Mark Stapleton

Thanks very much Mike.

I think the fact that Daniel's post was removed by a moderator confirms that it was over the top.

I appreciate your support.

Dammit, I missed all the fun.

On whether Barack will be assassinated, I agree with an earlier opinion from Scott---almost zero chance, at least before his inauguration. It would just be too much, especially with the 40th anniversary remembrance of MLK just gone and RFK soon to come.

He's playing a smart game, our bold Barack, causing as little offence as humanly possible before he becomes #44. Very impressive.

What happens in the months after his inauguration will be fascinating. I hope he develops a rational and independent approach to the job--like JFK.

In fact, he will effectively become #36, imo. LBJ thru GWB were merely corrupt servants of wealthy interests, not real Presidents, although Jimmy Carter tried to do the right thing, imo. Barack will be a breath of fresh air on foreign policy and will be the first Prez in quite a while to show an understanding of foreign culture. I hope he can transform America from global renegade to responsible global citizen.

He'll be risking his life.

It was a very different kind of St. Patrick's day for Hillary Rodham Clinton, with very different consequences, as Frank Rich describes in Sunday's New York TImes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

I guess HRC is learning what its like to endure Bosnian sniper fire.

Maybe it's already started?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19630.htm

Day of Infamy

The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran

By John McGlynn

28/03/08 "ICH" -- -- March 20, 2008, destined to be another day of infamy. On this date the US officially declared war on Iran. But it's not going to be the kind of war many have been expecting.

No, there was no dramatic televised announcement by President George W. Bush from the White House oval office. In fact on this day, reports the Washington Post, Bush spent some time communicating directly with Iranians, telling them via Radio Farda (the US-financed broadcaster that transmits to Iran in Farsi, Iran's native language) that their government has "declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people." But not to worry, he told his listeners in Farsi-translated Bushspeak: Tehran would not get the bomb because the US would be "firm."

Over at the US Congress, no war resolution was passed, no debate transpired, no last-minute hearing on the Iran "threat" was held. The Pentagon did not put its forces on red alert and cancel all leave. The top story on the Pentagon's website (on March 20) was: "Bush Lauds Military's Performance in Terror War," a feel-good piece about the president's appearance on the US military's TV channel to praise "the performance and courage of U.S. troops engaged in the global war on terrorism." Bush discussed Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa but not Iran.

But make no mistake. As of Thursday, March 20 the US is at war with Iran.

So who made it official?

A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world's financial institutions under the title: "Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity."

FinCEN, though part of the chain of command, is better known to bankers and lawyers than to students of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, when the history of this newly declared war is someday written (assuming the war is allowed to proceed) FinCEN's role will be as important as that played by US Central Command (Centcom) in directing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In its March 20 advisory FinCEN reminds the global banking community that United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 1803 (passed on March 3, 2008) "calls on member states to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, and their branches and subsidiaries abroad."

UNSC 1803 specifically mentions two Iranian state-owned banks: Bank Melli and Bank Saderat. These two banks (plus their overseas branches and certain subsidiaries), along with a third state-owned bank, Bank Sepah, were also unilaterally sanctioned by the US in 2007 under anti-proliferation and anti-terrorism presidential executive orders 13382 and 13224.

As of March 20, however, the US, speaking through FinCEN, is now telling all banks around the world "to take into account the risk arising from the deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT [anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism] regime, as well as all applicable U.S. and international sanctions programs, with regard to any possible transactions" with – and this is important – not just the above three banks but every remaining state-owned, private and special government bank in Iran. In other words, FinCEN charges, all of Iran's banks – including the central bank (also on FinCEN's list) – represent a risk to the international financial system, no exceptions. Confirmation is possible by comparing FinCEN's list of risky Iranian banks with the listing of Iranian banks provided by Iran's central bank.

The "deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT" is important because it provides the rationale FinCEN will now use to deliver the ultimate death blow to Iran's ability to participate in the international banking system. The language is borrowed from Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a group of 32 countries and two territories set up by the G-7 in 1989 to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. As the FinCEN advisory describes, in October 2007 the FATF stated "that Iran's lack of a comprehensive anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime represents a significant vulnerability in the international financial system. In response to the FATF statement, Iran passed its first AML law in February 2008. The FATF, however, reiterated its concern about continuing deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT system in a statement on February 28, 2008."

Actually, the February 28 FATF statement does not comment on Iran's new anti-money laundering law. The statement does say, however, that the FATF has been working with Iran since the October 2007 FATF statement was issued and "welcomes the commitment made by Iran to improve its AML/CFT regime." Moreover, the February 28 statement, for whatever reason, drops the "significant vulnerability" wording, opting instead to reaffirm that financial authorities around the world should "advise" their domestic banks to exercise "enhanced due diligence" concerning Iran's AML/CFT "deficiencies." In linking its March 20 advisory to the recent FATF statements, apparently FinCEN cannot wait for FATF or anyone else to evaluate the effectiveness of Iran's brand new anti-financial crime laws.

Anyway, the "deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT" is probably the main wording FinCEN will use to justify application of one its most powerful sanctions tools, a USA Patriot Act Section 311 designation (see below).

Hammering away at Iran's state-owned banks is central to US efforts to raise an international hue and cry. Through its state-owned banks, FinCEN states, "the Government of Iran disguises its involvement in proliferation and terrorism activities through an array of deceptive practices specifically designed to evade detection." By managing to get inserted the names of two state-owned banks in the most recent UN Security Council resolution on Iran, the US can now portray the cream of Iran's financial establishment (Bank Melli and Bank Saderat are Iran's two largest banks) as directly integrated into alleged regime involvement in a secret nuclear weaponization program and acts of terrorism.

To inject further alarm, FinCEN accuses Iran's central bank of "facilitating transactions for sanctioned Iranian banks" based on evidence (which for various reasons appears true) gathered by Treasury and other US agencies that the central bank has facilitated erasure of the names of Iranian banks "from global transactions in order to make it more difficult for intermediary financial institutions to determine the true parties in the transaction." The central bank is also charged with continuing to "provide financial services to Iranian entities" (government agencies, business firms and individuals) named in two earlier UN Security Council resolutions, 1737 and 1747. In defense, Iran's central bank governor recently said: "The central bank assists Iranian private and state-owned banks to do their commitments regardless of the pressure on them" and charged the US with "financial terrorism."

So what does all this bureaucratic financial rigmarole mean?

What it really means is that the US, again through FinCEN, has declared two acts of war: one against Iran's banks and one against any financial institution anywhere in the world that tries to do business with an Iranian bank.

To understand how this works requires understanding what FinCEN does. This means going back in history to September 2005, when the US Treasury Department, based on the investigatory work of FinCEN, sanctioned a small bank in Macau, which in turn got North Korea really upset.

FinCEN's mission "is to safeguard the financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity" (FinCEN website).

Under Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act the US Treasury Department, acting through FinCEN, has been provided with "a range of options that can be adapted to target specific money laundering and terrorist financing concerns." Specifically, Section 311 contains six "special measures" to significantly increase the powers of the Treasury (and other US government agencies) to block alleged terrorist financing activities. As explained by a Treasury official during April 2006 testimony before Congress, the most punitive measure requires:

"U.S. financial institutions to terminate correspondent relationships with the designated entity. Such a defensive measure effectively cuts that entity off from the U.S. financial system. It has a profound effect, not only in insulating the U.S. financial system from abuse, but also in notifying financial institutions and jurisdictions globally of an illicit finance risk."

On September 20, 2005 FinCEN issued a finding under Section 311 that Banco Delta Asia (BDA), a small bank in the Chinese territory of Macau, was a "primary money laundering concern." BDA was alleged to have knowingly allowed its North Korean clients to use the bank to engage in deceptive financial practices and a variety of financial crimes (such as money laundering of profits from drug trafficking and counterfeit US $100 "supernotes").

By publicizing its allegations, FinCEN let the world know that BDA was now at risk of having all "correspondent relationships" with US banks severed, a disaster for any bank wanting to remain networked to the largest financial market in the world. Frightened BDA customers reacted by staging a run on the bank's assets.

In the interest of self-preservation, BDA was forced to act. After a quick conference with Macau financial authorities the bank decided to freeze North Korean funds on deposit.

It just so happened that the day before the FinCEN finding was made public the US and North Korea, working through the Six-Party talks process (also involving host China, Russia, South Korea and Japan), had formally agreed on a new diplomatic roadmap that promised to lead to a denuclearized and permanently peaceful Northeast Asia. But because of Treasury's BDA sanctions, North Korea was now labeled an international financial outlaw and the Six Party process stalled.

Other banks began severing their business ties with North Korea, leaving the country more isolated than ever from global commerce and finance. These other banks had no choice. Treasury repeatedly made clear that any bank that continued to do business with North Korea was another potential Patriot Act Section 311 target.

In anger, North Korea withdrew from the Six-Party process. It required 18 months of negotiations before a diplomatic and financial approach was devised that left BDA blacklisted but allowed North Korea to regain access to its frozen funds and rejoin Six Party negotiations.

Neither FinCEN nor anyone else at Treasury has ever publicly produced any evidence in support of the financial crime allegations against BDA and North Korea (articles by this author on BDA, North Korea and Treasury's lack of proof can be found at the Japan Focus website).

If Treasury was eventually forced to back off in the BDA case (apparently because the Bush administration changed its policy priorities), it had discovered that Patriot Act Section 311 could really shake things up.

The "real impact" of the BDA-North Korea sanctions, as Treasury undersecretary Stuart Levey told members of the American Bar Association in early March 2008, was that "many private financial institutions worldwide responded by terminating their business relationships not only with [bDA], but with North Korean clients altogether." Levey and his Treasury colleagues had come up with a way to go beyond governments to use the global banking sector to privatize banking sector sanctions against an entire country (this, by the way, is presidential candidate John McCain's proposed strategy for dealing with Iran as described in the Nov/Dec 2007 issue of the journal Foreign Affairs ). This "key difference" in the "reaction by the private sector" was an exciting revelation. Through a little extraterritorial legal arm-twisting of the international banking community the US was able to put "enormous pressure on the [North Korean] regime – even the most reclusive government depends on access to the international financial system," said Levey. Washington now had "a great deal of leverage in its diplomacy over the nuclear issue with North Korea." Turning to the present, Levey informed the gathering of US lawyers that "we are currently in the midst of an effort to apply these same lessons to the very real threat posed by Iran." However, "Iran presents a more complex challenge than North Korea because of its greater integration into the international financial community."

Stuart Levey

Over the past two years Levey and other Treasury officials have been crisscrossing the globe to make it abundantly clear in meetings (described by Treasury as opportunities to "share information") with banking and government officials in the world's key financial centers that dealing with Iran is risky business. Levey frequently claims that major European and Asia banks, once they hear the US pitch, freely decided to cooperate with anti-Iran banking sanctions for reasons of "good corporate citizenship" and a "desire to protect their institutions' reputations."

But these meetings include quite a bit of browbeating. This can be deduced from some of Levey's public statements, such as his testimony to Congress. On March 21, 2007 Levey told the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs that unilateral US financial sanctions "warn people and businesses not to deal with the designated target. And those who might still be tempted to work with targeted high risk actors get the message loud and clear: if they do so, they may be next." Also, the possibility of becoming a Patriot Act Section 311 sanctions victim (which means exclusion from the US market) probably comes up at the meetings, as this part of his testimony indirectly suggests: "Our list of targeted proliferators is incorporated into the compliance systems at major financial institutions worldwide, who have little appetite for the business of proliferation firms and who also need to be mindful of U.S. measures given their ties to the U.S. financial system."

Reportedly, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has also been involved in high-level meetings around the world concerning Iran, which presumably includes presentations on the arsenal of US financial sanctions. The message he imparts is unknown, but hints of the likely content can be found in public statements. Among Treasury officials Paulson has used the most dramatic language by making the argument that not only is Iran a danger to the international community but that this danger permeates virtually all of Iranian society. In a June 14, 2007 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations he first makes the point that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is a "paramilitary" organization "directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts, as well as funding and training other terrorist groups." Then he offers the alarming revelation that the IRGC "is so deeply entrenched in Iran's economy and commercial enterprises, it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran, you are somehow doing business with the IRGC." With such language, Treasury lays the groundwork for applying financial sanctions against the entirety of Iran. All this makes clear that the growing coalition of bankers against Iran the US likes to trumpet may not be such a willing group.

Some indication of how unwilling can be found in the pages of Der Spiegel (English edition). In July 2007 the German news magazine reported that "anyone wishing to do business in the United States or hoping to attract US investors had best tread softly when it comes to Iran. Germany's Commerzbank stopped financing trade with Iran in US dollars in January, after the Americans piled on the pressure." One German banker interviewed said: "German financial institutions feel the United States government has been engaging in 'downright blackmail'." The magazine goes on to report: "Anti-terror officials from the US Treasury are constantly showing up to demand they cut their traditionally good relations with Iran. The underlying threat from the men from Washington is that they wouldn't want to support terrorism, would they?"

Also, an April 2007 report from the UK's House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee states that the Confederation of British Industry indicated "strong concern" about Patriot Act provisions and other US extra-territorial sanctions. The Committee recognized the need for "vigorous action" in response to terrorist threats but also "endorse[d] the condemnation by the EU of the extra-territorial application of US sanctions legislation as a violation of international law."

Thus the US will need help from European government leaders to overcome resistance among major European financial institutions to US-led financial sanctions. Such help has already come from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. During her recent state visit to Israel, Merkel told the Knesset that Iran was global enemy number one. "What do we do when a majority says the greatest threat to the world comes from Israel and not from Iran?" she asked. "Do we bow our heads? Do we give up our efforts to combat the Iranian threat? However inconvenient and uncomfortable the alternative is, we do not do that." Iran is public enemy #1 in the world, and everyone – including the European banking establishment it would seem – has to accept that.

To summarize to this point: (1) the March 20 advisory represents a US declaration of war by sanctions on Iran and a sanctions threat to the international banking community, (2) the US has various unilateral financial sanctions measures at its command in the form of executive orders and Patriot Act Section 311 and (3) the BDA-North Korea sanctions were, at least in retrospect, a test run for Iran.

If the US succeeds, an international quarantine on Iran's banks would disrupt Iran's financial linkages with the world by blocking its ability to process cross-border payments for goods and services exported and imported. Without those linkages Iran is unlikely to be able to engage in global trade and commerce. As 30% of Iran's GDP in 2005 was imports of goods and services and 20% was non-oil exports (World Bank and other data), a large chunk of Iran's economy would shrivel up. The repercussions will be painful and extend well beyond lost business and profits. For example, treating curable illnesses will become difficult. According to an Iranian health ministry official, Iran produces 95% of its own medicines but most pharmaceutical-related raw materials are imported.

With a financial sanctions war declared, what happens next? There have been some hints.

On February 25 the Wall Street Journal reported that Treasury was considering sanctioning Iran's central bank (known as Bank Markazi). "The central bank is the keystone of Iran's financial system and its principal remaining lifeline to the international banking system," explains the Journal. "U.S. sanctions against it could have a severe impact on Iranian trade if other nations in Europe and Asia choose to go along with them." In anticipation of future events, the Journal notes: "U.S. officials have begun trying to lay the groundwork for a move against the central bank in public statements and meetings with key allies."

So look for the following to happen in the coming weeks: FinCEN will probably issue a Patriot Act Section 311 finding that Iran's central bank is a "primary laundering concern." The "deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT" wording lifted from the FATF statement will be a key reason for that finding. The finding may be accompanied by a formal decision to cut off Iran's central bank from the US financial market, or such a decision could come later. Of course, an actual or threatened cut-off has no immediate financial implications for Iran since no Iranian-flagged bank is doing business in the US, except possibly to allow shipments from the US of humanitarian provisions of food and medicine, which, if they exist, probably terminate with the March 20 FinCEN announcement.

But a Section 311 designation of Iran's central bank would have a powerful coercive effect on the world's banks. For any bank in Europe, Asia or anywhere else that goes near the central bank once the 311 blacklist is on, it would be the kiss of death for that bank's participation in the international banking community, as it was (and remains today) for BDA. Not only would that bank be barred from the US financial market, it would also be shunned by European and Japanese financial markets, as government and private banking officials in those markets are likely to cooperate with Washington's intensifying sanctions campaign.

What about China, now one of the world's major financial centers (two Chinese banks ranked among the top 25 in The Banker's 2007 survey of world banks) and a major trading partner for Iran?

China and Japan "were the top two recipients of exports from Iran, together accounting for more than one-quarter of Iran's exports in 2006," according to an analysis of International Monetary Fund (IMF) trading statistics contained in a December 2007 US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Washington's anti-Iran sanctions regime. On the import side, the GAO found that in 2006 "Germany and China were Iran's largest providers of imports, accounting for 23 percent of Iran's imports." Airtight global banking sanctions imposed on Iran would presumably make the financial administration of this trade next to impossible.

Will China bend to US sanctions wishes? Early signs suggest the answer is yes.

In December 2007 ArabianBusiness.com reported that Chinese banks were starting to decline to open letters of credit for Iranian traders. Asadollah Asgaroladi, head of the Iran-China chamber of commerce, was quoted as saying that China's banks did not explain the refusal but "if this trend continues it will harm the two countries' economic cooperation and trade exchange." In February, ArabianBusiness.com found that China's cutbacks in its banking business with Iran was affecting a joint automobile production arrangement.

Such disruptions in the Chinese-Iranian banking relationship are minor. Meanwhile, Beijing keeps insisting that peaceful diplomacy with Iran is the best policy and that the only sanctions needed are those mandated under the three UN Security Council resolutions already on the books. Thus, to make China cooperate with Washington's unilateral banking sanctions, the US and the EU, reports the Financial Times, are apparently using a tag-team strategy.

On February 12 the FT told readers that "the US believes that tighter EU sanctions will put pressure on other nations that do more business with Iran - China for example - to curb their activities." Therefore, explained an anonymous diplomat apparently from the US: "We will be pushing the EU to go further than the Security Council," a move intended, the diplomat said, to "gold plate" Security Council requirements.

To explain this move the FT provided an example of "gold plating" from 2007, when the EU implemented UN Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1747 on Iran.

In similar language to the current text on Banks Saderat and Melli, the UN had called for "vigilance and restraint" concerning the movements of individuals linked to Iran's nuclear and missile programmes and members of its Revolutionary Guard. But in implementing the resolutions, the EU subjected all the named individuals to a travel ban - a much tougher measure.

Reading between the lines, the intention behind "gold plating" Security Council resolutions is to put pressure on China to bow to a more aggressive US-EU sanctions program. In the case of the most recent Security Council resolution on Iran, 1803, which put sanctions on two Iranian banks, FinCEN rolled two "gold plating" actions into one. It combined the Security Council's naming of the two banks with the October and February FATF statements to justify its March 20 warning to the world that Iran's entire banking system is a danger. Whether the EU will follow FinCEN's action, and how China will respond to any of this, remains to be seen.

In short, the US has in effect declared war on Iran. No bombs need fall as long as the US strategy relies solely on financial sanctions. But if the US Section 311 designates Iran's central bank as a financial criminal, the impact will be the financial equivalent to the first bombs falling on Baghdad at the start of the US-UK invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

In a 1996 publication written for the National Defense University, Harlan Ullman and James Wade introduced a military doctrine for "affecting the adversary's will to resist through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe to achieve strategic aims and military objectives."

Former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld made Shock and Awe famous by invoking it as the US strategy in the attack on Iraq in March 2003 (though weeks later Ullman was claiming Rumsfeld was misapplying the doctrine).

But Shock and Awe's authors (apparently with something like Vietnam or the 1993-1994 Somalia fiasco in mind) also envisioned that "n certain circumstances, the costs of having to resort to lethal force may be too politically expensive in terms of local support as well as support in the U.S. and internationally." Consequently, they wrote:

"Economic sanctions are likely to continue to be a preferable political alternative or a necessary political prelude to an offensive military step . . .In a world in which nonlethal sanctions are a political imperative, we will continue to need the ability to shut down all commerce into and out of any country from shipping, air, rail, and roads. We ought to be able to do this in a much more thorough, decisive, and shocking way than we have in the past . . . Weapons that shock and awe, stun and paralyze, but do not kill in significant numbers may be the only ones that are politically acceptable in the future."

It was only a matter of finding a sanctions strategy systematic enough to make this more obscure portion of the Shock and Awe doctrine operational. What Ullman and Wade could not have imagined was that Washington's global planners would use extraterritorial legal powers and its financial clout to coerce the global banking industry into accepting US foreign policy diktat. North Korea was a test-run for the new strategy of Shock and Awe financial sanctions. As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius put it in February 2007, "[t]he new sanctions are toxic because they effectively limit a country's access to the global ATM. In that sense, they impose -- at last -- a real price on countries such as North Korea and Iran."

What then will the impact be of this US-Iran banking standoff? For the US, almost no impact at all. Treasury bureaucrats will spend some time and a little taxpayer money making phone calls, checking computer screens and paper trails to monitor global banking compliance with sanctions. The cost of financially ostracizing Iran will be a bargain for US taxpayers compared with the eventual $3 trillion cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars estimated by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard financial expert Linda Bilmes.

Iran, however, will become another Gaza or Iraq under the economic sanctions of the 1990s, with devastating impact on economy and society. That Iran's complete financial and economic destruction is the goal of US policy was spelled out by the State Department the day before the FinCEN announcement.

During a daily press meeting with reporters on March 19, the State Department's spokesperson was asked about a deal recently signed between Switzerland and Iran to supply Iranian natural gas to Europe. After condemning the deal, the spokesperson explained that the US is opposed to any "investing in Iran, not only in its petroleum or natural gas area but in any sector of its economy" and questioned rhetorically the wisdom of doing business with Iranian "financial institutions that are under UN sanctions or could become under sanctions if it's found that they are assisting or aiding or abetting Iran's nuclear program in any way." A clearer expression of US desires is hardly possible.

John McGlynn is an independent Tokyo-based economic and financial analyst.

A very interesting article. Thanks for posting this, Maggie.

Looks like the US will leave no stone unturned in honoring its promise to its masters (Israel), that it will destroy Iran for them. Countries who reluctantly participate in such a cowardly strategy should ponder whether they will become the next "global menace, threat, terrorism sponsor, wearer of bad clothing and all-purpose enemy of the day".

Americans might wonder why Iran has become their specific mortal enemy. They have a different culture, religion, and form of Government to the US, but the same can be said of other many countries. They may desire a nuclear deterrent, but so what? That's no threat to America.

There can be no doubt about the reason for all this. Israel. As usual, Israel benefits from a convenient cloaking cover which runs in tandem---the greed of America and its oil interests in controlling the 'jewel in the crown' of Gulf States and its ample resouces. Israel's strategic interests and US corporate greed seem to compliment each other perfectly--as usual. But who's being wagged, the dog or the tail? And as usual, the psychopaths running Israel and the US give no thought to the consequences which might be suffered by 'collateral' innocent parties who have no stake in this odious conflict. The 70 million people of Iran, for example.

After recieving orders from her masters, Peahen Merkel leads the chorus, hoping the EU and China follows:

"Give us Barabbas, give us Barabbas". "He's not that bad".

David,

Just a draft posting, I guess. I've only skimmed through the article but I intend to read it fully tomorrow when I have more time.

However, from my early vantage point I suspect this article (and the book) may explain many of the ills which bedevil modern society. Thanks for posting this.

I agree with John. Great article, Tony.

One question: Do you know the reason why the Sergeant Don Flusche statement would not be available to the WC, but later was available to the HSCA? Who would have made that particular determination?

Thanks Mark,

When Don Flusche was interviewed by the HSCA he stated that he had informed his superior, Lieutenant Knox, about his observations soon after the event. It appears that Lt. Knox did not pass on the information to the Dallas Police team investigating Oswald's shooting, the FBI or the Warren Commission. This appears to be the reason why the Warren Commission knew nothing about the important observations made by Sergeant Flusche.

The question is then why did Lt. Knox not pass on the information to any of the investigating bodies? I can find no answer to this question. Did he simply forget? Did he think that the information was not very important? or was it because the Dallas Police Department had quickly developed an official position on the question of how Ruby got down into the basement and were the members of the Department under pressure not to supply information which might contradict the official position?

Or was there some other reason? This is all just speculation of course, I did not come across any record of Lieutenant Knox being interviewed about this matter and giving his explanation.

Tony

Thanks, Tony. I guess the full story behind the early official oversight of Sergeant Flusche's statement will never be known but I take note of your observations concerning possible explanations.

One other part of your fine research was also quite intriguing:

Additionally, security at the relevant point in the basement was not airtight. Patrolman Alvin R. Brock had been assigned to watch the door leading from the fire escape to the nearby elevator doors, but he was reassigned by Sergeants Putnam and Dean at 10:45 am.”

I wonder on whose orders Putnam and Dean were acting when they reassigned Patrolman Brock from guarding the fire escape door a mere 36 minutes before the shooting of LHO? I suppose the answer to that was also lost in the confusion, but it further indicates collusion, imo.

p.s. I fully agree that careful analysis of Ruby's movements and actions, despite the confusion injected by those who had something to hide, is a more direct route to the identity of the conspirators than most other aspects of the case.

I agree with John. Great article, Tony.

One question: Do you know the reason why the Sergeant Don Flusche statement would not be available to the WC, but later was available to the HSCA? Who would have made that particular determination?

Now that was a rather lame cop out. I don't at all find it surprising you chose not to reply on the other thread, where your in ability to make your case is plain for all to see.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=141641

Taunts won't tempt me, Len. Your MO has become very predictable.

Mark and I have sharp ideological differences and he seems to have been particularly bothered that I challenged him to document a wild claim.

Scuse me?

What wild claim? If you're alluding to the Fisher/Ford issue, then I don't think there's anything wild about it.

Could a wealthy, influential and generous donor to the Republican Party influence and control a feeble-minded mediocrity like Ford, also from Michigan? More of a certainty than a wild claim, imo.

You do under the difference between 'could' and 'did'? You have been unable to produce any evidence he did.

You're in denial.

I agree that one of us is “in denial” regarding this matter. If you want to establish that it is me I suggest that (in the appropriate thread) you make a post summing up all the evidence you have that Fisher actually controlled Ford *rather than it simply was possible). As for Ford being “feeble minded” numerous sources indicate he finished in the top third or even top quarter of his class at Yale Law School, one of the top two law schools in the US.

http://www.google.com/search?q=GERALD+OR+J...r%22+class+yale

No dice, Len. I've decided to respond only to those who are rational and unbiased. You miss on both counts. In any case, your ridiculous pedantry reminds me of school age debates. Forget it.

Keep shilling---you might find a sucker.

U.S. presidential contests often attract interest from foreign countries. The world's sole superpower has such an impact on the globe that, as a Belgian newspaper recently suggested, the rest of the world may feel it should be allowed to vote, too.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120...1.html?mod=blog

(Link is slow to load)

It's easy to see why the rest of the world feels it should be allowed to vote.

What does the world see when it glances toward the US? An insane Administration itching to start and maintain wars, both real (Iraq) or imagined (terror, drugs). Vast wealth inequality. Potential economic collapse caused by greed of the most vulgar kind, and which could have widespread global repercussions. A predisposition towards religious zealotry which seems as dangerous and foolish as that of its sworn enemies. Enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the planet many times. A country about to get very angry about the fact its primacy among the wealthy nations is now a thing of the past. A notorious foot dragger on the urgent global need to address rapid environmental change. I'm sure I could think of more.

When you throw in the fact that the US political process has been corrupted by wealthy interest groups, it's no wonder the rest of the world is trembling.

We don't trust you when it comes to elections.

p.s. because Australia has been such a faithful, obedient lapdog of the US, I almost feel entitled to vote in November.

Matt Lauer's parting words to Bill Richardson on the Today Show:

"We'll have to wait and see if Senator Clinton's campaign is listening to you."

(for those unfortunate enough to live outside the broadcast signal of America's greatest cultural achievement, AKA Daytime Television, Matt Lauer is the darling of the ladies who make up the show's primary audience.)

Bill Burkett agrees with John Simkin

We now have clear indications that the Clinton campaign approach is that if she is not the Democratic nominee, she will make every effort to scuttle the election of Barack Obama in the General Election.

Burkett pulls out (nearly?) all the stops on what Bill Richardson calls THE CLINTON ENTITLMENT

The experts appear to agree that Clinton cannot become the Democratic presidential candidate. If Barack Obama wins the presidential election Clinton's desire to get the top job is likely to be frustrated. However, if McCain wins, Obama becomes like Gore and Kerry, and it is his political career that is at an end. Clinton therefore has the chance of becoming president in four years time if McCain becomes president. Especially if one takes into account what is going to happen to the American economy over the next four years. To my mind, Clinton has already started her 2012 presidential campaign.

I can't see how McCain could possibly win the election against an opponent like Obama--unless the election was rigged. Obama would murder him in the debates. The media couldn't smear Obama by inventing skeletons in his closet because the public is much wiser now than four years ago. Any large scale duplicity by the media during the campaign would be exposed on the blogs and forums like this. McCain might have a chance against HRC because she is damaged goods, imo.

Hilary's only chance for power will be as the junior partner on a joint ticket with Obama, and fortunately it appears the Obama camp are not interested.

Good riddance to a power hungry phony I say.

Thanks for the replies, guys. My guess is that such an action would eventually destroy the Democratic Party, so I doubt they'll risk it.

Has there ever been a precedent for the superdelegates overturning the will of the party's voters?

John, the timeline is very incriminating. Who were in Rostow's 'party' I wonder? The conspirators of course.

As the person responsible for the WC's birth, he merits a page on Spartacus, imo. Just a suggestion.

See the following:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArostow.htm

I was pointing out, albeit not very clearly, that Rostow's page should also be in the JFK section of Spartacus, under 'possible conspirators'. He's a major player in the JFK story, imo.

John, the timeline is very incriminating. Who were in Rostow's 'party' I wonder? The conspirators of course.

As the person responsible for the WC's birth, he merits a page on Spartacus, imo. Just a suggestion.

Yep, I definitely intend to get up to Huntsville, and probable Houston as well. I visited KSC in 2003 and yes - I climbed in the exhibits whenever it was allowed! I'm just a big kid with this stuff.

Don't forget the grassy knoll--if you have time. It's an eerie place.

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran

by Terry Atlas

Global Research, March 12, 2008

U.S. News & World Report - 2008-03-11

This report by the US mainstream press suggests in no uncertain terms that the US is heading for war with Iran and that opposition within the US high command has been significantly weakened with the forced resignation of Admiral William Fallon.

Is the United States moving toward military action with Iran?

The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is setting off alarms that the Bush administration is intent on using military force to stop Iran's moves toward gaining nuclear weapons. In announcing his sudden resignation today following a report on his views in Esquire, Adm. William Fallon didn't directly deny that he differs with President Bush over at least some aspects of the president's policy on Iran. For his part, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it is "ridiculous" to think that the departure of Fallon -- whose Central Command has been working on contingency plans for strikes on Iran as well as overseeing Iraq -- signals that the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.

Fallon's resignation, ending a 41-year Navy career, has reignited the buzz of speculation over what the Bush administration intends to do given that its troubled, sluggish diplomatic effort has failed to slow Iran's nuclear advances. Those activities include the advancing process of uranium enrichment, a key step to producing the material necessary to fuel a bomb, though the Iranians assert the work is to produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors, not weapons.

Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:

1. Fallon's resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. Centcom commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel's airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.

4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks.

5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone -- if that becomes necessary -- to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?

6.Israel's war with Hezbollah: While this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on it own but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm, though a United Nations force polices a border area buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Defense Secretary Gates said that Fallon, 63, asked for permission to retire. Gates said that the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do." In Esquire, an article on Fallon portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy and said he was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. In his statement, Fallon said he agreed with the president's "policy objectives" but was silent on whether he opposed aspects of the president's plans. "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon, said in the statement issued by Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he said. Gates announced that Fallon's top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take over temporarily when Fallon leaves. A permanent successor, requiring nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, might not be designated in the near term.

It's ominous. I think another reason can be added, Peter. America's economic troubles will soon have the public asking questions about extravagant military spending. So they might seek to remind the public of their value with an impressive demonstration.

Among other things, she wants to take $50 billion from Big Oil by ending "tax subsidies" that it presently enjoys.

I can only assume that she's already told Big Oil, or Big Oil knows, that she's only kidding to get votes.

I actually think it's a great idea but I share your skepticism about HRC's intentions.

If fears about America's economic future prove accurate, it might be a smart move by big oil to kick in 50 billion to help allieviate the economic pain Americans will soon be experiencing. In fact, they might want to double the pot to 100 billion considering they've made more money from Americans than from anyone else. For another 500 billion they could be offered naming rights, imo. The United States of America is just a brand name (and not exactly accurate, imo).

The absurdity of the oil subsidies is quite plain.

Me too. No money, no worries.

But there are people out there, not wealthy by any means, who may be facing problems in the near future. I also have concerns for my family, of course, because a general collapse will be disastrous for the ordinary people while the very wealthy will just trot over to Antigua etc and weather the storm in luxury.

Maybe we should just trot over there and bring them home on the business end of a pitchfork. I'm up for it.

A more viable approach to overpopulation would be to prevent those populations whose beliefs ect cause them to disregard the negative impact of continuos high fertility from disgorging their excess

population elsewhere,until such irresponsibility is curtailed.

While we have capitalism we must face the hard fact that everything is about supply and demand(baring cartels )and this goes for human beings;the more there are the less individuals are generally worth.We cannot protect ourselves while people can be "imported "from other places and we are all beggered. With capitalism there are always cheaper places to get labour or exploit populations;we need to realistically resist this and not be brainwashed into accepting our own demise by these ruthless tactics.

I agree, Bill.

Overpopulation is an urgent global crisis. An economic system based on endless growth can't be sustained so rampant capitalism will need to be confronted otherwise we'll be history.

Good stuff, Shane.

Is the DVD available in a region friendly format (I believe it is Region 4) for us here Down Under?

James

James, I think you can change your DVD's region to global with most brands. I did this with mine by following the instructions here (scroll down):

http://www.cameratim.com/reviews/video/lg-...21p-dvd-player/

If you google your brand with 'change region' you will probably find the page you need. The region format is ,of course, designed to line the pockets of the big film studios. Sadly for them, the internet is here.

Not protected enough. Fallon was fired today.

Gates "accepted his resignation."

Lookout Iran.

You would have to think that this an alarming development. The timing of it doesn't bode well. Bill, thanks for keeping us updated. The Fox will be missed. I salute the Fox.

What about this: Suppose the hawks removed the main obstacle to bombing Iran as a way of assisting McCain in any Presidential battle against Obama. If Israel or the US initiated a bombing of Iran during the final weeks of the campaign, they might believe this could place Obama in a difficult situation. Just a thought. I can't believe the US Government would do it, against all sane advice, including the NIE. However, it appears you can never underestimate the evil of that crowd.

I am a European who has lived in the States long enough to have a sense of how Americans think. In a political campaign, they expect an eye for an eye. They would have been delighted if Obama, after accepting Power's apology, had gone on television and said:

Hillary is not a monster --AS FAR AS I KNOW.

It's a pity you're not Barack's chief adviser, Ray.

I'm also grateful for your fine analysis here. You're making me worried but bookmakers have Obama a short odds favorite to win the nomination. He's at 4/11 (73.3%) and Clinton at 15/8 (34.8%). Money talks.

http://www.electionbetting.com/

Although the US is no nearer winning the war in Iraq than it was from the initial invasion, perception is everything. Psychologically, the American people want to believe that success is near, while this is the case, Obama will struggle to be elected as president.

The one area of the campaign which, predictably, is not being seriously analysed is US Middle East relations. Considering the financial and human cost of Iraq, coupled with America's poor image in the region, one might consider it an important campaign issue but acting tough is easier than sense and reason, writes Rami Khouri:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/78552/

Who leaked the details of a CIA-Mossad plot against Iran?

By Yossi Melman

06/03/08 "Haaretz" -- -- The Bush administration is prolonging the hunting season against journalists. The latest victim is James Risen, The New York Times reporter for national security and intelligence affairs. About three months ago, a federal grand jury issued a subpoena against him, ordering Risen to give evidence in court. A heavy blackout has been imposed on the affair, with the only hint being that it has to do with sensitive matters of "national security."

But conversations with several sources who are familiar with the affair indicate that Risen has been asked to testify as part of an investigation aimed at revealing who leaked apparently confidential information about the planning of secret Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad missions concerning Iran's nuclear program.

Risen included this information in his book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," which was published in 2006. In the book, he discusses a number of ideas which he says were thought up jointly by CIA and Mossad operatives to sabotage Iran's nuclear capabilities.

One of these ideas was to build electromagnetic devices, smuggling them inside Iran to sabotage electricity lines leading to the country's central nuclear sites. According to the plan, the operation was supposed to cause a series of chain reactions which would damage extremely powerful short circuits in the electrical supply that would have led to failures of the super computers of Iran's nuclear sites.

According to the book, the Mossad planners proposed that they would be responsible for getting the electromagnetic facilities into Iran with the aid of their agents in Iran. However, a series of technical problems prevented the plan's execution.

Another of the book's important revelations, which made the administration's blood boil about James Risen, appeared in a chapter describing what was known as Operation Merlin, the code name for another CIA operation supposed to penetrate the heart of Iran's nuclear activity, collect information about it and eventually disrupt it.

Operation Merlin

The CIA counter proliferation department hired a Soviet nuclear engineer who had previously, in the 1990s, defected to the United States and revealed secrets from the Soviet Union's nuclear program. His speciality was in the field of what is called weaponization, the final stage of assembling a nuclear bomb.

The scientist was equipped with blueprints for assembling a nuclear bomb in which, without his knowledge, false drawings and information blueprints were planted about a nuclear warhead that was supposedly manufactured in the Soviet Union. The plan's details had been fabricated by CIA experts, and so while they appeared authentic, they had no engineering or technological value.

The intention was to fool the scientist and send him to make contact with the Iranians to whom he would offer his services and blueprints. The American plot was aimed at getting the Iranians to invest a great deal of effort in studying the plans and to attempt to assemble a faulty warhead. But when the time came, they would not have a nuclear bomb but rather a dud.

However, Operation Merlin, which was so creative and original, failed because of CIA bungled planning. The false information inserted into the blueprints were too obvious and too easily detected and the Russian engineer discovered them. As planned, he made contact with the Iranian delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and handed over to them, also as planned, the blueprints.

But contrary to the CIA's intention, he added a letter to the blueprints in which he pointed out the mistakes. He did not do this with ill intent or out of a desire to disrupt the operation and harm his operators. On the contrary, he did so out of a deep sense of mission and in order to satisfy his American operators. He hoped that in this way he would simply increase the Iranians' trust in him and encourage them to make contact with him for the good, of course, of his American operators.

The result was disastrous. Not only did the CIA fail to prevent the Iranians in their efforts to enhance their nuclear program, this operation may also have made it possible for them to get their hands on a plan for assembling a nuclear warhead.

Freedom of the press

In Israel, military censorship would have prevented the publication of details such as these. But in the U.S., where the principle of freedom of the press is sacred and anchored in the constitution, there is no compulsory and binding censorship. There is, however, an expectation there that the press will show responsibility. This expectation has increased in recent years, particularly with the conservative Bush administration and in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Risen is not the first journalist to have been subpoenaed to give evidence before a grand jury and reveal his sources. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, some 65 journalists have been summoned for such investigations since 2001. Some agreed, cooperated and testified. Most refused, so that they would not have to reveal their sources. In this way, they exposed themselves to being charged with contempt of court.

There were some who even preferred to be jailed so long as they were not forced to reveal their source. The best-known case was that of Judith Miller, another New York Times writer. The background to her 85-day imprisonment was her refusal to reveal who had leaked the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, to the media. (The man responsible for the leak was Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment but was pardoned by President Bush.)

"It is true that there is tension between the Bush administration and the media," says Steve Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists, an independent body which aims at analyzing the activities of government with a critical eye, "but I would not go so far as to say that the administration is waging war against the media."

In Aftergood's assessment, the danger to the freedom of the press comes rather from private citizens and organizations, those who feel themselves harmed by journalistic publications and commentators and who would therefore like to limit the press' freedom. The most conspicuous of these is Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior editor at Commentary, who believes that liberal newspapers like The New York Times are not sufficiently patriotic. In his articles and in testimony before a Senate committee that discussed the issue, Schoenfeld claimed that

The New York Times reporters had revealed confidential material that weakened America's struggle against Al-Qaida. He calls for relinquishing the soft approach which he says the administration has taken against journalists in whose publications, in his opinion, America's security is harmed.

There are many others who take the opposite approach and believe that the right of journalists to keep their sources secret should be anchored in law. Two Congressmen, the Republican Mike Pence, and Rick Boucher, a Democrat, have proposed legislation to this effect - a law for the free flow of information. The House of Representatives has already approved their proposal but the legislation is being held up in the Senate, to the displeasure of the American Civil Liberties Union.

On the face of it, this is a sensitive issue that is intended to draw the lines between the freedom of information, freedom of the media, and the public's right to know, against the right of a democracy to defend itself against enemies that are not democratic. But James Risen has no doubt that the correct and just moral act on his part has to be to defend his sources, even if this means he will lose his freedom.

The next test case in the U.S. concerning the freedom of the press could be of even greater interest to Israel. It is connected to next month's trial of two former senior American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) employees, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, who have been charged with crimes based on an old First World War anti-espionage law, which has hardly ever been put into practice since.

The indictment states that they obtained confidential information from officials at the Pentagon and transferred it, inter alia, to Israeli diplomats and journalists. A number of American journalists have already been investigated by the CIA in connection to this, and it is possible that they will be called to give evidence incriminating the two senior AIPAC officials.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19465.htm

Very interesting, Peter. I wonder if Risen will hold strong? I hope so.

The case concerning the two former AIPAC employees will be fascinating indeed. I suspect we won't hear much about it in the mainstream media. It's the first indication I've seen of any turbulence in the normally silky smooth relationship between US and Israeli intelligence. Again, very interesting.

Mark and I have sharp ideological differences and he seems to have been particularly bothered that I challenged him to document a wild claim.

Scuse me?

What wild claim? If you're alluding to the Fisher/Ford issue, then I don't think there's anything wild about it.

Could a wealthy, influential and generous donor to the Republican Party influence and control a feeble-minded mediocrity like Ford, also from Michigan? More of a certainty than a wild claim, imo.

You do under the difference between 'could' and 'did'? You have been unable to produce any evidence he did.

You're in denial.