Steven Gaal

-------------------------------------POST LINDA MINOR ============== SDECE and Interpol I recently bought a complete set of Audio and Video DVD's of Mae Brussell radio and TV broadcasts. I zeroed in on one numbered #316, which was the broadcast before Mae announced that she was scheduled as a witness in the trial brought by a Texan named Charles Winans as plaintiff (Melvin Belli of California was his attorney) against Rolling Stone and Paul Krassner, author of an article stating that Winans had coordinated an attack using Charles Denton "Tex" Watson to manipulate or set up Charles Manson and his girls to kill Sharon Tate and others, operating under Naval Intelligence. That tape (#317) is available in MP3 at this link. http://www.maebrussell.com/CD%20cata...0Part%202.html #317 4/16/78 30 min. Charles Winans vs. Krassner and Rolling Stone. CIA-Louise James, Mind Control of primary witness. Memory Erased of Activist. MP3 Audio Immediately preceding that broadcast, Mae discussed her theory of an international narcotics smuggling network (she calls it the Ajax File) which had long been operating through Interpol. She goes into the history of that "international police" agency beginning in 1924 when Hitler was first being groomed to take over in Germany after WWII for a fascist network of drug smugglers; then traces the history up to the collapse of Germany in 1945 and the transfer of Interpol to France in 1946. She says the SDECE was French counter-intelligence organization working with Interpol, which had no financing because it was a cooperative network of European countries designed to fight communism, i.e. my interpretation: anyone deemed an enemy of the banking cartels then in control of international trade payment mechanisms. Since Interpol had no authorized funding, it was required to finance itself and had free reign, since its headquarters moved to France, to fund itself through narcotics being funneled from the French colonies in Indo-China through the ports in Marseilles. She indicates that Paul Helliwell during his days in OSS was seconded to this unit to observe how things operated in Post-war Interpol and SDECE. He set up a similar operation later in the CIA, especially once the French left Vietnam in 1954 and the U.S. took over the funding. It was in 1954 that the U.S. officially joined Interpol and continued funding it to finance whatever it was that Interpol was trying to accomplish. Mae says it was not designed to prosecute and remove international narcotics dealers because it never did so. I will try to upload the MP3 tape #316 to the section of the Forum where these are stored. ----------------------POST LINDA MINOR================================== 13. PERMINDEX: The International Trade in Disinformation [issue 2 - 1983] ... form in Hitchcocks's film Topaz) Pro OAS, he was fired in 1963 because of his services for the CIA. His celebrated revelations in the CIA-sponsored La Comite (1975) showed the real extent of the dissension against Gaullist policy towards the US by French Intelligence (SDECE) officers. The Gaullists in France, including their loyal adherents in SDECE, and their dirty tricksters in SAC, were the CIA's arch enemies. The murder in 1965 of Moroccan exile leader Ben Barka, had de Gaulle fuming. He was convinced the CIA ... URL: http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/on...2/lob02-04.htm (you have to pay to see) #################################################################### GEE.....CIA frame up of SDECE ????????????????????? MERTZ was IMHO to be alternative fall guy. ----------------00000000------------------- The following information is not intended to be read as a stand-alone article, but only to supplement in the information in Legacy of Secrecy, Chapter 4, page 71, Endnote 43: Twenty-four parallels (lettered A-X) between the CIA's acknowledged European assassin recruiter (1960 to 1964) code-named QJWIN and Michel Victor Mertz, whom a CIA memo said was deported from Dallas shortly after JFK's murder. Michel Mertz was an experienced assassin and a kingpin for the French Connection heroin network that involved both Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante.

##################################################### ----------------------------------------------------- globalresearch link ---------- However, what may be shocking is the fact that Section 601 also provides for the mobilization of “labor” for purposes of the national defense. Although some subsections read that evaluations are to be made regarding the “effect and demand of labor utilization,” the implication is that “labor” (meaning American workers) will be considered yet one more resource to be seized for the purposes of “national defense.” A fruit loop blogger claiming that something is true and it in fact being true a quite different propositions Federal agencies "collect[ing] and maintain[ing] data..." does NOT equal 'the mobilization of “labor” for purposes of the national defense' let alone "forced labor" Federal agencies "Regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services" does NOT equal 'the mobilization of “labor” for purposes of the national defense' let alone "forced labor". Federal agencies "consult with [other] agenc[ies] with respect to..." the points listed above does NOT equal 'the mobilization of “labor” for purposes of the national defense' let alone "forced labor". =o============================================================= +o+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ from the http://thenewamerican.com/ oooooooooooooooo http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/11232-presidents-executive-order-authorizes-peacetime-martial-law ====================================== e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101( of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(. This finding shall be submitted for the President's approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market. ============== That’s right. The last line of the quoted material gives the President of the United Staes the power to “control the general distribution of any material (including services) in the civilian market.” This seems to be no less than the nationalization of all food, energy, water, and healthcare pipelines and providers in the country. And to help him keep tabs on all this responsibility, he assigns a cabinet member to each category of control. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ oooo ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ oooo ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ oooo LEFTY OBAMA THREAD CONTINUES vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/15-3 ======================= Published on Thursday, March 15, 2012 by Common Dreams --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corporate Win, Loss for the 99%: U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Takes Effect “Just how damaging this deal is to the 99 percent in both countries has been repeatedly revealed" - Common Dreams staff The U.S.- Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) takes effect today, and is being met with heated protests over the deal's rewarding the interests of big business while crushing the 99%. Messaging that the agreement will create jobs has been slammed as "some rosy fantasy" fabricated by multinational corporations. The deal means that almost 80 percent of U.S. exports of industrial products to Korea are now duty-free and nearly two-thirds of U.S. exports of agricultural products to Korea are now duty-free. Agence France-Presse reports: The agreement was originally signed in July 2007 but was approved by the US Congress only last October, after a partial renegotiation to address US auto industry complaints. South Korea's parliament approved it last November despite vehement protests from opposition lawmakers, one of whom exploded a tear gas canister in the assembly. Critics say the deal is lop-sided and serves big business at the expense of South Korea's farmers and service industries. "This is a lose-lose deal that will destroy jobs in both countries." PressTV reports that thousands gathered in Seoul hours before the agreement officially went into effect to protest the agreement: About 1,200 activists rallied in downtown Seoul on Wednesday, chanting slogans against the deal and demanding the resignation of President Lee Myung-Bak. The rally, which was also attended by members of major opposition parties, came hours before the agreement came into force at midnight local time. Protesters said the deal would crush South Korea's economy and hurt people's livelihood. They also complained that it would damage the country's farming and service industries by flooding the market with cheaper imports. The activists vowed to keep protesting until the government nullifies the agreement. Public Citizen writes that the trade deal was rushed to beat the Korean parliamentary elections in April and notes that polls showed the elections would "elevate a political party that has vowed to terminate the pact unless the 'investor-state' enforcement system is altered." Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, stated that the KORUS is a bad deal for "99%" in both the U.S. and South Korea: “Just how damaging this deal is to the 99 percent in both countries has been repeatedly revealed from this latest disgrace of trying to outrun the democratic accountability of Korea’s election to the White House, notably canceling a public bill-signing ceremony after the FTA was passed here. By rushing the implementation, the Obama administration is trying to cement in the extreme NAFTA-style corporate investor privileges that candidate Obama pledged would not be included in his trade agreements and that a large majority of Korea’s parliament also opposes.” “Just how damaging this deal is to the 99 percent in both countries has been repeatedly revealed..." While U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in a statement today, “Starting today, Korea’s doors are wide open for Made-In-America exports that will support well-paying jobs here at home," research from the Economic Policy Institute in July of 2010 shows that KORUS will bring a loss of 159,000 American jobs: == link http://www.epi.org/publication/free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_u-s-_jobs/ SHOWS GRAPH ECONOMIC EFFECT == Unlike USITC’s [u.S. International Trade Commission's] forecast of a small positive impact, EPI’s research shows it will increase the U.S. trade deficit with Korea by about $16.7 billion, and displace about 159,000 American jobs within the first seven years after it takes effect. Writing on The Hill today, Chun Jung-bae, member of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea and member of the Supreme Council of the Democratic Party of Korea, reiterates that job creation from KORUS is "some rosy fantasy" and "is a fabrication of multinational corporations." There is some rosy fantasy that the pending U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement will create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs in both countries and strengthen and expand the U.S. relationship with Korea. This is a fabrication of multinational corporations that have no allegiance to either country. As a member of the Korean National Assembly, I would like to set the record straight: In reality, the deal is lose-lose. [...] [T]his trade deal will have a negative impact on the middle-class in the U.S. and Korea. This is a lose-lose deal that will destroy jobs in both countries. How can that be? The deal is expected to increase the overall U.S. trade deficit, which would lead to net job loss in the U.S. But it is the deal’s low domestic content requirement that would encourage both U.S. and Korean corporations to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Anti-KORUS protest from 2011 (photo: mj jin lee) Christine Ahn and Albie Miles have previously written on the devastation the agreement would bring to Koreans: The Korea FTA is the latest in a long history of aggressive U.S. foreign policies toward Korea that have significantly undermined Korean farmers. The current FTA will further erode Korea’s agricultural sector and food security while contributing to its environmental degradation through reduced emission standards and potential exposure to contaminated U.S. beef and transgenic crops. With this FTA, Koreans also stand to lose their national healthcare system as U.S. financial services and pharmaceutical firms await the opportunity to use the Investor to State Dispute (ISD) mechanisms to sue governments for infringing on their right to profit. Ahn and Miles also reported that the trade agreement may mean more genetically modified food going to South Korea: It's also unclear how much the FTA has been used to dismantle South Korea’s 2000 genetic engineering (GE) labeling law and undermine its commitment to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international supplemental agreement to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The Cartagena Protocol seeks to protect biological diversity from risks posed by transgenic organisms resulting from biotechnology. Under the protocol, developing nations can restrict and/or label GE organisms to protect their biodiversity and/or public health if inadequate scientific evidence guarantees that a product is safe. The FTA negotiations overturned Korea’s 2000 GE labeling law that had largely kept transgenic imports out of Korea’s food supply. In 2007, the Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organization hailed the conclusion of the Korea FTA for “providing additional market access opportunities in Korea for U.S. biotechnology companies.” It specifically lauded the U.S. agricultural negotiator for ensuring “that trade of biotech-derived crops, foods, and feeds continues without disruption.” Despite widespread opposition to GE foods in Korea, transgenic imports no longer have to be labeled. The FTA lifted the floodgates for massive imports of GE foods and feedstock, namely U.S. GE corn. In February 2008, less than a year after the ag-biotech deal was signed, the Korean Corn Processing Industry Association purchased 697,000 metric tons of U.S. GE maize, the first major GE shipment destined for food use to arrive in Korea since 2000. Korean approvals of GE imports have since skyrocketed. By February 2008, Korea had approved 102 transgenic organisms for import as feed or food, 70 percent from U.S. firms Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical.

##################################################### ----------------------------------------------------- globalresearch link ---------- However, what may be shocking is the fact that Section 601 also provides for the mobilization of “labor” for purposes of the national defense. Although some subsections read that evaluations are to be made regarding the “effect and demand of labor utilization,” the implication is that “labor” (meaning American workers) will be considered yet one more resource to be seized for the purposes of “national defense.” The EO reads, Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall: (1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation's workforce needs for purposes of national defense; (2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services; (3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor; Notice that the language of the EO does not state “in the event of a national emergency.” Instead, we are given the term “purposes of national defense.” This is because the “authorities” assumed by the President have been assumed not just for arbitrary declarations of “national emergency” but for peacetime as well. Indeed, the EO states this much directly when it says, The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107((1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077((1), to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency. Presidential Executive Orders have long been used illegally by Presidents of every political shade and have often been used destroy the rights of American citizens. Although history has often come to judge these orders as both immoral and unconstitutional, the fact is that the victims of the orders suffered no less because of the retroactive judgment of their progeny. It is for this reason that we must immediately condemn and resist such obvious usurpation as is currently being attempted by the U.S. government. Nevertheless, some have no doubt begun to wonder why the President has signed such an order. Not only that, but why did he sign the order now? Is it because of the looming war with Iran or the Third World War that will likely result from such a conflict? Is it because of the ticking time bomb called the economy that is only one jittery move or trade deal away from total disintegration? Is it because of a growing sense of hatred of their government amongst the general public? Is there a coming natural disaster of which we are unaware? Are there plans for martial law? ================================= +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ oooooooooooooooooo+oooooooooooooooooo TO CONTINUE "LEFTY OBAMA THREAD" == === === === == == == Obama supports natural gas fracking (real environmentalist ,no? no.) -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-25/obama-backs-fracking-to-create-600-000-jobs-vows-safe-drilling.html Fracking not so good for people. http://desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/danger.html FRACKING knowledge around long time (pun) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/05/1003613/-Fracking-Contamination-Proven-Decades-Ago-

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense. Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, what may be shocking is the fact that Section 601 also provides for the mobilization of “labor” for purposes of the national defense. Although some subsections read that evaluations are to be made regarding the “effect and demand of labor utilization,” the implication is that “labor” (meaning American workers) will be considered yet one more resource to be seized for the purposes of “national defense.” The EO reads, ====================================================================== http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29835

Monday, March 19, 2012 ------------------------------------- Obama’s Latest Executive Order: Martial Law, Confiscation of Private Property and Forced Labor ====================== March 19, 2012 On Friday, March 16, Obama issued another unconstitutional executive order. The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO allows the government to confiscate your property without due process under the direction of Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security. Obama’s EO allows the president to “take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements” in the event of a “potential threat to the security of the United States.” Obama’s latest EO demonstrates once again that the executive will continue to violate the Constitution, in particular Article I, Section 1, which states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Any enactment of law by the executive is made in Excess of Jurisdiction and is by definition treason. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fascist Executive Orders Obama’s latest EO underscores and reemphasizes Bill Clinton’s EO 12919, signed on June 6, 1994. Clinton’s 12919 followed a number of earlier executive orders allowing the government to steal your property – and also force you to be a slave laborer – during a vaguely declared “national emergency.” The government has given itself the authority to seize all communication (from television stations to CB radios), confiscate all food resources (including farms and farm equipment), take control of all transportation (including your family car), and compel you at gunpoint “under federal supervision” to work as a slave. National Defense Resources Preparedness is a textbook example of fascism. It allows the government to steal privately owned property and publicly owned infrastructure and hand it over to its preferred corporate partners under the guise of a national emergency: “( provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and © sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.” Fascist philosopher and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini used his principle of a “nation in arms” to steal private property from citizens. Obama’s latest EO declares the right to do the same. Mussolini devised fascist corporatism – the philosophy of the “corporative state” – and Obama under the direction of his Goldman Sachs and transnational corporate and bankster controllers has updated this corporate-statist doctrine, including the ability to steal privately earned and held wealth under the pretense of a national emergency. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Martial Law Previous administrations installed the groundwork for Obama’s authoritarian move. Under Reagan, executive agencies were granted sweeping emergency powers to not only grab infrastructure and private property, but also round up citizens and put them in concentration camps and force them into slave labor brigades. During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.” Obama’s NDAA was established to provide the legal mechanism for tasking the military to round up activists and others targeted by the government. Prior to the NDAA, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and other related programs, the government devised Rex 84 and in particular Operation Garden Plot, an operational plan to use the Army, USAF, Navy, and Marine Corp. in direct support of civil disturbance control operations. It has since added numerous elements under the rubric of Continuity of Government, the overall war on terror, civil disturbance and emergency response. With the scantily covered National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the recent NDAA sailing through Congress, and a raft of lesser legislation and unconstitutional directives, we are beginning to see the contours of the police state. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Corporate Media Ignores National Defense Resources Preparedness A Google News search produces virtually no mention of Obama’s latest assault on the Constitution from the establishment media. The alternative media began covering the latest Obama executive order from the moment it was posted on the White House website on Friday, but the corporate media remains silent. Obama’s EO should be headline news. It is a direct assault on the Constitution and further empowers an executive branch dictatorship and allows it to exploit a “full spectrum of emergencies” and permits it to confiscate private property and turn citizens into slaves. As John Adams noted, the very basis of the Constitution rests on the concept of private property. “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God,” Adams wrote, “anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.” oooooooooooooooooooooooo http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.fr/2012/03/obamas-latest-executive-order-martial.html

++++++++++++++oooooooo+++++++++++++++++++++ Andy,golly, is it that self evident ?? ---------------------oooooooooooooo------------------- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221101326.htm =========================== http://www.nutralegacy.com/blog/general-healthcare/breaking-news-eating-chocolate-improves-your-brain-activity/ =========================== http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/04/03/Study-says-chocolate-helps-brain-function/UPI-86211238780751/

PLEASE SEE THIS LINK http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=18208 ================================================ Oh , what a glorious future !! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPy0GGXYLRY http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=VKup4gbr7LY +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html Here is how Winston Smith described doublethink in the novel: "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.' ======================================================= chocorat - Chocolate ration. The chocolate ration in 1983 was 30 grams per week. (For comparison, a standard Hershey's Chocolate Bar is 43 grams) In the year 1984, the chocolate ration went up to 25 grams per week. Winston himself is charged with the task of re-writing history to make this little feat possible. NOTE: The book differs slightly from the movie on this. In the book, the the ration was changed to 25 grams as well, but instead or changing history to say that it went up to 25, Winston simply altered the original 'no-reduction' pledge to state that the ration would have to come down in April

COLBY// Who said anything about, “MEK will blow cover and say they are MEK pretending to be Iranian Intel”? You’d think that after over a month if there was any indication they were associated with MeK or any other anti-Iranian group Iranian intel would turned something up. In the very least they could have said ‘Leila Rohani and Javad Nikkahfard etc. were not working for us we have not yet determined who recruited them’ +++++++++++++ (does COLBY read his own posts ?????) ++++++++++++++++++++++ POST #53 this thread COLBY (himself)// Your link is broken Einnarr, in any case I already replied: As for the Cartalucci piece why didn’t you provide the link to the original on Infowars? Did you think the IrishtimeZ (as opposed to the IrishtimeS) URL would lend it a bit more respectability? The Alex Jones protégé offered little more that rampant speculation. He implied that the Thai government was in cahoots with the Israelis but provided no evidence. He also wrote: However, what appears to have taken place in Bangkok, and what appears to be the case unfolding in India and Georgia as well, was a false-flag operation carried out by Mossad and Farsi-speaking MEK agents posing as Iranian Quds operatives who approached potential patsies. These patsies were trained and provided with faulty equipment to carry out these attacks. After making their respective failed attempts, the patsies would incriminate themselves and Tehran by attempting to return to Iran, or confess upon capture and interrogation that they were working for who they believed to be Quds operatives. +++++++++++++++++++ (GEE, does Colby read my posts ??) +++++++++++++++++++ COLBY// We’re going in circles aren’t we? We've been over this already. Do you understand the difference between looking and finding? At the very least they could have divulged their, names, photos and other details. This seems not to have happened. POST # 40 Gaal// COLBY What explanation can there be for this other than the operation WAS government approved? ==================================VVVVVo part one = (previous Posting) GAAL//ANSWER /+/ embarrassment,embarrassment,embarrassment. (later 100% (Iran government) in dark) part two= wikipedia BUSY Airports....... cant monitor all these people. Iran’s airports are improving their international connections, and Arak Airport in Markazi province has recently begun to operate international flights, making a total of five such airports in the country, in addition to ten local airports.[16] In May 2007 international flights into the capital, Tehran, were moved to the Imam Khomeini International Airport (IKIA), just outside the city because of capacity constraints at the existing central Mehrabad Airport. Airports: 316 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY// Re: (Though he seems to have acquired the material for attacks in another country an apparent member of Hezbollah (an Iranian client) was arrested in Bangkok. He had tons of explosives in a warehouse.) Do you have a citation for that? The case indicates a client of Iranian intel. was active in Bangkok shortly before the attacks. I never said they had to be connected strawboy. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Who's Behind Anti-Israel Bomb Plots? | Consortiumnews | TURKISH ... turkishcentralnews.com/ Mar 3, 2012 by editor Last month, when three bomb plots surfaced in India, Thailand and Georgia — all with apparent Israeli targets — the immediate assumption was that Iran was seeking revenge for Israeli-connected assassinations of Iranian scientists. .... supplies of urea fertilizer and ammonium nitrate, which are ingredients in bombs, but Thai investigators concluded that they were not connected to any terror plot in Thailand, because of the absence of any other bomb components. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY// So your thesis is that because Azerbaijan is pro-West and friendly with Israel we are to dismiss the arrest of the Iranians as a set up? Iran and Azerbaijan seem to have had good relations until recently. COLBY// re(Azerbaijan recently arrested several Iranians it says were planning to attack Israeli targets) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ GAAL// MY THESIS == as previously stated, that IRAN wouldnt attack in these particular countries.This started my false flag thinking. (if they did its toooo stupid for words) Ive shown that IRAN does have capabilities in "OTHER !!" places. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV COLBY// When have I ever defended Mossad’s murder of Iranian scientists? --------- GOOD GOOD GOOD ---------------------------------- related "But the Israeli government has been able to take advantage of the credulity of the news media to cover up the irrationality of its terrorism." POSTED IN FAIR USE BELOW/not published ---------++++++++========++++++++-------- How Mossad Justified Its Murder of an Innocent Iranian Electrical Engineer ========oooooooo======== Saturday 17 March 2012 http://www.truth-out...neer/1331747276 by: Gareth Porter, Truthout | News Analysis ++++++++++++++++++++++++++==================+++++++++++++++++++++ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo On July 23, 2011, a 35-year-old Iranian electrical engineering student named Darioush Rezaeinejad was gunned down as he and his wife, who was also wounded in the attack, waited for their child in front of a kindergarten in Tehran. Israel has never denied that it was behind that assassination, and two senior US officials have confirmed to NBC news that the accusation by Ali Larijani - a senior adviser to Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei - that Israel's Mossad had used the Mujahideen E. Khalq (MEK) to carry out the killing of Iranian scientists was essentially accurate. Rezaeinejad was the fourth Iranian scientist whom the Israelis had tried to assassinate, but what was different about his assassination is the subsequent effort by the Israelis to justify it after the fact. That effort casts new light not only on the larger assassination campaign, but on the way in which Israel has gone about constructing its contention that there is an active Iranian nuclear weapons program. <removed by moderator due to copyright violation - fullarticle can be read at http://www.truth-out.org/how-mossad-justified-its-murder-innocent-iranian-electrical-engineer/1331747276 >

Bombers detained chief may be brought to Delhi Mar 18, 2012, 02.06AM Times India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Bombers-detained-chief-may-be-brought-to-Delhi/articleshow/12310757.cms ===================================== NEW DELHI: Breaking her silence on the police's attempt to link her family with the Iranian blast suspects, arrested journalist SMA Kazmi's wife, Jahan, on Saturday claimed the large foreign remittances into their bank accounts were made by their Dubai-based children. The police had alleged that Kazmi and his wife received Rs 3.8 lakh and Rs 18.8 lakh in their accounts since early 2011 from suspected Iranian sources. While the Enforcement Directorate and the Financial Investigation Unit (FIU) have been asked to probe these remittances, Delhi Police claim to have established a direct link between Houshang Afshar Irani, the Iranian accused of sticking the bomb to an Israeli diplomat's car on February 13, and Sedaghatzadeh Masoud, the operational head of the bombers' group who was detained at the Kuala Lumpur airport just hours after the Bangkok blast a day later. Sources said an open warrant has been issued against Masoud and he is expected to arrive in the city from Malaysia by the end of next week. The six-member group had begun planning the attacks in early 2011 but started the ground work only in the last six months. The probe has found that although Masoud headed the group's operations, another Iranian, Seyed Ali Mahdiansadr, was the main conspirator. He visited both Delhi and Bangkok and is now believed to be in Iran. "Our investigations show that Irani took the first Malaysian Airlines flight out of the city on February 13 for Kuala Lumpur, hours after he planted the bomb. He had checked in by early evening," said a police officer. Irani reportedly brought the magnetic plate of the bomb from Iran 15 days before the blast. He also sourced the explosives locally and remained in contact with Masoud all through. "We believe they even met in Kuala Lumpur before Masoud's detention,'' added an investigator. The police claimed Masoud was informed about the success of the Delhi attack and gave the go-ahead for the Bangkok blast after this. They also believe the conspiracy to carry out blasts in Delhi, Bangkok and Tbilisi was only intended to grab eyeballs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOSSAD IN DUBAI ...opps use British IDs ...ooops. Could MOSSAD ever,ever pretend to be IRANIAN......ever ????? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hisham-wyne/a-mossad-killing-in-dubai_b_466247.html

COLBY// Despite making generic denials and blaming Israel, the Iranian govt has said little about the attacks and has yet to specifically accuse MeK - They have yet to say anything about the dozen or Iranians implicated by the Indian and Thai governments, let alone say were working for MeK. - There is no mention of them by the various English language versions of Iranian Govt news agencies, and no indication the Persian versions have done so. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yes. MEK will blow cover and say they are MEK pretending to be Iranian Intel. MEK STUPID ,no ??? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY//Kazmi is Shia, pro Iran and worked for the Iranian govt for decades +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ YES.Now Mr. Karzmi, I will now behead this man in front of you. Can I recruit you ?? Kazmi: Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad. Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY//There is no indication the Iranians have made any effort to find the 2 suspects who returned to Tehran or the four (all Iranian) whose whereabouts are unknown. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ALL deep wet sixed ,right off the plane.(said so twice before basically) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY// Though he seems to have acquired the material for attacks in another country an apparent member of Hezbollah (an Iranian client) was arrested in Bangkok. He had tons of explosives in a warehouse. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THAILAND thinks not connected to this particular bombing there. (gee and u say I have strawman??) ======================================== COLBY// Azerbaijan recently arrested several Iranians it says were planning to attack Israeli targets +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29537 -----------------oooooooo http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19942 -----------------oooooooo http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15544 ======================= Gee if Israel kills co-call BOMB scientists its self defense...but if another country tries to protect itself...MR. DOUBLE STANDARD comes into room. ----------------------------------------------------- The Iran War Theater's "Northern Front": Azerbaijan and the US Sponsored War on Iran (BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN !!!! SGaal) by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky In a timely decision, Azerbaijan recently (mid-March) granted NATO the permission to use two of its military bases and an airport to "back up its peace-keeping operation in Afghanistan" including support for NATO's "supply route to Afghanistan". NATO's special envoy Robert Simmons insists that the agreement has nothing to do with US plans to wage aerial bombardments on Iran. Media sources in Baku have intimated that this timely agreement is directly related to ongoing US-Israeli-NATO war plans. Its timing coincides with US naval deployments and war games in the Persian Gulf. The airport and two military bases are slated to be "modernized to meet NATO standards". Washington has confirmed in this regard that it would "support the modernization of a military airport in the framework of the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) signed between Azerbaijan and NATO. Meanwhile, the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan released a statement to the effect that "Azerbaijan's territory will not be at the disposal of any country for hostile acts against neighbours [iran] " (See Mardom Salari (Farsi), BBC translation, 5 April 2007). This announcement by the Azeri Defense Ministry was in response to an off-the-cuff statement by US Undersecretary of State Matthew Bryza, at a press conference in Georgia (March 30) to the effect that "The United States hopes for permission to use airfields in Azerbaijan for military purposes." (emphasis added) "A lot of planes overfly Georgia and Azerbaijan on the way to Afghanistan. Should it prove necessary, we would like to be able to use an airfield in Azerbaijan," the US diplomat said, answering a question concerning the modernization of a military airfield in Azerbaijan with the Americans' help. (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, April 2, 2007) According to Azerbaijani political scientist, Zardusht Alizade, the NATO/US military agreement with the Baku government pertains to several Azeri airfields, which could be used to receive and service US/NATO aircraft: "Baku may also help the United States with data on ballistic missile defense'... Moreover, the words of the Azerbaijani authorities do not always match their deeds, and the statement of the Defense Ministry may be anything but the last word on the subject. "If the US Administration appeals to Aliyev and the latter summons the courage to turn the request down, all the better for him," Alizade said. "I do not really think that he will want to peeve Washington." According to the political scientist, the consequences of this step may be quite dire. Tehran has already proclaimed its readiness to strike at strategic objects nearby which are important for the United States. "Iranian capacities are not to be underestimated. A single division of its armed forces can occupy all of Azerbaijan without a second thought. I only hope that this is some sort of political game and that the United States does not really intend to strike at Iran," Alizade said" (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, April 2, 2007) (emphasis added) Strategic Caspian Sea Maritime Border with Iran Azerbaijan is also strategic in view of its maritime border with Iran in the Caspian sea. In this regard, the U.S. Navy is involved in supporting the Azeri Navy, in the area of training. There is also an agreement to provide US support to refurbish Azeri warships in the Caspian sea. The US sponsored Caspian Guard Initiative was launched in 2003 to "coordinate activities in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan with those of U.S. Central Command and other U.S government agencies to enhance Caspian security." The initiative was implemented under the cover of preventing narcotics trafficking and counter- terrorism, Its ultimate objective, however, is to provide USCENTCOM with a strategic naval corridor in the Caspian sea basin. The US has also participated in joint Naval exercises with the Azeri Armys 641st Special Warfare Naval Unit, headquartered at the Azeri Naval Station outside Baku. More generally, both the US and NATO are in the process of deepening their military cooperation with Azerbaijan. In recent developments, military-political consultations between the US and Azerbaijan are scheduled to be held in Washington in the second half of April, according to a US Embassy source in Baku. (APA News, 4 April 2007) "the consultations will cover issues on strategic cooperation, Azerbaijan-NATO relations, the mutual activity of both countries in Iraq and Afghanistan and some other issues.[iran] (ibid) The timing of these consultations is crucial. They coincide chronologically with a process of advanced military planning. Azerbaijan could be the object of retaliatory strikes by Iran, if the country's military bases are used by NATO-US forces as a launch pad for waging war on Iran. Media sources in Baku have suggested that retaliatory bombings by Iran could include Azeri oil fields and oil and gas pipelines. The strategic Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which links the Caspian Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean could also be a target. The Baku Ceyan pipeline is controlled by an Anglo-American consortium led by British Petroleum (BP). In early April, Iran deployed troops and military hardware along the Iranian-Azerbaijani border. According to an April 4 report of the Azerbaijani news agency Turan: "Military experts think that the deployment of troops and hardware pursue defence ends. This means that the troops are being pushed forward to repel attacks... The start of an information [propaganda] war is obvious. An intelligence expert has told Turan that recent publications in the media saying that Iran has drawn up a list of facilities in Azerbaijan that will be bombed in case of a US attack [on Iran] are a glaring example of this. Most likely, the reports were prepared and passed to the mass media by the Iranian secret services to exert psychological pressure on Baku. The goal is to deter Baku from supporting Washington in a military conflict with Tehran. (Turan, 4 April 2007) (emphasis added) The Iran War Theater's "Northern Front" US and allied naval deployments are concentrated in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean. The March NATO/US agreement with Baku, while building upon previous military cooperation agreements, specifically reinforces what might be described as a "Northern Front" whereby Azeri military bases including airfields and naval facilities in the Caspian sea would be used by NATO and US forces in the case of US sponsored attacks on Iran. If this were to occur, several Central Asian countries could be drawn into the conflict, leading to a process of military escalation. The latter could also extend into a ground war in which Iran would target US, British and NATO facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Clinton In Azerbaijan: Testing Waters For Attack On Iran Will Iran attack Azerbaijan and Tbilisi in case of an air-strike? vvvvvvvvvvvvvvooooooooovvvvvvvvvv Both U.S. and Israel have long had plans for a military strike on Iran, this is not new. However, now, considering the latest events, a military operation against Iran is quite possible, said Azerbaijani political expert Z. Alizadeh, commenting on a possible U.S.-Israel air strike on Iran, from Azerbaijani and Georgian territory. "If Azerbaijan and Georgia will allow that the air strike will happen from their territories, then who said Iran will not fire back? So, the question is, do we really need all this? Azerbaijan does not need to get into these issues", said Alizadeh. Another Azerbaijani political expert Fikrat Sadikhov believes, that Azerbaijan should not join the anti-Iranian coalition. "I cannot speak for the Georgian side, but as far as Azerbaijan goes, no one would really want Azerbaijani-Iranian relations to get worse. Since the very beginning, Azerbaijan expressed a very solid, neutral position on issues related to this. Baku will not participate in anti-Iranian actions. Iran is a neighboring country to us, besides there are lots of Azerbaijanis living there, so there's no interest for Azerbaijan to act like that", Sadiknov explained. Russian expert Alexei Vlasov thinks this whole "military operation on Iran" is nothing more, than a rumor. "I have big doubts that Azerbaijani government, which always thinks first, and acts second, will allow such air strike from its territory. This kind of move goes against the diplomacy of Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev. The upcoming Clinton visit to Baku is a way to get Azerbaijan to answer one question - how would it behave, if a strike on Iran will happen? I think, Ilham Aliyev will find a way to maintain a much needed balance." said Vlasov. _________ COLBY'S BELOVED AZERBAIJAN ========oooooooo=============== Azerbaijan: Mafia State by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich A 2009 U.S. embassy political dispatch compared Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to a mafia crime boss. An apt comparison given that Aliyev and the Azeri political elite have been living under the protection of the Capo Crimini Israel . The protection does not come cheap; and the manufacture of the recent lie -- the arrest of 22 Azerbaijani citizens allegedly trained in Iran to carry out terrorist acts against the U.S. and Israel , is the latest protection payment. Capo Criminis protection is noteworthy. Aliyev, a corrupt dictator who came to power through election fraud in 2003, managed to make his rounds in Washington in 2006, including a private meeting with President Bush, thanks to the full weight of the Israeli lobby in Washington . The promotion of the Azeri cause in Washington by the Israeli lobby (which included lobbying against Armenians), reinforced the notion that the way to Washington leads through Jerusalem 1 while benefitting various players - to the detriment of some others. Although much of Israel s oil comes from Azerbaijan , Israel was more interested in the control of the oil. With this in mind, despite the fact that oil companies in the Caspian region favored the much shorter and cheaper oil pipeline that would transit Iran, Israel relentlessly pushed for the alternate, more expensive and impractical Baku-Tblisi-Cehan pipeline which pipeline had over 1000 miles of it going through mountainous territory bypassing Russia and Armenia. This expensive venture also served to send the message to Turkey that alliance with Israel pays off. Lord Browne, former chief executive of BP, was quoted as saying that the whole scheme was launched in the interest of Israel.2 Brenda Shafffer who was instrumental in promoting the pipeline, put it this way: There's growing demand in Asia . If Israel is clever about it, it could market this not only commercially but also politically in a way that could improve regional security and stability." (JTA, NY , Oct 21, 2005). Shaffer is also of the opinion that Caspian oil (specifically non-OPEC members Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan ) makes Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel nervous because they do not coordinate their policies with the cartel. These plans were made possible thanks to the aftermath of September 11. 9/11 changed everything as a leading Azeri foreign policy specialist opined: "But the situation changed after Sept. 11, with American presence in Central Asia, Georgia and Azerbaijan ," he explains. "Our being under the shadow of America means Russia and Iran will not meddle. We are able to be more courageous." (Greene, Richard Allen. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. New York :Apr 29, 2002. p. 4) More courageous, perhaps but the newfound courage lacks rationale and the needs of the people of Azerbaijan have been neglected. Asim Mollazadeh, first Chairperson of the Party for Democratic Reforms prominent Azeri opposition candidate, states that Azerbaijan receives only 10 percent of oil loyalties. He argues that with 42 percent of the country living below poverty lines, the oil income does not trickle down.3 A heavy price to pay for Washington to feign welcome to the Azeri dictator. In 2002, JTA reported that Israel 's ambassador to Azerbaijan had a favorite local joke: "Are you Jewish? No, I just look intelligent." (JTA Apr 29, 2002). Insulting as the joke may be, inarguably, actions which alienate the Russians, compete with Saudis, and magically pull 22 Iran-linked terrorists out of a hat do not look intelligent. Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Masters degree in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication and Journalism and USC School of International Relations. She is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy. Notes 1 Netty C. Gross; The Azeri Triangle, The Jerusalem Post, July 10, 2006, p. 24 2 Cited by Andrew l. Killgore, Ideology Trumps Economic Efficiency, as The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Opens, The Washington Report on Middle East Affair, Aug 2005, Vol. 24, iss. 6, p.32 3 Netty C. Gross; The Azeri Triangle

+++++++++++++++++++++++vvv+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========= update ============== Youcef Nadarkhani, Imprisoned Pastor, Won't Be Executed, Iran Claims ===================================================== The Huffington Post By Laura Hibbard Posted: 03/14/2012 12:54 pm Updated: 03/15/2012 12:46 am ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An official from Iran has refuted claims of plans to execute imprisoned pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, who has been imprisoned for almost three years on accusations of apostasy, a crime where one disaffiliates themselves from a religion. The refutation came after human rights investigator Ahmed Shaheed delivered a report to the U.N., which, in addition to citing Iran's "striking pattern of violations of fundamental human rights guaranteed under international law" and the country's "maltreatment of prisoners, dissidents, minorities and women," called for the release of Nadarkhani, FOX News reports. Iran called Shaheed's 36-page report, which first circulated last week, "false," "fabricated," "biased" and manipulated by "certain Western countries and their cronies on the council," The New York Times reports. Iran's insistence that Nadarkhani will not be executed is only the latest development in an ongoing legal nightmare, during which a litany of additional accusations, including rape and extortion, have been made against the Christian pastor by the Iranian government. In September of last year, the Iranian Supreme Court upheld Naderkhani's initial conviction of apostasy after he allegedly refused to recant his Christian faith. Then, in February, the American Center for Law and Justice received reports that Nadarkhani had been sentenced to death for the 2010 charges -- a ruling the White House quickly condemned in a statement. "This action is yet another shocking breach of Iran’s international obligations, its own constitution, and stated religious values," the White House statement read. "The United States stands in solidarity with Pastor Nadarkhani, his family, and all those who seek to practice their religion without fear of persecution -- a fundamental and universal human right." Leonard Leo, chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, told the Religion News Service last year that Iran's court proceedings can't be trusted. "The court continues to demand that he recant his faith or otherwise be executed," Leo told RNS. "The most recent court proceedings are not only a sham, but are contrary to Iranian law and international human rights standards." Despite the reported execution ruling last fall, Iranian envoy Mohammad Javad Larijani told the Human Rights Council that such punishment is not permitted in Iran. “In the last 33 years after [the Islamic] revolution, no single person has been put to death or executed or pursued for changing his religion from Islam,” he told the council, according to FOX News. “Hundreds of people are changing from other religions to Islam. Why we should be so sensitive about a few people to change their religion from Islam?” VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV =================================== BOMB !! BOMB !! IRAN !! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_JUwQWZasU

Global Research 3/16/12 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29799 ------------------------------------------ On September 11, 2011, within hours of the murderous 9/11 attacks, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney had committed America to what they later called the War on Terror. It should more properly, I believe, be called the Terror War, one in which terror has been directed repeatedly against civilians by all participants, both states and non-state actors.1 It should also be seen as part of a larger, indeed global, process in which terror has been used against civilians in interrelated campaigns by all major powers, including China in Xinjiang and Russia in Chechnya, as well as the United States.2 Terror war in its global context should perhaps be seen as the latest stage of the age-long secular spread of transurban civilization into areas of mostly rural resistance -- areas where conventional forms of warfare, for either geographic or cultural reasons, prove inconclusive. Terror War was formally declared by George W. Bush on the evening of September 11, 2001, with his statement to the American nation that "we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."3 But the notion that Bushs terror war was in pursuit of actual terrorists lost credibility in 2003, when it was applied to Saddam Husseins Iraq, a country known to have been targeted by terrorists but not to have harbored them.4 It lost still more credibility with the 2005 publication in Britain of the so-called Downing Street memo, in which the head of the British intelligence service MI6 reported after a visit to Washington in 2002 that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."5 False stories followed in due course linking Iraq to WMD, anthrax, and Niger yellowcake (uranium). This essay will demonstrate that before 9/11 a small element inside the CIAs Bin Laden Unit and related agencies, the so-called Alec Station Group, were also busy, fixing intelligence by suppressing it, in a way which, accidentally or deliberately, enabled the Terror War. They did so by withholding evidence from the FBI before 9/11 about two of the eventual alleged hijackers on 9/11, Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, thus ensuring that the FBI could not surveil the two men or their colleagues. This failure to share was recognized in the 9/11 Commission Report, but treated as an accident that might not have occurred if more resources had been applied.6 This explanation, however, has since been refuted by 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean. Asked recently by two filmmakers if the failure to deal appropriately with al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi could have been a simple mistake, Kean replied: Oh, it wasnt careless oversight. It was purposeful. No question about that .… The conclusion that we came to was that in the DNA of these organizations was secrecy. And secrecy to the point of ya dont share it with anybody.7 In 2011 an important book by Kevin Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, demonstrated conclusively that the withholding was purposive, and sustained over a period of eighteen months.8 This interference and manipulation became particularly blatant and controversial in the days before 9/11; it led one FBI agent, Steve Bongardt, to predict accurately on August 29, less than two weeks before 9/11, that someday someone will die.9 As will be seen, the motives for this withholding remain inscrutable. At one time I was satisfied with Lawrence Wrights speculations that the CIA may have wanted to recruit the two Saudis; and that The CIA may also have been protecting an overseas operation [possibly in conjunction with Saudi Arabia] and was afraid that the F.B.I. would expose it.10 The purpose of this essay is to suggest that the motives for the withholding may have had to do with the much larger neocon objective being imposed on American foreign policy at this same time: the consolidation of U.S. global hegemony by the establishment of U.S. forward-based bases around the oil fields of Central Asia. In short, the withholding of evidence should be seen as part of the larger ominous pattern of the time, including the malperformance of the U.S. government (USG) in response to the 9/11 attacks, and the murderous anthrax letters which helped secure the passage of the Patriot Act. I am now persuaded by Fenton that Lawrence Wrights explanation, that the CIA was protecting a covert operation, may explain the beginnings of the withholding in January 2000, but cannot explain its renewal in the days just before 9/11. Fenton analyzes a list of thirty-five different occasions where the two alleged hijackers were protected in this fashion, from January 2000 to about September 5, 2001, less than a week before the hijackings.11 We shall see that in his analysis, the incidents fall into two main groups. The motive he attributes to the earlier ones, was to cover a CIA operation that was already in progress.12 However after the system was blinking red in the summer of 2001, and the CIA expected an imminent attack, Fenton can see no other explanation than that the purpose of withholding the information had become to allow the attacks to go forward.13 Fentons second sentence would imply that a homicidal crime was committed by members of the Alec Station group, even if the crime was one of manslaughter (unintended homicide) rather than deliberate and premeditated murder. One can imagine benign reasons for withholding the information: for example, the CIA may have been tolerating the behavior of the two Saudis in order to track down their associates. In this case, we would be dealing with no more than a miscalculation albeit a homicidal miscalculation. The Terror War and the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz Project of Global Dominion But in the course of this essay I shall dwell on the activities of the head of the CIAs Bin Laden Unit, Richard Blee, in Uzbekistan as well as Afghanistan. Uzbekistan was an area of concern not only to Blee and his superior Cofer Black; it was also in an area of major interest to Richard Cheney, whose corporation Halliburton had been active since 1997 or earlier in developing the petroleum reserves of Central Asia. Cheney himself said in a speech to oil industrialists in 1998, "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.14 I shall suggest that the purpose as well as the result of protecting the two Saudis may have been to fulfill the objectives of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) neocon group for establishing forward-based forces in Central Asia.15 We shall see that a phone call on 9/11 from CIA Director Tenet to Stephen Cambone, a key PNAC figure in the Pentagon, apparently transmitted some of the privileged information that never reached the FBI. This neocon agenda was partially to maintain American and Israeli domination of the region for security purposes, and (as we shall see) to create the conditions for future unilateral preemptive actions against unfriendly states like Iraq. In particular it was designed to establish new secure bases in the Middle East, anticipating Donald Rumsfelds predictable announcement in 2003 that the U.S. would pull virtually all of its troops, except some training personnel, out of Saudi Arabia.16 But it was partly also to strengthen American influence in particular over the newly liberated states of Central Asia, with their sizable unproven oil and gas reserves. Fentons alarming conclusion about CIA actions leading up to the 9/11 attacks makes more sense in the context of this agenda, and also in the context of three other revealing anomalies about Bushs Terror War. The first is the paradox that this supposed pursuit of al-Qaeda was conducted in alliance with the two nations, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, that were most actively supporting Al Qaeda in other parts of the world. In this essay we shall see U.S. and Saudi intelligence cooperating in such a way as to protect, rather than neutralize, Saudi agents in al Qaeda. The second anomaly is that although the CIA may have been focused on crushing al Qaeda, Rumsfeld and Cheney were intent from the outset on a much wider war. In September 2001 there was no intelligence on 9/11 linking the attacks to Iraq, yet Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, supported by his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, was already observing on September 12 that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets.17 Rumsfelds argument was supported by a Defense Department paper prepared for the ensuing Camp David meetings of September 15-16, which proposed that the immediate priority targets for initial action should be al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq.18 Iraq had been a target for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz since at least 1998, when the two men co-signed a PNAC letter to President Clinton, calling for the removal of Saddam Husseins regime from power.19 But Iraq was not the only target in the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz agenda, which since at least 1992 had been nothing less than global U.S. dominance, or what former U.S. Colonel Andrew Bacevich called permanent American global hegemony.20 It was a high priority for the neocons. Even before Bush had been elected by the Supreme Court in December 2000, Cheney was at work securing key posts for the 1998 letters cosigners (including Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Richard Perle, along with other PNAC personnel like Stephen Cambone) in the White House, State, and Defense. The terror war from its outset was designed as an instrument to implement this objective. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on September 24 raised the issue of state sponsorship of terrorism: What is our strategy with respect to countries that support terrorism like Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Sudan?21 In his memoir, General Wesley Clark reports that the question had evolved by November into a Pentagon five-year plan: As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.22 At about this time, former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht published an article in The Weekly Standard about the need for a change of regime in Iran and Syria.23 (Gerecht continues to warn in The Weekly Standard about the menace of both nations today.) In the Clinton era Gerecht, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, had been part of the Project for the New American Century, a hawkish group calling both for action against Iraq in particular and also more generally for an expanded defense budget that would increase defense spending significantly in the cause of American leadership. The PNAC report of September 2000 Rebuilding Americas Defenses had much to say about Gulf oil and the importance of retaining and strengthening forward-based forces in the region.24 It is relevant that by the end of 2001, in the wake of 9/11 and the Terror War, the United States had already established new bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, and was thus better positioned to influence the behavior of the newly liberated governments in the huge oil and gas region east of the Caspian. In the course of this essay we shall see that the agreement to use the first and one of the most important of these bases, Karshi-Khanabad or K-2 in Uzbekistan, grew out of an earlier CIA liaison agreement negotiated in 1999 by Richard Blee of the Alec Station Group, a central figure in this essay. Most Americans are unaware that on 9/11 U.S. Special Forces were already at K-2 on an Uzbek training mission, and that by September 22, two weeks before a formal U.S.-Uzbek military agreement, the CIA was already flying its teams into the massive Karshi-Khanabad, or K2, air base in southern Uzbekistan, where U.S. army engineers were repairing the runway.25 Map showing US bases including Karshi-Khanabad A third anomaly is that the Terror War led to a dramatic increase in the resort to terror, and even torture, by America itself, including against its own citizens. In this context it is relevant that Cheney and Rumsfeld, through their participation in the Defense Departments super-secret Doomsday Project, had also been part of Continuity of Government (COG) planning for undermining the U.S. Bill of Rights by the warrantless surveillance and detention of dissenters.26 These plans, dating back to the fear of Communists in the McCarthyite 1950s, have been the underpinnings for the elaborate plans in the Pentagon and elsewhere for dealing with antiwar protests against the Pentagons plans for global domination. As I have argued elsewhere, the U.S. is now spending billions every year on Homeland Security in no small part because of the belief, articulated by Marine Colonel Oliver North, that the Vietnam War was lost in the streets of America, and that this deterrent to U.S. military operations needed to be dealt with.27 Cheney and Rumsfeld, as part of the so-called Doomsday Project for Continuity of Government (COG) planning, had been part of this effort also.28 In short, 9/11 fulfilled agendas long contemplated by a small group of officials for radical new policies both in Central Asia and also inside America. The homicidal crime suggested by Fentons meticulous research is one both difficult and painful to contemplate. America is in a crisis today because of the activities of the Banks Too Big to Fail, which, as has been pointed out, were also Banks Too Big to Jail for to punish them as criminals would endanger Americas already threatened financial structure.29 This essay, though detailed, is dealing with something analogous, what may have been a Crime Too Big to Punish. 9/11, as will be developed in this essay, has other points in common with the John F. Kennedy assassination. The Cover-Up of 9/11 and of the CIAs Role in Letting It Happen After ten years it is important to reassess what we know and do not know about the events that culminated in 9/11, particularly the actions of the CIA and the FBI and the denial of critical information to the 9/11 Commission. Today, we can confidently say: 1) the most important truths still remain unknown, in large part because many of the most important documents are still either unreleased or heavily redacted; 2) the efforts at cover-up continue, if anything more aggressively than before; 3) In addition to the cover-up, there has been what former 9/11 Commission staffer John Farmer has called either unprecedented administrative incompetence or organized mendacity on the part of key figures in Washington.30 These figures include President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, NORAD General Richard Myers, and CIA Director George Tenet. They include also President Clintons National Security Advisor, Samuel Berger, who prior to testifying on these matters, went to the National Archives and removed, and presumably destroyed, key relevant documents.31 In his book, Farmer has in effect endorsed both of these alternatives. President Bush awarding National Medal of Honor to George Tenet, Dec. 14, 200 Farmers first alternative, of unprecedented administrative incompetence, is in effect the explanation offered by the 9/11 Commission Report, to deal with 1) striking anomalies both on 9/11 itself, and 2) the preceding twenty months during which important information was withheld from the FBI by key personnel in the CIAs Bin Laden Unit (the so-called Alec Station). But thanks to the groundbreaking new book by Kevin Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, we can no longer attribute the anomalous CIA behavior to systemic problems, or what Tony Summers rashly calls bureaucratic confusion.32 Building on earlier important books by James Bamford, Lawrence Wright, Peter Lance, and Philip Shenon, Fenton demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a systematic CIA pattern of withholding important information from the FBI, even when the FBI would normally be entitled to it. Even more brilliantly, he shows that the withholding pattern has been systematically sustained through four successive post-9/11 investigations: those of the Congressional Inquiry chaired by Senators Bob Graham and Richard Shelby (still partly withheld), the 9/11 Commission, the Department of Justice inspector general, and the CIA inspector general. Most importantly of all, he shows that the numerous withholdings, both pre- and post 9/11, were the work of relatively few people. The withholding of information from the FBI was principally the work of the so-called Alec Station group a group within but not identical with the CIAs Osama Bin Laden Unit or Alec Station, consisting largely of CIA personnel, though including a few FBI as well. Key figures in this group were CIA officer Tom Wilshire (discussed in the 9/11 Commission Report as John), and his immediate superior at Alec Station, Richard Blee. The post-9/11 cover-up of Wilshires behavior was principally the work of one person, Barbara Grewe, who worked first on the Justice Department Inspector Generals investigation of Wilshires behavior, then was transferred to two successive positions with the 9/11 Commissions staff, where, under the leadership of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, she was able to transfer the focus of investigative attention from the performance of the CIA to that of the FBI.33 Whether or not Grewe conducted the interviews of Wilshire and other relevant personnel, she certainly drew on them when drafting her sections of the Commissions and Justice Department inspector generals reports.34 Grewes repositioning from post to post is a sign of an intended cover-up at a higher level. So, as we shall see, is Wilshires transfer in May 2001 from CIAs Alec Station (the Osama Bin Laden Unit) to the FBI, where he began a new phase of interference with the normal flow of intelligence, obstructing the FBI from within it.35 The pattern begins with intelligence obtained from surveillance of an important al Qaeda summit meeting of January 2000 in Malaysia, perhaps the only such summit before 9/11. The meeting drew instant and high-level US attention because of indirect links to a support element (a key telephone in Yemen used by al Qaeda) suspected of acting as a communications center in the 1998 bombings of US Embassies. As Fenton notes, The CIA realized that the summit was so important that information about it was briefed to CIA and FBI leaders [Louis Freeh and Dale Watson], National Security Adviser Samuel Berger and other top officials.36 Yet inside Alec Station Tom Wilshire and his CIA subordinate (known only as Michelle)37 blocked the effort of an FBI agent detailed there (Doug Miller) to notify the FBI that one of the participants (Khalid Al-Mihdhar) had a US visa in his passport.38 Worse, Michelle then sent a cable to other CIA stations falsely stating that Al-Mihdhars travel documents, including a multiple entry US visa, had been copied and passed to the FBI for further investigation.39 Alec Station also failed to watchlist the participants in the meeting, as was called for by CIA guidelines.40 This was just the beginning of a systematic, sometimes lying pattern, where NSA and CIA information about Al-Mihdhar and his traveling companion, Nawaf al-Hazmi, was systematically withheld from the FBI, lied about, or manipulated or distorted in such a way as to inhibit an FBI investigation of the two Saudis and their associates. This is a major component of the 9/11 story; because the behavior of these two would-be hijackers was so unprofessional that, without this CIA protection provided by the Alec Station Group, they would almost certainly have been detected and detained or deported, long before they prepared to board Flight 77 in Washington.41 Fenton concludes with a list of thirty-five different occasions where the two alleged hijackers were protected in this fashion, from January 2000 to about September 5, 2001, less than a week before the hijackings. In his analysis, the incidents fall into two main groups. The motive he attributes to the earlier ones, such as the blocking of Doug Millers cable, was to cover a CIA operation that was already in progress.43 However after the system was blinking red in the summer of 2001, and the CIA expected an imminent attack, Fenton can see no other plausible explanation than that the purpose of withholding the information had become to allow the attacks to go forward.44 Wilshires pattern of interference changed markedly after his move to the Bureau. When in CIA he had moved to block transmittal of intelligence to the FBI. Now, in contrast, he initiated FBI reviews of the same material, but in such a way that the reviews were conducted in too leisurely a fashion to bear fruit before 9/11. Fenton suspects that Wilshire anticipated a future review of his files; and was laying a false trail of documentation to neutralize his embarrassing earlier performance.45 I believe we must now accept Fentons finding of fact: It is clear that this information was not withheld through a series of bizarre accidents, but intentionally.46 However, I suggest a different explanation as to what those intentions originally were, one which is superficially much simpler, more benign, and also more explicative of other parts, apparently unrelated, of the 9/11 mystery. The Liaison Agreements with Other Intelligence Agencies Initially, I believe, Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi may have been protected because they had been sent to America by the Saudi GID intelligence service, which would explain why after their arrival they were apparently bankrolled indirectly by the Saudi embassy in Washington. The facts are well summarized by Paul Church in Asia Times Online (February 11, 2012): etween 1998 and 2002, up to US$73,000 in cashier cheques was funneled by [saudi Ambassador Prince] Bandar's wife Haifa - who once described the elder Bushes as like "my mother and father" - to two Californian families known to have bankrolled al-Midhar and al-Hazmi. … Princess Haifa sent regular monthly payments of between $2,000 and $3,500 to Majeda Dweikat, wife of Osama Basnan, believed by various investigators to be a spy for the Saudi government. Many of the cheques were signed over to Manal Bajadr, wife of Omar al-Bayoumi, himself suspected of covertly working for the kingdom. The Basnans, the al-Bayoumis and the two 9/11 hijackers once shared the same apartment block in San Diego. It was al-Bayoumi who greeted the killers when they first arrived in America, and provided them, among other assistance, with an apartment and social security cards. He even helped the men enroll at flight schools in Florida.47 If the two Saudis were in fact sent by the GID, they would almost certainly have been admitted to the U.S. under the terms of the liaison agreement between the GID and the CIA.48 Prince Turki al-Faisal, former head of the GID, has said that he shared his al Qaeda information with the CIA, and that in 1997 the Saudis established a joint intelligence committee with the United States to share information on terrorism in general and on…al Qaeda in particular.49 The 9/11 Commission Report adds that after a post-millennium review, the Counterterrorism Center (which included Alec Station, the Bin Laden Unit) intended to proceed with its plan of half a year earlier, building up the capabilities of foreign security services that provided intelligence via liaison.50 This was a Blee specialty. Steve Coll reports that Richard Blee and his superior Cofer Black, excited about the opportunities presented by liaison arrangements for expanding the scope of CIA reach in critical regions, had flown together into Tashkent in 1999, and negotiated a new liaison agreement with Uzbekistan.51 According to Coll and the Washington Post, this arrangement soon led, via Tashkent, to a CIA liaison inside Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance.52 Thomas Ricks and Susan Glasser reported in the Washington Post that, beginning after the embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, The United States and Uzbekistan have quietly conducted joint covert operations aimed at countering Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime and its terrorist allies …, according to officials from both nations."53 Panjashir valley, area of Northern Alliance dominance Speaking as a former junior diplomat, let me observe that a liaison arrangement would probably have required special access clearances for those privy to the arrangement and sharing the liaison information.54 This would explain the exclusion of the FBI agents who were not cleared for this information, as well as the behavior of other non-cleared CIA agents who proceeded to collect and disseminate information about the two alleged hijackers. Alec Station needed both to protect the double identity of the two Saudis, and to make sure that they were not embarrassingly detained by the FBI. Almost certainly the CIA had relevant liaison arrangements, not just with the Saudi GID and Uzbekistan, but also with the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan, as well as the intelligence services of Egypt, and perhaps Yemen and Morocco. In particular there is reason to think that Ali Mohamed, a double agent who was protected by the FBI from being detained in Canada, thus allowing him to help organize the al Qaeda embassy bombings of 1998, was permitted under such arrangements to enter the US as an agent of foreign intelligence, probably Egyptian.55 Ali Mohamed figures both in the content and as source of the Presidents Daily Brief (PDB) of August 6, 2001, in which the CIA warned the president, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.56 According to Mohameds FBI handler, Jack Cloonan, all that information came from Ali, while the PDB itself attributes its key finding to what an Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [---] service.57 (Ali Mohamed was definitely EIJ, and this service was probably Egyptian.) Ali Mohamed But when Mohamed, like Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi, was inappropriately admitted to the US, it was reportedly not by the CIA, but possibly by some other Federal agency.58 This was very possibly a Pentagon agency, because from 1987 to 1989, Ali Mohamed was assigned to the U.S. [Army] Special Operations Command [sOCOM] in Fort Bragg, the home of the Green Berets and the Delta Force, the elite counterterrorism squad.59 SOCOM, which includes JSOC (the Joint Special Operations Command), has its own intelligence division;60 and SOCOM is the command that first mounted the Able Danger program in 1999 to track al Qaeda operatives, and then, inexplicably, both shut it down before 9/11 and destroyed its database.61 In addition SOCOM was working in Uzbekistan with CIA operatives as a result of the liaison agreement negotiated by Cofer Black and Richard Blee of the CTC. Cofer Black For this and other reasons, I suggest reconceptualizing what Fenton calls the anomalous Alec Station group as an inter-agency liaison team (or teams) with special access clearances, including Alec Station personnel, collaborating personnel in the FBI, and possibly SOCOM. (One of these collaborators was FBI agent Dina Corsi, who according to Fenton withheld vital information from fellow agent Steve Bongardt even after the NSA had cleared it for him.)62 Background: the Safari Club and William Casey These arrangements can be traced in one form or another, at least back to the 1970s. Then senior CIA officers and ex-officers (notably Richard Helms), who were dissatisfied with the CIA cutbacks instituted under Jimmy Carters CIA director, Stansfield Turner, organized an alternative network, the so-called Safari Club. Subordinated to intelligence chiefs from France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and (under the Shah) Iran, the Safari Club provided a home to CIA officers like Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines, who had been marginalized or fired by CIA Director Turner. As Prince Turki later explained, the purpose of the Safari Club was not just to exchange information, but to conduct covert operations that the CIA could no longer carry out directly in the wake of the Watergate scandal and subsequent reforms.63 In the 1980s, CIA Director William Casey made key decisions in the conduct of the Afghan covert war, not through his own CIA bureaucracy but with the Saudi intelligence chiefs, first Kamal Adham and then Prince Turki. Among these decisions was the creation of a foreign legion to assist the Afghan mujahideen in their war against the Soviets in other words, the creation of that support network which, since the end of that war, we have known as Al Qaeda.64 Casey worked out the details with the two Saudi intelligence chiefs, and also with the head of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the Saudi-Pakistani bank in which Adham and Turki were both shareholders. In so doing, Casey was in effect running a second or back-channel CIA, building up the future al Qaeda in Pakistan with the Saudis, even though the official CIA hierarchy underneath him in Langley rightly thought this unwise.65 In American War Machine, I situated the Safari Club and BCCI in a succession of second CIA or alternative CIA arrangements dating back to the creation of the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) in 1948. Thus it is relevant that CIA Director George Tenet, following Caseys precedent, met with Saudi Ambassador Bandar around once a month, and would not tell CIA officers handling Saudi issues what he had discussed.66 Fenton himself invokes the example of the Safari Club in proposing the possible explanation that Blee and Wilshire used a parallel network to track Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi inside the United States. In his words, Withholding the information about Almihdhar and Alhazmi only makes sense if the CIA was monitoring the two men in the US itself, either officially or off the books.67 But a third option would be that the GID was monitoring their movements, a situation quite compatible with Saudi Prince Bandars claim that Saudi security had been actively following the movements of most of the terrorists with precision.68 Joseph and Susan Trento heard from a former CIA officer, once based in Saudi Arabia, that Both Hazmi and Mihdhar were Saudi agents.69 If so, they were clearly double agents, acting (or posing) as terrorists at the same time they were acting (or posing) as informants. In espionage, double agents are prized and often valuable; but to rely on them (as the example of Ali Mohamed illustrates) can also be dangerous. This was particularly the case for the CIA with respect to Saudi Arabia, whose GID supported Al Qaeda energetically in countries like Bosnia, in exchange for a pledge (negotiated by Saudi Interior Minister Naif bin Abdul Aziz with Osama bin Laden) that Al Qaeda would not interfere with the politics of Saudi Arabia or any Arab country.70 Pakistans ISI was even more actively engaged with al Qaeda, and some elements of ISI were probably closer to the ideological goals of al Qaeda, than to Pakistans nominally secular government. But in all cases the handling of illegal informants is not just dangerous and unpredictable, but corrupting. To act their parts, the informants must break the law; and their handlers, knowing this, must protect them by failing to report them, and then, all too often, intercede to prevent their arrest by others. In this way, handlers, over and over again, become complicit in the crimes of their informants.71 Even in the best of circumstances, decisions have to be made whether to allow an informants crime to go forward, or to thwart it and risk terminating the usefulness of the informant. In such moments, agencies are all too likely to make the choice that is not in the public interest. A very relevant example is the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993 relevant because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, was one of the 1993 plotters as well. The FBI had an informant, Emad Salem, among the 1993 plotters; and Salem later claimed, with supporting evidence from tapes of his FBI debriefings, that the FBI deliberately chose not to shut down the plot. Here is Ralph Blumenthals careful account in the New York Times of this precursor to the mystery of 9/11: Law-enforcement officials [i.e. the FBI] were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast. The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said. The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City's tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court in that attack.72 What makes the 1993 plot even more relevant is that Salem, according to many sources, was an agent of the Egyptian intelligence service, sent to America to spy on the actions of the Egyptian Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.73 This raises the possibility that the F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how to use Emad Salem, was a member of a liaison team, with special knowledge he could not share with other FBI agents. It may have been, for example, that the Egyptian intelligence service declined to let Salems cover be blown. This suggestion is both speculative and problematic, but it has the advantage of offering a relatively coherent explanation for otherwise baffling behavior. This explanation does not at all rule out the possibility that some officials had more sinister motives for allowing the bombing to take place and covering it up afterwards. Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was at this very time a key figure in a sensitive Saudi program, signed on to by U.S. officials as well, to supply mujahideen warriors in Bosnia against Serbia (including some, like Ayman al-Zawahiri, who were later accused of the 9/11 plot).74 It is clear from both investigative and prosecutorial behavior that a number of different US agencies did not want to disturb Rahmans activities. Even after Rahman himself was finally indicted in the 1995 conspiracy case to blow up New York landmarks, the US Government continued to protect Ali Mohamed, a key figure in the conspiracy. Worse, the performance of the FBI in allowing the bombing to proceed was only one of a series of interrelated bungled performances and missed opportunities, climaxing with 9/11. The first was in connection with the murder in New York of the Jewish extremist Meir Kahane. The FBI and NY police actually detained two of the murderers in that case and then released them, allowing them to take part in the WTC bombing of 1993. A key trainer of the two men was Ali Mohamed while still in U.S. Special Forces, whose name was systematically protected from disclosure by the prosecuting attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald. Then in 1994, when Ali Mohamed was detained in Vancouver by the Canadian RCMP, the FBI intervened to arrange for his release. This freed Mohamed to proceed to Kenya, where he became the lead organizer of the 1998 US Embassy bombing in Nairobi.75 Ali Mohamed was finally detained by the Americans in 1998, but still not imprisoned. He was apparently still a free man when he readily confessed to his FBI handler, Jack Cloonan, that he not only knew at least three of the 9/11 alleged hijackers, but had helped instruct them in how to hijack airplanes.76 According to Ali Soufan, released in September 2011, Ali Mohamed was still awaiting sentencing in 2011, twelve years after his guilty plea in May 1999.77 We have to conclude that there is something profoundly dysfunctional going on here, and has been going on since before 9/11, indeed under both political parties. The conditions of secrecy created by special clearances have not just masked this dysfunctionality; they have, I would argue, helped create it. The history of espionage demonstrates that secret power, when operating in the sphere of illegal activities, becomes, time after time, antithetical to public democratic power.78 The more restricted the group of special planners with special clearances, the less likely are their decisions to conform with the dictates of international and domestic law, still less with common morality and common sense. Add to these conditions of unwholesome secrecy the fundamentally unhealthy, indeed corrupt, relationship of U.S. intelligence agencies to those of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This has been profoundly anti-democratic both at home and in Asia. The US dependency on Saudi oil has in effect subsidized a wealth-generated spread of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the world, while what the 99.9 percent of ordinary Americans pay for oil and gas generates huge sums, which Saudis then recycle into the financial institutions of the one tenth of one percent at the pinnacle of Wall Street. In like manner, Americas fraught relationship with the ISI of Pakistan has resulted in a dramatic increase in international heroin trafficking by the two agencies Afghan clients.79 In short the bureaucratic dysfunction we are talking about in 9/11 is a symptom of a larger dysfunction in Americas relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Pakistan, and through them with the rest of the world. Liaison Agreements and the Protection of Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi Even without the suggestive precedent of the 1993 WTC bombing, it is legitimate to posit that liaison agreements may have inhibited the roundup of Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi. Let us consider first Fentons finding of fact: It is clear that this information [about the two men] was not withheld through a series of bizarre accidents, but intentionally.80 This finding I consider rock hard. But we cannot be so coinfident about his explanation: that the purpose of withholding the information had become to allow the attacks to go forward.81 I believe that in fact there are a number of possibilities about the intention, ranging from the relatively innocent (the inhibitions deriving from a liaison agreement) to the nefarious. Before considering these, let us deconstruct the notion of letting the attacks go forward. Clearly, if the alleged hijackers were not detained at the airport gates, people would probably have been killed but how many? Recall that in the Operation Northwoods documents, which envisaged planning false flag attacks to justify a U.S. military intervention in Cuba, the Joint Chiefs wrote We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in which We could sink a boatload of Cubans.82 Would the loss of four planeloads of passengers have been a qualitatively different tragedy? Of course 9/11 became a much greater tragedy when three of the planes hit the two Towers and the Pentagon. But it is possible that the liaison minders of the two Saudis did not imagine that their targets were capable of such a feat. Recall that their flying lessons, even in a Cessna, were such a fiasco that the lessons were quickly terminated. Their instructor told them that flying was simply not for them.83 Let me suggest that there are three separable ingredients to the 9/11 attacks: the hijackings, the strikes on the buildings, and the astonishing collapse of the three WTC buildings. It is at least possible that the Alec Station liaison team, as a group, contemplated only the first stage, without ever imagining the two stages that ensued. A minimal, least malign initial explanation for the withholding of information about two of the alleged hijackers would be the hypothesis I proposed in the case of Emad Salem the restricted access created by the special clearance for a liaison agreement. But just as in 1993, the secret power created behind the wall of restrictive clearances may have been exploited for ulterior purposes. The dangerous situation thus created of potential would-be-hijackers being protected from detention at a time of expected attack may have inspired some to exploit the resulting conditions of secrecy as an opportunity to plan an incident to justify war. One important analogy with the 1964 false Second Tonkin Gulf Incident that was used to justify attacking North Vietnam is the same presence of a powerful faction in 2001 the PNAC clique inside government that was bent on unilateral military action.84 One clue to this more sinister intention is that the pattern of withholdings detailed by Fenton is not restricted exclusively to the two Saudis and their CIA station handlers. There are a few concatenating withholdings by other agencies above all the Able Danger info that was destroyed at SOCOM and the withholding apparently by NSA -- of an important relevant intercept, apparently about the alleged hijackers and Moussaoui.85 If the NSA was withholding information from relevant officials, it would recall the role of the NSA at the time of the second Tonkin Gulf Incident in August 1964. Then the NSA, at a crucial moment, forwarded 15 pieces of SIGINT (signals intelligence) which indicated falsely that there had been a North Vietnamese attack on two US destroyers. At the same time NSA withheld 107 pieces of SIGINT which indicated correctly that no North Vietnamese attack had occurred.86 NSAs behavior at that time was mirrored at the CIA: both agencies were aware of a powerful consensus inside the Johnson administration that had already agreed on provoking North Vietnam, in hopes of creating an opportunity for military response.87 We know from many accounts of the Bush administration that there was also a powerful pro-war consensus within it, centered on Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the so-called cabal of PNAC (the Project for the New American Century) that before Bushs election had been lobbying vigorously for military action against Iraq. We know also that Rumsfelds immediate response to 9/11 was to propose an attack on Iraq, and that planning for such an attack was indeed instituted on September 17.88 It is worth considering whether some of those protecting the alleged hijackers from detention did not share these warlike ambitions.89 Did Richard Blee Have an Ulterior Motive for Withholding Information? Fenton speculates that one of those seeking a pretext for an escalated war against Al Qaeda may have been Richard Blee. We saw that Blee, with Cofer Black, negotiated an intelligence-sharing liaison agreement with Uzbekistan. By 2000 SOCOM had become involved, and U.S. Special Forces began to work more overtly with the Uzbek military on training missions.90 In the course of time the Uzbek liaison agreement, as we saw, expanded into a subordinate liaison with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Blee, meeting with Massoud in October 1999, agreed to lobby in Washington for more active support for the Northern Alliance.91 After the USS Cole bombing in Aden in 2000, Blee was pushing to expand the Uzbek military mission still further into a joint attack force in conjunction with the Northern Alliance forces of Massoud. There was considerable objection to this while Clinton was still president, partly on the grounds that Massoud was fighting Pakistani-backed Taliban forces with Russian and Iranian support, and partly because he was known to be supporting his forces by heroin trafficking.92 But in the spring of 2001 a meeting of department deputies in the new Bush administration revived the plans of Blee and Black, (supported by Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke) for large-scale covert aid to Massoud.93 On September 4, one week before 9/11, the Bush Cabinet authorized the drafting of a new presidential directive, NSPD-9, authorizing a covert action program along these lines in conjunction with Massoud.94 In the new Bush administration Blee was no longer a minority voice, and six weeks after 9/11 he would be named the new CIA station chief in Kabul.95 Fenton reports that in this capacity Blee became involved in the rendition of al Qaeda detainees, and suggests that the motive may have been to obtain, by torture, a false confession (by Ibn Shaikh al-Libi) to Iraqi involvement with al Qaeda. This false confession then became part of the fixing of evidence, and formed a key part of Secretary of State Colin Powells embarrassing presentation to the UN to support the invasion of Iraq.96 Did SOCOM Have an Ulterior Motive for Closing Down Able Danger? What ensued after 9/11 went far beyond Blees program for paramilitary CIA involvement with the Northern Alliance. The CIA component in Afghanistan was soon dwarfed by the forces of SOCOM: George Tenet reported that by late 2001 the US force in Afghanistan consisted of about 500 fighters, including 110 CIA officers, 316 Special Forces personnel, and scores of Joint Special Operations Command raiders creating havoc behind enemy lines.97 In the Bush administration Stephen Cambone, who earlier had collaborated with Rumsfeld and Cheney in signing the PNACs statement, Rebuilding Americas Defenses, became one of the active promoters of using SOCOM special forces to operate covertly against al Qaeda, not just in Afghanistan, but anywhere in the world.98 It is possible that anything Blee may have done in Alec Station to prepare the way for 9/11 was only one part of a larger inter-agency operation, in which an equivalent role was played by SOCOMs shutting down of the Able Danger project. This might help explain a handwritten notation around 10 PM on 9/11 by Stephen Cambone, then one of Cheneys PNAC appointees under Rumsfeld in the Pentagon, after a phone call with George Tenet: AA 77 - 3 indiv[iduals] have been followed since Millennium & Cole 1 guy is assoc[iate] of Cole bomber 2 entered US in early July (2 of 3 pulled aside & interrogated?)99 The guy here is probably Al-Mihdhar, and the Cole bomber probably Khallad [or Tawfiq] bin Attash, a major al Qaeda figure connected not just to the Cole bombing but also to the 1998 embassy attacks. One wants to know why Tenet was sharing with a hawk in the Pentagon information that has apparently never been shared by anyone outside the CIA since. And is it a coincidence that Cambone, like Blee, oversaw a program in this case staffed by SOCOM special operations personnel using torture to interrogate detainees in Afghanistan?100 Just as Blee was reportedly a special protégé of George Tenet at CIA, so Cambone was notorious for his fierce loyalty to first Dick Cheney and later Donald Rumsfeld in the Pentagon. It is not known whether he was associated with the Continuity of Government (COG) planning project where Rumsfeld and Cheney, among others, prepared for the warrantless surveillance and detention measures that were (as I have argued elsewhere) implemented beginning on the morning of 9/11 and continuing to today.101 Nor is it known if he was associated in any way with Cheneys Counterterrorism Task Force in the Spring of 2001, which has been alleged to have been a source for the war games, including rogue plane attacks, which added to the disarray of the US response, on 9/11.102 Deep Events as a Repeated Pattern of U.S. Engagement in War I want to conclude with a little historical perspective on the dysfunction we have been looking at. In a sense 9/11 was unprecedented the greatest mass murder ever committed in one day on U.S. soil. In another sense it represented an example of the kind of signature event with which we have become only too familiar since the Kennedy assassination. I have called these events deep events events deeply rooted in illegal covert activity in various branches of US intelligence and with a predictable accompanying pattern of official cover-ups backed up by amazing media malfunction and dishonest best-selling books. Some of these deep events, like the Kennedy assassination, Tonkin Gulf, and 9/11, should be considered structural deep events, because of their permanent impact on history. It is striking that these structural deep events the JFK assassination, Tonkin Gulf, and 9/11 should all have been swiftly followed by Americas engagement in ill-considered wars. The reverse is also true: all of Americas significant wars since Korea Laos, Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice, once covertly and now overtly), and Iraq have all been preceded by structural deep events. As I wrote in American War Machine, a J-5 Staff Report of 1963 reported to the Joint Chiefs that The engineering of a series of provocations to justify military intervention is feasible and could be accomplished with the resources available. Tonkin Gulf, 9/11, and even the Kennedy assassination itself can all be seen as events that were indeed engineered, along the guidelines set out in 1962 in the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposals for Project Northwoods. In two recent books I have been slowly persuaded, against my own initial incredulity, to list more than a dozen significant parallels between the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. Thanks to Kevin Fentons brilliant research, I can list a further analogy. The CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald, more or less dormant for two years, suddenly became hyperactive in the six weeks before the Kennedy assassination. Fenton has demonstrated a similar burst of activity in FBI files on the two Saudis in the weeks before 9/11 a burst initiated by Tom Wilshire, at a time suspiciously close to when the alleged hijackers settled on a final date for their attack. Then in both cases there were also strange delays, leaving the files open at the time of the deep events.105 The Impact of 9/11 on U.S. and International Law Throughout this essay we have seen two different and indeed antithetical levels of U.S. foreign policy at work. On the surface level of public diplomacy we see a commitment to international law and the peaceful resolution of differences. On a deeper level, represented by a long-time Saudi connection and covert arrangements to control international oil, we see the toleration and indeed protection of terrorists in fulfillment of both Saudi and American secret goals. We should see the actions in 2000-2001 of the Alec Station group, with respect to the two alleged hijackers al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, in the context of this long-time Saudi connection, as well as of the secret consensus in 2001 just as earlier in 1964 that Americas oil and security needs (along with those of Israel) required a new American mobilization for war. Horrendous as it was, the murder of over 2000 civilians on 9/11 was not the only major crime of that day. 9/11 also initiated a series of on-going onslaughts on both international and domestic U.S. law. Law and freedom go together, and both had been significantly enhanced by the founding documents of the United States in the 18th Century. The world benefited; written constitutions soon appeared on every continent; and the Young Europe movements, inspired by Americas example, began the long difficult process towards todays European Union. Starting in 2001, both law and freedom have been progressively eroded. International comity, which depends on each state not doing to others what they would not want done to them, has been supplanted, at least for a while, by U.S. unilateral military engagement without constraint, acting without fear of retribution. Drone killings in far corners of the world have now become routine, causing more than an estimated 2000 Pakistani deaths, the vast majority of them untargeted civilians, and over 75 percent of them under President Obama.106 The preemptive war against Iraq, despite being proven both unwarranted and counterproductive, has been followed by the preemptive bombing of Libya, and the prospect of still further campaigns against Syria and Iran. Writing as a Canadian, let me say that I believe in American exceptionalism, and that at one time America was truly exceptional in its unprecedented replacement of authoritarian with limited constitutional government. Today America is still exceptional, but for its percentage of citizens who are incarcerated, for its disparity in wealth and income between rich and poor (a ratio exceeded among large nations only by China), and for its wanton use of lethal power abroad. Only the last of these trends began with 9/11. But 9/11 itself should be seen as a dialectical outcome of Americas imperial expansion and simultaneous decay -- a process inevitably afflicting those superstates that amass and retain more power than is necessary for the orderly management of their own affairs. Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here http://www.peterdalescott.net/q.html. Peter Dale Scott is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) Notes: 1 A shorter version of this paper was presented at the International Hearings on 9/11 at Toronto, September 11, 2011. It can be seen on line at here. 2 But perhaps no single act of terror committed in the last decade, whether by Qaddafi in Libya or Assad in Syria, has surpassed or even come close to the U.S. devastation of the Iraqi city of Fallujah. 3 "Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation, September 11, 2001, here. On September 20, 2001, Bush said in an address to a joint session of congress, "Our 'war on terror' begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." 4 On this point see the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004), 66: To date we have seen no evidence that … Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. 5 Sunday Times (London), May 1, 2005; Mark Danner, The Secret Way to War: the Downing Street Memo and the Iraq War's buried history (New York: New York Review Books, 2006). 6 9/11 Commission Report, 266-72 (272). 7 Rory OConnor and Ray Nowosielski, Who Is Rich Blee? 911Truth.org, September 21, 2111, here; Rory OConnor and Ray Nowosielski, Insiders voice doubts about CIAs 9/11 story, Salon, October 14, 2111, here. OConnor and Nowosielski add corroboration from former Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke. Clarke said he assumed that there was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share that information. When asked who might have issued such an order, he replied, I would think it would have been made by the director, referring to Tenet although he added that Tenet and others would never admit to the truth today even if you waterboarded them. 8 Kevin Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots (Walterville, OR: TrineDay, 2011). 9 9/11 Commission Report, 259, 271; Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Knopf, 2006), 35254; Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), 203. 10 Lawrence Wright, The Agent, New Yorker, July 10 and 17, 2006, 68; cf. Wright, Looming Tower, 339-44; discussion in Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (Ipswich MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2008), 355, 388-89. 11 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 383-86. 12 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 48. Cf. Lawrence Wright, The Agent, New Yorker, July 10 and 17, 2006, 68; quoted approvingly in Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine, 399. 13 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 371, cf. 95. 14 Lutz Kleverman, The new Great Game, Guardian (London), October 19, 2003, here. 15 Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century: A Report of the Project for the New American Century, September 2000, here, 17, 27. 16 US Pulls out of Saudi Arabia, BBC News, April 29, 2003, here. 17 Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: inside America's war on terror (New York: Free Press, 2004), 31. 18 Bradley Graham, By His Own Rules: The Ambitions, Successes, and Ultimate Failures of Donald Rumsfeld (New York: Public Affairs, 2009), 290. 19 PNAC, Letter to President Clinton on Iraq, January 26, 1998, here. 20 Gary Dorrien, Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana (New York: Routledge, 2004). Bacevich was speaking of a 1992 memo drafted by Wolfowitz for then Defense Secretary Cheney, calling for America to retain the power to act unilaterally. See Lewis D. Solomon, Paul D. Wolfowitz: visionary intellectual, policymaker, and strategist (New York: Praeger, 2007), 52; Andrew Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, 2002), 44. 21 Bob Woodward, Bush at War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002), 131. Much earlier, on the afternoon of September 11, DOD official Stephen Cambone recorded notes from his conversation with Rumsfeld : Near term target need -- Go massive Sweep it all up thing related and not (here). 22 Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars (New York: PublicAffairs, 2003), 130. 23 Nicholas Lemann, The Next World Order, New Yorker, April 1, 2002, here. 24 Rebuilding America's Defenses -- Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century: A Report of the Project for the New American Century, September 2000, here, 17, 27. 25 Ahmed Rashid, Descent into chaos: the United States and the failure of nation building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia (New York: Viking, 2008), 70, 69; citing Ahmed Rashid, US Builds Alliances in Central Asia, Far Eastern Economic Review, May 1, 2000: The CIA and the Pentagon had been closely collaborating with the Uzbek army and secret services since 1997, providing training, equipment, and mentoring in the hope of using Uzbek Special Forces to snatch Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan, a fact I discovered on a trip to Washington in 2000. 26 Peter Dale Scott, The Doomsday Project and Deep Events: JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11, Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, November 21, 2011, here. 27 Scott, The Road to 9/11: wealth, empire, and the future of America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 9. 28 Estimates of annual spending on Homeland Security range up to a trillion dollars. See Stephan Salisbury, Weaponizing the Body Politic, TomDispatch.com, March 4, 2012, here. 29 Cf. Simon Johnson, Too Big to Jail, Slate, February 24, 2012, here: The main motivation behind the administrations indulgence of serious criminality evidently is fear of the consequences of taking tough action on individual bankers. And maybe officials are right to be afraid, given the massive size of the banks in question relative to the economy. In fact, those banks are bigger now than they were before the crisis, and, as James Kwak and I documented at length in our book 13 Bankers, they are much larger than they were 20 years ago. 30 John Farmer, The Ground Truth: the untold story of America under attack on 9/11 (New York: Riverhead Books, 2009), 288; quoted in Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, The Eleventh Day: the full story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden (New York: Ballantine, 2011), 147. 31 Summers , 383-84; cf. Farmer, Ground Truth, 41. Although a Democrat, Berger was subsequently protected by the Republican Bush Administration from having to testify to Congress about his behavior (a condition of his plea bargain). 32 Summers, Eleventh Day, 334. 33 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 72-79. Grewe subsequently left government to work at the Mitre Corp., a private firm doing CIA contract work with the CIA and another private firm, Ptech. Questions about Ptech and Mitre Corps work on FAA-NORAD interoperability systems were raised in 9/11 testimony presented some years ago by Indira Singh; see Scott, Road to 9/11, 175. 34 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 78. Kirsten Wilhelm of the National Archives told Fenton,(p. 78) that It appears Barbara Grewe conducted the interviews with John [Wilshire] and Jane [Corsi], another key figure. Wilhelm could find no memorandum for the record (MFR) for the Wilshire interview, which Fenton understandably calls about the most important interview the Commission conducted (p. 79). Summers, also citing correspondence with Kirsten Wilhelm, disagrees, saying that the report of Wilshires interview exists, but is redacted in its entirety (Summers, Eleventh Day, 381, cf. 552). This is an important point to be focused on in future investigations. 35 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 225. 36 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 38; citing 9/11 Commission Report, 181-82. 37 Michelle has since been identified on the Internet, but so far basically by only one source. 38 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 42-45; summarizing Justice Department IG Report, 239-42; cf. Wright, Looming Tower, 311-12. 39 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 50; summarizing Justice Department IG Report, 242-43; cf. Wright, Looming Tower, 311. 40 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 45. 41 I do not know whether in fact they boarded the plane. However I am now satisfied that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi acted as if they intended to hijack, as evidenced by their al-Qaeda contacts in Malaysia and elsewhere, their attempts to learn to fly, etc. 42 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 383-86. 43 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 48. Cf. Lawrence Wright, The Agent, New Yorker, July 10 and 17, 2006, 68; quoted approvingly in Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine, 399. 44 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 371, cf. 95. 45 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 239-42, 310-22. Fenton notes that Corsi worked at FBI HQ, which coordinated liaisons with foreign services (Fenton, 313). 46 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 310. 47 The 9/11 Commission Report discounted the importance of al-Bayoumi (217-18); but the Report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 (173-77), even though very heavily redacted at this point, supplied corroborating information, including a report that Basnan had once hosted a party for the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdurrahman, involved in the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993. 48 At first I suspected, as have others, that the two men were Saudi double agents. Another possibility is that they were sent as designated targets, to be surveilled by the Saudis and the Americans separately or together. One of my few disagreements with Fenton is when he calls al-Mihdhar one of [the hijackers] most experienced operatives (Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 205). My own impression is that he was either an inexperienced and incompetent spy, or else someone deliberately exposing himself to detection, in order to test American responses. 49 Summers, Eleventh Day, 396. 50 9/11 Commission Report, 184. 51 Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: the secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001 (New York: Penguin, 2004), 456-57. 52 Thomas E. Ricks and Susan B. Glasser, Washington Post, October 14, 2001, here. 53 Ricks and Susan B. Glasser, Washington Post, October 14, 2001; cf. 54 In 1957, I myself, as a junior Canadian diplomat, acquired a special access, higher-than-top-secret clearance to access intelligence from NATO, a relatively overt and straightforward liaison. 55 For the Ali Mohamed story, see Scott, Road to 9/11, especially 151-60. 56 Scott, Road to 9/11, 158; citing John Berger, Unlocking 9/11: Paving the Road to 9/11 (here): Mohamed was one of the primary sources for the infamous Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily brief (PDB) entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. The PDB, often cited as an example of the CIAs good performance, is in my opinion more probably another example of the Bin Laden Unit salting the record in preparation for post-9/11 scrutiny. The PDB, without naming Ali Mohamed, refers to him no less than three times as a threat, despite the fact that at the time he was under USG control awaiting sentence for his role in the 1998 embassy plots. The PDB, in other words, appears to have been a performance for the record, analogous to Wilshires performance in the same month of August at the FBI. 57 John Berger, Ali Mohamed, 20 (Cloonan); 9/11 Commission Report, 261 (PDB). 58 James Risen, New York Times, October 31, 1998; in Scott, Road to 9/11, 346-47. 59 Raleigh News and Observer, November 13, 2001; in Scott, Road to 9/11, 347. I have added the word Army. The HQ for USSOCOM itself is at Fort MacDill Air Force Vase in Florida. 60 Dana Priest and William M. Arkin, Top Secret America: A look at the militarys Joint Special Operations Command, Washington Post, September 2, 2011, here. 61 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 168-69; Summers, Eleventh Day, 371, 550. 62 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 372. 63 Scott, American War Machine, 161; Scott, Road to 9/11, 62-63. 64 Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, oil, and fundamentalism in Central Asia (New Haven CT: Yale UP, 2000), 129. 65 John Prados, Safe for Democracy, 489; discussion in Scott, American War Machine, 12-13. 66 James Risen, State of War: the secret history of the CIA and the Bush administration (New York: Free Press, 2006), 188-89. 67 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 104. 68 Summers, Eleventh Day, 397. 69 Joseph J. and Susan B. Trento, in Summers, Eleventh Day, 399. Since I presented this paper at a conference in Toronto on September 11, 2011, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the … 9/11 Commission, [has] said in a sworn affidavit … that significant questions remain unanswered about the role of Saudi institutions. Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued, Mr. Kerrey said (Saudi Arabia May Be Tied to 9/11, 2 Ex-Senators Say, New York Times, February 29, 2001, here). 70 Wright, Looming Tower, 161; in Summers, Eleventh Day, 216. 71 Such corruption is predictable and very widespread. In the notorious cases of Gregory Scarpa and Whitey Bulger, FBI agents in the New York and Boston offices were accused of giving their mob informants information that led to the murder of witnesses and other opponents. Agents in the New York office of the old Federal Bureau of Narcotics became so implicated in the trafficking of their informants that the FBN had to be shut down and reorganized. 72 Ralph Blumenthal, Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast, New York Times, October 28, 1993, emphasis added. The next day, the Times published a modest correction: Transcripts of tapes made secretly by an informant, Emad A. Salem, quote him as saying he warned the Government that a bomb was being built. But the transcripts do not make clear the extent to which the Federal authorities knew that the target was the World Trade Center. 73 Scott, Road to 9/11, 145. 74 Peter Dale Scott, "Bosnia, Kosovo, and Now Libya: The Human Costs of Washington's On-Going Collusion with Terrorists," Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, July 29, 2011, here. Evan Kohlmann has described how a Zagreb office in support of the Saudi-backed jihad in Bosnia received all orders and funding directly from the main United States office of Al-Kifah on Atlantic Avenue controlled by Shaykh Omar Abdel Rahman (Evan Kohlmann, Al-Qaidas Jihad in Europe, 39-41; citing Steve Coll and Steve LeVine, Global Network Provides Money, Haven, Washington Post, August 3, 1993). 75 Scott, Road to 9/11, 153, 347; citing Canada freed top al-Qaeda operative, {Toronto} Globe and Mail, November 22, 2001, here. 76 Scott, Road to 9/11, 151-59. 77 Ali Soufan, The Black Banners, 94-95, 561. 78 The corruption appears to be inevitable in superpowers states which have accumulated power in access of what is needed for their own defense. The pattern is less discernible in less powerful states like Canada. 79 "America's Afghanistan: The National Security and a Heroin-Ravaged State," Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, #20, 2009, May 18, 2009, here. Cf. U.S. looks into Afghan air force drug allegations, CNN, March 8, 2012, here: The United States is investigating allegations that some members of the Afghan air force have used their planes to transport drugs, a U.S. military spokesman said Thursday. Investigators want to know whether the drug-running allegations, first reported in the Wall Street Journal, are linked to the shooting deaths last year of eight U.S. Air Force officers at the airport in the Afghan capital, Kabul. The allegations of improper use of AAF aircraft is being looked into, said Lt. Col. Tim Stauffer, referring to the allegations that Afghan air force equipment has been used to illegally ferry drugs and arms. 80 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 310. 81 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 371, cf. 95. 82 Joint Chiefs of Staff, Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II), in Scott, American War Machine, 196. 83 Washington Post, September 30, 2001; in Summers, Eleventh Day, 293; cf. 9/11 Commission Report, 221-22. 84 See Scott, American War Machine, 199-203. 85 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 360-61, 385. There was also apparent withholding of information at a high level in the US Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM): One official who attended the DO5 [a USJFCOM intelligence unit assigned to watch terrorism against the US] briefing was Vice Adm. Martin J. Meyer, the deputy commander in chief (DCINC), USJFCOM ….. But despite the red flags raised during the briefing, Meyer reportedly told Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, the commander of the Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR), and other high-level CONR staffers two weeks before the 9/11 attacks that their concern about Osama bin Laden as a possible threat to America was unfounded and that, to repeat, If everyone would just turn off CNN, there wouldn't be a threat from Osama bin Laden'" (Jeffery Kaye and Jason Leopold, EXCLUSIVE: New Documents Claim Intelligence on Bin Laden, al-Qaeda Targets Withheld From Congress' 9/11 Probe, Truthout, June 13, 2011, here). 86 Scott, American War Machine, 201. 87 Scott, American War Machine, 200-02. 88 Clarke, Against All Enemies, 30-33; Summers, Eleventh Day, 175-76; James Bamford, A Pretext for War, 287. 89 Mark Selden has described the pattern of arousing nationalist passions as a result of attacks out of the blue as one which has undergirded the American way of war since 1898 (Mark Selden, The American Archipelago of Bases, Military Colonization and Pacific Empire: Prelude to the Permanent Warfare State, forthcoming, 2012, International Journal of Okinawan Studies). 90 Thomas E. Ricks and Susan B. Glasser, Washington Post, October 14, 2001, here. Significantly, the proposal for a joint attack force with Massouds Northern Alliance was also resisted by Massoud himself (Peter Tomsen, The Wars of Afghanistan, 597-98, 796n25). The problem of Massouds resistance to an American troop presence vanished when he was assassinated on September 9, 2011, two days before 9/11. 91 Coll, Ghost Wars, 467-69. 92 Coll, Ghost Wars, 513, 534-36, 553. 93 Coll, Ghost Wars, 558. 94 Coll, Ghost Wars, 573-74. 95 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 108. 96 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 110-14. 97 George Tenet, At the Center of the Storm: my years at the CIA (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 255. 98 Jeremy Scahill, Shhhhhh! JSOC is Hiring Interrogators and Covert Operatives for 'Special Access Programs, Nation, August 25, 2010, here. 99 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 127-30; Summers, Eleventh Day, 387-88. 100 Jason Vest, Implausible Denial II, Nation, May 31, 2004, here. 101 Peter Dale Scott, "Is the State of Emergency Superseding our Constitution? Continuity of Government Planning, War and American Society," November 28, 2010, here. 102 Scott, Road to 9/11, 216-18. 103 Joint Chiefs of Staff, Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II), Report of the J-5 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 1, 1963, NARA #202-10002-10018, 21, here; Scott, American War Machine, 193, 196. 104 Scott, American War Machine, 195-205; Northwoods document, Joint Chiefs of Staff Central Files 1962-63, p. 178, NARA Record # 202-10002-10104. 105 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 283-355; Scott, War Conspiracy, 341-96. 106 Jason Ditz, Report: CIA Drones Killed Over 2,000, Mostly Civilians in Pakistan Since 2006, AntiWar.com, January 2, 2011, here. Cf. Karen DeYoung, Secrecy defines Obamas drone war, Washington Post, December 19, 2011, here (hundreds of strikes over three years resulting in an estimated 1,350 to 2,250 deaths in Pak).

Also 8 days ago you offered to “…give the datum to a Education forum monitor (I would give it to their home email) and he/she can relay it to you.” I accepted within 24 hours but so far there is no sigh you sent your “datum” (sic) to anyone. What happened? +++++++++++++++ I dont have private emails of monitors,none contacted me. I give it 5 more days of response.

KAZMI not Iranian. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MOSSAD Besides Scientists we have a false flag for you to frame IRAN..... MEK ....sounds good to us. Mar 16 US admits Israel is arming and training terrorist groups to create terrorism ================================ ================================ vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/ =============================================================== The MEK and terrorism double standards ================================================================ by Sheila Musaji (The American Muslim) The Mujahedeen Khalq, or People’s Mujahedeen, known as the M.E.K has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Dept. for 15 years. The M.E.K. are terrorists. They were driven out of Iran and given a home at a place called Camp Ashraf in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, who they supported. Saddam Hussein used the M.E.K. to carry out terrorist acts in Iran. Now that Hussein is gone, the Iraqi’s want the M.E.K. out of Iraq as they also see it as a dangerous group. They are not former terrorists, but current terrorists. Richard Engel & Robert Windrem of NBC News reported just this month that Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders. The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980. The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars. … Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, “All your inclinations are correct.” A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet.” All the officials denied any U.S. involvement in the assassinations. NIAC reports that A 2004 FBI report on the Mujahaddin-e-Khalq (MEK) was revealed in June 2011 which states that the MEK “is actively involved in planning and executing acts of terrorism,” despite the organization’s alleged renunciation of terror in 2001. … Some of the highlights (all direct quotes): •“Los Angeles investigation has determined that the MEK is currently actively involved in planning and executing acts of terrorism.” [pg 4] •“This organization routinely lobbies unwitting members of Congress under the pretext of human rights issues in Iran.“ [pg 5] •“NLA fighters are separated from their children who are sent to Europe and brought up by the MEK’s Support Network. Investigation has learned that these children are then further indoctrinated in to the organization and are often used for various social benefit fraud such as was revealed during joint FBI/Cologne Police Department investigation in Germany. In one case one of the children was chained to a bed and only after her escape and report to local police was the fraud scheme discovered. Interviews of some of these MEK children found children fully indoctrinated into a “cult-like” organization with no regard to the welfare of the child. These children are then returned to the NLA to be used as fighters upon coming of age. Interviews also revealed that some of these children were told that their parents would be harmed if the children did not cooperate with the MEK. Open source reporting from defecting MEK members has revealed that MEK fighters are often told the same story about their children should they take issue with MEK leadership and desire to leave the organization.” [pgs 26-27] •“The MEK, in addition to being a foreign terrorist organization, is a “cult”…MEK members and supporters often indicate that Rajavi makes his decision based on input from God.” [pg 26] •“MEK members/supporters/fighters have been through years of ideological training and for lack of better word ‘brain washing’.” [pg 31] •“This (Foreign Terrorist Organization) designation was made due to the MEK’s long and violent history of past terrorist activity directed against U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Iran during the 1970s, the assassinations of multiple Americans, the MEK’s ongoing acts of terrorism in Iran, and the MEK’s past terrorist activities in Western Countries to include hostage taking and attacks on Iranian diplomatic establishments and officials. This designation was also made to send the message that the U.S. had taken the high road on terrorism and would designate any foreign group engaged in terrorist activity abroad to include not only groups that target U.S. interests, but terrorists groups that target any sovereign nation.” [pg 24] •“Additionally, the MEK continues to practice misinformation operations in the U.S. and Europe. MEK lobbyist routinely hold press conferences and pass information regarding the current Iranian government that is inaccurate and is designed to influence Western Media and governments.” [pg 18] •“Interviewers should keep in mind that membership in the MEK is a significant step in the MEK hierarchy or leadership cadre. It is safe to say that only the high echelon leadership will most admit to being MEK members.” [pg 29] •“ Another tactic that the MEK has been employing is disinformation regarding former MEK members and witnesses who have come forward to testify and speak against the MEK. The MEK will brand these former members and witnesses as Iranian government agents. This information is often picked up by Western Intelligence agencies as factual information and is disseminated as intelligence. This further frustrates criminal investigators as they attempt to interview these former MEK members and potentially use them for testimony.” Pg 18-9 That being the case, it is difficult to understand why it is that elected representatives, and government officials of the U.S. government could support and/or work with, and accept money from this organization freely and openly. It is difficult to understand in the case of support for the M.E.K. as it is difficult to understand in the case of Rep. Peter King’s open support and fundraising for the IRA. The only justification for such an indefensible position must be that these folks believe that the enemy of my enemy can’t be a terrorist. Glenn Greenwald has written a very detailed article on the hypocrisy of this support for a terrorist organization. Here are a few key points from his article: In June, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law. In that case, the Court upheld the Obama DOJ’s very broad interpretation of the statute that criminalizes the providing of “material support” to groups formally designated by the State Department as Terrorist organizations. The five-judge conservative bloc (along with Justice Stevens) held that pure political speech could be permissibly criminalized as “material support for Terrorism” consistent with the First Amendment if the “advocacy [is] performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” (emphasis added). In other words, pure political advocacy in support of a designated Terrorist group could be prosecuted as a felony — punishable with 15 years in prison — if the advocacy is coordinated with that group. … One can reasonably debate whether MEK actually belongs on the list of Terrorist organizations (the same is true for several other groups on that list). But as a criminal matter, that debate is irrelevant. The law criminalizes the providing of material support to any group on that list, and it is not a defense to argue after one gets caught that the group should be removed. … What is particularly repellent about all of this is not the supreme hypocrisy and self-interested provincialism of Fran Townsend. That’s all just par for the course. What’s infuriating is that there are large numbers of people — almost always Muslims — who have been prosecuted and are now in prison for providing “material support” to Terrorist groups for doing far less than Fran Townsend and her fellow cast of bipartisan ex-officials have done with and on behalf of MEK. In fact, the U.S. Government has been (under the administration in which Townsend worked) and still is (under the administration Rendell supports) continuously prosecuting Muslims for providing “material support” for Terrorist groups based on their pure speech, all while Fran Townsend, Ed Rendell and company have said nothing or, worse, supported the legal interpretations that justified these prosecutions. The last time I wrote about these individuals’ material support for MEK, I highlighted just a few of those cases: •A Staten Island satellite TV salesman in 2009 was sentenced to five years in federal prison merely for including a Hezbollah TV channel as part of the satellite package he sold to customers; •a Massachusetts resident, Tarek Mehanna, is being prosecuted now ”for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet”; •a 24-year-old Pakistani legal resident living in Virginia, Jubair Ahmad, was indicted last September for uploading a 5-minute video to YouTube that was highly critical of U.S. actions in the Muslim world, an allegedly criminal act simply because prosecutors claim he discussed the video in advance with the son of a leader of a designated Terrorist organization (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba); •a Saudi Arabian graduate student, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, was prosecuted simply for maintaining a website with links “to groups that praised suicide bombings in Chechnya and in Israel” and “jihadist” sites that solicited donations for extremist groups (he was ultimately acquitted); and, • last July, a 22-year-old former Penn State student and son of an instructor at the school, Emerson Winfield Begolly, was indicted for — in the FBI’s words — “repeatedly using the Internet to promote violent jihad against Americans” by posting comments on a “jihadist” Internet forum including “a comment online that praised the shootings” at a Marine Corps base, action which former Obama lawyer Marty Lederman said ”does not at first glance appear to be different from the sort of advocacy of unlawful conduct that is entitled to substantial First Amendment protection.” Yet we have the most well-connected national security and military officials in Washington doing far more than all of that right out in the open — they’re receiving large payments from a Terrorist group, meeting with its leaders, attending their meetings, and then advocating for them in very public forums; Howard Dean, after getting paid by the group, actually called for MEK’s leader to be recognized as the legitimate President of Iran – and so far none have been prosecuted or even indicted The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) has previously expressed concern about this support for a terrorist organization. They noted in July of 2011 that Congressional supporters of the drive to remove the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the U.S. terrorism list defended the organization’s use of violence while dismissing Iran’s nonviolent Green Movement at a hearing on Capitol Hill last week. The hearing was also remarkable in that senior leaders of the designated foreign terrorist organization were caught counseling some of the witnesses before the hearing. It is illegal to coordinate with a foreign terrorist organization to advocate on behalf of the terrorist group. … Despite the terrorist listing, Ali Safavi, a senior member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, was at the hearing, where he openly counseled witnesses before and during their testimony. The NCRI is the MEK’s political wing and is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. The hearing’s witnesses included three former U.S. officials who have actively participated in pro-MEK conferences, including former Bush Administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey. All three witnesses who previously appeared at MEK conferences unanimously called for the MEK to be removed from the terror list, though none were asked to disclose whether they had received money to support the organization, as have other officials who have advocated for delisting the group. The NY Times reports today that this state of affairs may be changing and that such individuals may now face scrutiny. According to the article’s author Scott Shane Edward G. Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania and an outspoken supporter of the M.E.K., said on Monday that William Morris Endeavor, which handles his speaking engagements, received a subpoena last week seeking information on fees he had received for M.E.K.-related speeches. Shane had reported back in November of 2011 on a long list of officials. At that time, he wrote The extraordinary lobbying effort to reverse the terrorist designation of the group, the Mujahedeen Khalq, or People’s Mujahedeen, has won the support of two former C.I.A. directors, R. James Woolsey and Porter J. Goss; a former F.B.I. director, Louis J. Freeh; a former attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey; President George W. Bush’s first homeland security chief, Tom Ridge; President Obama’s first national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones; big-name Republicans like the former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Democrats like the former Vermont governor Howard Dean; and even the former top counterterrorism official of the State Department, Dell L. Dailey, who argued unsuccessfully for ending the terrorist label while in office. The American advocates have been well paid, hired through their speaking agencies and collecting fees of $10,000 to $50,000 for speeches on behalf of the Iranian group. Some have been flown to Paris, Berlin and Brussels for appearances. … The M.E.K. advocacy campaign has included full-page newspaper advertisements identifying the group as “Iran’s Main Opposition” — an absurd distortion in the view of most Iran specialists; leaders of Iran’s broad opposition, known as the Green Movement, have denounced the group. The M.E.K. has hired high-priced lobbyists like the Washington firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Its lawyers in Europe won a long fight to persuade the European Union to drop its own listing of the M.E.K. as a terrorist group in 2009. The group’s spending, certainly in the millions of dollars, has inevitably raised questions about funding sources. Ali Safavi, who runs a pro-M.E.K. group in Washington called Near East Policy Research, says the money comes from wealthy Iranian expatriates in the United States and Europe. Because “material support” to a designated terrorist group is a crime, advocates insist that the money goes only to sympathizers and not to the M.E.K. itself. Congress has taken note of the campaign. A House resolution for dropping the terrorist listing has 97 co-sponsors, including the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan. At a hearing this month, senators pressed the defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, about the threat to Camp Ashraf Last month, Congressman Dana Robrahacher spoke in favor of removing the terrorist designation from the M.E.K. Rep. Ted Poe (R – TX) has praised the M.E.K. as the ticket to regime change in Iran. John Bolton spoke at an event in honor of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) Two years ago, Rachel Slajda reported that Rudy Giuliani, Tom Bolton, and Tom Ridge had gone to Paris and spoke at an event in support of the M.E.K. Jason Ditz has reported that The MeK’s history of terrorist attacks includes repeated attacks on US businessmen and military personnel in pre-revolution Iran, and the group was one of the founding members of the “Foreign Terrorist Organization” list when it was created by the US State Department in 1997. The group is typified by its harsh reaction to any criticism, and was reported by Human Rights Watch to have run a private system of detention centers inside Iraq to detain (and in many cases torture) dissident members. In addition to all of this open support for a terrorist group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) ran this ad on American television calling for its removal from the State Department’s list of terrorist organization. Former Gov. Ed Rendell, Tom Ridge, and former Mayor Rudy Guiliani are mong the people appearing in the ad. Can anyone imagine any other designated terrorist organization being allowed to purchase television advertising? During the uproar over the Park51/Cordoba House community center last year, Rep. Peter King called for a “full investigation” of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf because Rauf refused to publicly call Hamas a “terrorist organization.” Imam Rauf hadn’t expressed suport for a terrorist organization, he hadn’t lobbied to get it removed from a terrorist list, he hadn’t accepted money from them, or attended or spoken at their events – but simply because he hadn’t publicly called them a “terrorist organization”, Rep. King thinks he deserves a “full investigation”. I think it is time to demand the same standards of our elected officials and representatives.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ USS Enterprise Sets Off On Final Journey, Direction Iran. --------------oooo------------------------ Will It Be Used In A False Flag In The Persian Gulf? vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Yesterday at noon Eastern, the storied aircraft carrier Enterprise, aka CVN-65, left its home port of Naval Station Norfolk one final time for its final voyage with a heading: Arabian Sea, aka Iran. There in a week it will join CVN 72 Lincoln and CVN 70 Vinson, as well as LHD 8 Makin Island, all of which are supporting any potential escalation of “hostilities” in the Persian Gulf region. As a reminder, back in January we learned that the Enterprise’s final voyage will be in proximity to Iran, and in the meantime, the aircraft carrier held extended drills off the Florida coast to attack a “faux theocracy” consisting of fundamentalist “Shahida” states. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/15/israeli-warships-cross-suez-canal-headed-iran-96401/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ colby // supposed ‘deep poçitical’ plan to create Balochistan? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How did the orange and rose revolutions happen..?? ...money helped. ============================= SUPPOSED ============================ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Gavin Marshall: Imperial Eye on Pakistan Posted on 13. Mar, 2012 by Editor in Opinion ====-------------------------------------------==== As the purported assassination of Osama bin Laden has placed the focus on Pakistan, it is vital to assess the changing role of Pakistan in broad geostrategic terms, and in particular, of the changing American strategy toward Pakistan. The recently reported assassination was a propaganda ploy aimed at targeting Pakistan. To understand this, it is necessary to examine how America has, in recent years, altered its strategy in Pakistan in the direction of destabilization. In short, Pakistan is an American target. The reason: Pakistan’s growing military and strategic ties to China, America’s primary global strategic rival. In the ‘Great Game’ for global hegemony, any country that impedes America’s world primacy – even one as historically significant to America as Pakistan – may be sacrificed upon the altar of war. Part 1 of ‘Pakistan in Pieces’ examines the changing views of the American strategic community – particularly the military and intelligence circles – towards Pakistan. In particular, there is a general acknowledgement that Pakistan will very likely continue to be destabilized and ultimately collapse. What is not mentioned in these assessments, however, is the role of the military and intelligence communities in making this a reality; a veritable self-fulfilling prophecy. This part also examines the active on the ground changes in American strategy in Pakistan, with increasing military incursions into the country. Imperial Eye on Pakistan In December of 2000, the CIA released a report of global trends to the year 2015, which stated that by 2015, “Pakistan will be more fractious, isolated, and dependent on international financial assistance.”[1] Further, it was predicted, Pakistan: Will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive politics, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic friction. Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. Further domestic decline would benefit Islamic political activists, who may significantly increase their role in national politics and alter the makeup and cohesion of the military – once Pakistan’s most capable institution. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the central government’s control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi.[2] The report further analyzed the trends developing in relation to the Pakistan-India standoff in the region: The threat of major conflict between India and Pakistan will overshadow all other regional issues during the next 15 years. Continued turmoil in Afghanistan and Pakistan will spill over into Kashmir and other areas of the subcontinent, prompting Indian leaders to take more aggressive preemptive and retaliatory actions. India’s conventional military advantage over Pakistan will widen as a result of New Delhi’s superior economic position.[3] In 2005, the Times of India reported on a US National Intelligence Council report, written in conjunction with the CIA, which predicted a “Yugoslavia-like fate” for Pakistan, saying that, “by year 2015 Pakistan would be a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation.”[4] In November of 2008, the US National Intelligence Council released a report, “Global Trends 2025,” in which they outlined major trends in the world by the year 2025. When it came to Pakistan, the report stated that, “Ongoing low-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue to raise the specter that such events could escalate to a broader conflict between those nuclear powers.”[5] It stated that Pakistan “will be at risk of state failure.”[6] In examining potential failed states, the report stated that: [Y]outh bulges, deeply rooted conflicts, and limited economic prospects are likely to keep Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others in the high-risk category. Spillover from turmoil in these states and potentially others increases the chance that moves elsewhere in the region toward greater prosperity and political stability will be rocky.[7] The report referred to Pakistan as a “wildcard” and stated that if it is “unable to hold together until 2025, a broader coalescence of Pashtun tribes is likely to emerge and act together to erase the Durand Line [separating Pakistan from Afghanistan], maximizing Pashtun space at the expense of Punjabis in Pakistan and Tajiks and others in Afghanistan.”[8] In January of 2009, a Pentagon report analyzing geopolitical trends of significance to the US military over the next 25 years, reported that Pakistan could face a “rapid and sudden” collapse. It stated that, “Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear weapons,” and as such, “that ‘perfect storm' of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger.”[9] A top adviser to former President George Bush and current President Obama warned in April of 2009, that Pakistan could collapse within months, and that, “We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses it will dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now.” The adviser and consultant, David Kilcullen, explained that this would be unlike the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, which each had a population of over 30 million, whereas “Pakistan has [187] million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the American army, and the headquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of the country which the Government does not control.”[10] Target: Pakistan Going back to the later years of the Bush administration, it is apparent that the US strategy in Pakistan was already changing in seeing it increasingly as a target for military operations as opposed to simply a conduit. In August of 2007, newly uncovered documents revealed that the US military “gave elite units broad authority” in 2004, “to pursue suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with no mention of telling the Pakistanis in advance.”[11] In November of 2007, an op-ed in the New York Times stated categorically that, “the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss,” and that, “we need to think — now — about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that.” The authors, Frederick Kagan and Michael O’Hanlon are both well-known strategists and scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution, two of the most prominent and influential think tanks in the United States. While stating that Pakistan’s leaders are still primarily moderate and friendly to the US, “Americans felt similarly about the shah’s regime in Iran until it was too late,” referring to the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. They warn: The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.[12] They state that the military solutions are “daunting” as Pakistan is a nation of 187 million people, roughly five times the size of Iraq. They wrote that, “estimates suggest that a force of more than a million troops would be required for a country of this size,” which led them to conclude, “Thus, if we have any hope of success, we would have to act before a complete government collapse, and we would need the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces.” They suggested one plan would be to deploy Special Forces “with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hand.” However, they admit that, “even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate.” Another option, they contend: would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations.[13] The authors concluded, saying that any state decline in Pakistan would likely be gradual, therefore allowing the US to have time to respond, and placed an emphasis on securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and combating militants. They finished the article with the warning: “Pakistan may be the next big test.”[14] In December of 2007, the Asia Times Online ran a story about the US plan to rid Pakistan of President Musharraf, and that the US and the West, more broadly, had begun a strategy aimed at toppling Pakistan’s military. As part of this, the US launched a media campaign aimed at demonizing Pakistan’s military establishment. At this time, Benazir Bhutto was criticizing the ISI, suggesting they needed a dramatic restructuring, and at the same time, reports were appearing in the US media blaming the ISI for funding and providing assistance to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While much of this is documented, the fact that it suddenly emerged as talking points with several western officials and in the media does suggest a turn-around against a long-time ally.[15] Both Democratic and Republican politicians were making statements that Pakistan represented a greater threat than Iran, and then-Senator (now Vice President) Joseph Biden suggested that the United States needed to put soldiers on the ground in Pakistan in cooperation with the “international community.” Biden said that, “We should be in there,” and “we should be supplying tens of millions of dollars to build new schools to compete with the madrassas. We should be in there building democratic institutions. We should be in there, and get the rest of the world in there, giving some structure to the emergence of, hopefully, the reemergence of a democratic process.”[16] In American policy-strategy circles, officials openly began discussing the possibility of Pakistan breaking up into smaller states, and increasing discussion that Musharraf was going to be “removed,” which obviously happened. As the Asia Times stated: Another worrying thing is how US officials are publicly signaling to the Pakistanis that Bhutto has their backing as the next leader of the country. Such signals from Washington are not only a kiss of death for any public leader in Pakistan, but the Americans also know that their actions are inviting potential assassins to target Bhutto. If she is killed in this way, there won't be enough time to find the real culprit, but what's certain is that unprecedented international pressure will be placed on Islamabad while everyone will use their local assets to create maximum internal chaos in the country.[17] Of course, this subsequently happened in Pakistan. As the author of the article pointed out with startlingly accurate foresight, “Getting Bhutto killed can generate the kind of pressure that could result in permanently putting the Pakistani military on a back foot, giving Washington enough room to push for installing a new pliant leadership in Islamabad.” He observed that, “the US is very serious this time. They cannot let Pakistan get out of their hands.”[18] Thus, it would appear that the new US strategic aim in Pakistan was focused on removing the Pakistani military from power, implying the need to replace Musharraf, and replace him with a new, compliant civilian leadership. This would have the effect of fracturing the Pakistani elite, threatening the Army’s influence within Pakistani politics, and undertaking more direct control of Pakistan’s government. As if on cue, in late December it was reported that, “US special forces snatch squads are on standby to seize or disable Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government authority or the outbreak of civil war following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.”[19] The New York Times ran an article in early January 2008, which reported that, “President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan.” The article stated that the new strategy was purportedly in response to increased reports of Al-Qaeda and Taliban activity within Pakistan, which “are intensifying efforts there to destabilize the Pakistani government.” Bush’s National Security team supposedly organized this effort in response to Bhutto’s assassination 10 days previously.[20] Officials involved in the strategy discussions said that some “options would probably involve the C.I.A. working with the military’s Special Operations forces,” and one official said, “After years of focusing on Afghanistan, we think the extremists now see a chance for the big prize — creating chaos in Pakistan itself.” Of pivotal importance to the strategy, as the Times reported: “Critics said more direct American military action would be ineffective, anger the Pakistani Army and increase support for the militants.”[21] Perhaps this is not simply a “side-effect” of the proposed strategy, but in fact, part of the strategy. As one prominent Pakistani political and military analyst pointed out, raids into Pakistan would expand anger and “prompt a powerful popular backlash” against the Pakistani government, losing popular support.[22] However, as I previously stated, this might be the intention, as this would ultimately make the government more dependent upon the United States, and thus, more subservient. On September 3, 2008, it was reported that a commando raid by US Special Forces was launched in Pakistan, which killed between 15 and 20 people, including women and children. The Special Forces were accompanied by five U.S. helicopters for the duration of the operation.[23] In February of 2009, it was reported that, “More than 70 United States military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the country’s lawless tribal areas.” So not only are U.S. Special Forces invading Pakistani territory; but now US military advisers are secretly advising the Pakistani Army on its own operations, and the advisers are themselves primary made up of Special Forces soldiers. They provide the Pakistani Army “with intelligence and advising on combat tactics,” and make up a secret command run by US Central Command and Special Operations Command (presumably JSOC – Joint Special Operations Command).[24] In May of 2009, it was reported that, “the U.S. is sending Special Forces teams into one of Pakistan's most violent regions as part of a push to accelerate the training of the Pakistani military and make it a more effective ally in the fight against insurgents there.” The Special Forces were deploying to two training camps in the province of Baluchistan, and “will focus on training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force responsible for battling the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.” Further, the project “is a joint effort with the U.K.,” which helps “fund the training, although it is unclear if British military personnel would take part in the initiative. British officials have been pushing for such an effort for several years.”[25] In December of 2009 it was revealed that, “American special forces have conducted multiple clandestine raids into Pakistan's tribal areas as part of a secret war in the border region where Washington is pressing to expand its drone assassination programme,” which was revealed by a former NATO officer. He said these incursions had occurred between 2003 and 2008, indicating they go even further back than US military documents stipulate. The source further revealed that, “the Pakistanis were kept entirely in the dark about it. It was one of those things we wouldn't confirm officially with them.” Further, as the source noted, British “SAS soldiers have been active in the province” of Bolochistan in 2002 and 2003 and “possibly beyond.”[26] The “Balkanization” of Pakistan: Blaming the Pakistanis Selig S. Harrison is a director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy, senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and former journalist and correspondent. “His reputation for giving ‘early warning’ of foreign policy crises was well established during his career as a foreign correspondent. In his study of foreign reporting, Between Two Worlds, John Hohenberg, former secretary of the Pulitzer Prize Board, cited Harrison’s prediction of the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war eighteen months before it happened.” Further, “More than a year before the Russians invaded Afghanistan, Harrison warned of this possibility in one of his frequent contributions to the influential journal Foreign Policy.”[27] On February 1, 2008, Selig Harrison threw his renowned “predictive” abilities on Pakistan in an op-ed for the New York Times in the run-up to the Pakistani elections. He started by stating that, “Whatever the outcome of the Pakistani elections, now scheduled for Feb. 18, the existing multiethnic Pakistani state is not likely to survive for long unless it is radically restructured.” Harrison then went on to explain that Pakistan would likely break up along ethnic lines; with the Pashtuns, concentrated in the northwestern tribal areas, the Sindhis in the southeast uniting with the Baluch tribesmen in the southwest, with the Punjab “rump state” of Pakistan.[28] The Pashtuns in the north, “would join with their ethnic brethren across the Afghan border (some 40 million of them combined) to form an independent ‘Pashtunistan’,” and the Sindhis “numbering 23 million, would unite with the six million Baluch tribesmen in the southwest to establish a federation along the Arabian Sea from India to Iran,” presumably named Baluchistan; while the rump state of Pakistan would remain Punjabi dominated and in control of the nuclear weapons. Selig Harrison explained that prior to partition from India, which led to the creation of the Pakistani state in 1947, Pashtun, Sindhi and Baluch ethnicities had “resist[ed] Punjabi domination for centuries,” and suddenly: they found themselves subjected to Punjabi-dominated military regimes that have appropriated many of the natural resources in the minority provinces — particularly the natural gas deposits in the Baluch areas — and siphoned off much of the Indus River’s waters as they flow through the Punjab. The resulting Punjabi-Pashtun animosity helps explain why the United States is failing to get effective Pakistani cooperation in fighting terrorists. The Pashtuns living along the Afghan border are happy to give sanctuary from Punjabi forces to the Taliban, which is composed primarily of fellow Pashtuns, and to its Qaeda friends. Pashtun civilian casualties resulting from Pakistani and American air strikes on both sides of the border are breeding a potent underground Pashtun nationalist movement. Its initial objective is to unite all Pashtuns in Pakistan, now divided among political jurisdictions, into a unified province. In time, however, its leaders envisage full nationhood. … The Baluch people, for their part, have been waging intermittent insurgencies since their forced incorporation into Pakistan in 1947. In the current warfare Pakistani forces are widely reported to be deploying American-supplied aircraft and intelligence equipment that was intended for use in Afghan border areas. Their victims are forging military links with Sindhi nationalist groups that have been galvanized into action by the death of Benazir Bhutto, a Sindhi hero as was her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.[29] This passage is very revealing of the processes and perceptions surrounding “Balkanization” and “destabilization.” What I mean by this, is that historically and presently, imperial powers would often use ethnic groups against each other in a strategy of divide and conquer, in order “to keep the barbarians from coming together” and dominate the region. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard,” that, “Geopolitics has moved from the regional to the global dimension, with preponderance over the entire Eurasian continent serving as the central basis for global primacy.”[30] Brzezinski then gave a masterful explanation of the American global strategy, which placed it into a firm imperialistic context: To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.[31] While imperial powers manipulate, and historically, even create the ethnic groups within regions and nations, the West portrays conflict in such regions as being the product of these “ethnic” or “tribal” rivalries. This perception of the East (Asia and the Middle East) as well as Africa is referred to as Orientalism or Eurocentrism: meaning it generally portrays the East (and/or Africa) as “the Other”: inherently different and often barbaric. This prejudiced perspective is prevalent in Western academic, media, and policy circles. This perspective serves a major purpose: dehumanizing a people in a region that an imperial power seeks to dominate, which allows the hegemon to manipulate the people and divide them against each other, while framing them as “backwards” and “barbaric,” which in turn, justifies the Western imperial power exerting hegemony and control over the region; to “protect” the people from themselves. Historically and presently, Western empires have divided people against each other, blamed the resulting conflict on the people themselves, and thus justified their control over both the people, and the region they occupy. This was the strategy employed in major recent geopolitical conflicts such as the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide. In both cases, Western imperial ambitions were met through exacerbating ethnic rivalries, providing financial, technical, and military aid and training to various factions; thus, spreading violent conflict, war, and genocide. In both cases, Western, and primarily American strategic interests were met through an increased presence militarily, pushing out other major imperial and powerful rivals, as well as increasing Western access to key economics resources. This is the lens through which we must view the unfolding situation in Pakistan. However, the situation in Pakistan presents a far greater potential for conflict and devastation than either Yugoslavia or Rwanda. In short, the potential strategy of “Balkanization” and destabilization of Pakistan could dwarf any major global conflict in the past few decades. It’s sheer population of 187 million people, proximity to two major regional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its strategic location as neighbor to India, China, and Iran with access to the Indian Ocean, and its nuclear arsenal, combine to make Pakistan the potential trigger for a much wider regional and possibly global war. The destabilization of Pakistan has the potential to be the greatest geopolitical catastrophe since World War II. Thus, Selig Harrison’s op-ed in the New York Times in which he describes the “likely” breakup of Pakistan along ethnic lines as a result of “ethnic differences” must be viewed in the wider context of geopolitical ambitions. His article lays the foundation both for the explanation of a potential breakup, and thus the “justification” for Western intervention in the conflict. His “predictive” capacities as a seasoned journalist can be alternatively viewed as pre-emptive imperial propaganda. Fracturing Pakistan The war in Afghanistan is inherently related to the situation in Pakistan. From the days of the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980s, arms and money were flowing through Pakistan to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. During the civil war that followed, Pakistan armed and financed the Taliban, which eventually took power. When the U.S. and NATO initially attacked Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, this was primarily achieved through cooperation with Pakistan. When the war theatre was re-named “AfPak,” the role of Pakistan, however, was formally altered. While the previous few years had seen the implementation of a strategy of destabilizing Pakistan, once the “AfPak” war theatre was established, Pakistan ceased to be as much of a conduit or proxy state and became a target. In September of 2008, the editor of Indian Defence Review wrote an article explaining that a stable Pakistan is not in India’s interests: “With Pakistan on the brink of collapse due to massive internal as well as international contradictions, it is matter of time before it ceases to exist.” He explained that Pakistan’s collapse would bring “multiple benefits” to India, including preventing China from gaining a major port in the Indian Ocean, which is in the mutual interest of the United States. The author explained that this would be a “severe jolt” to China’s expansionist aims, and further, “India’s access to Central Asian energy routes will open up.”[32] In August of 2009, Foreign Policy Journal published a report of an exclusive interview they held with former Pakistani ISI chief Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who was Director General of the powerful intelligence services (ISI) between 1987 and 1989, at a time in which it was working closely with the CIA to fund and arm the Mujahideen. Once a close ally of the US, he is now considered extremely controversial and the US even recommended the UN to put him on the international terrorist list. Gul explained that he felt that the American people have not been told the truth about 9/11, and that the 9/11 Commission was a “cover up,” pointing out that, “They [the American government] haven’t even proved the case that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He said that the real reasons for the war on Afghanistan were that: the U.S. wanted to “reach out to the Central Asian oilfields” and “open the door there”, which “was a requirement of corporate America, because the Taliban had not complied with their desire to allow an oil and gas pipeline to pass through Afghanistan. UNOCAL is a case in point. They wanted to keep the Chinese out. They wanted to give a wider security shield to the state of Israel, and they wanted to include this region into that shield. And that’s why they were talking at that time very hotly about ‘greater Middle East’. They were redrawing the map.”[33] He also stated that part of the reason for going into Afghanistan was “to go for Pakistan’s nuclear capability,” as the U.S. “signed this strategic deal with India, and this was brokered by Israel. So there is a nexus now between Washington, Tel Aviv, and New Delhi.” When he was asked about the Pakistani Taliban, which the Pakistani government was being pressured to fight, and where the financing for that group came from; Gul stated: Yeah, of course they are getting it from across the Durand line, from Afghanistan. And the Mossad is sitting there, RAW is sitting there — the Indian intelligence agency — they have the umbrella of the U.S. And now they have created another organization which is called RAMA. It may be news to you that very soon this intelligence agency — of course, they have decided to keep it covert — but it is Research and Analysis Milli Afghanistan. That’s the name. The Indians have helped create this organization, and its job is mainly to destabilize Pakistan.[34] He explained that the Chief of Staff of the Afghan Army had told him that he had gone to India to offer the Indians five bases in Afghanistan, three of which are along the Pakistani border. Gul was asked a question as to why, if the West was supporting the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), would a CIA drone have killed the leader of the TTP. Gul explained that while Pakistan was fighting directly against the TTP leader, Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani government would provide the Americans where Mehsud was, “three times the Pakistan intelligence tipped off America, but they did not attack him.” So why all of a sudden did they attack? Because there were some secret talks going on between Baitullah Mehsud and the Pakistani military establishment. They wanted to reach a peace agreement, and if you recall there is a long history of our tribal areas, whenever a tribal militant has reached a peace agreement with the government of Pakistan, Americans have without any hesitation struck that target. … there was some kind of a deal which was about to be arrived at — they may have already cut a deal. I don’t know. I don’t have enough information on that. But this is my hunch, that Baitullah was killed because now he was trying to reach an agreement with the Pakistan army. And that’s why there were no suicide attacks inside Pakistan for the past six or seven months.[35] An article in one of Canada’s national magazines, Macleans, reported on an interview with a Pakistani ISI spy, who claimed that India’s intelligence services, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), have “tens of thousands of RAW agents in Pakistan.” Many officials inside Pakistan were convinced that, “India’s endgame is nothing less than the breakup of Pakistan. And the RAW is no novice in that area. In the 1960s, it was actively involved in supporting separatists in Bangladesh, at the time East Pakistan. The eventual victory of Bangladeshi nationalism in 1971 was in large part credited to the support the RAW gave the secessionists.”[36] Further, there were Indian consulates set up in Kandahar, the area of Afghanistan where Canadian troops are located, and which is strategically located next to the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, which is home to a virulent separatist movement, of which Pakistan claims is being supported by India. Macleans reported on the conclusions by Michel Chossudovsky, economics professor at University of Ottawa, that, “the region’s massive gas and oil reserves are of strategic interest to the U.S. and India. A gas pipeline slated to be built from Iran to India, two countries that already enjoy close ties, would run through Baluchistan. The Baluch separatist movement, which is also active in Iran, offers an ideal proxy for both the U.S. and India to ensure their interests are met.”[37] Even an Afghan government adviser told the media that India was using Afghan territory to destabilize Pakistan.[38] In September of 2009, the Pakistan Daily reported that captured members and leaders of the Pakistani Taliban have admitted to being trained and armed by India through RAW or RAMA in Afghanistan in order to fight the Pakistani Army.[39] Foreign Policy magazine in February of 2009 quoted a former intelligence official as saying, “The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” and that, “the same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there.”[40] The Council on Foreign Relations published a backgrounder report on RAW, India’s intelligence agency, founded in 1968 “primarily to counter China's influence, [however] over time it has shifted its focus to India’s other traditional rival, Pakistan.” For over three decades both Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies have been involved in covert operations against one another. One of RAW’s main successes was its covert operations in East Pakistan, now known as Bangladesh, which “aimed at fomenting independence sentiment” and ultimately led to the separation of Bangladesh by directly funding, arming and training the Pakistani separatists. Further, as the Council on Foreign Relations noted, “From the early days, RAW had a secret liaison relationship with the Mossad, Israel’s external intelligence agency.”[41] Since RAW was founded in 1968, it had developed close ties with the Afghan intelligence agency, KHAD, primarily to do with intelligence sharing on Pakistan. In the 1980s, while Pakistan was funding, arming and training the Afghan Mujahideen with the support of Saudi Arabia and the CIA, India was funding two covert groups which orchestrated terrorist attacks inside Pakistan, which included a “low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore.” RAW has also had a close relationship with the CIA, as even six years before RAW was created, in 1962, the CIA created a covert organization made up of Tibetan refugees, which aimed to “execute deep-penetration terror operations in China.” The CIA subsequently played a part in the creation of RAW. In the 1980s, while the CIA was working closely with the ISI in Pakistan, RAW, while wary of their relationship, continued to get counterterrorism training from the CIA.[42] In October of 2009, the New York Times reported that the US strategy “to vastly expand its aid to Pakistan, as well as the footprint of its embassy and private security contractors here, are aggravating an already volatile anti-American mood as Washington pushes for greater action by the government against the Taliban.” The U.S. gave Pakistan an aid deal of $1.5 billion per year for the next five years, under the stipulation of “Pakistan to cease supporting terrorist groups on its soil and to ensure that the military does not interfere with civilian politics.” President Zaradari accepted the proposal, making him even more unpopular in Pakistan, and further angering Pakistan’s powerful military, which sees the deal as interfering in the internal affairs of the country.[43] America is thus expanding its embassy and security presence within the country, as the Embassy “has publicized plans for a vast new building in Islamabad for about 1,000 people, with security for some diplomats provided through a Washington-based private contracting company, DynCorp.” The NYT article referred to how relations were becoming increasingly strained between Pakistan and the US, and tensions were growing within the country exponentially, as “the American presence was fueling a sense of occupation among Pakistani politicians and security officials,” and several Pakistani officials stated that, “the United States was now seen as behaving in Pakistan much as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Futher: In particular, the Pakistani military and the intelligence agencies are concerned that DynCorp is being used by Washington to develop a parallel network of security and intelligence personnel within Pakistan, officials and politicians close to the army said. The concerns are serious enough that last month a local company hired by DynCorp to provide Pakistani men to be trained as security guards for American diplomats was raided by the Islamabad police. The owner of the company, the Inter-Risk Security Company, Capt. Syed Ali Ja Zaidi, was later arrested. The action against Inter-Risk, apparently intended to cripple the DynCorp program, was taken on orders from the senior levels of the Pakistani government, said an official familiar with the raid, who was not authorized to speak on the record. The entire workings of DynCorp within Pakistan are now under review by the Pakistani government.[44] As revealed in the Wikileaks diplomatic cables, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson wrote in September of 2009 that the U.S. strategy of unilateral strikes inside Pakistan “risk destabilizing the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis in Pakistan without finally achieving the goal.”[45] In an interview with Press TV, Hamid Gul, former Inter-Services Intelligence chief revealed more of what he sees as the US strategy in Pakistan. He explained that with the massive expansion of the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, and alongside that, the increased security staff, the Chinese are becoming increasingly concerned with the sovereignty and security of Pakistan. He claimed that the money that the US government offered (with heavy conditions) to Pakistan, $1.5 billion every year for five years, will be spent under the direction of the Americans, and that “they are going to set up a large intelligence network inside Pakistan,” and ultimately “they really want to go for Pakistan's nuclear assets.” He further claimed that the Indians are trying to destabilize Pakistan; however, he explained, this does not necessarily mean disintegrate, but rather: they are trying to destabilize Pakistan at the moment so that it feels weak and economically has to go begging on its knees to Americans and ask for succor and help. And in that process they will want to expect certain concessions with regards to nuclear power and also with regards to setting up their facilities here in Pakistan.[46] When he was asked what America’s long-term goal was in regards to Pakistan, Gul responded that the goal: for America is that they want to keep Pakistan destabilized; perhaps create a way for Baluchistan as a separate state and then create problems for Iran so that this new state will talk about greater Baluchistan… So it appears that the long-term objectives are really to fragment all these countries to an extent that they can establish a strip that would be pro-America, pro-India, pro-Israel. So this seems to be their long-term objective apart from denuclearizing Pakistan and blocking Iran's progress in the nuclear field.[47] In Part 2 of ‘Pakistan in Pieces’, I will examine the specific ways in which the American strategy of destabilization is being undertaken in Pakistan, including the waging of a secret war and the expansion of the Afghan war into Pakistani territory. In short, the military and intelligence projections for Pakistan over the next several years (discussed in the beginning of Part 1 above) are a self-fulfilling prophecy, as those very same military and intelligence agencies that predict a destabilized Pakistan and potential collapse are now undertaking strategies aimed at achieving those outcomes. Notes [1] NIC, Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts. The Central Intelligence Agency: December 2000: page 64 http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2015.html [2] Ibid, page 66. [3] Ibid. [4] PTI, Pak will be failed state by 2015: CIA. The Times of India: February 13, 2005: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Pak-will-be-failed-state-by-2015-CIA/articleshow/1019516.cms [5] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council: November 2008: page x http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html [6] Ibid, page 45. [7] Ibid, page 65. [8] Ibid, page 72. [9] Peter Goodspeed, Mexico, Pakistan face 'rapid and sudden' collapse: Pentagon. The National Post: January 15, 2009: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1181621 [10] PAUL MCGEOUGH, Warning that Pakistan is in danger of collapse within months. The Sydney Morning Herald: April 13, 2009: http://www.smh.com.au/world/warning-that-pakistan-is-in-danger-of-collapse-within-months-20090412-a40u.html [11] Scott Lindlaw, AP: U.S. gave troops OK to enter Pakistan. USA Today: August 23, 2007: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-23-pakistan-engagement_N.htm [12] Frederick Kagan and Michael O’Hanlon, Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem. November 18, 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid. [15] Ahmed Quraishi, The plan to topple Pakistan's military. Asia Times Online: December 6, 2007: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL06Df03.html [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] Ibid. [19] Ian Bruce, Special forces on standby over nuclear threat. The Sunday Herald: December 31, 2007: http://www.heraldscotland.com/special-forces-on-standby-over-nuclear-threat-1.871766 [20] Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan. The New York Times: January 6, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html [21] Ibid. [22] Ibid. [23] Farhan Bokhari, Sami Yousafzai, and Tucker Reals, U.S. Special Forces Strike In Pakistan. CBS News: September 3, 2008: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/03/terror/main4409288.shtml [24] Eric Schmitt and Jane Perlez, U.S. Unit Secretly in Pakistan Lends Ally Support. The New York Times: February 22, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/asia/23terror.html [25] YOCHI J. DREAZEN and SIOBHAN GORMAN, U.S. Special Forces Sent to Train Pakistanis. The Wall Street Journal: May 16, 2009: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241541672724767.html [26] Declan Walsh, US forces mounted secret Pakistan raids in hunt for al-Qaida. The Guardian: December 21, 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/us-forces-secret-pakistan-raids [27] CIP, SELIG S. HARRISON. Center for International Policy: http://www.ciponline.org/asia/Seligbio.html [28] Selig S. Harriosn, Drawn and Quartered. The New York Times: February 1, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01harrison.html [29] Ibid. [30] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. (New York: Perseus, 1997), page 39 [31] Ibid, page 40. [32] Bharat Verma, Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest. Indian Defence Review: September 11, 2008: http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2008/09/stable-pakistan-not-in-indias-interest.html [33] Jeremy R. Hammond, Ex-ISI Chief Says Purpose of New Afghan Intelligence Agency RAMA Is ‘to destabilize Pakistan’. Foreign Policy Journal: August 12, 2009: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/12/ex-isi-chief-says-purpose-of-new-afghan-intelligence-agency-rama-is-%E2%80%98to-destabilize-pakistan%E2%80%99/ [34] Ibid. [35] Ibid. [36] Adnan R. Khan, New Delhi’s endgame? Macleans: August 23, 2009: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/23/new-delhi%E2%80%99s-endgame/ [37] Ibid. See also Michel Chossudovsky, The Destabilization of Pakistan, Global Research, December 30, 2007 [38] Imtiaz Indher, Afgan MPs call for early withdrawal of foreign troop. Associated Press of Pakistan: April 1, 2009: http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72423&Itemid=2 [39] Moin Ansari, Proof: Captured TTP terrorists admit to being Indian RAW agents. Pakistan Daily: September 20, 2009: http://www.daily.pk/proof-captured-ttp-terrorists-admit-to-being-indian-raw-agents-11015/ [40] Laura Rozen, Can the intel community defuse India-Pakistan tensions? Foreign Policy: February 16, 2009: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/16/can_the_intel_community_defuse_india_pakistan_tensions [41] Jayshree Bajoria, RAW: India's External Intelligence Agency. The Council on Foreign Relations: November 7, 2008: http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/ [42] Ibid. [43] Jane Perlez, U.S. Push to Expand in Pakistan Meets Resistance. The New York Times: October 5, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/asia/06islamabad.html [44] Ibid. [45] US embassy cables, Reviewing our Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, The Guardian, 30 November 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/226531 [46] US military bases 'will destabilize Pakistan'. Press TV: September 13, 2009: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106106&sectionid=3510302 [47] Ibid. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Washington's Black Ops against Iran Extensive range of covert operations envisaged by US Congress By Dr. Ismail Salami Global Research, October 30, 2011 The US secret agenda for tightening its vice-like grip on the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken on an apparently new form after the anti-Iran alleged assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, raised many eyebrows among experts and analysts around the world. With a strong penchant for pushing for tougher action on Iran, the Obama administration has already imposed a series of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. However, a Republican-controlled congressional committee has recently heard testimony demanding an extensive range of covert operations against the country. The operations, which range from cyber attacks to political assassinations, are speculated to be conducted under the feeble excuse that Iran was the alleged architect of an assassination plot against the Saudi envoy to the United States. By political assassination, the US congressmen unconsciously mean the liquidation of the Iranian nuclear scientists, an act they actually started long ago. Retired Army Gen. John Keane told a hearing of two key subcommittees of the House Committee on Homeland Security on Wednesday, "We've got to put our hand around their throat now. Why don't we kill them? We kill other people who kill others." Also, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) poured some pearls of wisdom over others and called for "sober, reasoned discussion." "Iran's leaders must be held accountable for their action," she said, "but we cannot take any reckless actions which may lead to opening another front in the 'War on Terror,' which the American people do not want and cannot afford." Naturally, the US government, in essence, cannot afford to wage another war at least in view of the economic woes it has wrought upon the American citizens, regardless of other influencing factors. The stone that started rolling fell into the hands of New York Congressman Peter King who made an extremely bizarre comment. He suggested that the US should kick out Iranian officials at the UN in New York and in Washington and accused them of being spies, ignorant of the fact that the UN is considered an independent international body and that the US has no authority to 'kick out' diplomats accredited there en masse. Overwhelmed with a sense of false eagerness, he renewed the anti-Iran alleged assassination ploy and said excitedly, "So you have the assassination of a foreign ambassador, you have the willingness to kill hundreds of Americans -- this is an act of war," King said, "I don't think we can just do business as usual or even carry out sanctions as usual." The volley of vitriolic words against Iran which issued from Mr. King reeks of blind enmity long egged on by other hawks in Washington. In point of fact, the anti-Iran moves practically started in 2007 when US Congress agreed to George W. Bush, the then US president, to fund a major increase in covert operations against Iran. According to the intelligence officials who spoke to the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the CIA was then given a presidential approval to commence its covert 'black' operations inside Iran. To that effect, over four hundred million dollars were allocated in a Presidential Finding signed by George W. Bush. The ultimate goal of the finding was to cripple Iran's religious government and the operations involved throwing support behind minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchis and other opposition groups as well as amassing intelligence about Iran's nuclear sites. Speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, the intelligence officials confirmed that Bush had signed a "nonlethal presidential finding", giving the CIA carte blanche to engage in any sabotaging activities including a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions in order to destabilize and eventually achieve regime change in Iran. "I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a retired CIA senior official, an expert on Iran and the Middle East (ABCNEWS.com May 22, 2007). In June 2007, The New Yorker magazine also ran a similar story by Seymour Hersh, confirming that the finding had been signed by Bush and intended to destabilize the Islamic government. "The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money." From an intelligence point of view, the fact that the US government is resorting to covert black operations against Iran rules out the possibility of a military strike against the country. According to reports, US ambassadors in Islamabad have repeatedly asked for opening a consulate in the province of Baluchistan, a suspicious demand from the US. In 2011, the call was renewed by US ambassador Cameron Munter to Islamabad. Persistence in this demand is to be taken seriously. Baluchistan is strategically important as it is a harbor for the anti-Iran terrorist group, Jundullah, in the first place and a separatist Pakistani province in the second place. In fact, Washington greatly favors the establishment of a 'Greater Baluchistan' which would integrate the Baluch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran. Military expert Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters suggests that Pakistan should be broken up, leading to the formation of a separate country: 'Greater Baluchistan' or 'Free Baluchistan' (June 2006, The Armed Forces Journal). As a result, this would incorporate the Baluch provinces of Pakistan and Iran into a single political entity which can be tailored to suit the interests of Washington. So it seems that the US harbors two main ulterior motives if this demand is answered. First, it can fulfill its dream of establishing the Greater Baluchistan, consolidate firm presence in this separatist part of Pakistan and secondly, it will be in a position to avail itself of this influence to carry out its sabotaging activities within Iran. Earlier in 2007, the Blotter on ABCNews.com revealed the role of the US government in backing the terrorist Iranian group , which is responsible for a number of gruesome assassinations of the Iranian civilians on the Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The terrorist group spares no efforts in sowing the seed of terror in the southern Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchistan and their lust for murder and cruelty knows no remission. The victims the group has so far claimed include many women and children who have become the direct target of their killing. In July 2010, the group mounted a pair of suicide attacks on a major Shi'ite mosque in the city of Zahedan, the capital of Iran's Sistan-Balochistan Province, killing dozens of worshippers and wounding over 100 people. Although US officials deny any 'direct funding' of the terrorist group, they acknowledge that they are in contact with the leader of the group on a regular basis. A similar terroristic attack was launched by the same group on a mosque in Zahedan in May 2009, which led to the martyrdom of many worshippers. Sadly enough, Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) implicitly supports the group and reportedly shelters some of its high-profile members in coordination with the CIA. Isn't it paradoxical that Jundullah, a terrorist group and an offshoot of al-Qaeda, is directly funded by the US government which keeps bandying about its so-called 'war on terror' in the world? This is enough to cause the US to hang its head low in shame and humility. Dr. Ismail Salami is an Iranian author and political analyst. A prolific writer, he has written numerous books and articles on the Middle East. His articles have been translated into a number of languages. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sorry, didnt add Pakistani parliamentarians are throwing the idea around. Sometimes smaller is eaiser to control. $$ could start the split. related ========= 3 below ============ http://www.u4.no/publications/overview-of-corruption-in-pakistan/ ------------------------------- Overview of corruption in Pakistan -------------------------------- Corruption remains a substantial obstacle for Pakistan where it is still perceived to be widespread and systemic. Petty corruption in the form of bribery is prevalent in law enforcement, procurement and the provision of public services. The judiciary is not seen as independent and considered to be shielding corrupt political practices from prosecution. Various efforts over the past years have tried to develop institutional mechanisms to address these problems. A National Anti-Corruption Strategy, which was developed in 2002, offers a comprehensive plan for tackling corruption. The executing agency, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), is endowed with comprehensive powers to investigate and prosecute cases. However, a lack of political will, coupled with the perceived co-option of the judiciary and the arbitrariness of many anti-corruption proceedings, are major obstacles. ====================oooooooo== http://www.gdayindia.com.au/inspired-by-anna-pakistani-to-fast-against-corruption/ 0000000000000000000000000000000000 http://www.geotauaisay.com/2012/03/corruption-in-pakistan-and-need-of-accountability/ ---- oo ooo ooo oo -------------- Without a doubt, the current regime is the most corrupt, incompetent, civilian government may be in the history of the world. I can’t think of any that were openly thieves like these people are .....

I go to one place ,but next to it is a Middle Eastern Market. Once a month they have a paper in English with Middle East articles,the below was a topic. I gave the paper to a friend 6 weeks ago and told him the Balochistan article was future news. THANKS sg --------------------------------- US’ Balochistan Enterprise =========oooooooo============= link http://www.opinion-maker.org/2012/03/us-balochistan-enterprise/#

************************************************** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ******************************************** Jouralists treated well in India ?? no. ====================== THIS THEY DO IN PUBLIC,private.......... ---------oooooooo----------------------------------- Police torture of a doctor and lawyer in Varanasi,India ############################################### link http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0413/In-India-beaten-US-journalist-becomes-focus-of-police-torture-probe In India, beaten US journalist becomes focus of police torture probe ====================================================================== A report on 'widespread and systemic' police torture in India was published today, focusing on the case of US journalist Joel Elliott. Mr. Elliott claims that Indian police beat him severely while he was in their custody. By Ben Arnoldy, Staff writer / April 13, 2010 Indian police take part in a parade on Police Commemoration Day in Mumbai October 21, 2009. A human rights watchdog group has published a report alleging 'widespread and systemic' police torture in India, focusing on the case of US journalist Joel Elliott, who says he was beaten severely while in police custody. An American journalist beaten in New Delhi during a run-in with police six months ago has become the focus of a broader antitorture push in India. Joel Elliott, a journalist who has written for The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, and other publications, suffered severe wounds on his head, legs, and back as well as a black eye in the October 2009 incident. The Delhi police have yet to respond to an official human rights complaint filed five months ago. Mr. Elliott, now in the US, charges that the police beat and tortured him over the course of six or seven hours that he was in custody and refused his pleas to call the US Embassy. Graphic photos of Elliott's injuries form the cover of a new watchdog report entitled "Torture in India 2010" released Tuesday. (A PDF copy can be downloaded here, but readers should be forewarned that they may find the images disturbing.) In the report, activists welcome a new government push to pass an antitorture bill, but warn the effort may not be enough to stop what they see as a worsening problem. "You have a case here who is distinctly identified as a foreigner, who looks like a European. If that person can be subjected to torture in such a manner the photographs speak for themselves in the heart of Delhi, one can imagine what would happen to the aam admi [common man]," said Suhas Chakma, director of the Asian Centre for Human Rights in Delhi and editor of the report. 'Widespread and systematic' torture by police The report calls torture in police custody "widespread and systematic." Putting accurate figures on the practice is impossible due to underreporting. But a total of 377,216 official complaints against the police involving everything from rape to kidnappings to deaths in custody have been filed since 1993 with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), a government-mandated body in Delhi. According to human rights groups, data on torture isn't recorded unless there is a death in custody. Those annual figures have been rising: up to 1,977 cases in 2007-2008 from 1,037 officially reported cases in 2000-2001. While India signed the United Nations Convention against Torture in 1997, the nation has yet to pass legislation that would ratify the convention. The government announced Thursday that it would reintroduce in Parliament a bill to bring the country into compliance. "Although some provisions exist in the Indian Penal Code, they neither define 'torture' as clearly as in Article 1 of the Convention nor make it criminal as called for by Article 4," says a government press release. Indian officials refused to speak further on the proposal. India moves to rein in torture, despite tense climate India is still reeling from the massacre of 76 police by Maoist insurgents known as Naxalites in the country's restive northeast last week. But rather than invoke the usual "national security" argument to stymie complaints about torture, India has moved to ratify the UN convention against torture. --------- (pg 2) Mr. Chakma, the report author, commended the government for taking the step, given the timing. But he and other human rights activists criticize the secrecy surrounding the new bill and they worry that flaws in an older version of the bill from 2008 will not be addressed. Specifically, the old bill left bureaucrats with the power to veto judicial inquiries into torture cases. The 2008 bill also put the burden of proof on victims' families, rather than on the police, in disputed cases of deaths in custody. There are also major exemptions under laws aimed at crushing insurgencies in places like Kashmir and the northeast. "In all areas where torture is endemic there is blanket immunity and exemptions under law," says Ravi Nair, head of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Center in Delhi. Such loopholes are problems internationally, too, he says, pointing to China, which has signed and ratified the convention. "The whole international antitorture regime has weakened over the last 15 years, and especially since 9/11," says Mr. Nair. "In every single interaction with apologists of the state in conferences and seminars, what is thrown against us is 'see what the US is doing' " referring to the American use of torture in the war on terror. He argues that more than any change in laws, cultural acceptance for torture must change. For this reason, he argues that Elliott's case is significant. Elliott's case According to Elliott, his troubles began when he rounded a dark street corner and found four or more uniformed policemen beating someone. He cried out in shock, and that started a heated exchange that turned violent when a policeman hit him with a baton, started to wind up again, and then Elliott punched him in the jaw. Elliott says he fled in fear and tried to hide in a parked taxi. A bystander thought he meant to steal the taxi and shouted to the pursuing police. Elliott has been charged with attempted theft of the taxi and destruction of property. Police say he smashed the taxi window. Elliott denies attempting to steal the taxi or smashing the window. He was not certain police had pressed those charges until contacted by the Monitor. When asked about how the case was handled, local officials referred the Monitor to higher-level police officials. One phone number did not work. The other was answered by an official who said the case had moved to another department and that he would call back later that evening with a number. He did not, nor could he be reached again. Local police inspector Suresh Kaushik says, however, that Elliott was never formally arrested, just detained, so it was unnecessary to call the US Embassy. "There are different definitions of torture," says Mr. Kaushik. He doesn't see how this case is relevant to the debate: "He was neither a suspect nor brought to the police station for interrogations. It was a public brawl and he was brought to hospital." 'Sensible citizens' don't question policemen In questioning the policemen's actions that night in October, Elliott appears to have crossed a cultural line. "The fact is that he attempted to question the policeman," says Nair. "In India, any sensible citizen does not question a policeman. The minute you do, the wrath of state comes upon you. He, being an American, didn't understand the unwritten civil contract that all Indians understand." Elliott concurs, and also sees how his case can highlight the wider problem. "Several Indian friends told me they had similar experiences with police in New Delhi. But nobody heard their stories. People only heard my story because I was an American journalist," Elliott wrote in an e-mail. ****** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No end to India's police torture death toll oooooooo http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/no-end-indias-police-torture-death-toll

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ KAZMI not Iranian. ======================== notice that barak ravid has made kazmi into an iranian ============================================================================== Kazmi, a post-graduate in Persian language from Delhi University, originally from Meerut in Uttar Pradesh, has been residing in south Delhi for several years. (India Today, Mar 9)

COLBY Yet another source confirmed he was very pro-Iran and anti-Israel. According to the ToI (same link as above) “Kazmi… is known for his extreme and radical views on the Palestine-Israel conflict.” +++++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY According to the Tribune of India “Kazmi… was arrested after his number was traced to the mobile phone of Saeid Moradi, who was the alleged bomber in the failed terrorist attack in Bangkok on February 14, said an official” +++++++++++++++++++++++++ GAAL this thread previous (100% in dark,patsies set up this patsy) +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yes he was on MOSSAD radar screen via Syria. If you dont think he was MOSSAD monitored (and considered an enemy of State),you are a fool IMHO. BUT as I said re: PATSY (100 %)...who started calling whom ??? Call this guy.......MOSSAD controller.......................

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sorry, The highest officals (of all sorts) of Israel said that the three bombing are of one piece. Breaking down this argument by my sighting MOSSAD help in the India bombing investigation helps brings down the whole house of cards. I posted that Israeli Deputy Chief of Mission in Delhi had foreknowledge. FROM THE LINK I GAVE MOSSAD help : http://www.ndtv.com/...84613?slider ---- foreknowledge link http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201222985228671645.html ================================================================== Sources say the operations to get Kazmi involved Research and Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency with support from the Israeli Mossad. His arrest was cleared at the highest levels in the home ministry. ==oooooooovvvvvvvvoooooooo= MOSSAD the key investigator helper (helper,yeah right !!) ================================ MOSSAD very,very media savvy. --------------------------------------- http://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com/2010/02/disinformation-services.html

Israeli car bomb attack: Man arrested journalist or spy? NDTV Correspondent, Updated: March 10, 2012 20:22 IST ==================================================== ASK MOSSAD THEY HAVE THE ANSWER. MOSSAD SO HELPFUL AND ACCOMMODATING IN THE INVESTIGATION. ========================================================== Read more at: link http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/israeli-car-bomb-attack-man-arrested-journalist-or-spy-184613?slider&cp Sources say the operations to get Kazmi involved Research and Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency with support from the Israeli Mossad. His arrest was cleared at the highest levels in the home ministry. Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/israeli-car-bomb-attack-man-arrested-journalist-or-spy-184613?slider&cp ################################################ ################################################ Best EXPLANATION....they are the ALPHA and OMEGA of the three bombings they BLAME on Iran. "QUI BONO the bombings ?",why Israel of course. To say it poetically,"The false flag rises above Israel". CASE CLOSED.

Central agencies help Indian Police.....MOSSAD. Tens upon tens upon tens of million of cell phones...and yet the MOSSAD happen to be monitoring the bombers ...??? .... see Abhishek Bhalla article below. Best EXPLANATION....they are the ALPHA and OMEGA of the three bombings they BLAME on Iran. "QUI BONO the bombings ?",why Israel of course. To say it poetically,"The false flag rises above Israel". CASE CLOSED. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Nearly two weeks before the bombing, Israel acted to ensure that Indians would assume that a terrorist attack in Delhi on that date had been carried out by Iran. A letter to the Delhi police on February 1 signed by the Israeli Deputy Chief of Mission in Delhi and the First Secretary responsible for security expressed concern that Iran and Hezbollah would take revenge on the anniversary of the Mugniyeh assassination by carrying out terrorist actions against Israelis. It also referred to the possibility of Iranian revenge for the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist Mustafa Ahmadi Roshan on January 11 ============================================= ============================================= Syed Kazmi arrest raises questions on authenticity of probe Delhi police have so far not revealed any substantive evidence. All they have is a theory - By Abhishek Bhalla The arrest of journalist Syed Mohammad Ahmed Kazmi on the charges of aiding and abetting the bombing of the car carrying Israeli Defense Attache’s wife last month has raised serious questions about the authenticity of the probe. After speaking to the family and friends of the arrested journalist and analysing the court documents, Tehelka has found that the police have so far not revealed any substantive evidence against Kazmi. All they have is a theory. The police have claimed that the two-wheeler found at his residence (it has a Haryana registration number) was used by the bombers (whose identity the police have not revealed) to carry out a recce of the Israeli embassy. However, Kazmi’s family claims that the scooty that is being called a break-through recovery has been parked at their residence for the last 2 years. “We have never used this scooty. It belongs to my uncle who purchased it when he visited Delhi two years back for his treatment at AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences),” said Shauzab Kazmi (23), son of the arrested journalist. Breaking down, Shauzab also denied that an Iranian or a citizen of any other nationality had ever visited or stayed with the family. The police claim that Kazmi had sheltered the bomber at his house. According to the remand application filed by the Delhi police in court Kazmi was in touch with the bombers prior to the attack and his questioning is significant to unearth the larger conspiracy since he was ‘an integral part of it’. The police stated in court that the bombers were from another country and in all probability had fled the country but Kazmi could be vital in providing further leads about the local connections. Although the police have not officially named any country, on the condition of anonymity a police officer told Tehelka that the bombers were from Iran. “Inputs indicate that the attack was carried out by an Iranian group. Since they knew Kazmi they used him to get local assistance. He was promised money for this. He was already paid some money in dollars and he was promised more,” said an officer part of the investigations. But where is the money which Kazmi got? What was the sum promised? All that the police have recovered from his house is 1254 dollars. Certainly, we are not expected to believe that Kazmi agreed to be part of a terror plot for mere 1254 dollars? According to sources he was asked to provide recruits and was also aware of the future plans of the group. Investigators say based on inputs provided by Kazmi more arrests are likely and that they have already zeroed in on a few suspects. Kazmi, a senior Urdu journalist, had been reporting on Iran over the last few years and had been working with the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) of Iran since 1988. Originally from Meerut in Uttar Pradesh, he took up journalism in 1983 and had been living in Delhi since almost 20 years. Kazmi’s family of seven that includes his wife and two kids apart from his brother’s family owns a house in the BK Dutt Colony near the Jor Bagh locality of South Delhi. Fellow Urdu journalists talk about Kazmi’s “excellent” reportage on US occupation of Iraq in 2003, where Kazmi was amongst the very few Indian journalists who reported from the ground. On the day of the blast, Kazmi was sitting on a protest dharna in front of 24, Akbar Road (Congress headquarters) along with the prominent leader Maulana Kalbe Jawad of Lucknow. For a journalist who has reported on conflicts in West Asia for over 15 years, having all kinds of contacts is inevitable. Delhi police sources, however, claim this had got him in touch with radical groups in Iran. Although there is no official word it is believed that Israeli agencies had passed on certain inputs to their Indian counterparts that was further provided to Delhi police. In muted voices officials admit that information on suspects has been coming from central agencies. “There was a phone number of a suspect given by central agencies to us. It was immediately put on surveillance. It was not Kazmi’s. He was in constant touch with the suspect but we were unable to zero down on it,” said a source. Senior journalist Syed Naqvi came out supporting his old colleague on Friday and suggested that Kazmi’s arrest is a fallout of a foreign policy matters. “Kazmi has been an honorable and honest journalist who has been reporting for Iranian News Agency IRNA as he knows Urdu, Persian and Arabic. He has been arrested because he has sided with Iran on various issues including the latest Israel-Iran stand-off. He has also reported on Syria in recent times where he has debunked western position on protests in that country,” he said. Talking to IRNA on 26 January Kazmi had said that illegal sanctions against Iran have lost their objective. He was quoted as saying that the US needs to correct its behavior and stop making false propaganda. He also suggested that countries importing oil from Iran safeguard their national interests by rejecting new unilateral US sanctions. He also criticized possession of nuclear weapons by the US, Israel and their allies. “In his writings he was anti-Zionist, anti-Israel but never anti-Jewish… He had has biases and strong opinions as a journalist but he hardly showed any signs of jingoism,” added Naqvi. The sequence of events leading to Kazmi’s arrest is also murky. Kazmi was picked up from the India Islamic Cultural Centre at about 11.30 am on 6 March – two hours after he had appeared on national television; DD Urdu. Post-arrest, he was taken to the office of the Special Cell of the Delhi police, where he was interrogated till late in the evening. His official arrest has been shown in the records as 8.30 pm. Later in the night officers of the Special Cell went to Kazmi’s house and seized his laptop, Press Information Bureau card, passport, driving license and some other documents. The police has also seized his Alto car that and the two-wheeler that they claim was used for the recce. “I was forced to sign on the arrest memo at 2.30 am. We asked them to wait till morning but they threatened us,” said Kazmi’s son Shauzab. The Delhi Union of Journalists has also written to the Delhi Police commissioner BK Gupta urging him to step in. “Investigations can continue but he should be released on bail since he is cooperating with the investigations. We do not want the police to indulge in a media trial. If there is any need for information to be given it should only be through an official press note,” said SK Pandey, general secretary of the body. Meanwhile, Turab Ali Kazmi (18), in the middle of his Class XII Board Exams, is facing a bigger test. Instead of preparing for his exams he has had to tender explanations to journalists that his father is a much-respected journalist who would never indulge in anti-national activities. (With inputs from Arpit Parashar and G Vishnu) Abhishek Bhalla is a Senior Special Correspondent with Tehelka. abhishek.bhalla@tehelka.com

COLBY ??????? People normally start with the most important evidence, the article which cited Karon was the last one in my post. Karmon himself seems not to have tied to the Mossad and at the time I had no idea the chairman of the think tank he work for was the head of the Mossad decades ago. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Nope silly me not intel connected. DECADES ago.........COLBY full of it .......... ?????????????? Can you prove you didnt know ???? =========================================================== The ICT is proud to announce that the following speakers have already confirmed their participation in the 11th World Summit on Counter-Terrorism. The list of confirmed speakers is regularly updated as we recieve additional confirmations. Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Danny Yatom, Former Head of the Mossad, Israel Mr. Shabtai Shavit, Chairman of the Board of Directors, ICT, IDC Herzliya; Former Head of the Mossad, Israel +++++++++++++++++++++++++++oooooooo MEMBER Mr. Eliezer (Geizi) Tzafrir Former Shabak (secret service) and Mossad senior, and P.M.'s advisor on Arab affairs. Amongst others served as head of Mossad stations in Iraqi Kurdistan, Iran and Lebanon. Author of the books: "Ana Kurdi- War and Escape in Kurdistan" (Maariv 1999); "Big Satan Small Satan- Revolution and Escape in Iran" (Maariv 2002); "Plonter (Labyrinth)- a Trafic Policeman in Lebanese Mess" (Yediot 2006). Lecturing and writing commentaries. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2009 Conference Updates - Conference Updates * The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at IDC Herzliya is ple... http://www.ict.org.il/AnnualConference/PreviousConferences/Highlights9thConference/Speakers2009/tabid/337/Default.aspx - 12/16/2010 1:47:26 PM - On the mission and concept of roles of gatekeepers in intelligence organizations: The case of the Israeli Security Agency - Relevance: 1001 Intelligence organizations such as the Israeli Security Agency (Shabak/ ISA), The Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (the Mossad), intelligence units in the IDF (AMAN) and in the Israel Police and their likes, are characterised by the special nature of their operations, which cast a heavy burden of responsibility on the shoulders of those in charge of them, accompanied by the challenge to sustain the whole spectrum of their activities within the frames of the law, integrity and subject to proper administration rules. This challenge is especially prominent in matters related to foiling - predictive - activities, which by their nature depend deeply on assessment of reality which did not occur yet, and sometimes involve violation of human rights and characterised by careful threading upon and problematic proximity to the boundaries of lawfulness. This document, dealing with the roles of the gatekeepers - internal auditor and legal advisor - attempts to describe the aforementioned problematicalness and mechanisms to cope with it. The subject of the detailed analysis is the Israeli Security Agency, the author comes from, but it also offers inspiration and directions of thought to those engaged in the efforts of the intelligence organizations through special emphasis on their foiling activity. The document is published with the permission of the Research Center of the National Defense College of Israel (INDC ========================================================================================================================= World Summit on Counter Terrorism: ICT's 11th International Conference September 11-14, 2011 The conference will commence on September 11, 2011, with a unique series of lectures that will bring together distinguished Israeli security decision-makers and will provide an open platform for substantive discussion. The "Talking Heads" series will feature: former Directors of Mossad and the ISA (Shabak), former Chiefs of Staff of the IDF, Former Directors of the Intelligence Directorate, Former National Security Advisors and Israeli Police Commissioners. =========================================================== 5 ISA people http://www.ict.org.il/AnnualConference/Conference2010/Speakers2010/tabid/368/Default.aspx