis to boycott the elections in January 2005. That broadcast prompted President Bush to take the unusual step of responding to the message, declaring that the call by Mr. bin Laden made the stakes in the Iraqi elections clear.
Iraqi Voting Found to Be Flawed but Mostly Fair; Sunnis Are Skeptical (January 20, 2006)
Full Text of the bin Laden Tape (January 19, 2006) It was unclear
19.1.06
How fortunate for leaders that men do not think
How fortunate for leaders that men do not think
IN particular George Bush, who wants this imperialistic status, but has no clue what he's doing.
IN particular George Bush, who wants this imperialistic status, but has no clue what he's doing.
Russia's SS-27 Makes Bush's Missile Defense A Fantasy
Russia's SS-27 Makes Bush's Missile Defense A Fantasy
Many thanks to http://sofocleto.blogspot.com/ for sharing this article with me.
The day america begins messing with the Russians, will be a very Grave day indeed
Russia's SS-27 Makes Bush's Missile Defense A FantasyBy Charles Assisi The Times of India1-15-6
On November 2, a rather staid little story appeared on a ticker powered by Itar-Tass, a Russian News Agency. The tone was decidedly Russian-matter-of-fact and shorn of all hyperbole. It reported the test launch of a ballistic missile called the Topol RS 12 at 8:10 pm Moscow time. After taking off from the Kapustny Yar test range in the Astrakhan region, it hit the intended target at Balkhash in Kazakhstan at 8:34-24 minutes later.
"The target was precisely hit," said the report, quoting a top-ranking official from the Russian armed forces.
In conclusion, Itar-Tass added some jargon that sounded like regulation copy to most people tracking defence:
"The advanced Topol missile has three cruise engines and can develop hypersonic speed. The high thrust-to-weight ratio allows the warhead to manoeuvre on the trajectory and pass through a dense air defence system."
At that time, not many defence analysts thought much of the report. After all, Kapustny Yar, located on the banks of the Volga river, 75 miles east of Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad), had gone to the dogs and was infrequently used. Whenever the base was lucky to see some action, all it witnessed was small payloads.
But what the mainstream media missed was analysed in great detail on internet discussion boards. For starters, something about the time mentioned in the report sounded astounding.
For anything to travel from Kapustny to Balkash in 24 minutes, it had to fly at a speed of three miles a second. That's 180 miles a minute or 10,800 miles an hour.
If the reports were indeed true, the Topol RS 12 or the Topol SS 27, as it is known in military circles around the world, had to be the fastest thing man has ever seen. And if you will for a moment excuse the breathlessness, it also represented the pinnacle of modern missile technology. Until this test, the fastest thing known to man was the X43 A. A hypersonic, unmanned plane built by NASA. It flew at 10 times the speed of sound-almost 7,200 miles per hour.
_____
But the Topol isn't attracting attention for its speed alone. It has got more to do with the sheer viciousness it demonstrates. A conventional intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), once deployed, takes off on the back of a booster. After attaining a certain altitude, it follows a set flight path or trajectory. When it reaches the intended target, it lets loose a set of warheads that home in on the target with devastating accuracy. Given these dynamics, military establishments build defence systems that can intercept an ICBM before it strikes. Often, the defence works.
With the Topol, these dynamics simply don't come into play. To start with, the damn thing can be manoeuvred mid-flight. This makes it practically impossible for any radar system in the world to figure out what trajectory it will follow.
The other thing is the kind of evasion technology built into the missile. That makes it invulnerable to any kind of radiation and electromagnetic and physical interference.
Then there is the question of ground-based nuclear warheads traditionally deployed to stop ICBMs in their path. Until now, any ICBM can be taken down by detonating a nuclear warhead from as far as 10 kilometres. The Topol doesn't blink an eyelid until the time a nuclear warhead gets as close as 500 meters. But given the Topol's remarkable speed and manoeuvrability, getting a warhead that close is practically impossible.
That leaves defence establishments with only two options. Target the missile at its most vulnerable points - either when it is on the ground or when it is just being deployed (also known as the boost phase).
Apparently, the Russians have gotten around that problem, too. Unlike virtually every ICBM that exists on some military base or the other, the Topol doesn't have to be on a static base. All it needs is the back of a truck. And trucks can be driven anywhere, anytime. That makes it practically impossible for any country to monitor how many of these missiles have been deployed and where.
Writes Scott Ritter, a former intelligence officer and weapons inspector in the Soviet Union and Iraq in the Christian Science Monitor:
"The Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M.. To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch."
But when you're done marvelling at the technology, sit back for a moment and consider this. You thought the cold war was over. You thought wrong. Cold War II has just begun. And the world just became a more dangerous place.
I couldn't agree more.
Many thanks to http://sofocleto.blogspot.com/ for sharing this article with me.
The day america begins messing with the Russians, will be a very Grave day indeed
Russia's SS-27 Makes Bush's Missile Defense A FantasyBy Charles Assisi The Times of India1-15-6
On November 2, a rather staid little story appeared on a ticker powered by Itar-Tass, a Russian News Agency. The tone was decidedly Russian-matter-of-fact and shorn of all hyperbole. It reported the test launch of a ballistic missile called the Topol RS 12 at 8:10 pm Moscow time. After taking off from the Kapustny Yar test range in the Astrakhan region, it hit the intended target at Balkhash in Kazakhstan at 8:34-24 minutes later.
"The target was precisely hit," said the report, quoting a top-ranking official from the Russian armed forces.
In conclusion, Itar-Tass added some jargon that sounded like regulation copy to most people tracking defence:
"The advanced Topol missile has three cruise engines and can develop hypersonic speed. The high thrust-to-weight ratio allows the warhead to manoeuvre on the trajectory and pass through a dense air defence system."
At that time, not many defence analysts thought much of the report. After all, Kapustny Yar, located on the banks of the Volga river, 75 miles east of Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad), had gone to the dogs and was infrequently used. Whenever the base was lucky to see some action, all it witnessed was small payloads.
But what the mainstream media missed was analysed in great detail on internet discussion boards. For starters, something about the time mentioned in the report sounded astounding.
For anything to travel from Kapustny to Balkash in 24 minutes, it had to fly at a speed of three miles a second. That's 180 miles a minute or 10,800 miles an hour.
If the reports were indeed true, the Topol RS 12 or the Topol SS 27, as it is known in military circles around the world, had to be the fastest thing man has ever seen. And if you will for a moment excuse the breathlessness, it also represented the pinnacle of modern missile technology. Until this test, the fastest thing known to man was the X43 A. A hypersonic, unmanned plane built by NASA. It flew at 10 times the speed of sound-almost 7,200 miles per hour.
_____
But the Topol isn't attracting attention for its speed alone. It has got more to do with the sheer viciousness it demonstrates. A conventional intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), once deployed, takes off on the back of a booster. After attaining a certain altitude, it follows a set flight path or trajectory. When it reaches the intended target, it lets loose a set of warheads that home in on the target with devastating accuracy. Given these dynamics, military establishments build defence systems that can intercept an ICBM before it strikes. Often, the defence works.
With the Topol, these dynamics simply don't come into play. To start with, the damn thing can be manoeuvred mid-flight. This makes it practically impossible for any radar system in the world to figure out what trajectory it will follow.
The other thing is the kind of evasion technology built into the missile. That makes it invulnerable to any kind of radiation and electromagnetic and physical interference.
Then there is the question of ground-based nuclear warheads traditionally deployed to stop ICBMs in their path. Until now, any ICBM can be taken down by detonating a nuclear warhead from as far as 10 kilometres. The Topol doesn't blink an eyelid until the time a nuclear warhead gets as close as 500 meters. But given the Topol's remarkable speed and manoeuvrability, getting a warhead that close is practically impossible.
That leaves defence establishments with only two options. Target the missile at its most vulnerable points - either when it is on the ground or when it is just being deployed (also known as the boost phase).
Apparently, the Russians have gotten around that problem, too. Unlike virtually every ICBM that exists on some military base or the other, the Topol doesn't have to be on a static base. All it needs is the back of a truck. And trucks can be driven anywhere, anytime. That makes it practically impossible for any country to monitor how many of these missiles have been deployed and where.
Writes Scott Ritter, a former intelligence officer and weapons inspector in the Soviet Union and Iraq in the Christian Science Monitor:
"The Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M.. To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch."
But when you're done marvelling at the technology, sit back for a moment and consider this. You thought the cold war was over. You thought wrong. Cold War II has just begun. And the world just became a more dangerous place.
I couldn't agree more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
