This site best viewed
with Mozilla Firefox

P I C T U R E   O F  T H E  D A Y

©Pierre-Paul Feyte

The Quantum Future Group 2006 Agenda is now available. Our critics say we have an agenda. Now you can have our agenda, too! This leatherbound pocket agenda includes a handy notepad as well as a double-page weekly view of all of the important events you need to remember. Moreover, it's in French, a subtle way to show your disapproval of the Bush Reich. Planning a trip to Europe next summer to scout out a safe haven for the future? An easy-to-use chart includes distances between major European cities. The Quantum Future Group 2006 Agenda will be available for a limited time for any donation of 20.06 euros (US$24.00 approximately). Get in on the agenda! Click here now to support the Quantum Future Group! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! The Quantum Future Group Signs Economic Commentary Donald Hunt January 2, 2006 Gold closed at 519.70 dollars an ounce on Friday, up 2.7% from $505.90 the Friday before. The dollar closed at 0.8440 euros on Friday, up 0.2% from 0.8425 at the end of the previous week. The euro closed at 1.1849 dollars, down from 1.1869 the week before. Gold in euros would be 438.60 an ounce at Friday's close, up 2.9% for the week. Oil closed at 61.04 dollars a barrel, up 4.5% from $58.43 the week before. Oil in euros would be 51.43 euros a barrel, up 4.5% from 49.23 euros at the end of the previous week. The gold/oil ratio closed at 8.51, down 1.8% from 8.66 the week before. In U.S. stocks, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 10,717.50 for the week, down 1.5% from 10,883.27 at the previous week's close. The NASDAQ closed at 2,205.32, down 2.0% from 2,249.42 the week before. The yield on the ten-year U.S. Treasury note closed at 4.39%, up one basis point from 4.38 the week before. Since Friday was the last market day of the year, let's look at how the numbers we have been following came out for the year. The price of gold rose 18.9% from $437.10 to $519.70 in 2005 in dollar terms and 36.1% in euros, having begun the year at 322.32 and closing at 438.60 euros an ounce. Oil rose 40.5% from $43.45 dollars a barrel at the beginning of 2005 to $61.04 at year's end. In euros, oil rose 60.2% from 32.09 euros a barrel at the beginning of the year to 51.43 on December 30th. The price of oil outpaced the price of gold for the year, with the gold/oil ratio going from 10.06 at the beginning of the year to 8.51 last week, a fall of 18.2% for the year. The U.S. dollar began the year at 0.7390 euros and closed the year at 0.8440, a gain of 14.2%. The euro fell from 1.3532 to 1.1849 dollars for the year. The U.S. stock market treaded water in 2005, with the Dow ending slightly down for the year and the NASDAQ slightly up. The Dow started the year at 10,783 and closed at 10,717.50 for a drop of 0.6% for the year. The NASDAQ went from 2175 to 2205 for the year, rising 1.4%. In U.S. interest rates, the yield on the ten-year U.S. Treasury note went from 4.22% to 4.39% for the year, a rise of 17 basis points. Here are the charts for the year: In some ways the situation is similar to what we saw at the beginning of 2005: A world economy still functioning, yet in danger of collapse due to serious structural imbalances. The world economy has not yet collapsed, but the imbalances are worse than they were a year ago. The housing bubble in the United States, the sole reason U.S. consumers have felt wealthy enough to spend, is popping. The trade imbalances are worsening, and the prospects for the U.S. empire do not look good. Even the normally optimistic U.S. public now senses that something is seriously wrong. Clear, unmistakable evidence of climate change, media-stoked fears of deadly epidemics, and a loss of confidence in the conduct of the Iraq War, and the belated realization that the United States is ruled by a criminal gang, all these things will undoubtedly weigh on the confidence of the U.S. consumer in 2006. And the U.S. consumer has been, after all, keeping the world economy afloat. If you read the mainstream media's year-end economic wrap-ups, you might think that those of us who warned of economic collapse a year ago have cried wolf and that there is therefore no longer a reason to worry about the economy. Leaving aside the probability of an HEE, a Huge Exogemous Event, to use George Ure's term, all the reasons we had to fear collapse are still here and may even be stronger. Here's Morgan Stanley's chief analyst, Stephen Roach: Global: The Symbiosis Trap Stephen Roach (New York) A year ago, the macro debate was dominated by concerns over mounting global imbalances. Our 2005 outlook piece, modestly entitled "How to Fix the World," probed in great detail the coming rebalancing of a lopsided world economy. The passage of time has not treated this outcome kindly. Global imbalances have continued to mount, but few seem to care these days. I suspect that 2006 will be a year when that ambivalence is shattered. The broad consensus of financial market participants has come to the conclusion that there is a new symbiosis between America's record-setting external deficit and those willing to fund it. China is typically singled out as the most willing participant in the "symbiosis trade" - the arrangement whereby the US buys goods made in China in exchange for China's willingness to buy bonds printed in Washington. On the surface, this seems like a terrific deal for both - providing American consumers with the interest rate subsidy needed to sustain wealth- and debt-dependent spending and helping China limit an appreciation in its currency that might otherwise hamper its export prowess. Because this implicit contract has enabled China to keep its currency tightly aligned with the US dollar, many have also referred to the new symbiosis as a "Bretton Woods II" regime - the modern-day sequel to the dollar-based international financial architecture that was adopted in the aftermath of World War II. Advocates of this view conclude that since it is in both parties' best interests to perpetuate the symbiosis, there is no reason why it should change. With net foreign purchases of long-term US securities averaging $114 billion in September and October 2005, the latest facts are certainly not getting in the way of that logic. I worry, however, that the sustainability of the symbiosis trade is predicated on a very dangerous ex post rationalization of global imbalances. As was the case in the midst of recent bubbles in equities, bonds, credit, and property, there are important kernels of truth to the notion of a new international symbiosis. The increased trade and capital flows that stem from the cross-border connectivity of globalization create a growing sense of co-dependence in the global economy. The US dollar's role as a reserve currency adds confidence to the notion of an expanded dollar bloc. But at the end of the day, I do not believe that this arrangement is either desirable or sustainable from the perspective of either of the two main protagonists in the new symbiosis - China or the United States. China's problems stem in large part from excess foreign exchange reserve accumulation. With its official reserves now around $770 billion - up 50% from a year ago and rapidly closing in on Japan's $840 billion - China is forced into massive buying of dollar-denominated assets in order to prevent the renminbi from rising too rapidly and jeopardizing its export competitiveness. Yet, lacking a well-developed domestic debt market, China can only sterilize a portion of these purchases; the rest leaks back into its domestic financial system - leading to excess liquidity and concomitant asset bubbles. The property bubble in coastal China is a worrisome manifestation of these risks. Moreover, with China holding an estimated 70% of its reserves in the form of dollar-denominated assets, the mark-to-market costs of a significant further depreciation of the dollar would represent a major fiscal blow to the Chinese economy. Finally, another outgrowth of this perceived symbiosis is an ever-widening bilateral trade imbalance between the US and China that only heightens the risks of trade frictions between the two nations. The risks are equally disturbing from America's point of view. To the extent that foreign purchases of dollar-denominated assets represent the functional equivalent of a subsidy to US interest rates, asset markets enjoy artificial valuation support. The result is a surge in housing values that many Americans now perceive to be a new and permanent source of saving. This, in turn, has had a profound impact in reshaping saving and spending strategies of US consumers. In essence, the income-based consumption models of yesteryear have been replaced by asset-driven frameworks. The repercussions of this transformation are profound: The income-based personal saving rate has plunged deeper into negative territory than at any point since 1933. At the same time, US consumers can only create newfound purchasing power by extracting equity from an ever-expanding housing stock. This is where debt enters the equation - in effect, the cost of equity extraction. The overall household sector debt ratio has been pushed up by 20 percentage points of GDP over the past five years - equal to the gain in the preceding 20 years; moreover, reflecting this overhang in the outstanding stock of indebtedness, US household sector debt-service burdens have risen to record highs - even in the context of an unusually low interest rate climate. The result is unprecedented consumer vulnerability on both the saving and debt fronts. "So what!" retorts the symbiosis crowd. After all, these are precisely the excesses - both for China and the US - that we in the rebalancing crowd have been bemoaning for years. Fair point. Moreover, a year ago, when there were widespread concerns over global imbalances, the dollar rose instead of fell - and those concerns lost credibility. As long as the world is willing to finance America's saving shortfall, goes the argument, there is no reason to worry about sustainability. This, in my view, is the essence of the "symbiosis trap." The consensus has been lulled into a false sense of security - believing that imbalances will remain a non-issue for the global economy and world financial markets. That view could well be tested in 2006. For starters, global imbalances are likely to go from bad to worse over the next 12-18 months, pushing tensions in both the US and China ever closer to the breaking point. In the case of the US, pressures are likely to intensify on two fronts - the first being the housing market. There are those, of course, who still doubt that the US property market has ascended to bubble stature. I am not in that camp. Through 3Q05, fully 40 major metropolitan areas were still experiencing year-over-year house price inflation of at least 20%; at the state level - a broader geographic unit - residential home prices for 25 states plus the District of Columbia were still rising in excess of 10%. Of course, not every home in America has gone to bubble-like extremes. But to the extent that a sizable portion of the national property market has, the broader asset class is probably in the danger zone - along with the asset- and debt-dependent American consumer. A second area of pressures in the US is likely to come from the saving front. In a high-energy-price climate, US households are likely to defend their lifestyles by pushing the personal saving rate deeper into negative territory. Moreover, as Dick Berner and Ted Wieseman note below, the outlook for the Federal budget deficit is deteriorating once again. The net result is likely to be further erosion in America's net national saving rate, which has been hovering at a record low of around 1.5% of GDP since early 2002. As the domestic saving rate moves inexorably toward the "zero" threshold, the US can be expected to import more and more surplus saving from abroad by running ever-widening current account and trade deficits to attract the foreign capital. In fact, our latest estimates suggest that the US current account deficit, which stood at a record 6.4% of GDP in the first half of 2005, could well increase toward 7.5% over the next year. In short, America will be upping the ante in terms of what it expects from China and the rest of the world in order to sustain the symbiosis trade. Such an outcome could put increasingly acute pressure on an already unbalanced Chinese economy. The more dramatic the shortfall in domestic US saving, the greater the need to fill the void with foreign saving. That will put pressure on the biggest piece of America's already gaping trade deficit - namely, the US-China bilateral trade imbalance. That, in turn, would tend to support Chinese export growth, as well as export-led fixed investment -- thereby further extending the same two sectors that have already gone to excess. At the same time, there is good reason to believe that most of America's foreign creditors are rational - likely to exercise increasing caution in managing reserve portfolios by gradually pruning their overweight in dollar-denominated assets. That would then put added pressure on China to compensate for any shifts out of dollars - especially if it remains steadfast in resisting a sharp appreciation of the renminbi. In short, if China wants to preserve the symbiosis trade in the context of a further deterioration of the US current account deficit, it may well have to up the ante on its own imbalances. The case for global rebalancing was dealt a tough blow in 2005. The dollar's surprising appreciation led many to believe that financial markets are perfectly capable of coping with massive external imbalances. In my view, that coping mechanism has led to a false sense of complacency that could well be tested in 2006. In particular, a further deterioration of global imbalances - more likely than not over the next year - could well have adverse consequences for already-extended US and Chinese economies. The result could be a sharp decline in the dollar and related upward pressures on US real interest rates - developments that would take generally complacent investors by surprise. I have long been wary of new theories that spring up to explain away old problems. That was the problem with the so-called new paradigm thinking of the late 1990s. And it could well be the ultimate peril of the symbiosis trap. Mainstream analysts are also predicting a "soft landing" for the housing market. Home Sales Down; Labor Market Stable By JEANNINE AVERSA AP Economics Writer A cooling housing market may put buyers in the driver's seat while an improving job market could give workers and jobseekers more leverage, economists say. Either way, analysts read a pair of economic reports Thursday as indicating a soft landing for the high-flying housing sector and a smoother ride for the labor market. Sales of previously owned homes fell for the second month in a row, declining a moderate 1.7 percent in November to an annual rate of 6.97 million units, the lowest since March, the National Association of Realtors reported. "As more listings of homes come on the market during this period of modestly declining sales, more home buyers will find themselves in a better position to negotiate," said the association's president Thomas Stevens. Meanwhile, a Labor Department report showed that new applications filed for unemployment insurance last week edged up to 322,000 - a level that is still consistent with a labor market revival, economists said. That report provided further evidence the jobs market is back on its feet after being knocked around by Gulf Coast hurricanes. Those are the kinds of delusions that result from analyzing complex, non-linear systems in simple, linear terms. Most likely, though, the elite themselves do not believe the optimistic line they are peddling to the public. What seems clear is that the negative effects of a bursting of the housing bubble will outweigh any positive effects: The Fall of the House of Cards Pop Goes the Bubble! By MIKE WHITNEY Four months ago I wrote an article, "Doomsday; the Final Months of the Housing Bubble" that predicted a dramatic fall in housing prices that would have a catastrophic effect on the American economy. In truth, I'm a lousy forecaster and simply collected the relevant data from a number of sources that convinced me that the end was quickly approaching. Now, it seems that dismal day is upon us and the Grim Reaper has begun churning out the disappointing statistics that we've dreaded from the very beginning. In November the sales of new homes plunged by the largest amount in 12 years. The 11.5% decline from October was 4 points higher than expected by Wall Street analysts, fueling the belief that the red-hot housing market is headed for the dumpster. This sudden downturn is expected to slow the wave of speculation that has kept the market booming for the last few years. According to an Associated Press report, sales dropped by "22% in the West, the biggest decline in the region since February 1995." Many readers will wonder why trimming the spec-market threatens the overall economy. The reason is, as The Economist points out is that "23% of all American houses bought in 2004 were for investment, not owner-occupation. Another 13% were bought as second homes. Investors are prepared to buy houses they will rent out at a loss; just because they think prices will keep rising -- the very definition of a financial bubble." If we consider the effects of 36% of buyers moving out of the market we can grasp the magnitude of the problem. The crisis is compounded by the enormous effect of the housing market on both growth and jobs. "Over the past four years, consumer spending and residential construction have together accounted for 90% of the total growth in GDP. And over two-fifths of all private sector jobs created since 2001 have been in housing-related sectors, such as construction, real estate and mortgage broking." (The Economist) "2 out of every 5" private sector jobs!?! "90% of the total growth in GDP"!?! These are figures that simply boggle the mind. What it tells us is that the market has been artificially inflated by the Federal Reserve's shortsighted low-interest rates policy and the shabby lending practices of the major mortgage companies. The banks have lowered the standards for home loans to such an extent that the traditional loan of 20% down and a fixed interest rate is virtually a thing of the past. Instead, those conservative practices have been replaced with "creative financing" schemes that put the entire housing market at risk. In 2004 "one-fourth of all home-buyers -- including 42% of first-time buyers -- made no down payment." (New York Times, July 7, 2005) Equally troubling is the fact that "nearly one third of all new mortgages this year call for interest-only payments (NY Times) This tells us that a large number of new buyers can barely make their payments, but are gambling that their property value will go up enough to justify their investment. This is "equity roulette," a shell game that anticipates that salaries will go up while interest rates stay low. We can anticipate that many overstretched homeowners will begin to fall from the economic precipice in short order. In fact, many markets are already showing a 40% increase in foreclosures even though the air has just begun hissssssing out of the bubble. The ridiculously low interest rates coupled with the irresponsible lending practices has precipitated a feeding frenzy for cheap money. Greenspan is expected to raise rates another one-half percent before he leaves in January which should be just enough to collapse the market and put the economy in a permanent coma. ...Jittery Americans don't need a crystal ball to spot the shipwreck looming just on the horizon. The last remaining droplets of prosperity are trickling from the ailing economy and Greenspan's 18 year quest to flatten the American middle class will soon be realized. 'the Economist" summarized it best when they said, 'the worldwide rise in housing prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops". 2 Taxes on Wealthy Expiring: 5-Year Phaseout Starts Jan. 1; Move to Cost Treasury $27 Billion By William Neikirk 2005-12-31 Chicago Tribune WASHINGTON -- They call them the PEP and Pease provisions of tax law, and they are on their way out. If you are wealthy, this should make you smile. You could be a little richer. PEP and Pease refer to two tax increases adopted in 1990 when President George H.W. Bush broke his "read my lips" promise against boosting taxes in order to cut the deficit, angering many in the Republican Party. But on Sunday, thanks to a law quietly passed in 2001 when his son, George W. Bush, was in the White House, the PEP and Pease provisions--essentially limitations on tax exemptions--will begin a five-year phaseout at a cost of $27 billion. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank here, about 53.5 percent of that money will go to households earning more than $1 million. Another 43.2 percent will go to those with incomes of $200,000 to $1 million. The rest will go those earning $100,000 to $200,000. "It is particularly ironic that these two new tax cuts repeal provisions of the tax code that President Bush's father signed in 1990 to reduce deficits," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the center. By contrast, conservative groups said the PEP and Pease tax increases are bad tax law. PEP stands for "personal exemption phaseout." Basically, Congress decided in 1990 to slash the personal income exemption (now $3,200) for high-income Americans. Pease refers to former Rep. Don Pease (D-Ohio), who sponsored a provision limiting the value of itemized deductions for the wealthy. By 2010 those provisions will be gone unless Congress reinstates them, and that does not appear likely. Millionaires will receive an average tax cut of $19,000 a year when the two provisions are wiped out, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said. The center added that this comes on top of an average tax cut of $103,000 that millionaires received in 2005 because of other tax cuts adopted since 2001. Comment: We’re not a democracy. It’s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.” Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General Bosses predict year of economic pain Robert Worcester and Heather Stewart Sunday January 1, 2006 The Observer BRITAIN'S business leaders are bracing themselves for a tough 2006, with two thirds expecting the economy to deteriorate over the next 12 months, according to a recent MORI survey. Chancellor Gordon Brown has promised a recovery in Britain's fortunes after the weakest year since the recession of the early Nineties - but few business leaders have confidence in his optimistic projections. In the survey of more than 100 FTSE top executives, MORI found that two thirds, 66 per cent, expect the economy to worsen in 2006, while only one in 25, 4 per cent, believe it will improve. With analysts expecting rampant US growth to stutter in 2006, little sign of a recovery in the eurozone, and consumer spending at home still under pressure from rising taxes, businesses have plenty of reasons to be nervous about the year ahead. Despite their pessimism about the general outlook, most senior executives expect their own company to be able to ride the storm in 2006. More than half - 57 per cent - thought business would improve over the next year, while only 11 per cent expected things to get worse. Larger firms were particularly negative about the future, as were those based outside the capital. Perhaps surprisingly, bankers and financial services executives were generally as depressed about their fortunes as others, despite a bumper 2005, with a rash of deals that have put City staff in line for the most lavish bonus season since the boom years of the late Nineties. The poll also suggested few of Britain's corporate giants have much confidence left in the Labour government's recipe for economic success. Two in three respondents rejected the notion that 'in the long term, this government's policies will improve the state of Britain's economy'. Just two in 10 said they still had faith in the Chancellor's economic policy. Those in the retail sector, hit hard by the slowdown in 2005, were the most divided, with half (47 per cent) saying they still had hope for the government's policies, while the other half (47 per cent) rejected the notion. After a so-so Christmas, retailers are pinning their hopes on a second quarter-point cut in interest rates in the new year. Bosses from multinational firms, which tend to be more exposed to fast-growing global markets in the US and Far East, are far more upbeat about their prospects than their domestic counterparts. Seven in 10 multinationals expect their company's fortunes to improve over the next 12 months, against fewer than half of domestic companies. In his pre-Budget statement last month, when he admitted that his forecasts for 2005 were badly awry, the Chancellor blamed record oil prices for the consumer spending squeeze, which dragged growth to its weakest rate since the early Nineties recession. But when business leaders were asked about the biggest problem for their businesses, it was red tape that came top of most of the lists. Three in 10 executives cited legislation, regulation or bureaucracy as a problem - almost twice as many as mentioned the next most bothersome issue, the general economic climate. The Treasury has promised a bonfire of regulation, but business leaders do not seem to be feeling the benefits. The chairman of one major international bank complained of 'regulation, political interference and lack of qualified people'. The chairman of a major property developer singled out the much-criticised planning regime, saying 'securing planning permissions is becoming more tortuous', and adding 'there is more interference and it is taking longer and even when we are assessing a site it is very difficult to be able to establish what the conditions, and therefore the costs, of the planning would be.' Smaller firms were the most likely to complain about regulation. The economic climate worried 17 per cent of executives, with the chairman of a leading mining and natural resources company citing 'uncertainty in the pattern of economic development in China', as a concern. Another troubling issue, reported by 16 per cent, was the skills shortage: 'Lack of workforce, labour costs,' was mentioned by the CEO of one retail property company, while the head of a chemical firm blamed 'energy prices, economics, pensions and the continuing malaise in the manufacturing industry'. Manufacturing suffered in 2005 as demand from the eurozone economies remained weak, and high-energy prices took their toll. By the end of October, manufacturing output was no higher than it was in 2002. When asked how they judged the calibre of a major company, business leaders picked out 'financial performance' as most important (58 per cent), but said they would also think about the quality of management (44 per cent), and a company's image (34 per cent). Of the 132 executives interviewed by MORI, 102 hold the title of chairman, CEO and/or MD, and another 12 are chief financial officers, all of FTSE top 500 industrial firms by turnover and top 100 financial companies by capital employed. The survey was carried out between 5 September and 28 November 2005. Time to pay the bill Frank Kane Sunday January 1, 2006 The Observer First, the good news. If you are a multi-million pound lottery winner, or a member of that small band of City executives and senior business people who get to write their own salary and bonus cheques, 2006 will be a very good year indeed. Another small group of professionals - the insolvency accountants - can also look forward to the New Year with a rosy glow, but that is all part of the problem. The bad news is that the rest of us - say 99.99 per cent of the population - can only look forward to a year of financial belt-tightening and uncertainty. The economic omens for 2006 are more depressing than at the start of any year so far this century. This is especially the case in Britain, though in the age of globalisation, no country is an island in the great economic ocean, and our prospects have to be seen against the background of world economic forces. Here, too, the auguries are not favourable. The biggest economy in the world - the United States - is still marching relentlessly on, using the all-conquering dollar to buy what it wants from the rest of the world. But there is a growing fear that Uncle Sam has been living beyond his means for too long and the reckoning cannot be postponed for much longer. The problem is that America's global spending spree has been financed largely by borrowing. Under George W Bush, the national debt has grown enormously, with the USA owing foreign governments and banks around $8 trillion - that's eight followed by 12 zeros, making it rather a large amount of cash. The American consumer, characterised in the transatlantic psyche as Johnny Sixpack, has done his patriotic duty to keep the economy turning over nicely, but he has done it on tick. The national motto, 'In God we trust; all others pay cash', has been meaningless throughout the 21st century. The people who have lent that money are, mainly, Asian governments and financial institutions. For the time being, that is good news for America and the rest of the world. With Japan coming out of a long period of recession, and the Chinese economy growing at a vertiginous rate, they are not likely to want their money back any time soon. But one day, the chickens will come home to roost - maybe not in 2006, but the fear is always there. What has this got to do with us, as we contemplate the post-festive season reckoning? Well, our personal finances are increasingly a microcosm of the American and the global situation. We have kept the recessionary wolf away from the door for five years now, but we have largely borrowed to do it. The dynamics of Britain's consumer-driven economy are similar to Johnny Sixpack's. As we manufacture less at home but still want the glitter and glamour of consumerism, we have taken to debt as the natural way to finance our spending addiction. Total borrowing in Britain topped £1 trillion last year, just a bit under £5,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Now, five grand may not seem a big sum, and most of us would be able to handle that amount of indebtedness, but look at it a different way. Personal debt per household has soared over the past 20 years, from around 80 per cent of household income to the present level of 150 per cent. It has been rising throughout the 21st century as banks have been aggressively pushing their financial products, mainly credit cards and loans. We have been only too ready to take up their generous offers. Increasingly, some people have been unable to handle it. In the coming year, there will be something like 20,000 personal insolvencies, the highest number since records began in the 1960s. It used to be that insolvency followed on from the failure of a family business venture, but these days, it is increasingly high levels of personal indebtedness that triggers the plug-pulling. This government has rightly, I would say, taken much of the shame out of bankruptcy, on the grounds that risk-taking entrepreneurs would be deterred from starting up wealth-creating businesses if they were faced with the life-long shame of Carey Street. But the intention of that was certainly not to allow people to build up huge levels of personal debts, on which they could then renege in a relatively painless bankruptcy. There is much muttering among the big banks which provide all this credit that guidelines will have to be tightened to prevent this spiral getting out of control, but in many cases it is too late. Consumer organisations regularly see individuals with £100,000 of personal debt through loans and credit cards, with one case involving a couple who had built up £350,000 in plastic debt. The future is certainly not all doom and gloom, though. There is a great comfort factor at work in the form of bricks and mortar. The reason so many people feel sanguine about running up huge bills on their flexible friends is because so many of have substantial capital, acting as security, in the form of their homes. Property prices have enjoyed years of steady growth, and if they are now on some kind of plateau for the foreseeable future, as most experts agree, it is nowhere near the negative-equity days of the last serious recession in the early Nineties. So should we be worried? The problem is the sheer interdependency of the modern consumer economy. Growth is dependent as never before on our willingness to go to the shops and spend, which, in turn, is reliant on the feelgood factor of historically high property prices. High levels of disposable income - or credit - keep the economic wheels turning, but what happens when one of them falls off? This is the background against which to see the full import of November's solemn pre-budget review. Chancellor Gordon Brown was forced to admit that he had got the sums wrong on growth, and that the economy would have to make do with less than 2 per cent annual growth, rather than the 3 per cent plus that he had hitherto been expecting. It was a chilling admission, but we will only see how chilling in 2006. Lower growth will mean employment levels in the doldrums, falling consumer confidence and declining real wages. And, crucially, it will mean a lower tax take for the Treasury. The Chancellor has been able to avoid increases in headline income tax, but 2006 may be the year he has to bite that bullet, especially with his ambitious plans for public-sector spending. Higher taxes lead to lower disposable income, falling consumer confidence, and declining growth; the virtuous cycle of consumerism could easily turn into a vicious spiral of economic decline. There is one instrument the government has at its disposal that might head off this gloomy scenario - interest rates. Ever since Brown (in his first act as Chancellor) set free the Bank of England, it has been more worried about inflation than consumer confidence, largely because of rising energy prices. But this may change. A cut in rates would reduce debt worries and give the property market a boost. The Chancellor, and the British consumer, may both be relying on the Bank of England to generate a happy New Year. Justice Dept. official resisted spy program By Eric Lichtblau and James Risen The New York Times SUNDAY, JANUARY 1, 2006 WASHINGTON A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program. The concerns prompted two of President George W. Bush's most senior aides to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft. The senior officials were Andrew Card Jr., Bush's chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general. Ashcroft, suffering from pancreatitis, was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said. The unusual meeting was prompted because Ashcroft's top deputy, James Comey, who was acting as attorney general in his absence, had indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects of the program, as required under the White House procedures set up to oversee it. With Comey unwilling to sign off on the program, the White House went to Ashcroft because "they needed him for certification," according to an official briefed on the episode. The official, like others who discussed the issue, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the program. Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting. But some officials said that Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Card and Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials. It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it. The White House and Ashcroft, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment Saturday on the hospital meeting. Comey declined to comment, and Gonzales could not be reached. The domestic eavesdropping program was publicly disclosed in mid-December by The New York Times. Bush, in acknowledging the existence of the program, said that tight controls had been imposed over the surveillance operation and that the program was reviewed every 45 days by top government officials, including at the Justice Department. "The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president," Bush said. WASHINGTON A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program. The concerns prompted two of President George W. Bush's most senior aides to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft. The senior officials were Andrew Card Jr., Bush's chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general. Ashcroft, suffering from pancreatitis, was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said. The unusual meeting was prompted because Ashcroft's top deputy, James Comey, who was acting as attorney general in his absence, had indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects of the program, as required under the White House procedures set up to oversee it. With Comey unwilling to sign off on the program, the White House went to Ashcroft because "they needed him for certification," according to an official briefed on the episode. The official, like others who discussed the issue, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the program. Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting. But some officials said that Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Card and Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials. It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it. The White House and Ashcroft, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment Saturday on the hospital meeting. Comey declined to comment, and Gonzales could not be reached. The domestic eavesdropping program was publicly disclosed in mid-December by The New York Times. Bush, in acknowledging the existence of the program, said that tight controls had been imposed over the surveillance operation and that the program was reviewed every 45 days by top government officials, including at the Justice Department. "The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president," Bush said. WASHINGTON A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program. The concerns prompted two of President George W. Bush's most senior aides to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft. The senior officials were Andrew Card Jr., Bush's chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general. Ashcroft, suffering from pancreatitis, was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said. The unusual meeting was prompted because Ashcroft's top deputy, James Comey, who was acting as attorney general in his absence, had indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects of the program, as required under the White House procedures set up to oversee it. With Comey unwilling to sign off on the program, the White House went to Ashcroft because "they needed him for certification," according to an official briefed on the episode. The official, like others who discussed the issue, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the program. Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting. But some officials said that Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Card and Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials. It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it. The White House and Ashcroft, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment Saturday on the hospital meeting. Comey declined to comment, and Gonzales could not be reached. The domestic eavesdropping program was publicly disclosed in mid-December by The New York Times. Bush, in acknowledging the existence of the program, said that tight controls had been imposed over the surveillance operation and that the program was reviewed every 45 days by top government officials, including at the Justice Department. "The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president," Bush said. WASHINGTON A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program. The concerns prompted two of President George W. Bush's most senior aides to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft. The senior officials were Andrew Card Jr., Bush's chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general. Ashcroft, suffering from pancreatitis, was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said. The unusual meeting was prompted because Ashcroft's top deputy, James Comey, who was acting as attorney general in his absence, had indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects of the program, as required under the White House procedures set up to oversee it. With Comey unwilling to sign off on the program, the White House went to Ashcroft because "they needed him for certification," according to an official briefed on the episode. The official, like others who discussed the issue, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the program. Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting. But some officials said that Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Card and Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials. It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it. The White House and Ashcroft, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment Saturday on the hospital meeting. Comey declined to comment, and Gonzales could not be reached. The domestic eavesdropping program was publicly disclosed in mid-December by The New York Times. Bush, in acknowledging the existence of the program, said that tight controls had been imposed over the surveillance operation and that the program was reviewed every 45 days by top government officials, including at the Justice Department. "The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president," Bush said. WASHINGTON A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program. The concerns prompted two of President George W. Bush's most senior aides to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft. The senior officials were Andrew Card Jr., Bush's chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general. Ashcroft, suffering from pancreatitis, was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said. The unusual meeting was prompted because Ashcroft's top deputy, James Comey, who was acting as attorney general in his absence, had indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects of the program, as required under the White House procedures set up to oversee it. With Comey unwilling to sign off on the program, the White House went to Ashcroft because "they needed him for certification," according to an official briefed on the episode. The official, like others who discussed the issue, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the program. Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting. But some officials said that Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Card and Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials. It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it. The White House and Ashcroft, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment Saturday on the hospital meeting. Comey declined to comment, and Gonzales could not be reached. The domestic eavesdropping program was publicly disclosed in mid-December by The New York Times. Bush, in acknowledging the existence of the program, said that tight controls had been imposed over the surveillance operation and that the program was reviewed every 45 days by top government officials, including at the Justice Department. "The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president," Bush said. 9/11 -- The Gift That Keeps on Giving The Bulldog Manifesto (I feel a rant coming on......) So what if the Bush administration wants to conduct illegal wiretaps, they are fighting the terrorists! So what if the Bush administration wants to attack a country that has never attacked us and was not a threat to us, they are fighting the terrorists! So what if the Bush administration wants to take away all my liberties, they are fighting the terrorists! So what if the Bush administration outs a CIA operative in order to smear a political opponent, they are fighting the terrorists! So what if the Bush administration has encumbered more foreign debt in the past five years then all of the preceding administrations did combined, they are fighting the terrorists! So what if the Bush administration paid American journalists to write deceptive and administration-friendly news stories, they are fighting the terrorists! So what if the Bush administration hasn't enacted an exit plan in Iraq, they are fighting the terrorists! So what if the Bush administration has destroyed the United States' reputation overseas, they are fighting the terrorists! Wanna break the law? Invoke 9/11! Wanna start a war? Invoke 9/11! Wanna piss on the Constitution? Invoke 9/11! Wanna make sure your family business profits off the war? Invoke 9/11! Wanna f&%k with people you just don't like? Invoke 9/11! Wanna make your political adversary look like a treasonous bastard? Invoke 9/11! I'm so sick and tired of 9/11. The Bush regime uses 9/11 like a heroin addict uses a spoon. It's the ultimate political weapon. Meanwhile, ignorant bastards keep driving around town in their cars with their "9/11- Never Forget" bumper stickers. That's akin to a southern slave in the 1800's wearing a shirt that says "I Need to Be Whipped Some Mo' Masseh" For f&%k's sake, who has gained the most from 9/11? Who? Isn't it obvious? Terrorists? Who the f&%k are these terrorists? The only terrorists I see are the ones sitting in Washington D.C. fucking over my country. Who is fighing against those bastards, that's what I wanna know. The only terrorists I see are the ones handing out tax breaks to the rich while the poor fight over the scraps. Why isn't the Army fighing those dangerous thugs? The only terrorists I see are the CEOs making $27 million dollars while the grunts make $17,000 (Walmart). Shouldn't we call in the Navy SEALS? My government is one big organized crime family. That's the way I see it. Like any strong crime family, you gotta have muscle. And we certainly have the muscle. We make up 5% of the world's population, and yet we are responsible for 50% of all money spent on defense worldwide. "Luca Brasi swims with the fishes!" Speaking of which, when can we begin calling "military defense" by it's rightful name? It should be called "military offense." For pete's sake, we've been on the offense for about 60 f&%king years now. I think the days of "defense" are long gone, aren't they? Yes indeed, 9/11 is the ultimate lotto prize for the neocon pigs. Full Spectrum Dominance? Try Full Spectrum Fascism. Oh they danced and danced, drank lots of wine, and listened to lots of Wagner and Beethoven. Meanwhile their "brave leader" was out there fighing against the scourge of communism, the scourge of the Jews, and the scourge of everything else that wasn't Nazi. Yup, the Germans in the early 1940's were asleep too. Their leader had saved them from the communists who, after all, were accused of burning down the Reichstag building. (Oh wait, Hitler actually set the building on fire himself. Sounds so familiar?) Ah yes, because Germany was "under attack", they let Hitler enact the Enabling Act, thereby giving him dictatorial authority over Germany. Dictatorial power. Where have I heard that before? Yup, it all goes back to that eleventh day in September, 2001. The day when our country did a swan dive off the top of the World Trade Center, straight f&%king down! 9/11-- the gift that keeps giving. Bush rings in 2006 with less ambitious political agenda 1 Jan 2006 AFP US President George W. Bush is ringing in the New Year with a less ambitious political agenda planned for 2006 ahead of key congressional elections in which his Republican Party hopes to retain its grip over Congress. Sobered by a bruising 2005 that included ongoing unrest in Iraq, the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, a probe into whether his White House outed a CIA agent and sliding poll ratings, Bush is expected to play it safe in the year ahead, according to political analyst Larry J. Sabato. "Although he does not like backing down, Bush has realised that he was too ambitious," said Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia. The US president enjoyed some relative successes -- the December election in Iraq appears to be one of them -- but Sabato says they were few and far between, and that Bush will need to temper his plans for sweeping reform. A White House spokesman said: "The president uses this time, as many Americans do, to look back and to look forward." The spokesman said that 2005 "has been a year of strong progress toward a freer, more peaceful world and a more prosperous America." The US president might try to forget the more trying aspects of 2005 as he clears brush and bikes around his beloved Texas ranch here, but the political headaches will be waiting for him when he returns to Washington on Sunday. "The White House is planning a very busy January," according to Sabato. "They have to sustain the momentum gained with the December 15 elections (in Iraq). Bush can not afford to continue to decline" in the polls, Sabato said. The apparent success of the Iraqi polls looks to have given Bush a slight rebound in his domestic poll ratings. Despite this, many Iraqis want US troops to leave their country and the Bush administration is hoping the war-torn country will appoint a new government soon. But Iraq is not the only cloud hanging over Bush's New Year agenda. Republican lawmakers are expecting a tough fight ahead if they are to maintain their control of both houses of Congress after mid-term elections in November. A fierce congressional debate over the president's "war on terror" is also underway, and has been ignited in recent weeks by the leaked revelation that Bush authorized a secret eavesdropping and wiretapping program in 2002. The president has expended political capital vying to get the controversial Patriot Act reapproved by Congress, but the administration and its allies in Congress have had to weather opposition claims that they were eroding civil liberties. Citing concerns over civil liberties, lawmakers in Congress earlier this month refused to grant Bush's request for a permanent renewal and instead voted for a one-month extension. Opposition Democrats, envigorated by Bush's woes, are hoping to steal some Republican seats in Congress in the November polls. And in the coming weeks, Bush will have to defend his choice of nominating judge Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court, as well as enduring likely battles over the budget. Bush will likely retain control over the Republican agenda, but "chastened by the experience and eager to play it safe in an election year, Republicans now are preparing for a new year of thinking small," according to The Los Angeles Times. Bush's grand ambitions at the start of 2005, sparked by his 2004 election victory, will be diminished, according to Sabato. "His two main goals for 2006 will be to assure the success of the Iraq war and make sure the Democrats do not take over the Congress," Sabato said, noting that an outright Democratic victory "is not likely, but possible." A third goal will be overseeing government efforts to repair the vast devastation and billions of dollars of damage caused to New Orleans and the US Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina, he added. If Bush does not achieve his goals, his presidency could become "a misery," Sabato predicted. "The rest of his second term has, traditionally, to be dedicated for consolidation," he said. The president is likely to map out his 2006 political agenda and ambitions in the State of the Union address at the end of January. "No one in the White House expects the speech to include anything of the magnitude of Social Security" which Bush had hoped to reform, but now appears to have dropped as a political goal, according to The Washington Post. In his last radio address, Bush underlined his priorities as establishing a free and independent Iraq, and maintaining US economic growth while trimming the country's budget deficits. Bush and Blair Plot Their Exit Strategy, as the Nation Falls Apart at the Seams By PATRICK COCKBURN 31 Dec 2005 This was the year in which the US admitted it was not going to defeat the insurgency. It was the ebb tide of American and British power in Iraq. By the end of the year both countries were urgently looking to withdraw their troops in circumstances not too humiliating to themselves and without precipitating the complete collapse of the Iraqi state. The failure of the US and Britain to win the war does not mean that the two-and-a-half year uprising among the Sunni Arabs has achieved all its aims. The beneficiaries from President George W Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 are not the Sunni but the Iraqi Shia and the Kurds. Outside Iraq, the country which has gained most from the fall of Saddam Hussein is Iran. The year began and ended with elections. The first, on January 30, was critical in demonstrating the electoral power of the Shia community. The United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of Shia parties, triumphed. This was hardly surprising since the Shia make up 60 per cent of the Iraqi population. But it was a political earthquake in Iraq after so many centuries of Sunni dominance. The verdict of the January poll was confirmed by the election on December 15 for the National Assembly, which will sit for four years. The political landscape of post-Saddam Iraq is becoming clearer but the country still looks as if it will be a very violent place. A striking feature of present-day Iraq is that there are multiple centers of power, which as they conflict create numerous friction points. Authority is fragmented. The US has power, but so do the three main communities: the Sunni and Shia Arabs and the Kurds. This much is very evident on the ground in Baghdad. In a Sunni district of west Baghdad, the local police pack up and go home at 8pm. "I am leaving now and the resistance will take over," explained one policeman as he got into his car. "If I stayed around here I would be killed." In Ramadi, the capital of rebellious Anbar province, west of Baghdad, insurgents took over the city centre for four hours in December, despite the presence of powerful US and Iraqi military units. Precisely where real power lies in Iraq is not always obvious. In Basra the British forces are supposedly helping to build up the local police, but a confrontation in October sparked when two British soldiers, working undercover and in disguise, were arrested by the Iraqi police and then rescued by the Army, demonstrated the real state of affairs. Film of a British soldier, his clothes burning as he jumped from a blazing armored vehicle, was shown around the world. It is the Shia political parties and their militias in and out of the police who are the real masters of Basra and southern Iraq. The growing power of the militias is evident everywhere; so too is the influence of Iran. At some point, a new balance of power between the main communities, the militias, political parties, the foreign powers, the insurgent groups and the secret intelligence services will emerge in Iraq. It has not happened yet. The new rules of the game are not yet agreed. To give one example: the government has declared that the weekend will now fall on Friday and Saturday. But in western Iraq insurgents say it falls on Friday alone, and anything else is un-Islamic. They have threatened to kill headmasters who do not open their schools on Saturdays. There are also more serious disagreements. In northern Iraq, territory is disputed between Arabs and Kurds. The Kurds captured the oil city of Kirkuk, the so-called jewel of Kurdistan, in the war of 2003. They will not give it up. The future of the city and of the Turkoman and Arab communities living there is still disputed. But not all divisions in Iraq are getting wider. Sunni and Shia leaders now appreciate, in a way that they did not two years ago, that the Kurds, 20 per cent of the Iraqi population, already have quasi-independence. Most Kurds in the street would prefer outright autonomy. The main reasons their leaders want to stay inside Iraq for now is fear of neighbours like the Turks, the need to keep in with the US - and access to oil revenues. The US is learning to play communal politics. The US ambassador Zilmay Khalilzad, appointed this summer, is far more adept at this than the preceding envoys. The US has learned in the last two-and-a-half years that it may have been easy to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but it is dangerous to buck the Kurds, the Shia or the Sunni. During the rancorous negotiations on the new Iraqi constitution, President Bush even called Abul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Shia religious party, asking for concessions. In 2003 the US viewed SCIRI, not entirely wrongly, as a dangerous stalking horse for Iran, and US soldiers raided its Baghdad offices. But the US has begun to learn too late. Iraqis know that whatever Bush and Blair say, the political will to stay in Iraq is weakening in the US and Britain. The British role in Iraq is in any case small, however great it may loom in domestic politics. The 8,500-strong force was never going to be enough to confront the Shia militias in southern Iraq. The US was able to stick to its timetable for elections on January 30 and December 15, as well as the constitutional referendum on October 15. But this was primarily because it met the wishes of the Shia and Kurdish leaders. Even these "successes" had their price. The constitution was passed in the teeth of Sunni resistance, though the US tried to mitigate this with some last-minute cosmetic concessions. Under these the constitution can be amended by the newly elected National Assembly, although the Sunni parties are unlikely to have the votes to do so. The constitution institutionalizes the fragmentation of Iraq. The Kurds will have autonomy close to independence. They can drill for oil and will own what new reserves are discovered. But the surprise of the year is that the Shia leaders asked for and got the same concessions. There will be a Shia super region established, covering nine provinces in southern Iraq. This represents half of the 18 provinces in the whole country. One Iraqi minister lamented that the central government of Iraq might end up as a few buildings in the Green Zone. After the war in 2003, Arab Iraqis, both Sunni and Shia, would deride comparisons between Iraq and countries divided by sectarianism such as Northern Ireland and Lebanon. They pointed out that Sunni and Shia in Iraq were often married to each other. They did not have a history of massacring each other. These claims for Iraqi Arab solidarity were always a little exaggerated. Sunni friends claim to love the Shia, aside, of course, "from those that are really Iranians or their agents". The Shia, for their part, said they saw all Iraqi Sunni as their brothers "aside from those that are really Baathists". Claims of communal amity are made less often today. The divisions between them are deepening because Iraq was a Sunni state and is becoming a Shia one. The Sunni are fighting the US occupiers and the Shia are, for the moment at least, loosely allied to the US. Iraq's al-Qa'ida suicide bombers have repeatedly targeted Shia civilians such as day laborers waiting for jobs in the Khadamiyah district of Baghdad. Would-be army and police, almost always Shia, have been slaughtered again and again. So far the Shia response has been restrained. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the supreme religious leader who is vastly influential over the Shia, has forbidden retaliation. But the powerful Ministry of the Interior, once controlled by the Sunni, is now in the hands of the Shia. The minister, Bayan Jabr, was previously a leader of SCIRI's militia, the Badr Brigade. They dominate the fearsome paramilitary police commandos whom the Sunni see as nothing more than licensed death squads. At the end of the year, US troops raided an Interior Ministry bunker in the Jadriyah district of west Baghdad, where they found 158 tortured and starved prisoners, all allegedly Sunni. Bodies of men shot in the head and their hands in handcuffs are routinely found on dumps and beside the road in Baghdad. Many ministries have become the domain of a single sect or party. The health ministry under the interim government became famous for being run by the Dawa Shia Muslim group, while the transport ministry portfolio is held by a follower of the nationalist cleric, Muqtada al- Sadr. This has a disastrous impact because the government begins to resemble that of Lebanon. Ministers are representatives of their communities. They cannot be fired, however crooked or incompetent. The impact of the insurgency is exaggerated because the state in Iraq remains so weak. This remained strikingly true during 2005, when the government did extraordinarily little for its people. The electricity supply remains poor in Baghdad; kidnapping is rife; security is limited and Iraqis spend much of their time surviving from day to day. The police are not seen as protectors. Earlier this month, a student called Muammur Mohsin al-Obeidi said: "The Iraqi people know nobody is going to save them from criminals. They believe nobody will punish them. If gangsters are arrested they have enough money to bribe their way out of prison. There is no real government." It is a lament heard again and again from people in the streets of Baghdad. They believe government scarcely exists - and certainly not for their benefit. There have been three administrations of Iraq since the US invasion, and all have failed. There was the Coalition Provisional Authority, fairly undiluted US imperial rule, under Paul Bremer, which helped provoke the Sunni rebellion. On 28 June 2004, the US formally turned power over to the interim government of Iyad Allawi, whose administration was notoriously corrupt. On April 7, 2005, Ibrahim al-Jaafari became Prime Minister but his government has proved fractious. These divisions largely mirrored those between the contending groups in Iraq. In all three administrations, corruption was on a scale attributed to states like Nigeria in the past. In 2005 the entire defense procurement budget of $1.3bn disappeared in return for a few unusable helicopters and armored vehicles. This degree of corruption is now more difficult because ministers cannot spend money without authorization. There is a further reason why the Iraqi state is weak, which is not at first obvious. The US and Britain foresaw an Iraqi state whose armed forces were equipped only to cope with internal dissent. They have been determined not to hand over heavy weapons or modern equipment. The US has not been as generous in transferring power to Iraqis as might appear from formal announcements. The main intelligence service has no budget, but is paid for and run by the CIA. The US has tried to keep control of the Defense Ministry and the new Iraqi army, which is supposedly being built up to take the place of US forces when they are withdrawn. The US military speaks of the triumphs and failures of training and equipping Iraqi troops (they have given less attention to the police). But there is another problem that the US has not really tackled. The question is not just about the ability of the new army to fight, but about loyalty. Who, at the end of the day, will the soldiers fight for? Polls by Britain's Ministry of Defence show that the occupation is overwhelmingly unpopular among Shia as well as Sunni Iraqis. In the long run, the US cannot create an officer corps loyal to America. Then there is also the question of how far the army is a national institution. Its 115 battalions are reportedly 60 Shia, 45 Sunni, 9 Kurdish and one mixed. Over the next year we will see if Iraq is going to remain a single state or turn into a confederation. There are forces for unity as well as disintegration. Most Iraqi Arabs want to live in one country. But political observers fear that a Bosnian solution is on the cards, in which Baghdad will play the role of Sarajevo. Terrorists in High Places By Charles Sullivan 31 Dec 2005 ICH "[T]here are terrorists lurking in high places. They are in the Whitehouse. They are the enablers in Congress who serve the corporate interest, rather than justice. They are hidden behind the beckoning smiles of news anchor men and anchor women. They operate in the dark smoky recesses of corporate board rooms, out of public view. Their tentacles reach into every aspect of our lives. They lie concealed in the stinking breath of the Rush Limbaughs of this world in their awful ability to persuade. They are not on our side. "We must resist them at all cost. We must inform ourselves. Speak truth to power. Let them know that we see through their masks. Do not accept this." Wars are not waged by those who have to fight them. Those who fight wars know too well their terrible costs. Wars are waged by those who profit from them with minimal or no risk to themselves. War is big business and it is immensely profitable for a select few who are insulated from the effects of war’s environmental impacts and social costs. War never serves the interest of working class people. They are the result of menacing forces of greed and power masquerading as benevolent government, insulating us from contrived acts of terror. They are in fact anything but munificent. Never is the trait of deceit more treacherous than when it leads to the loss of precious innocent life. It was obvious from the outset that George Bush lied about the pretext for war with Iraq. His man servant, Colin Powell, sold the idea to the world in his infamous speech before the United Nations. It was widely known that Saddam Hussein had little war making capabilities; and he certainly did not pose a credible threat to the United States, Israel, or any Middle Eastern Country. U.N. weapons inspectors such as Scott Ritter made this fact known long before the invasion began. Saddam Hussein was the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Boogey Man necessary to sell the American people on Bush’s illegitimate invasion and occupation of Iraq. Likewise, Osama Bin Laden was on the C.I.A. payroll. And like Saddam Hussein, he was another Boogey Man created to sell the American people on the invasion of Afghanistan. Based upon the evidence, it is unlikely that Bin Laden or any other Muslim had anything to do with the events of September 11. That, too, was in all probability another cruel hoax perpetrated on the American people by those who stood to make billions of dollars by plundering Afghanistan and Iraq. It also explains why so little effort has been spent finding Bin Laden, the supposed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The events of 9/11 were, I contend, an inside job. The findings of the 9/11 truth commission defy the laws of physics and ignore the most relevant physical evidence. They are a work of phantasmagoric fiction that requires us to believe the fantastic—that tall buildings can fall at free fall speed within their own footprint, for example. Or that small fires can melt steel pillars and cause massive sky scrapers to collapse. But that is another story. What is beyond dispute, however, is that the events of 9/11 set off a chain reaction of cause and effect in the Middle East. Soon after the U.S. bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, Unocal (recently merged with Chevron) had established a major oil pipeline through Afghanistan—a territory ruled by war lords hostile to U.S. imperialism. Soon the money from the plunder of Afghanistan was filling the corporate coffers with black gold. What is the loss of a few thousand innocent civilians when there is money to be made? Let them live in the Stone Age we have created for them. I fully understand what a profound and potentially shocking statement that is to those who have been deceived by the ‘official’ history of the United States. It would require that members of the Bush regime were knowingly complicit in the murder of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens. It might even require that they actually orchestrated those events as a pretext to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, even though neither country had anything to do with 9/11. As testimony to the commercial media’s proficiency at deception, forty-two percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Never mind that there isn’t a shred of evidence to substantiate that claim. It is a matter of faith. When Bush and his minions repeat those stale lies over and over and the media repeatedly broadcasts them, the ill informed can be made to believe anything. The bigger the lie, the more readily it is believed. The official version of the events of 9/11 could not take root in the public conscience without the complicity of the corporate media. Make no mistake: the commercial media is a vital and potent component of the Pentagon’s superb propaganda machine. In reality, the neocon agenda of global domination is the blueprint for the events of 9/11, as revealed in the ‘Project for the New American Century’ and ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’. Both of these revealing documents are online for public perusal. Reading them is imperative to understanding not only America’s veiled history, but also current events. They offer considerable insight into future military interventions. It is no irony that these documents, which call for regime change in Iraq and a host of other countries was authored by the very same people who are serving in the current Bush regime. They are the same people who stand to benefit financially and politically from the plunder and occupation of Iraq, as well as the rest of the world. Subsequent to the events of 9/11, the neocon brain trust declared that a catalyzing event was needed to galvanize the American people to back a plan of U.S. global domination—a New Pearl Harbor. On the morning of September 12, 2001, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, called for an immediate attack on Iraq, and Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney repeatedly referred to the events of 9/11 as “an opportunity.” George Bush declared that he “hit the trifecta.” The Bush people could hardly contain their glee. These statements of fact reveal much about the kind of people who are running the country. It should also make clear that in America there is no separation of commercial media and state—the two are as inseparable as newlyweds on a honeymoon. As unthinkable as it be to some, the wanton murder of American citizens by the government is not without precedent. America’s dark history is brimming with examples. Two well documented cases illustrate my point. In 2000 Robert Stinnett published a book entitled ‘Day of Deceit: the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor.’ In his book Stinnett paints an ugly picture that lead up to the American entrance into World War Two. Citing extensively from thousands of previously classified documents, Stinnett demonstrates that Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew about the invasion of Pearl Harbor a year before it happened. The newly declassified Pentagon documents reveal that U.S. naval ships and air craft were ordered to stand by and allow the attack to happen. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked by a popular American president who allowed American military personnel to be slaughtered by foreign invaders. Roosevelt’s tactic was wildly successful. The day before the attack only sixteen percent of Americans polled favored entry into the war. The following day, more than a million men signed up for the military. In effect, as commander-in chief, Roosevelt presided over a treasonous act of murder against his own military. But, like so many other events in American history, none of this is revealed in the ‘official’ version of written history. These events bear an uncanny similarity to the events of 9/11. More recently, in the prelude to the U.S. entrance into the Viet Nam war, a phantom attack on two U.S. destroyers cruising the Gulf of Tonkin was staged by the Pentagon and the C.I.A. The bogus attack occurred early in August, 1964. That evening President Lyndon Johnson went on television giving the grim details of the non-attack. Later, however, it was revealed that navy commander James Stockdale flew cover over the Gulf of Tonkin that night. Stockdale disclosed that U.S. ships were firing at phantom targets—targets that didn’t exist. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident that drew the U.S. into the quagmire of Viet Nam simply didn’t happen. Johnson, as presidents so often do, lied to the American people. The result was the rapid passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was the sole legal basis for the Viet Nam War. As a result of Johnson’s lie, three million Vietnamese people and fifty eight thousand U.S. soldiers died. The neocons, with their corporate handlers and their equally complicit counterparts, the neoliberals, are in fact a shadow government that runs America. They have names like Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, Kristol, Dulles, Kennedy and Rockefeller; Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, General Electric, Unocal, Shell Oil and Boeing. Democracy, freedom, liberty, organized labor, peace, and social justice are their avowed enemies. Their crooked, talonous fingers dig deep into the profits of war, while simultaneously clutching the broken spines of the moldering corpses they produce. They are the grim reapers of unrepentant capitalism run amok. George Bush got his anxiously awaited war on Iraq. Halliburton, Bechtel, and other corporations are raking in billions. It is easy money for the war profiteers who risk nothing and gain everything. It is our tax money that is subsidizing their obscene profits. Layers of our civil liberties were quietly repealed. It is our sons and daughters who die for the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Halliburton and Bechtel. They are America’s shadow government—the unseen hands pulling the strings of atrocity. Someone has to tell our children what they are dying for. This is George Bush’s noble cause. Unless we stop them, their grim work is not done. It will never be done until there is nothing left to defile. There will be countless millions more corpses, broken lives and torn families to follow. Even more ghastly attacks on unwitting American citizens will be fabricated; and fools will play along with them. The flags will come out and Nationalism will spread like a lethal virus across the land. Dissenters will be denounced and imprisoned. These acts of contrived terrorism will be the pretext for the invasion and occupation of other sovereign nations. They will be the pretext for feeding the war machine the blood and the bones of our babies. You see, there are terrorists lurking in high places. They are in the Whitehouse. They are the enablers in Congress who serve the corporate interest, rather than justice. They are hidden behind the beckoning smiles of news anchor men and anchor women. They operate in the dark smoky recesses of corporate board rooms, out of public view. Their tentacles reach into every aspect of our lives. They lie concealed in the stinking breath of the Rush Limbaughs of this world in their awful ability to persuade. They are not on our side. We must resist them at all cost. We must inform ourselves. Speak truth to power. Let them know that we see through their masks. Do not accept this. Organize. Organize. Organize. Charles Sullivan is a furniture maker, photographer, and free lance writer residing in the eastern panhandle of West Virgina. He welcomes your comments at earthdog@highstream.net Some soldiers trying to get out of Army By MARTHA MENDOZA AP NATIONAL WRITER Seattle PI Increasing numbers of men and women in uniform are seeking honorable discharges as conscientious objectors. Others are suing the military, claiming their obligation has been wrongfully extended. Many have simply deserted, refusing to appear for duty. "As this war continues, we're going to see more refusals, disobeying of orders, stop-loss lawsuits," said Marti Hiken, who co-chairs the National Lawyers Guild Military Law Task Force. "There's going to be more and more resistance." Kevin Benderman spends his days sitting in a plastic chair in the stockade at Fort Lewis, Wash., completing a 15-month sentence for "missing movement" with his unit. Jeremy Hinzman is raising his baby boy in Toronto, awaiting a court date when he hopes the Canadian government will grant him political asylum. Aidan Delgado is back in school, studying religion at the New College of Florida and practicing Buddhism. All three are among a small but growing number of soldiers who have become disillusioned with the war in Iraq and are trying to get out of their required service. Increasing numbers of men and women in uniform are seeking honorable discharges as conscientious objectors. Others are suing the military, claiming their obligation has been wrongfully extended. Many have simply deserted, refusing to appear for duty. Some are more desperate: Last December, Army Spc. Marquise J. Roberts of Hinesville, Ga., persuaded a cousin to shoot him in the leg. The cousin was sent to jail, Roberts to the stockade. "You sign a contract and you're required to serve for whatever time period you've agreed to," said a Pentagon spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke. "There are certain standards the enlistment contracts oblige soldiers to, and they are required to fulfill them." But Pentagon policies do have exceptions, and soldiers are increasingly challenging their mandatory service. Requests for conscientious objector status, which can qualify someone for an honorable discharge, have steadily increased since 2000 - about 110 soldiers filed the complex paperwork in 2004, about four times the number in 2000. Of those, about half were approved. Those who were rejected either went back to the war or refused to serve. Some are now on the lam. Others have been court-martialed and done time. Former Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, 30, of Miami Beach, Fla., says he had change of heart while on a two-week leave last year after spending a year in Iraq. "Going home gave me the opportunity to put my thoughts in order and to listen to what my conscience had to say. People would ask me about my war experiences and answering them took me back to all the horrors, the firefights, the ambushes, the time I saw a young Iraqi dragged by his shoulders through a pool of his own blood or an innocent man was decapitated by our machine gun fire," he said. When it was time to ship out, Mejia went into hiding. For the next five months he didn't use his cell phone or his computer. He stayed away from his family and friends. Eventually, with the help of anti-war advocates, he found a lawyer and turned himself in. But his request to be a conscientious objector - which he filed after he went on the lam - was denied. Mejia spent nine months in military prison and was dishonorably discharged in February. Mejia was among the first from Iraq to request to be a conscientious objector, and he now speaks at antiwar rallies and conferences, counseling other would-be resisters. "As this war continues, we're going to see more refusals, disobeying of orders, stop-loss lawsuits," said Marti Hiken, who co-chairs the National Lawyers Guild Military Law Task Force. "There's going to be more and more resistance." Conscientious objection, as defined by the military, is a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to war in any form or the bearing of arms" because of deeply-held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs. A soldier cannot be a conscientious objector just because of opposition to a particular war. To apply as a conscientious objector is a labyrinthine process that includes a written application and interviews with a psychiatrist, a military chaplain, and an investigating officer. "Being a conscientious objector is not an easy way to get out of the military and not a fast way to get out of the military," said JE McNeil, executive director of The Center on Conscience & War, a 65-year-old Washington D.C.-based nonprofit organization that supports the rights of conscientious objectors. The organization runs the GI Rights Hotline, and McNeil said it received more than 36,000 calls this year from soldiers interested in how to get out of their required service. That's up from fewer than 1,000 a year before the war in Iraq, she said. McNeil said her counselors usually get calls from soldiers who are already considered AWOL (absent without leave) or even deserters. She said they often counsel soldiers away from trying to be conscientious objectors, pointing them instead toward other types of discharge requests: hardship, parenthood, health problems, drug or alcohol use. These are usually more appropriate reasons, she said. Military studies show the main reason deserters cite for leaving the service are "dissatisfaction with Army life, family problems and homesickness." Simple desertion has been decreasing in the military in recent years - about 2,500 troops last year simply didn't show up for work, down from almost 5,000 in 2001, according to the Pentagon public affairs office. Some of these men and women are in hiding in Canada, where about 20 have applied for refugee status. Army paratrooper Jeremy Hinzman, who fled from Fort Bragg, N.C., in January 2004, weeks before his 82nd Airborne Division was due to go to Iraq, is awaiting a February hearing in Toronto. "Perhaps I made a mistake by enlisting in the Army, but the U.S. is putting the lives of its soldiers in jeopardy in order to the line the pockets of big money," he said. Hinzman said he vowed to his wife that he wouldn't go to Iraq, and then had to decide whether he would face a court martial or flee. He said he didn't want to miss out on his son's formative years, so he chose Canada. Hinzman's attorney said as many as 200 American war resisters are hiding in Canada, waiting to see how Hinzman's case plays out before coming forward. Hinzman said he and his wife plan to use every legal channel they can to stay where they are. "We simply want to be granted some sort of status here and then sink into an a life of obscurity where we can be decent, hard-working, tax-paying citizens," he said. About a dozen reservists have filed "stop loss" lawsuits, arguing that it is illegal to make them stay in the military once their required term of service is complete. The Bush Administration has argued with success so far that under federal law the Pentagon can involuntarily extend the deployment of any reserve officer who's on active duty, if the president believes it's essential to national security. Several of these objectors, like Army Spc. David W. Qualls, signed up for a so-called "Try One" program with Army National Guard which the Army says "allows a veteran to serve for only one year on a trial basis before committing to a full enlistment." Just a few months into his service last year, the Army told Qualls he was recalled to active duty and his "expiration of term of service" had been extended for an undetermined number of years. "What this boils down to in my opinion is a question of fairness," said Qualls. He filed a lawsuit, and even though he later accepted a $15,000 bonus and re-enlisted for six years, the suit has not been dropped, said his attorney, Staughton Lynd of Niles, Ohio. "He felt that his family was on the verge of bankruptcy and he had no economic alternative but to re-enlist," Lynd said. Many resisters complain that they were misled by recruiters. Others say their beliefs have changed. "When I enlisted I believed that killing was immoral, but also that war was an inevitable part of life and therefore, an exception to the rule," said Texas Army National Guard Spc. Katherine Jashinski, 22, who in November asked a federal judge to order her release from service. After joining the military, Jashinski said she "started to reevaluate everything that I had been taught about war as a child. I developed the belief that taking human life was wrong and war was no exception. I was then able to clarify who I am and what it is that I stand for." Jashinski, a cook, learned in October that her 2004 conscientious objector discharge application was denied. Now awaiting a hearing, she says she will not deploy with her unit. Although there have always been soldiers who refuse to fight on moral grounds, the U.S. government made conscientious objector status official in 1962. Four years later, during the Vietnam War, requests began to pour in. Desertion rates also hit historical highs, and thousands of soldiers who refused to deploy were court-martialed. In 1971, requests peaked when 4,381 members of the military applied to be conscientious objectors. Twenty years later, during the Gulf War, conscientious objector applications rose to 441 in 1991. At that time, about 500,000 soldiers were deployed in the Persian Gulf. Aidan Delgado decided he was a conscientious objector last year, after spending a year in Iraq where he was stationed at Abu Ghraib prison. His application was approved and he was honorably discharged last January. "When I met Iraqi prisoners firsthand, I saw the people who were supposed to be our enemies but I didn't hate them. They were young, poor guys without an education, like us. They were supposed to fight us and we were supposed to fight them. It didn't make sense," said Delgado, who speaks Arabic and lived for a while as a child in Egypt. "I told my commander that I wouldn't kill anyone. I turned in my rifle." Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence By BYRON CALAME January 1, 2006 The Public Editor NY Times THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency. For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making. My queries concerned the timing of the exclusive Dec. 16 article about President Bush's secret decision in the months after 9/11 to authorize the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans in the United States. I e-mailed a list of 28 questions to Bill Keller, the executive editor, on Dec. 19, three days after the article appeared. He promptly declined to respond to them. I then sent the same questions to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, who also declined to respond. They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future. Despite this stonewalling, my objectives today are to assess the flawed handling of the original explanation of the article's path into print, and to offer a few thoughts on some factors that could have affected the timing of the article. My intention is to do so with special care, because my 40-plus years of newspapering leave me keenly aware that some of the toughest calls an editor can face are involved here - those related to intelligence gathering, election-time investigative articles and protection of sources. On these matters, reasonable disagreements can abound inside the newsroom. (A word about my reporting for this column: With the top Times people involved in the final decisions refusing to talk and urging everyone else to remain silent, it seemed clear to me that chasing various editors and reporters probably would yield mostly anonymous comments that the ultimate decision-makers would not confirm or deny. So I decided not to pursue those who were not involved in the final decision to publish the article - or to refer to Times insiders quoted anonymously in others' reporting.) At the outset, it's essential to acknowledge the far-reaching importance of the eavesdropping article's content to Times readers and to the rest of the nation. Whatever its path to publication, Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller deserve credit for its eventual appearance in the face of strong White House pressure to kill it. And the basic accuracy of the account of the eavesdropping stands unchallenged - a testament to the talent in the trenches. But the explanation of the timing and editing of the front-page article by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau caused major concern for scores of Times readers. The terse one-paragraph explanation noted that the White House had asked for the article to be killed. "After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting," it said. "Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted." If Times editors hoped the brief mention of the one-year delay and the omitted sensitive information would assure readers that great caution had been exercised in publishing the article, I think they miscalculated. The mention of a one-year delay, almost in passing, cried out for a fuller explanation. And the gaps left by the explanation hardly matched the paper's recent bold commitments to readers to explain how news decisions are made. At the very least, The Times should have told readers in the article why it could not address specific issues. At least some realization of this kicked in rather quickly after publication. When queried by reporters for other news media on Dec. 16, Mr. Keller offered two prepared statements that shed some additional light on the timing and handling of the article. The longer of Mr. Keller's two prepared statements said the paper initially held the story based on national security considerations and assurances that everyone in government believed the expanded eavesdropping was legal. But when further reporting showed that legal questions loomed larger than The Times first thought and that a story could be written without certain genuinely sensitive technical details, he said, the paper decided to publish. (Mr. Keller's two prepared statements, as well as some thoughtful reader comments, are posted on the Public Editor's Web Journal.) Times readers would have benefited if the explanation in the original article had simply been expanded to include the points Mr. Keller made after publication. And if the length of that proved too clunky for inclusion in the article, the explanation could have been published as a separate article near the main one. Even the sentence he provided me as to why he would not answer my questions offered some possible insight. Protection of sources is the most plausible reason I've been able to identify for The Times's woeful explanation in the article and for the silence of Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller. I base this on Mr. Keller's response to me: "There is really no way to have a full discussion of the back story without talking about when and how we knew what we knew, and we can't do that." Taken at face value, Mr. Keller seems to be contending that the sourcing for the eavesdropping article is so intertwined with the decisions about when and what to publish that a full explanation could risk revealing the sources. I have no trouble accepting the importance of confidential sourcing concerns here. The reporters' nearly one dozen confidential sources enabled them to produce a powerful article that I think served the public interest. With confidential sourcing under attack and the reporters digging in the backyards of both intelligence and politics, The Times needs to guard the sources for the eavesdropping article with extra special care. Telling readers the time that the reporters got one specific fact, for instance, could turn out to be a dangling thread of information that the White House or the Justice Department could tug at until it leads them to the source. Indeed, word came Friday that the Justice Department has opened an investigation into the disclosure of classified information about the eavesdropping. The most obvious and troublesome omission in the explanation was the failure to address whether The Times knew about the eavesdropping operation before the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election. That point was hard to ignore when the explanation in the article referred rather vaguely to having "delayed publication for a year." To me, this language means the article was fully confirmed and ready to publish a year ago - after perhaps weeks of reporting on the initial tip - and then was delayed. Mr. Keller dealt directly with the timing of the initial tip in his later statements. The eavesdropping information "first became known to Times reporters" a year ago, he said. These two different descriptions of the article's status in the general vicinity of Election Day last year leave me puzzled. For me, however, the most obvious question is still this: If no one at The Times was aware of the eavesdropping prior to the election, why wouldn't the paper have been eager to make that clear to readers in the original explanation and avoid that politically charged issue? The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts. On the larger question of why the eavesdropping article finally appeared when it did, a couple of possibilities intrigue me. One is that Times editors said they discovered there was more concern inside the government about the eavesdropping than they had initially been told. Mr. Keller's prepared statements said that "a year ago," officials "assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." So the paper "agreed not to publish at that time" and continued reporting. But in the months that followed, Mr. Keller said, "we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program" and "it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood." The impact of a new book about intelligence by Mr. Risen on the timing of the article is difficult to gauge. The book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," was not mentioned in the Dec. 16 article. Mr. Keller asserted in the shorter of his two statements that the article wasn't timed to the forthcoming book, and that "its origins and publication are completely independent of Jim's book." The publication of Mr. Risen's book, with its discussion of the eavesdropping operation, was scheduled for mid-January - but has now been moved up to Tuesday. Despite Mr. Keller's distancing of The Times from "State of War," Mr. Risen's publisher told me on Dec. 21 that the paper's Washington bureau chief had talked to her twice in the previous 30 days about the book. So it seems to me the paper was quite aware that it faced the possibility of being scooped by its own reporter's book in about four weeks. But the key question remains: To what extent did the book cause top editors to shrug off the concerns that had kept them from publishing the eavesdropping article for months? A final note: If Mr. Risen's book or anything else of substance should open any cracks in the stone wall surrounding the handling of the eavesdropping article, I will have my list of 28 questions (35 now, actually) ready to e-mail again to Mr. Keller. The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section. Eavesdropping program helps protect U.S., says Bush Last Updated Sun, 01 Jan 2006 23:08:38 EST CBC News U.S. President George W. Bush defended his domestic spying program on Sunday, saying it was a "limited" program aimed at ensuring the safety of Americans. Bush spoke to reporters following a New Year's Day visit with wounded troops at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. "This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America and, I repeat, limited," said the president. Comment: "Limited"? Well, limited could mean that it doesn't include every American. Obviously an oversight! Two weeks ago, the New York Times reported that the president ordered the secretive National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails without prior court approval. Bush has argued he had constitutional and congressional authority to authorize domestic wiretaps in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Comment: Although the members of Congress who supposedly gave him this authority are denying it. He stressed on Sunday that the program only tracks incoming calls to the U.S. "If somebody from al-Qaeda's calling you, we'd like to know why," said Bush. "In the meantime, this program is conscious of people's civil liberties, as am I." Comment: !!!!! Hours later, the White House clarified Bush's remarks, saying the president meant to say that calls in and out of the U.S. had been monitored. Comment: "Oops! Did I say only incoming calls?" Very convenient. The greater number of Americans will hear what Bush said. Many fewer will hear the correction, a very handy way to continue the manipulation. Bush was asked about a report published Sunday in the New York Times suggesting a top Justice department official raised objections to the program in 2004, leading to its temporary suspension. "This program has been reviewed – constantly reviewed – by people throughout my administration, and it still is reviewed," said Bush. U.S. Justice officials are investigating who leaked the existence of the program to the Times, which reported the story on Dec. 16. Bush said the leak harms the U.S. Comment: The US, or Bush himself? In the words of Louis XIV, "The state, it's me!" "The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States. There's an enemy out there," he said. There have also been calls from Democratic and Republican lawmakers for an investigation into whether Bush had the legal authority to order the program. Impeachment is Now Real Martin Garbus huffingtonpost.com 28 Dec 2005 An hour after the New York Times described Bush’s illegal surveillance program, I wrote on the Huffington Post that Bush had committed a crime, a “High Crime,” and should be impeached. Was there then enough evidence to justify the beginning of an attempt to impeach the President? No. Did the President have a good defense that he relied on Gonzalez, Ashcroft and the best lawyers in the country (in the Solicitor General’s and Department of Justice’s offices)? Yes. Would any significant number of Americans of Congressmen then support such a process? No. Given all that, would the turmoil and consequential turmoil have justified the start of that brutal process? No. But that has all changed. Because we shall soon see the consequences of those warrantless searches, the consequences of the government’s five years of secrecy, and even the citizens of the “Red States” will be outraged. Firstly, the warrantless taps will infect hundreds of “terrorist” and criminal cases throughout the country. Not only future cases, but past and present cases, even if there were convictions or plea bargains after the survellance started. The defendants in “terrorist” and other infected criminal cases, the Court must find, must get access to everything, or very close to everything to make sure they were never improperly surveilled. The Bush Administration, in these cases will refuse, as did the Nixon administration, to divulge information on national security grounds. Many alleged critical cases must then be dismissed. It will include Organized Crime and drug cases. The entire criminal process will be brought to a standstill. Cases that should take six months to a year, will take three times as long, as motions go up and down the appellate ladder – as federal judges trial disagree with each other. Appellate Courts will disagree on issues so novel and so important that the Supreme Court will look at them. Secondly, there will be an endless amounts of civil suits, that we can see will result in substantial damage awards. Commentators claimed there cannot be suits because no one has standing to challenge the surveillance. They are wrong. They do not remember the history of the Palmer Raids in the 1920’s, the surveillance in the Sixties and Seventies. The future will show both the enormous information the new technology has gathered but also the dishonest minimization of the extent of the surveillance. That minimization is standard operating procedure for governments, whether they be run by Democrats or Republicans. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is safe to preduct there will be coverups. This administration is not known for its candor. The coverup starts by trying to get away with the vauge and meaningless defenses. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that. When that doesn’t work, the coverup will be based on a foundation of small lies. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that. We do not yet know what the FISA judges already fear – that they have been not just ignored by the executive but misused. The public shall also learn about the FISA judges’ misuse of the FISA courts and their warrants. The courts were created to permit eavesdropping and electronic surveillance, not physical break-ins. But the facts will show that the Bush administration, with the knowledge, and at times, the consent of, the FISA judges, conducted illegal physical break-ins - break-ins that to this day, the involved person, is unaware of. Were the results of these “terrorist” break-ins then given to criminal authorities to start unrelated prosecutions? Of course. The American public will also learn what this Administration has thus far successfully hidden. When Bush came into office, he signed an Exeutive Order making all of his, and his father’s, papers privileged. The order, extending 12 years out, also says if the President is incapacitated, then a third person can execute the privilege. This means anybody – a wife, a family lawyer, a child. The order also says the Vice President’s papers are privileged. It is an extraordinary Executive Order – this has never been anything like this. No one ever suggested a Vice President has executive privilege. If we do not find out what they are hiding, we will see witholding on a scale never before seen. He will no longer be able to use 9/11 and the war on terror as an excuse. It will confirm the fact that illegality and secrecy existed long before 9/11, that it started as soon as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield got into office. It will show deliberate attempts to avoid any judicial or legislative oversight of the illegal use of executive privilege. Impeachment procedures will come not because of wrongdoing but because of the discovery of lies. Both Nixon and Cliton faced impeachments because they lied. It was inconceivable before the Nixon and Clinton impeachment procedures began that there could be, or would be a country or Senate that would be responsive to it. In the Nixon case, it spiraled from a petty break-in – in Clinton’s case from a petty sexual act. But what Bush has done, and will do, to protect himself is not petty. It goes to the heart of the government. He already has a history of misleading the public on the searches conducted thus far. As he and his colleagues seek to minimize the vast amount of data collection, the lies will necessarily expand to cover the wrongdoing. Bush can be brought down. Comment: Again we perceive that a misunderstanding of the nature of the Bush Beast is prevailing in the ivory towers of political discourse. Don't they get it? If "illegal surveillance" violates the 4th amendment and thereby puts America at risk, it won't be hard to convince the people (or to SEEM to convince them) that the 4th amendment must be eliminated. What is the Bush Administration Trying to Hide? David Wallechinsky huffingtonpost.com 2 Jan 2006 President George W. Bush began the new year by telling the American people that his NSA domestic surveillance program was only used to monitor communications between members of al-Qaeda and people in the United States. He did not address the issue of why he deemed it necessary to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that had, for 24 years, been reviewing and approving such surveillance programs. When the story first broke, President Bush and his staff claimed to have done so because it took too long to obtain a warrant. This lame excuse fell apart within hours when it was revealed that the law already gave them the right to engage in surveillance for 72 hours without a warrant. So the question remains: what is the real reason George Bush and his team chose to bypass the FISC? We know that between 1978 and 1992, presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush presented 7,030 applications for warrants and the court approved all of them as submitted. During his eight years in office, President Bill Clinton and his Justice Department presented 6,057 warrant applications. The FISC approved 6,055 of them, modified one and rejected one. This is not to say that there was no controversy involving the program. According to the Federation of American Scientists’ archive of documents relating to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, problems developed in 2000. In one case, the FBI assured the court that they had developed software that allowed them to pick up a surveillance target’s emails without accessing anyone else’s emails. But when the software was activated, it did access the email accounts of people not covered by the warrant. In another case, the FISC had approved surveillance of a target’s phone calls and email. When it came time to renew the warrant, the FBI asked to continue wiretapping the target, but said they no longer needed to check his email. So the FISC approved a new version of the warrant that excluded email coverage. Nevertheless, the FBI continued to cover the target’s email anyway. Other cases included FBI videotaping of a meeting even though videotaping had not been authorized, unauthorized searches and continuing surveillance after warrants ran out. In one case, the FBI failed to notice that a target had given up his cell phone and that the cell phone number had been reassigned to a new person. The FBI continued this electronic surveillance “for a substantial period of time” even though the new owner of the cell phone number spoke a different language than the target. Despite these problems, the relationship between the executive branch and the FISC appears to have remained harmonious, as indicated by the fact that the court approved without modification 99.97% of the Clinton Administration requests. All this changed after George W. Bush became president. The court rejected six requests outright and modified 179. Some Bush supporters have tried to characterize the FISC justices as liberal obstructionists. In fact, all eleven members of the Bush-era FISC were selected by conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) that created the FISC also provided for a three-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review to review applications denied by the FISC. All three current members of this court were appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist during George W. Bush’s presidency. After 24 years of idleness, in September 2002 the Court of Review heard its first case because the Bush Administration tried to expand the coverage of FISA jurisdiction to allow prosecutors and local law enforcement agencies to be involved in the surveillance program and to have access to information obtained through the surveillance. FISC modified their requests before accepting them and the Bush Administration appealed. At the September 9, 2002, hearing before the Court of Review, the Bush Administration was represented by ten members of the Department of Justice, led by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who had become famous when he presented the Bush-Cheney case to the Supreme Court during the 2000 presidential election dispute. Other notables included James A. Baker, in his role as counsel for the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, and John C. Yoo, the administration go-to guy to legally justify anything the Bush Administration wants to do. The Justice Department team was joined by Spike Bowman, a lawyer for the FBI, and David S. Addington, a lawyer representing Vice-President Cheney’s office. Lawyers supporting the FISC decision were not allowed to be present, so the ACLU and others later submitted a written brief to the three justices. The convening of the Court of Review was so novel that the justices had to ask the Justice Department lawyers who submitted the surveillance applications (the Attorney General’s staff) and how often the FISC met to consider the applications (once a week). Olson argued that a FISC-approved surveillance could uncover information about a suspect that, although totally unrelated to terrorism, might indicate illegal or illicit activities that could then be used to blackmail or intimidate a terrorism-related suspect into cooperating with the authorities. Such a prosecution or threat of prosecution would be approved by the Attorney General who, at the time, was John Ashcroft. It is worth noting that FISA warrants are issued based on a lower than usual standard that does not require probable cause, and that if a FISA-approved surveillance leads to a prosecution, the targets may not be allowed to obtain copies of their intercepted communications. The Administration also wanted to change the phrase “the purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information” to “a significant purpose of the surveillance….” This qualifying word could open the door to all manner of other “purposes” for surveillance. When the Court of Review judges tried to get the Justice Department officials to clarify what other purposes there might be besides suspicion of terrorism or espionage, Olson and Baker were evasive. Exasperated, Judge Lawrence Silberman said, “I’ll try one more time and then I’ll give up.” Olson complained that the judges were asking “very, very difficult questions” and, in the end, Silberman never got his answer. At one point in the proceedings, Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr. found “a touch of irony” in the fact that after the Patriot Act had expanded the government’s power of surveillance and after the FISC had gone 24 years without an appeal, suddenly, for the first time, the government was complaining about being restrained by the court. Nonetheless, on November 18, 2002, the Court of Review sided with the Bush Administration. Yet despite this victory, and despite having the expanded powers of the Patriot Act, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were not satisfied with the extent of their power and they began clashing with the FISC. In 2003 and 2004, the court denied four of the Bush Administration’s applications, forced them to withdraw three and modified 173. In the 24 years prior to 2003, the court had voiced objections to a grand total of six applications. Of course it would be illuminating to know the exact nature of the surveillance requests that led the FISC to issue this myriad of rejections and modifications and whether George Bush went ahead with these surveillances anyway. It would also be interesting to know if the Bush team, once it declared itself free of any judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever, decided to take advantage of the NSA surveillance network to go beyond fighting terrorism to spy on people and organizations for other reasons. For example, did they use government resources to spy on members of Congress, journalists, the Kerry campaign, opponents of the Bush agenda, foreign corporations or members of the United Nations? It would also be useful to know why Bush and Cheney transferred the responsibility for these surveillances from the FBI to the NSA, an agency which, in its 50 years of existence, had not previously been involved in domestic surveillance. Whatever the answers to these questions, possible grounds for impeachment will probably center instead on whether Bush and Cheney are lying about what they have done and whether they usurped powers that the Constitution grants to the legislative and judicial branches of the United States government. President Bush claims that after 9/11 Congress gave him the power to do whatever he wants in fighting terrorism, including detaining suspects indefinitely without charge and without access to legal counsel and including engaging in surveillance of Americans without warrants. This must surely come as a surprise to most members of Congress, who were unaware that they had done this. Bush claims that as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he is free to use whatever tactics he wants. This is a creative interpretation of Article II of the Constitution if ever there was one. A s far as the FISC rules go, if President Bush has decided that he is not obligated to apply for warrants through the court, one wonders why he bothered to do so 5,645 times during the first term of his presidency. In the coming months it will be fascinating to watch as each Republican member of Congress (and Joe Lieberman) decides whether he or she owes a greater loyalty to President Bush or to the Constitution. It is possible that the members of the Supreme Court, some of whom pride themselves on being strict constructionists, will face the same dilemma. Comment: Hmmm... a clue in the above article was given by our good buddy Ted "The Sky is Falling" Olson. "Olson argued that a FISC-approved surveillance could uncover information about a suspect that, although totally unrelated to terrorism, might indicate illegal or illicit activities that could then be used to blackmail or intimidate a terrorism-related suspect into cooperating with the authorities." We wonder if this is exactly what has already been done to journalists, members of Congress, judges, and if that is why Bush is so certain he can get away with anything? After all, if you have spent a couple years collecting all the dirt you can on everybody who might oppose you, its a pretty powerful tool. Maybe that's the real thing Bush has to hide: just WHO has he been spying on??? I hardly think that it was just "ordinary Americans" or "ordinary terrorists." If you think about it from Bush's point of view, the only terrorists out there are the ones who disagree with him and have the power to take him down. Leak Hypocrisy by Larry C. Johnson No Quarter 31 December 2005 The Bush Administration's new offensive against leakers just reminds us that when the President's political standing is at stake all is fair if the purpose is to protect the Pres...., er I mean the nation. Too bad George Bush did not express the same outrage when Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and others in his employ, told eager journalists that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative. I guess divulging secrets is okay if the White House needs to discredit Joe Wilson and his claim (subsequently proved true) that the President had misled the nation during his January 2004 State of the Union address. Plus, it offers the added benefit of warning the rest of the intelligence community--shut up or else. You can't have whistle blowers coming out that would tarnish the President's image as a tough guy waging war on the terrorists. I also seem to recall that the Bush White House used leaks in the midst of the 2004 Presidential campagin to burnish the President's image and keep Americans on edge. Remember the name of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan? His name was leaked to the New York Times in August of 2004 while Khan was still cooperating with Pakistani, CIA, and British authorities as part of a sting operation against Osama bin Laden's network. On the eve of the Republican convention, unnamed senior NSC officials told New York Times reporters that Mr Khan was being used to send e-mails to al-Qaida members as part of a coordinated effort to identify and dismantle terrorist networks. Just because this leak destroyed the secret program's effectiveness was no big deal because he helped remind Americans that George Bush was the only one who could keep us safe. So, what's really behind the latest anti-leak crusade? For those outside the Beltway it is essential to recognize there are two kinds of leaks -- officially sanctioned and whistle blowers. The ones described in the previous paragraphs are the "officially sanctioned" variety. These are not unique to the Bush Administration or Republicans. Politicians through the years have shared classified information with journalists as part of a public relations effort to build support for a policy or attack critics. Then there is the whistle blower variant. This is more important and, in my opinion, the most valuable. It exists to keep politicians honest and alert the public to serious policy disputes. The two most recent examples are the revelations that the United States was holding possible terrorists in secret prisons around the world and that George Bush was circumventing the law and approving illegal electronic surveillance inside the United States. While the Bush White House is certain that those responsible for these leaks are political partisans hell bent on damaging the President, it is really a sign that folks on the inside with a conscience finally decided to speak out. I recall back in 1989 that the United States was engaged in a variety of "covert" activities in Panama as part of a campaign to provoke Manuel Noriega into a war. The wiley Panamanian dictator kept his powder dry and wouldn't take the bait. More fascinating for me was to be told in hushed tones inside the Central American Brach of the DI about these secret operations and then to read the very next day a full description of those very secrets on the front pages of the Washington Post and New York Times. The secrets leaked because folks at State Department and the Department of Defense had qualms about the policy. When there is an internal disagreement over a particular policy, leaks happen. What is truly shocking is that many in the media, both print and electronic, seem ignorant of the difference between official and whistle blower leaks. In fact, some seem eager to carry water for the White House and feed the myth that the whistle blower leaks are putting us in jeopardy. Not surprisingly these are the same "journalists" who sought to excuse the leak of Valerie Plame's name as no big deal. Christmas is past and Hannukah is winding down. But I do have a gift request for 2006--can we have more journalists like Sy Hersh, Jim Risen, Jon Landay, Warren Strobel, and David Kaplan, who speak truth to power, and fewer Bob Woodwards, Chris Matthews, Tim Russerts, and Judy Millers, who value their invitations to the White House Christmas Party over challenging the status quo? That's what I want. Prescott satellite to spy on your home By Marie Woolf, Political Editor 01 January 2006 John Prescott has told tax inspectors to use satellites to snoop on householders' attempts to improve their homes. Images of new conservatories and garages taken from space will be used to hike up council taxes and other property levies, official guidance obtained by The Independent on Sunday reveals. Mr Prescott's department is overseeing the creation of a database containing the details of every house in Britain to help tax inspectors to assess new charges. Even minor improvements, invisible from the road, will be caught by "spy in the sky" technology that uses a mix of aerial and satellite images taken over time to spot changes. Last night the Tories accused the Deputy Prime Minister of laying the ground for a "new stealth tax on home improvements". Houses in the country will be particularly targeted. "Aerial photographs are very effective in rural areas where improvements are hard to see from the road," a handbook for property inspectors says. The Tories warned of a Big Brother-style inspection regime which could see householders forced to reveal every detail of their homes, including the finish of a children's playroom or the type of central heating. They accused the Government of using satellite technology to spy on families so they can levy stealth taxes. Caroline Spelman, shadow Secretary of State for Local Government, accused Mr Prescott of invading people's privacy. "The public have already expressed concern at the prospect of inspectors with cameras entering their homes. Now it appears that the Government will also be using aerial photography to invade people's privacy and lay the ground for a new stealth tax on home improvements," she said. "For many people who need more space but can't afford to move to a bigger house, the answer is to make improvements to their existing home, but it now seems they are going to be penalised for this through council tax hikes. It is catch-22, with home-owners being taxed if they move and taxed if they don't." The Government is planning to compile a database of every home in Britain, which will include details of how many bedrooms each house has and what kind of roof it has. Inspectors will look at whether garden sheds have been converted into offices or studios and whether kitchens or porches have been extended. They will even be able to see if a drive has been Tarmacked or a shrubbery extended. The computer system will be used to assess council tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax. A re-evaluation of property values will take into account home improvements, including extensions and conservatories to assess how much council tax a property should pay. The Government has delayed re-evaluating property values after widespread concern that it could lead to a massive rise in council tax bills, which would particularly hit pensioners. But the Government's Valuation Office Agency is still rolling out a "Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal" database across England. So far almost two million homes in England have had "value significant codes" recorded. Comment: We've already mentioned that the UK seems to be the Petrie Dish where the NWO is being grown to full potency. Brits, if you don't do something now, it will soon be too late! Skirmishes in the Information Wars By Mike Whitney 1 Jan 06 ICH There are only two weapons in the imperial tool-chest; force and deception. The brutal colonial occupation of Iraq has provided us with a lavish example of the former, but the twin-axel of deception is more abstruse and difficult to pin down. Sure, there’s the flagrant propaganda that floods right-wing radio and political talk shows, but that tells us little about the state-sponsored disinformation-programs that permeate every area of American life. We now know that the Bush administration authorized massive illegal spying operations and is actively engaged in planting pro-American stories in the foreign press. These suggest that the administration’s overall theory of information management is much more extensive then originally imagined. In fact, news and information manipulation is at the forefront of Bush’s war on terror, a comprehensive strategy to control of every bit of information a citizen hears, sees or reads from cradle to grave. It is information warfare on a scale that would make George Orwell cringe. It is only in this context that we can see that the threats made by George Bush to bomb Al Jazeera are completely consistent with the administration’s overall approach. Controlling information is seen as a military necessity and those who fashion an alternate narrative are Washington’s sworn enemies. In this respect, we can understand how Al Jazeera would have to be destroyed to pave the way for greater democracy. When we observe the isolated incidents of the Bush information strategy it seems disjointed and incoherent. How does the killing of journalists in Iraq connect to the “Swift-boating” of Dan Rather or Richard Clarke in the American press? How does Condi Rice’s new Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program for aspiring American propagandists relate to blowing up of Al Jazeera facilities in Kabul and Baghdad? How does the dissemination of false stories in the foreign press connect to the massive surveillance operations being carried out home and abroad? Until we are able to combine the many disparate parts of the Bush information strategy, we are at risk of seeing these illegal activities as mere aberrations and not as vital cogs in the machinery of the police-state. There is nothing arbitrary about the massive cloud of secrecy that has settled on the Bush administration. The government has built an impervious wall around itself that conceals the venality of the principle characters and avoids the transparency required for a healthy democracy. Conversely, the administration has defended its use of the various investigative agencies; including the CIA, the Defense Dept., the NSA, and the FBI, to probe every area of American life. In fact, the Patriot Act’s new provisions (National Security Letters and “lone wolf” clause) completely dispose of the 4th amendment’s right to privacy (or “probable cause”) allowing the government to spy on anyone it sees fit. The recent revelations that government organizations have been spying on antiwar activists, Quakers and environmentalists, strongly suggests that Bush is now vacuuming up every bit of available information on political enemies real or imagined. Is anyone really surprised? The surveillance state is the police state. It manifests itself in the predictable forms of National ID cards, (which will be mandatory in less than 2 years) increased repression, (Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act) deployment of the military within the US, (Northern Command and threats to activate the military in the event of a terrorist attack, flu epidemic or natural disaster) and the formation of a secret police. (Earlier this year Bush formed the NSS; the National Security Service, his own private police force which operates outside of congressional oversight) The levers of the fascist state have been carefully assembled behind a smokescreen of demagoguery provided by fellow-travelers in the corporate media. And, even though support for the war in Iraq has steadily declined, the extent of the media’s success in confounding the public cannot be overstated. A vast number of American’s still believe that Saddam was either working with Al Qaida, had WMD, or contributed to the attacks on 9-11. This is, perhaps, the most shocking example of media manipulation. The corporate model of media is antithetical to personal freedom. When the marketplace of ideas is reduced to the solitary task of plying soapsuds and tennis shoes for big business, democracy is bound to suffer. Ultimately, commercial media cannot help but become an annex of the political establishment, developing collusive ties with the very people it is supposed to scrutinize. Media as “watchdog of power” is a romantic notion with no real basis in fact. Rather, in its present manifestation, media serves as a junior partner in the “weaponizing” of information; transforming the events of the day into a repetitious mantra extolling the objectives of society’s overlords. But the role of the media in the fascist paradigm is not limited to simply mobilizing public support for unpopular causes. It is a multi-headed hydra designed to promote the interests of the corporate and financial sectors while obfuscating the economic and political facts that are necessary for a strong democracy. This explains why the critical stories of the day rarely appear on America’s network or cable TV news programs. The Downing Street Memo, Iran’s compliance with the IAEA, the fraudulent Ohio presidential election results, and the firebombing of Falluja are just a few of the important stories which have been ignored or drastically underplayed in the mainstream. The point is, that “omission” of real news is used more frequently than its soul-mate, propaganda. By excluding the stories that are essential to shape public consciousness, the media makes war-mongering and economic exploitation inevitable. The recent Iraqi elections are a stunning example of this. Every TV news program covered the elections in Iraq the very same way; implying that they were a historic milestone on the road to democracy. None of the major media provided an alternate view that might reflect the 62% of Americans who now believe that the war was “a mistake”. Those views were scrupulously avoided in the coverage. If the media chieftains wanted balance, they could have simply inserted the widespread view that the conflict has nothing to do with either democracy or sovereignty, but is a savage colonial war facilitated by fanatics to control Iraq’s prodigious oil reserves. Despite the media’s impressive efforts to change that conclusion, the vast majority of people now accept it as fact. The media is just one part of a culture of deception that permeates every part of the Bush administration. The recent revelations that the Pentagon was planting “good news” stories in foreign newspapers, shows us how tenacious the administration can be in its defense of disinformation. Rather than admit its guilt and apologize, right-wing pundits defended the action as “justifiable during wartime”. This demonstrates the level of ideological commitment to lying among members of the political establishment. It is the best example of the “end justifies the means” mentality that animates the current regime. The French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre said, “The essence of the lie implies, in fact, that the liar is actually in complete possession of the truth which he is hiding.” Sartre’s comment points to the inherent narcissism of lying. This is especially true of an administration that believes that the facts should be limited to a particular class of people who are destined to rule society. Their efforts are an attempt to “privatize” the truth and limit the circulation of real news to an uber-class of global plutocrats; Bush and his cadres. Everyone else is expected to lap up the muddled fables that fill the airwaves or flash from the headlines of America’s leading newspapers. The newly minted “Dept of Strategic Information” is an attempt to institutionalize lying as a basic function of government. It conflates perfectly with administration theories on propaganda, deception and perception-management. The department is allegedly involved in penetrating every area of public interaction including web pages, chat-rooms, radio talk-shows, e-mail, foreign newspapers etc. Wherever the free expression of ideas takes place is a potential battleground in the information war, a war that is directed against the American people as much as it is against any foreign power. This new division of the Pentagon, which performs many of the duties of the former TIA, (Total Information Awareness) is designed to insinuate itself into every area of American life looking for better ways to control the citizenry. It is another giant step towards a rapidly-approaching tyranny. We should never mistake the administration’s obfuscations, omissions, and propaganda as unintentional. Lying is policy and accepting that fact precedes any meaningful understanding of the Bush administration. American Jews' split personality By Avi Beker Ha'aretz 1 Jan 06 The attack by AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., on the Bush administration over its handling of the Iranian nuclear question, is unprecedented. It took the shape of a broad media campaign that included press releases and targeted members of Congress. Last week the Washington Post, which is read by the top political echelon in the capital, noted that this is the first time that AIPAC has issued broad and open criticism of the Bush administration. In a background paper that AIPAC officials distributed among members of Congress, the pro-Israel lobby describes Bush's recent policy decisions on Iran as "dangerous" and "disturbing," and even claims that they are actually helping Iran to achieve nuclear capability. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which mounted a similar offensive, refrained from directly criticizing the president and called on its member groups to exert pressure on Congress and foreign governments, and to send letters to top administration officials. Earlier, organization leaders like Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League had argued that this issue should not be made into a "Jewish" struggle like the fight for Soviet Jewry in the past, or the fight against Palestinian terrorism. However, AIPAC chose a more militant line, and consciously decided to criticize the White House after the administration decided last month to accept the more conciliatory Russian approach, which recommended avoiding an open confrontation with Iran in the UN Security Council for the time being. According to media reports, Bush even shared his problems with the Jewish lobby with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Anyone observing the political trends and moods in the American Jewish community cannot but raise an eyebrow over what seems to be a split personality. Alongside the massive attack on the passiveness the Bush administration is demonstrating in everything related to Iran, the media - especially the Jewish press - gave extensive coverage last week to the results of an annual survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee. The survey reported that 70 percent of American Jews oppose the U.S. involvement in Iraq, an opposition rate that is about 10 percent higher than among the general public. After refraining until now from publicly expressing opposition to the war, several Jewish organizations have also decided to openly come out against it. The decline in the popularity of the war led the Reform movement to issue a call at its annual convention last month for all American forces to be pulled out of Iraq. The decision generated a public dispute on the pages of the New York Times, when a Republican Jewish group published a giant advertisement in support of Bush and criticized the decision by the Reform movement. President Bush himself referred to this at a meeting of the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia in mid-December, saying that he expected people who care about Israel's existence and security to support the administration's efforts to strengthen democracy in the Middle East. From a historical perspective, one could argue that the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is replacing Saddam Hussein in the pretension to lead the Middle East and develop nuclear capabilities, and in threatening Israel. And, indeed, the Jewish media has expressed the sentiment that opposition among the majority of American Jews to the war in Iraq is detrimental to the effort to pressure the administration to display much greater firmness toward Iran. AIPAC and the proponents of a tough line in the Jewish community will soon have to convince not only the administration but also a Jewish majority that is skeptical about American involvement in the Middle East. The American Jewish Committee's survey results indicate that the camps within the Jewish community are clearly divided according to religious streams, with the Orthodox on one side and Reform and Conservative Jews on the other. Seventy-eight percent of Reform Jews, for example, oppose the war in Iraq, compared to 38 percent of Orthodox Jews. A similar split is evident on the questions of dividing Jerusalem, the separation fence, identification with Israel and visits to Israel. In accordance with these same camps, American Jews are also divided on domestic issues such as the separation of church and state. The leadership of AIPAC certainly believed that support for the firm stance against Iran would grow after the anti-Semitic statements of the president of Iran, but the double messages coming out of the Jewish community in regard to American involvement in the Middle East are liable to weaken the Jewish lobby in its struggle against the administration on the issue of Iran. The Bush Family Coup by James Ridgeway December 30th, 2005 Village Voice WASHINGTON, D.C.—The 9-11 attacks provided the rationale for what amounts to a Bush family coup against the Constitution. From the outset, President George Bush used 9-11 to reorganize the federal government and increase its reach far beyond any existing law to delve into the lives of innocent, ordinary people. The new powers allowed the government to arrest them at will and to subject them to endless incarceration without judicial review. Some people were sent abroad to be tortured for crimes they had nothing to do with. Who knows how many people have been tortured in American jails? When government employees within the intelligence community sought to protest, the government fired them and made sure they could never get another job in their areas of expertise. This extraordinary program of spying on Americans, much of which was carried out in fishing expeditions under the Patriot Act, has the makings of a consistent and long-range policy to wreck constitutional government. It is little wonder both left and right have come together to fight Bush and may yet jettison the Patriot Act. Revelations of the domestic spy operation, with its secret wiretaps, ought to supply sufficient evidence to impeach Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and launch criminal prosecutions of the top federal officials involved in carrying out the program. After all, these people are directly engaged in overthrowing constitutional government. How did this all come about? GET THE COMMIES In opening a conference on counterintelligence in March 2005, former president George H.W. Bush, who headed the CIA from 1975 to 1977, said, “It burns me up to see the agency under fire.” Recent criticism, Bush said, reminded him of the 1970s, when Congress “unleashed a bunch of untutored little jerks out there” to investigate the CIA’s involvement in domestic spying, assassinations, and other illegal activities, and subsequently passed laws to prevent abuses. Bush was referring to the activities of the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee after its chair, Idaho Democratic senator Frank Church. Among other things, the committee’s 1976 report detailed the workings of the infamous COINTELPRO, an FBI domestic spying program on Civil Rights leaders, anti-war groups, and anyone else who rubbed J. Edgar Hoover the wrong way. The report also detailed illegal domestic activities by the CIA and military intelligence. A simultaneous—and even more contentious—investigation was carried out in the House by the Select Committee on Intelligence, which also came to bear the name of it chair, New York Democratic congressman Otis Pike. The Pike Report focused on the CIA covert actions, as well as on the CIA’s overall effectiveness and its budget. Within days of the 9-11 attacks, officials of Bush the younger’s administration and former intelligence chiefs were on the talk shows denouncing the “chilling effect” of the congressional investigations of the 1970s, and of subsequent halfhearted efforts to regulate the work of the intelligence agencies. Paul Bremer, the future head of the Iraq occupation, who had chaired the National Commission on Terrorism from 1998 to 2000, said on CNN that the Church Committee did “a lot of damage to our intelligence services. . . . And the more recent problem was that the previous administration put into effect guidelines which restricted the ability of CIA agents to go after . . . terrorist spies.” Congress lost no time in repealing these rather toothless earlier guidelines, along with a host of other restrictions, especially those safeguarding the privacy of electronic communications. The Senate passed the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001 on September 13, one of its first actions in response to the attacks. Between 1960 and 1974, the FBI conducted half a million investigations of so-called subversives, without a single conviction, and maintained files on well over a million Americans. The FBI tapped phones, opened mail, planted bugs, and burglarized homes and offices. At least 26,000 individuals were at one point catalogued on an FBI list of persons to be rounded up in the event of a “national emergency.” Hoover was particularly obsessed with Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, which he thought was influenced by communists. The FBI proceeded to undermine the civil rights movement, planting agents among the Freedom Riders (and also the Ku Klux Klan). Hoover put spies into the ranks of labor activists and of Democratic Party insurgents during the 1964 presidential campaign. Meanwhile, the CIA began spying domestically. The Agency planted informants of its own within the United States, especially on college campuses. Between 1953 and 1973, they opened and photographed nearly a quarter of a million first-class letters, producing an index of nearly 1.5 million names. Under something called Operation CHAOS, separate files were created on approximately 7,200 Americans and over 100 domestic groups. In 1964, the CIA even created a secret arm called the Domestic Operations Division, the very name of which flew in the face of its legal charter. Back then, there were no “communications problems” between the two agencies. RAISE THE WALL In documenting all this, the Church Committee concluded the intelligence community had engaged in actions “which had no conceivable rational relationship to either national security or violent activity.” The report of the House’s Pike Committee documented a history of CIA covert actions, as well as notable intelligence failures. As a result the CIA got out of domestic spying and the FBI supposedly pulled back from its orgy of homeland snooping. Some rather modest oversight was applied, the most important of which led to the creation of the “the wall.” This refers to application of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA was enacted in 1978, in the wake of the congressional investigations, as a compromise that would allow the FBI and other domestic law enforcement to carry out counterintelligence operations while putting some sort of restraints on COINTELPRO-type abuses. Under FISA, the FBI could continue to do things like conduct searches and tap phones without traditional search warrants and without probable cause, as long as agents were targeting terrorists, spies, or other purported enemies of the United States, and as long as they got permission from a secret FISA court. There was concern from the start that FISA would be used to circumvent the Fourth Amendment in routine criminal cases. So FISA dictated that these warrantless searches and surveillance could be conducted only for counterintelligence purposes, and not for regular criminal investigations. However, if a FISA search happened to turn up evidence of a crime, this information could be handed over to law enforcement. According to a joint inquiry conducted in 2002 by the Senate and House Select Committees on Intelligence, “the Intelligence Community agencies, perhaps overly ‘risk-averse’ in dealing with FISA-related matters, restricted the use of information far beyond what was required. The majority of FBI personnel interviewed . . . incorrectly believed that the FBI could not share FISA-derived information with criminal investigators at all or that an impossibly high standard had to be met before the information could be shared. Most did not know [it] could be shared with criminal investigators if it was simply relevant to the criminal investigation.” And anyway, the FBI never stopped its domestic spying. During the ’80s and ’90s the FBI spied on and/or infiltrated peace and solidarity groups engaged in protesting U.S. involvement in the wars of Central America, put agents into Earth First, and went after the far right, again trying to plant agents and turn participants into informants. The shooting at Ruby Ridge and the raid in Waco galvanized not just the right but the heartland against the Bureau. At Ruby Ridge, it was an FBI sniper killing a mother with a baby in her arms. At Waco it was a monstrous assault on a religious enclave. And the Bureau’s handling of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995—with botched lab work and lost documents—to this day fuels the controversy over the government’s role in that catastrophe. Recent evidence suggests a federal agent may have penetrated the gang that conducted the bombing. The informant told her superior, who sat on the information until long after the bombing. INSTALL BIG BROTHER The failures of the FBI and CIA in 9-11 were not because of any wall. These agencies failed because they weren’t doing their jobs right. The congressional investigation found the CIA couldn’t penetrate al Qaeda—an especially odd claim since we had helped to create and finance al Qaeda as an instrument to win the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. John Walker Lindh and other Americans walked right into al Qaeda and were greeted by its high officials. How come the CIA couldn’t do the same? No wall kept the CIA from getting Osama bin Laden. They just couldn’t find him. As for how the hijackers got into the U.S., it’s hardly a mystery. An FBI informant among the Muslim community in San Diego socialized with two hijackers and rented a room to one of them. When Congress tried to figure out how this happened, the Bureau covered it up, refusing to allow the informant to testify. Again, there was no wall here—just plain incompetence made worse by a deliberate cover-up. The FBI reportedly was informed in April 2001 by a longtime reliable asset of an impending attack using airliners as missiles. It did nothing. An operation known as Able Danger reportedly turned up information on and tracked hijacker Mohammad Atta as far back as 1998, but the Pentagon wouldn’t tell the FBI what it knew. Even now, the Bush administration is fighting to prevent the Able Danger officials from testifying before Congress about what they knew and when they knew it. When it comes to intelligence, the only thing worse than the FBI’s record is the CIA’s. Given all that’s happened, the only explanation for the Bush domestic spying is that it’s political. There are no crimes involved here. But there is an overweaning desire by this so-called conservative government to establish and institutionalize a Big Brother regime that tolerates no dissent and wrecks constitutional government. Go To The Light By Sheila Samples 31 Dec 2005 ICH Folks at the White House stay pretty busy these days just trying to untangle the lies George Bush keeps telling every time he opens his mouth. For example, back in April 2004, Bush explained to a cheering audience and an unchallenging press corps in Buffalo about "eavesdropping" on Americans -- "When you think 'Patriot Act,' constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because," he said earnestly while leaning over the podium, his hand on his heart "--because we value the Constitution." Bush? Value that (insert Lord's name in vain) piece of worthless paper? I think not. From his actions and manner of speech, it is doubtful that Bush has read either the US Constitution or the holy book upon which he placed his hand twice and swore to preserve, protect and defend it. After the New York Times reported last week that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to cast a wide net to spy on American citizens' e-mail and phone calls without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, Bush went on the offense, saying yeah, he did it, and he was gonna keep on doing it, cause he was the president and -- like he told Washington Post's Bob Woodward -- that means he doesn't have to explain to anybody why he does anything... That apparently includes the FISA court, which has the audacity to require "probable cause" before approving wiretaps on American citizens. In Bush's defense, when you're huntin' and chasin' and smokin' out evil lurkers and plotters and planners, you don't have time to stop and fill out two or three million pieces of paper. Like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says, the (insert Lord's name in vain) Constitution is a quaint little thing, but we live in a new world order now, and any constraints on "this president" are just too cumbersome. In an October speech, Bush said, "Our country is at war, and the executive branch has an obligation to protect the 'Merican people. We are aggressively doing that. We are finding the terrorists and bringing them to justice," he said, pausing for effect, then added, "and anything we do is within the law..." Vice President Dick Cheney agrees. He says they must have complete control and flexibility and unlimited power, even if this means they have to make up the law as they go along. While speeding home from the Middle East in time to break a Senate tie on a bill that raises Medicaid payments for the poor and elderly while, at the same time, allowing states to cut their Medicaid services, and cuts child-care payments for social bottom-feeders, Cheney snarled that there "is a hell of a threat" out there, and the president's authority under the (insert Lord's name in vain) Constitution must be "unimpaired." Cheney says "the vast majority" of Americans support Bush spying on them, and warned that any "backlash" would not be against Bush, but against the critics who dared question Bush's illegal and quite possibly treasonous bits of derring-do. Cheney is adamant that he, er -- Bush -- is above any court and outside any law. Those who disagree can just go (insert word depicting doing sexual "wild thaing") themselves. Besides, Cheney might have added, they've been doing it for four years -- collecting information on American citizens by tapping directly into the US telecommunication system's main arteries without first getting warrants -- and nobody seemed to care. According to the Times, these corporate behemoths supported and assisted the spying operation -- storing information on citizens' calling patterns and giving it to Bush since 9-11. Got that, sports fans? Since 9-11. And the NSA is not the only one. According to Capital Hill Blue's Doug Thompson, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and "dozens of private contractors are spying on millions of Americans 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year." It got so blatant that a former NSA agent who quit in disgust over use of the agency to spy on Americans, told Thompson, "We're no longer in the business of tracking our enemies. We're spying on everyday Americans." And, when there's treason afoot, one can hardly leave out the vicious and wacky Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. A couple of years ago, Rumsfeld had this great idea for not only spying on Americans, but building a profile on every citizen who travels, uses credit cards, talks on the telephone or works or plays on a computer. He called his new toy the "Total Information Awareness" (TIA) Program, and put the disgraced Iran-Contra felon John Poindexter in charge of it. When a furious Congress killed the program, Rumsfeld said, "Fine. They can have the name." He then moved it to the Pentagon's covert "black bag" program, out of Congressional sight or oversight, and renamed it the "Terrorist Information Awareness" (TIA) system. Thompson says the program is "alive and well and collecting data in real time on Americans at a computer center located at 3801 Fairfax Drive in Arlington, Virginia." It's difficult to gauge either the height of awareness or the depth of outrage of the American public because the corporate media steadfastly refuses to shed even a glimmer of light on the myriad of scandals this administration is hiding out there in plain sight. The shock of 9-11 thrust the people of this country into a depressing twilight zone, a "loyalty-oath" atmosphere where they stumble around in the dark, afraid to speak -- afraid to think. Any anger they feel about the president of the United States committing an impeachable offense by covertly spying on them and openly admitting it will fade as the media psycho-flogs them into believing the criminal here is the whistleblower who shone the light on the illegal surveillance, not the traitor who broke the law. The irony of Bush, the NSA and Gonzales whipping up a criminal investigation into who dared tell the public that they were breaking the law will be lost on far too many Americans. Those who do understand, yet choose to stand mute and hope for the best should weigh the loss of their civil liberties against the violence, murder, vicious lies, and especially the sheer animosity Bush feels toward all but the wealthiest Americans. They should take a look at the backgrounds and goals of the beady-eyed war vultures who control Bush; who are urging him to destroy everything in his path -- not the least of which is the (insert Lord's name in vain) US Constitution. They should ask themselves what they would do if they woke up in the middle of the night to find an invader in their bedrooms, pawing through their personal belongings. Would they silently bow their heads, or would they turn on the light and scream bloody murder at the top of their lungs? Truth doesn't just radiate light -- it IS light. If Americans would raise their heads and look around, they would see there are flashes of light everywhere -- especially on the Internet. Americans have come to a fork in the road and, like the great philosopher Yogi Berra once said, they need to take it. They need to go to the light. Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net Casualties of a War a World Away By Guardian Newspapers 10/25/2005 Elaina Morton is not listed as one of the 2,000 Americans now confirmed killed in Iraq since the start of the war, but she might as well be. In US military parlance the 23-year-old lab technician from Kansas would have been referred to as a "surviving spouse". But three months after her husband, Staff Sergeant Benjamin Morton, was killed by insurgents in Mosul, Elaina picked up a gun and shot herself. The fact that the military did not issue a press release to announce the death of the former college student who loved her cat, Stinky, and enjoyed hiking, photography and camping, does not make her any less a casualty of the war. Hers is thought to be the first confirmed case of a war widow committing suicide, and as the US toll in Iraq yesterday hit the grim 2,000 landmark her death is proof of the immeasurable emotional toll that the conflict has put on families of servicemen and women. George Bush yesterday spoke to wives of servicemen at Bollings air force base in Washington, as part of a strategy to confront the death toll head on by portraying the sacrifice in the Iraq war as the best way to keep terrorists from striking the US again. But for many bereaved families the bigger picture the president highlighted has been consumed by the day-to-day struggle of coping with their grief. Deedy Salie knows the feelings of isolation and desperation that Elaina Morton must have gone through before she took her life. Deedy's husband, David, was killed on Valentine's Day last year when his Humvee was blown up by an improvised explosive device in the restive city of Baquba, north-east of Baghdad. "I was an army wife for nine years, and the army way is 'suck it up and drive on'," she says. But no matter how hard she tried she couldn't just suck it up, and she couldn't just drive on. The pressures put on a family by a very public death, she says, are extreme. "I don't want to say that any death is normal, but my husband's death was all over the television and in the papers," she says. "People recognised my children in the store. It has been a rollercoaster. One day we all seem OK, but the next one of us just bottoms out. Everybody keeps saying it is going to get easier, but when that happens I'll call and let you know, because it is actually getting harder and harder." Deedy says her daughter, Chyna, 12, was so angry with her father for going to Iraq and getting killed that she has only just begun to grieve. Lucas, six, had nightmares about insurgents hiding in the flowerbeds. She doesn't know what Hunter, three, is thinking. When the family was living near the army base, support groups were available. But Deedy, like Elaina Morton and countless other bereaved spouses, moved away to be closer to friends and family. And that was the last she heard from the army. "I don't expect the army to coddle me for the rest of my life, but at the same time we should not be thrown to the wind," she says. "There should be somebody who calls, a professional who can pick up on things. I keep thinking about that poor girl who killed herself. Who is to say that if a grief counsellor had been calling her just once a month they wouldn't have picked up on those subtle little hints?" Deedy sought out grief counselling for herself and her family but, still a proud army wife, it took her months to do so. "I don't want this to be about being for or against the war," she tells the Guardian. "My husband still has lots of friends and colleagues over there. But I don't want what happened to that girl to happen to anyone else." Inge Colton is another widow who wishes she could escape Iraq, but every day when she turns on the television, listens to the radio, picks up a newspaper, it is right there in her face. "It is not like he died of cancer or something, I see it every day and I am confronted with it every day." Her husband, Chief Warrant Officer Lawrence Colton, was killed on Easter Day last year when his Apache helicopter was shot down by a surface-to-air missile while responding to a distress call from a fuel convoy under attack. Inge had heard from a friend that an Apache from Fort Hood, Texas, had been downed in Baghdad, and when she opened the door of their home to find the uniformed men on the doorstep she knew instantly why they were there. "But I still closed the door on them; I did not want to hear what they were going to tell me. When they knocked again I just said, 'Can you give me a second?'" For Inge, 41, life will never be the same. "Our country wants you to move on, but that is impossible because I live with it every day of my life. I get up in the morning and I put on makeup and make myself presentable, and people think I am getting back to normal. But it's a different kind of normal. I still cry every day." According to Karen Spears Zacharias, who has set up a grassroots network linked to the website heromama.org for widows and the 1,200 children who have lost parents in Iraq, there is better support from the military than there was during the Vietnam era, when her father was killed. But too many widows unable or unwilling to ask for help are falling through the cracks. "What 23-year-old girl is going to feel comfortable walking into a veterans centre or military hospital for counselling? That's like telling someone who lives 10 miles outside of town and who doesn't own a car that there's milk at the store - if they just go get it. "People have said that suicide was Elaina's choice and we should respect that. But I don't buy that. When you're 23 years old and commit suicide it is not about choice but about being in an unhealthy place. We have a responsibility to go beyond just saying that we will be there for them and really be there for them." She adds: "No one wants to talk about suicide because there is a feeling that we failed that person. But we need to talk about it, we can't wait to have 10 more widows kill themselves before we address it. Because right now it doesn't feel like we are anywhere near the end of this war." Comment: War--after all, what is it that the people get? Why--widows, taxes, wooden legs and debt. – Samuel B. Pettengill I'm a Soldier, Not a Spy By Lt. Col. Grant Doty Washington Post December 30, 2005 As Americans take stock of the news that the government has been involved in domestic warrantless eavesdropping as well as surveillance of "potentially threatening people or organizations inside the United States," many people are troubled, including me. Although the government may be interested in my ACLU membership, my wife's participation in war protests or my affiliation with the liberal United Church of Christ, my real anxiety stems from the fact that I am a soldier and may now be under suspicion from my friends and neighbors. Specifically, given the information slowly leaking out of Washington, it may not be farfetched for some to think that when I "stumble across people or information" that might be of interest to the government, I might report it to the Pentagon's three-year-old Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA). While such a conclusion would be false (I hadn't heard of CIFA before reading about it in the news this month), in an Orwellian world, the protestations of someone labeled the "eyes and ears" of the state are reasonably suspect. What makes me think that the people with whom I interact regularly will somehow believe I won't report suspect words and actions? When I walk to my bus stop in Bethesda each morning, I see who has a "War Is Not the Answer" yard sign. One of the people I regularly see on my commute wears a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals button on her overcoat. My church, which prayed for me during my year in Iraq, has an e-mail list that informs me about local civic actions, including war protests. I attend night law school, frequently in uniform, and through the social network of law students know when the gay, lesbian and bisexual organization is planning to lead the picketing of Judge Advocate General Corps recruiters who come to campus. Now that we've learned that the military may be collecting such "raw, unverified information" in the form of "Talon reports," my fear is that when friends and neighbors see me, in or out of uniform, their speech could be chilled. I wonder: Will I begin to see a change in behavior? Will my neighbors draw their shades more often? Will they think twice about putting a bumper sticker on their car? Will I be deleted from the church list? Will my law school class discussions be more reserved? "Paranoia," some may say. The only people who need to worry are those with something to hide. This may be true. In fact, being with the president or against him in the war on terrorism may be the current controversy, but I can envision a time when antiabortion groups and churches might fear soldiers attending meetings or services if such groups are labeled "threats" by a subsequent administration. Are they sincere pro-lifers or moles? Perhaps gun owners' groups might feel that soldiers are joining to get access to membership lists or activities if such groups are deemed "dangerous." Is one a Second Amendment defender or domestic spy? Yes, I took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies "foreign and domestic," but the implication of domestic intelligence-gathering by the military, even by a limited number of soldiers, should be sufficiently disturbing for American citizens in and out of uniform that we think long and hard about crossing the line, even a little. The writer is a lieutenant colonel in the Army. Pluses but Mostly Minuses by Charley Reese antiwar.com 31 Dec 2005 Now that President Bush has launched a new propaganda campaign to convince Americans that we are winning the war in Iraq, it's a good idea to go back to the basics and look at the pluses and minuses of this war. The minuses we all know. The war was sold on false pretenses, there being neither weapons of mass destruction nor ties to al-Qaeda, which after all, was responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Saddam Hussein's government was secular, and the majority of people in Iraq are Shi'ites. Al-Qaeda is a fanatical religious movement that is Sunni, which is why you need never fear that al-Qaeda will take over Iraq. The other minuses are the loss of American prestige, nearly 2,200 dead, about 16,000 wounded, and $221 billion and counting in money. So, that's the downside of the Iraq War. What's the upside? Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume we do win the war, however strangely the Bush administration might decide to define victory. But let's assume we win. The insurgents are defeated. An elected government of pro-Iranian Shi'ites is in charge. What are the benefits to the American people? When a young Marine asked that of Vice President Dick Cheney, he reeled off a list of benefits for the Iraqi people, but said not a word about Americans. Since victory (stipulated only for the sake of argument) is paid for by American blood and American treasure, some benefit should accrue to the American people. What? I can't think of any. That's too high a price just to feel good that we did a bunch of foreigners a favor by relieving them of their homegrown dictator. You could argue, I suppose, that after victory Americans could visit Iraq as tourists, though on this beautiful planet Iraq is not quite – but almost – dead last on the list of scenic places to visit. Besides, it will be decades before Iraqis get over their hostility to Americans, who since 1991 have made their lives miserable with two wars, periodic bombings and cruel sanctions. Americans jolly well won't be safer. The pathetic and infantile argument that if the terrorists weren't fighting us in Iraq they'd be in New York is not worth talking about. Ninety percent of the people fighting us in Iraq are not terrorists, but insurgents who resent the occupation of their country by a foreign power. The other 10 percent are using Iraq as a training ground. After we leave Iraq, some of those might attack us in other places, but they would have anyway. Just because it's been four years since the 9/11 attacks doesn't mean al-Qaeda has given up or even been thwarted by our bureaucrats. There was a long time gap between the first attack on the World Trade Center and the second. Al-Qaeda is patient. That, by the way, is another downside to the Iraq War. Al-Qaeda was our enemy, not Iraq, and we have aided al-Qaeda by invading a Muslim country as well as diverting resources that could have been directed at finding and killing Osama bin Laden. As for the original neoconservative belief that a democratic Iraq would infect the rest of the Middle East and Israel could live peacefully, that was a joke from Day One. The only friends Israel and we have in the Middle East are the dictators we pay, in one way or another, to be our friends. Popularly elected governments would make it quite clear they hate Israel and the U.S. I can tell you one positive thing about this war, if the American people will learn from it. We should never, ever again allow a bunch of academic ideologues and Washington lawyers who don't know crap about the real world to gain control of American foreign policy. The next American president should ask two questions of all the people who present themselves as Middle East experts. Have you lived in an Arab country? Do you speak and read Arabic? If the answers are no, then he should say, "Hit the road, Jack." Twenty-two hundred Americans probably would be alive if Bush had asked those questions of his neoconservative warmongers. Comment: If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. – Thomas Jefferson Justice Probe of Spy Leak Could Shield Bush by James Ridgeway December 30th, 2005 Village Voice WASHINGTON, D.C.—President Bush’s announcement Friday, that the Justice Department would begin an investigation into the leak that brought forth his probably illegal domestic spying project, is clearly political and meant to insulate the White House and intelligence agencies from further public scrutiny by saying they are the subject of a criminal investigation. It will be up to Congress to undertake a serious investigation, issuing its own subpoenas, and calling the major participants to testify. Even as he sought to gain advantage from the spy leak, Bush was faced with a series of new and unsettling events tied to intelligence and foreign policy. The Associated Press revealed the National Security Agency had been placing Internet cookies in millions of computers owned by U.S. citizens. After inquiries by the Associated Press and privacy activists, the NSA claims it abandoned this part of the domestic spying project. The AP reported, "The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most files of that type." The UN is investigating charges the U.S. is force feeding prisoners on a hunger strike at Guantanamo, by ramming pipes through the nose and down into the stomach, resulting in serious bleeding. The Pentagon denies it. "In a statement, the army said it was providing appropriate nutrition through nasal tubes, a procedure that would be consistent with force feeding," BBC reports. John Dean, President Richard Nixon’s former counsel and one of the most persistent critics of the Bush administration’s handling of 9-11 and the War on Terror, writes that Bush should be impeached for his admitted direct violation of the constitution. "There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable," writes Dean in Findlaw. "After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons." Bush, says Dean, "may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is 'data mining' literally millions of calls—and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to 'switching' stations through which foreign communications traffic flows. In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance." As for Bush’s criminal investigation into the leak, Dean says, "Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic—for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him." Abramoff ready to rat on members of Congress By TONI LOCY Dec 31, 2005 Federal prosecutors and lawyers for lobbyist Jack Abramoff are putting the finishing touches on a plea deal that could be announced early next week, according to people familiar with the negotiations. The plea agreement would secure the Republican lobbyist's testimony against several members of Congress who received favors from him or his clients. Abramoff and a former partner were indicted in Miami in August on charges of conspiracy and fraud for allegedly lying about their assets to help secure financing to purchase a fleet of gambling boats. Pressure has been intensifying on Abramoff to strike a deal with prosecutors since former partner Adam Kidan pleaded guilty earlier this month to fraud and conspiracy in connection with the 2000 SunCruz boat deal. Abramoff's cooperation would be a boon to an ongoing Justice Department investigation of congressional corruption, possibly helping prosecutors build criminal cases against up to 20 lawmakers of both parties and their staff members. The people, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talks, said the lawyers spoke by phone with U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck, giving him an update on the plea negotiations. Huck scheduled another status conference for Tuesday afternoon, but the deal could be completed before then, the people said. Abramoff could sign the plea agreement and exchange it with prosecutors via fax over the weekend, they said. Details of where Abramoff will enter his plea are still being worked out. Abramoff's lawyers have indicated that they want the plea to be made in U.S. District Court in Washington, one person said. If that happens, Abramoff would plead guilty to charges contained in a criminal information _ a filing made by a federal prosecutor with a defendant's permission that bypasses action by a grand jury. The lawyers could then apprise Huck about the plea and its effect on the case in Miami. Abramoff and Kidan were charged with concocting a fake $23 million wire transfer to make it appear they were putting their own money into the SunCruz deal. Two lenders agreed to provide $60 million in financing for the purchase based on that false wire transfer, according to prosecutors. For months, prosecutors in Washington have focused on whether Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribal clients of millions of dollars and used improper influence on members of Congress. In a five-year span ending in early 2004, tribes represented by the lobbyist contributed millions of dollars in casino income to congressional campaigns, often routing the money through political action committees for conservative lawmakers who opposed gambling. Abramoff also provided trips, sports skybox fundraisers, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment and jobs for lawmakers' relatives and aides. Kidan and Abramoff bought SunCruz from Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, who was slain in 2001 in a gangland-style hit in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Investigators say Boulis and Kidan were fighting for control of SunCruz; Kidan has denied any involvement in Boulis' death. Three men were arrested in September on murder charges in Boulis' killing and are awaiting trial. Michael Scanlon, another former Abramoff associate, pleaded guilty in November in a separate case in Washington. Scanlon said he helped Abramoff and Kidan buy SunCruz by persuading Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, to insert comments into the Congressional Record that were "calculated to pressure the then-owner to sell on terms favorable" to Abramoff and Kidan. Flashback! Bush removal ended Guam investigation US attorney's demotion halted probe of lobbyist By Walter F. Roche Jr. Los Angeles Times August 8, 2005 WASHINGTON -- A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after. The previously undisclosed Guam inquiry is separate from a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia that is investigating allegations that Abramoff bilked Indian tribes out of millions of dollars. In Guam, a US territory in the Pacific, investigators were looking into Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court reform bill then pending in Congress. The legislation, since approved, gave the Guam Supreme Court authority over the Superior Court. In 2002, Abramoff was retained by the Superior Court in what was an unusual arrangement for a public agency. The Los Angeles Times reported in May that Abramoff was paid with a series of $9,000 checks funneled through a Laguna Beach, Calif., lawyer to disguise the lobbyist's role working for the Guam court. No separate contract was authorized for Abramoff's work. Guam court officials have never explained the contractual arrangement. At the time, Abramoff was a well-known lobbying figure in the Pacific islands because of his work for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Saipan garment manufacturers, accused of employing workers in what critics called sweatshop conditions. Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum said the lobbyist ''has no recollection of his being investigated in Guam in 2002. If he had been aware of an investigation, he would have cooperated fully." Blum declined to respond to detailed questions. The transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov. 18, 2002, according to the subpoena. It demanded that Anthony Sanchez, administrative director of the Guam Superior Court, turn over all records involving the lobbying contract, including bills and payments. A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black. The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary status as the acting US attorney, Black had held the assignment for more than a decade. The acting US attorney was a controversial official in Guam. At the time he was replaced, Black was directing a long-term investigation into allegations of public corruption in the administration of then-Governor Carl Gutierrez. The probe produced numerous indictments, including some of the governor's political associates and top aides. Black, 56, had served as acting US attorney for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands since 1991, when he was named to the post by the president's father, President George H. W. Bush. The career prosecutor, who held a senior position as first assistant before accepting the acting US attorney job, was demoted to a staff post. Black's demotion came after an intensive lobbying effort by supporters of Gutierrez, who had been publicly critical of Black and his investigative efforts. Black declined to comment for this article. His replacement, Leonardo Rapadas, was confirmed in May 2003 without any debate. Rapadas had been recommended for the job by the Guam Republican Party. Fred Radewagen, a lobbyist who had been under contract to the Gutierrez administration, said he carried that recommendation to top Bush aide Karl Rove in early 2003. After taking office, Rapadas recused himself from the public corruption case involving Gutierrez. The new US attorney was a cousin of ''one of the main targets," according to a confidential memo to Justice Department officials. Rapadas declined to comment and referred questions about his recusal to Justice Department officials who did not respond to requests for comment. Flashback! Abramoff had close contact with Bush team 7 May 2005 USA Today/AP WASHINGTON — In President Bush's first 10 months, GOP fundraiser Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team logged nearly 200 contacts with the new administration as they pressed for friendly hires at federal agencies and sought to keep the Northern Mariana Islands exempt from the minimum wage and other laws, records show. The meetings between Abramoff's lobbying team and the administration ranged from Attorney General John Ashcroft to policy advisers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, according to his lobbying firm billing records. Abramoff, a $100,000-plus fundraiser for Bush, is now under criminal investigation for some of his lobbying work. His firm boasted its lobbying team helped revise a section of the Republican Party's 2000 platform to make it favorable to its island client. In addition, two of Abramoff's lobbying colleagues on the Marianas won political appointments inside federal agencies. "Our standing with the new administration promises to be solid as several friends of the CNMI (islands) will soon be taking high-ranking positions in the Administration, including within the Interior Department," Abramoff wrote in a January 2001 letter in which he persuaded the island government to follow him as a client to his new lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig. The reception Abramoff's team received from the Bush administration was in stark contrast to the chilly relations of the Clinton years. Abramoff, then at the Preston Gates firm, scored few meetings with Clinton aides and the lobbyist and the islands vehemently opposed White House attempts to extend U.S. labor laws to the territory's clothing factories. The records from Abramoff's firm, obtained by The Associated Press from the Marianas under an open records request, chronicle Abramoff's careful cultivation of relations with Bush's political team as far back as 1997. In that year, Abramoff charged the Marianas for getting then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush to write a letter expressing support for the Pacific territory's school choice proposal, his billing records show. "I hope you will keep my office informed on the progress of this initiative," Bush wrote in a July 18, 1997, letter praising the islands' school plan and copying in an Abramoff deputy. White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said Thursday that Bush didn't consider Abramoff a friend. "They may have met on occasion, but the president does not know him," she said. As for the number of Abramoff lobbying team contacts with Bush officials documented in the billing records, Healy said: "We do not know how he defines 'contacts.'" Andrew Blum, a spokesman for Abramoff, declined comment. The Greenberg Traurig firm, where Abramoff worked between late 2000 and early 2004, is investigating Abramoff's work and cooperating with government investigations. "Greenberg Traurig accepted Jack Abramoff's resignation from the firm, effective March 2, 2004, after Mr. Abramoff disclosed to the firm personal transactions and related conduct which are unacceptable to the firm and antithetical to the way we do business," spokeswoman Jill Perry said. Abramoff is now under federal investigation amid allegations he overcharged tribal clients by millions of dollars, and his ties to powerful lawmakers such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay are under increasing scrutiny. The documents show his team also had extensive access to Bush administration officials, meeting with Cheney policy advisers Ron Christie and Stephen Ruhlen, Ashcroft at the Justice Department, White House intergovernmental affairs chief Ruben Barrales, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles and others. Most of the contacts were handled by Abramoff's subordinates, who then reported back to him on the meetings. Abramoff met several times personally with top Interior officials, whose Office of Insular Affairs oversees the Mariana Islands and other U.S. territories. In all, the records show at least 195 contacts between Abramoff's Marianas lobbying team and the Bush administration from February through November 2001. At least two people who worked on Abramoff's team at Preston Gates wound up with Bush administration jobs: Patrick Pizzella, named an assistant secretary of labor by Bush; and David Safavian, chosen by Bush to oversee federal procurement policy in the Office of Management and Budget. "We have worked with WH Office of Presidential Personnel to ensure that CNMI-relevant positions at various agencies are not awarded to enemies of CNMI," Abramoff's team wrote the Marianas in an October 2001 report on its work for the year. Abramoff's team didn't neglect party politics either: There were at least two meetings with Republican National Committee officials, including then-finance chief Jack Oliver, as well as attendance at GOP fundraisers. In 2000, Abramoff and his team were connected enough to both political parties to boast of obtaining early drafts of the platforms each adopted at its presidential nominating convention. "In the case of the Republican platform, the team reviewed and commented on sections dealing with insular territories to ensure appropriately positive treatment. This was successful," the Preston Gates firm wrote to Marianas. "In the case of the Democratic Party platform, the team assisted in drafting early versions of neutral language relating to the territories," the firm wrote. "However, heavy intervention by the White House eventually deleted positive references to the CNMI." The access of Abramoff and his team to the administration came as the lobbyist was establishing himself as a GOP fundraiser. Abramoff and his wife each gave $5,000 to Bush's 2000 recount fund and the maximum $1,000 to his 2000 campaign. By mid-2003, Abramoff had raised at least $100,000 for Bush's re-election campaign, becoming one of Bush's famed "pioneers." Money also flowed from the Marianas to Bush's re-election campaign: It took in at least $36,000 from island donors, much of it from members of the Tan family, whose clothing factories were a routine stop for lawmakers and their aides visiting the islands on Abramoff-organized trips. Two Tan family companies gave $25,000 each to the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 2002 elections. Greenberg Traurig, too, was a big GOP giver. Its donations included $20,000 to the Republican National Committee for the 2000 elections and $25,000 each to the GOP's House and Senate fundraising committees in 2000 and again in 2002. The Marianas' lobbying paid off — it fended off proposals in 2001 to extend the U.S. minimum wage to island workers and gained at least $2 million more in federal aid from the administration. Abramoff's team bragged to the cash-strapped Marianas government that the taxpayer money would cover its lobbying bill: "We believe that this additional funding — along with other funds we expect to secure by the end of the year — will make clear to even our biggest critics that we pay for ourselves," Abramoff teammate Kevin Ring wrote in October 2001, copying in Abramoff. Nonprofit group linked to DeLay was funded mostly by clients of Abramoff By R. Jeffrey Smith The Washington Post 31 Dec 2005 WASHINGTON — The U.S. Family Network, a public-advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group. During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners will not identify the money's origins. Two former associates of Edwin Buckham, the congressman's former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay. The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund (IMF) needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy. DeLay voted on Sept. 17, 1998, for a foreign-aid bill containing new funds to replenish the IMF account. A spokesman for DeLay, who is fighting in a Texas state court unrelated charges of illegal fundraising, denied the contributions influenced the former House majority leader's political activities. The Russian energy executives who worked with Abramoff on Friday denied knowing about the million-dollar London transaction described in tax documents. Whatever the motive for the $1 million — a sum not prohibited by law but extraordinary for a small, nonprofit group — the stream of corporate payments detailed on the donor list makes it clear Abramoff's long-standing alliance with DeLay was sealed by a much more extensive web of financial ties than previously known. Records and interviews also illuminate the mixture of influence and illusion that surrounded the U.S. Family Network. Despite the group's avowed purpose, records show it did little to promote conservative ideas through grass-roots advocacy. The money it raised came from businesses with no demonstrated interest in the conservative "moral fitness" agenda that was the group's professed aim. In addition to the million-dollar payment involving the London law firm, for example, $500,000 was donated to the U.S. Family Network by the owners of textile companies in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, according to the tax records. The textile owners — with Abramoff's help — solicited and received DeLay's public commitment to block legislation that would boost their labor costs, according to Abramoff associates, one of the owners and a DeLay speech in 1997. One-quarter of a million dollars was donated over two years by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff's largest lobbying client, which counted DeLay as an ally in fighting legislation allowing the taxation of its gambling revenue. The records, other documents and interviews call into question the stated purpose of the U.S. Family Network, which functioned mostly by collecting money from domestic and foreign businesses whose interests coincided with DeLay's activities while he was serving as House majority whip from 1995 to 2002 and as majority leader from 2002 until the end of September. After the group was formed in 1996, its director told the Internal Revenue Service its goal was to advocate policies favorable for "economic growth and prosperity, social improvement, moral fitness and the general well-being of the United States." DeLay, in a 1999 fundraising letter, called the group "a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control" by mobilizing grass-roots citizen support. But the records show the U.S. Family Network, which never had more than one full-time staff member, spent comparatively little money on public advocacy or education. Although established as a nonprofit organization, it paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Buckham and his lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group. There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit, but Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, and paid her a salary of at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed. Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney, has said the pay was compensation for lists Christine DeLay supplied to Buckham of lawmakers' favorite charities and was appropriate under House rules and election law. Indeed, neither the House nor the Federal Election Commission (FEC) bars the payment of corporate funds to spouses through consulting firms or political-action committees, but the spouses must perform real work for reasonable wages. Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other money financed the cash purchase of a town house three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates called it "the Safe House." DeLay made his own fundraising telephone pitches from the town house's second-floor master suite every few weeks, two former associates said. Other rooms were used by Alexander Strategy Group and Americans for a Republican Majority, DeLay's leadership committee. They paid modest rent to the U.S. Family Network, which occupied a single small room in the back. "Red flags" Nine months before the June 25, 1998, payment of $1 million by the London law firm James & Sarch, as recorded in the tax forms, Buckham and DeLay were the dinner guests in Moscow of Marina Nevskaya and Alexander Koulakovsky of the oil firm NaftaSib, which in promotional literature counted as its principal clients the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior. Buckham had worked for DeLay since 1995, after serving in other congressional offices and then as executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscally conservative House members. Their other dining companions were Abramoff and Washington lawyer Julius "Jay" Kaplan, whose lobbying firms collected $440,000 in 1997 and 1998 from an obscure Bahamian firm that helped organize and indirectly pay for the DeLay trip, in conjunction with the Russians. In disclosure forms, the stated purpose of the lobbying was to promote Russian government policies. Kaplan and British lawyer David Sarch had worked together previously. (Sarch died a month before the $1 million was paid.) Buckham's trip with DeLay was his second to Moscow that year for meetings with Nevskaya and Koulakovsky; on the earlier one, the DeLay aide attracted media attention by returning through Paris aboard the Concorde, a $5,500 flight. Former Abramoff associates and documents in the hands of federal prosecutors state that Nevskaya and Koulakovsky sought Abramoff's help at the time in securing various favors from the U.S. government, including congressional earmarks or federal grants for their construction firm near Moscow and the construction of a fossil-fuel plant in Israel. None appears to have been obtained by their firm. Former DeLay employees say Koulakovsky and Nevskaya met with him on multiple occasions. The Russians also frequently used Abramoff's skyboxes at local sports stadiums — as did Kaplan, according to sources and a 2001 e-mail Abramoff wrote to another client. Three sources familiar with Abramoff's activities on their behalf say the two Russians — who knew the head of the Russian energy giant Gazprom and had invested heavily in that firm — partly wanted just to be seen with a prominent U.S. politician to bolster their credibility with the Russian government and their safety on Moscow's streets. The Russian oil and gas business at the time had a Wild West character, and its executives worried about extortion and kidnapping. During DeLay's visit on Aug. 5-11, 1997, the congressman met with Nevskaya and was escorted around Moscow by Koulakovsky, NaftaSib's general manager. DeLay told the House clerk that the trip's sponsor was the National Center for Public Policy Research, but multiple sources said his expenses were indirectly reimbursed by the Russian-connected Bahamian company. DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said the principal reason for his Moscow trip was "to meet with religious leaders there." Nevskaya, in a letter this spring, said NaftaSib's involvement in such trips was meant "to foster better understanding between our country and the United States" and denied the firm was seeking protection through its U.S. contacts. Nevskaya added in an e-mail Friday that NaftaSib and its officials were not representing the ministries of defense and interior or any other government agencies "in connection with meetings or other lobbying activities in Washington D.C. or Moscow." A former Abramoff associate said the two executives "wanted to contribute to DeLay" and clearly had the resources to do it. At one point, Koulakovsky asked during a dinner in Moscow "what would happen if the DeLays woke up one morning" and found a luxury car in their front driveway, the former associate said. They were told the DeLays "would go to jail and you would go to jail." The tax form states that the $1 million came by check on June 25, 1998, from "Nations Corp, James & Sarch Co." James & Sarch was dissolved in May 2000, but two former partners said they recalled hearing the names of the Russians at their office. Asked if the firm represented them, former partner Philip McGuirk at first said "it may ring a bell"; later he faxed a statement that he could say no more because of confidentiality practices. Nevskaya said in the e-mail Friday, however, that "neither NaftaSib nor the principals you mentioned have ever been represented by a London law firm that you name as James & Sarch Co." She also said NaftaSib and its principals did not pay $1 million to the firm and denied knowing about the transaction. Two former Buckham associates said he told them years ago that the $1 million was solicited from Russian oil and gas executives and that the initial plan was for the donation to be made via a delivery of cash to be picked up at a Washington-area airport. One of the former associates, a Frederick, Md., pastor named Christopher Geeslin who served as the U.S. Family Network's director or president from 1998 to 2001, said Buckham further told him in 1999 that the payment was meant to influence DeLay's vote in 1998 on legislation that helped make it possible for the IMF to bail out the faltering Russian economy and the wealthy investors there. "Ed told me, ' This is the way things work in Washington,' " Geeslin said. "He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash." Buckham and his attorney, Laura Miller, did not reply to repeated requests for comment. The IMF funding legislation was a contentious issue in 1998. The Russian stock market fell steeply in April and May, and the government in Moscow announced June 18 — a week before the $1 million check — that it needed $10 billion to $15 billion in new international loans. On Aug. 18, 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble and defaulted on its treasury bills. DeLay, on "Fox News Sunday" on Aug. 30 of that year, criticized the IMF financing bill, calling the replenishment of its funds "unfortunate." In the end, the IMF agreed to lend the money and DeLay voted on Sept. 17, 1998, for the foreign-aid bill containing new funds to replenish the IMF account. DeLay's spokesman said the lawmaker "makes decisions and sets legislative priorities based on good policy and what is best for his constituents and the country." Kaplan did not respond to repeated messages, and through a spokesman for lawyer Abbe Lowell, Abramoff declined to comment. No legal impediment exists to a $1 million donation by a foreign entity to a group such as the U.S. Family Network, said Marcus Owens, a lawyer who directed the IRS' office of tax-exempt organizations from 1990 to 2000 and who reviewed, at The Post's request, the tax returns filed by the U.S. Family Network. But "a million dollars is a staggering amount of money to come from a foreign source," Owens said. "Giving large donations to an organization whose purposes are as ambiguous as these ... is extraordinary. I haven't seen that before. It suggests something else is going on. "There are any number of red flags on these returns." Indian tribe's lobbying Buckham and Tony Rudy were the first DeLay staff members to visit the Choctaw Reservation near Meridian, Miss., where the tribe built a 500-room hotel and a 90,000-square-foot casino. DeLay, his wife and Susan Hirschman — Buckham's successor in 1998 as chief of staff — were the next to go. Their trip from July 31 to Aug. 2, 1998, was described on House disclosure forms as a "site review and reservation tour for charitable event"; forms said it cost the Choctaws $6,935. Buckham, then a lobbyist, arranged DeLay's trip, which included a visit to the tribe's golf course to assess it as a possible location for the lawmaker's annual charity tournament, according to a tribal source. Abramoff told the tribe he could not accompany DeLay because of a prior commitment, the source said. One day after the DeLays departed for Washington, the U.S. Family Network registered an initial $150,000 payment made by the Choctaws, according to its tax return. The tribe made additional payments to the group totaling $100,000 on "various" dates the following year, the returns state. The Choctaws separately paid Abramoff $4.5 million for his lobbying work on their behalf in 1998 and 1999. Abramoff and his wife contributed $22,000 to DeLay's political campaigns from 1997 to 2000, according to public records. A former Abramoff associate who is aware of the payments, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the tribe made contributions to entities associated with DeLay because DeLay was crucial to the tribe's continuing fight against legislation to allow the taxation of Indians' gambling revenue. A lawyer for the tribe, Bryant Rogers, said the funds were meant to "get the message out" about the adverse tax-law proposals and to finance a campaign by Buckham's group within "the conservative base" against legislation to strip tribes of their control over Indian adoptions. In March 1999, after the tribe had paid a substantial sum directly to the U.S. Family Network, Buckham expressed his general gratitude to Abramoff in an e-mail: "I really appreciate you going to bat for us." Research editor Lucy Shackelford; researchers Alice Crites, Madonna Lebling, Karl Evanzz and Meg Smith; and database editor Derek Willis contributed to this report. Two-Tiers Plan Continues to Strangle American Manufacturing Workers By Bonnie Henthorn 31 Dec 2005 ICH With the rash of corporate bankruptcies, labor disputes and the unprecedented increases in corporate management salaries, bonuses and fringes, profitable corporations are using the same unfair, disrespectful and discriminatory practices to increase their ever growing profits at the expense of the working class. In a small town in West Virginia, PPG Industries, Inc., a multi-million dollar, global corporation, has offered a two-tier pay system to their 470 union employees, asking them to ratify a contract that knowingly creates a second “class” of worker with different pay rates and benefits for all new employees. How is a union to represent two classes of workers? They cannot and that is what the company is banking on, the beginning of the end of this local union. ICWUC / UFCW Local 45C went to the picket lines in opposition of this new wage plan on September 9th, 2005. The strikers vow to protect the rights of all union members, not just those lucky enough to already be an employee. The workers do not understand why there is such drastic cost-cutting measures when, by the company’s own admission, they have enjoyed record sales, quarter over quarter for more than a year. This local union produces chlor-alkali chemicals, among other chemicals, with these particular items having performed well in past quarters. PPG issued a press release April 21st, 2005 entitled: “Another strong performance for PPG in 2005, says CEO” discussing last year’s (2004) performance. It states: “PPG generated record sales of $9.5 billion in 2004, with net income up 38 percent…” (emphasis added). The CEO predicted that PPG would see continued strength in the company’s chlor-alkali business in 2005. Another release entitled: “PPG Reports Adjusted Net Earnings Grow 56 Percent in First Quarter on 10-Percent Stronger Sales” discloses the company’s 1st quarter of 2005 earnings as: "Our sales in the first quarter were an all-time record for any quarter, reflecting the continued growth in all segments of our balanced business portfolio,” (emphasis added) said Raymond W. LeBoeuf, Chairman. It also states that “Chemicals sales increased $154 million, or 34 percent, on higher selling prices for chlor-alkali products, …” “Operating earnings were up $114 million primarily because of higher selling prices and improved volumes, which more than offset higher energy costs and inflation.” “Our strong earnings performance reflects the strength of our chlor-alkali business coupled with improvements in glass” says LeBoeuf. Again, a press release dated July 21st, 2005 entitled: “PPG Posts Record Sales for Any Quarter; Net Income up 24 Percent in Second Quarter” notes: "We not only generated record sales for any quarter, we also enjoyed one of our best quarterly earnings performances ever," (emphasis added) said Charles E. Bunch, current Chairman and CEO. "While the global economy shows signs of moderating, we see continued strength in our coatings and chemicals segments, which achieved record sales each of the past two quarters. (emphasis added) This measurable proof validates our earnings growth strategies and positions PPG to continue generating shareholder returns.” It also said: “Chemicals sales increased $134 million, or 27 percent, on higher selling prices for chlor-alkali products, higher volumes in optical and the impact of foreign currencies.” “Record profits”, “best quarterly performances ever”, “net income up 38%”, “net income up 24%”, these are not the statements of a company who needs to push drastic cost-cutting measures. From the sound of the press being put out by the company, the chemicals sector is performing well and this performance is expected to continue, why, then the need for such drastic cost-cutting measures? The answer lies in the trend of skyrocketing management salaries, as well as, plain corporate greed. A study featured in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette on Sunday, May 16, 2004, of Pittsburgh’s “fortunate 50” Executives shows that four of PPG Industries, Inc.’s management received raises in pay, bonuses, benefits, stock options, etc. ranging from 179% to 255% for the year of 2003. Again, where is the need for cost-cutting measures? Stockholders also have no reason to complain as the stock for PPG Industries, Inc. has grown from $44.70 (on 9/2/02 at ratification of the last work contract) to $70 in the 1st quarter of 2005. The stock has since receded somewhat due to energy costs and such, but there is still no argument that the stock is in trouble or even merely, holding its ground. Again, where is the need for cost-cutting measures? No, this attempt to implement a two-tier system is merely the concoction of some high-priced lawyers who have devised a plan to further exploit American workers. The company refuses to negotiate the issue with the union after nearly four months of picketing and insist on using shady tactics in court to win injunction after injunction against the union as is typical in situations such as this, with the judicial system not even questioning the issue of whether the two parties are negotiating. It is understandable and agreed that corporations are in the business to make money. They are expected to do so. Ideally, the more they make, the more secure a job, the better and more secure it is for its workers and for the community. However, the scales continue to be tilted against the American worker and for big-time money and corporate greed. Bonnie Henthorn ( henny@starband.net ) Comment: The Nazification of America continues with the gathering of all money and power into the hands of corporate psychopaths, and the reducing of everyone else to a class of peasants. George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably By JOHN W. DEAN FindLaw 30 Dec 2005 On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda. Click here to find out more! Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer. Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense. There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons. These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column. Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows. In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance. Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how. Before becoming Counsel to the President of the United States in July 1970 at age thirty-one, John Dean was Chief Minority Counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, the Associate Director of a law reform commission, and Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States. He served as Richard Nixon's White House lawyer for a thousand days. He did his undergraduate studies at Colgate University and the College of Wooster, with majors in English Literature and Political Science. He received a graduate fellowship from American University to study government and the presidency, before entering Georgetown University Law Center, where he received his JD in 1965. John has written many articles on law, government,and politics. He has recounted his days in the Nixon White House and Watergate in two books, Blind Ambition (1976) and Lost Honor (1982). John Lives in Beverly Hills, California with his wife Maureen. He works as a writer, lecturer, and private investment banker. In 2001 he published "The Rehnquist Choice: The Untold Story of the Nixon Appointment that Redefined the Supreme Court;" in 2002 he published an e-book "Unmasking Deep Throat;" and in early 2004, Warren G. Harding. His newest book is "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush." Growing powers of secrecy The New York Times DECEMBER 30, 2005 The open government law that guaranteed greater freedom of information to the American public will soon be 40 years old and desperately in need of legislative overhaul, thanks to the Bush administration. The White House's sweeping enlargement of agency powers has nearly doubled the rate of newly classified documents to 15 million a year. At the same time, the administration has choked back the annual volume of documents declassified for public access, from 200 million in 1998 to 44 million lately. At the heart of this thickening veil are direct presidential orders and former Attorney General John Ashcroft's blanket assurance of legal defense to any agency erring on the side of secrecy. This reversed the Clinton administration's "presumption of disclosure" when it came to public requests. The Sept. 11 commission has already pointed out that this general retreat from the intent of the law hardly discourages terrorists; in fact, it was the government's internal failure to share information that contributed to that tragedy. Innocuous White House press pool reports are subject to classification, while historians complain of yearlong delays before academic requests are even acknowledged, never mind fulfilled. Environmentalists can't see routine dam and river drainage maps in the name of homeland security. A turnaround is urgently needed, including penalties for delays, which now can run into years, and an independent watchdog working for the public, which files most freedom of information requests. Bipartisan interest in reform is stirring, and in an attempt to head off congressional involvement, President George W. Bush recently ordered better information access at federal agencies. But his order's details are pro forma public relations, at best, and no match for legislation proposed by Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, and Senators John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. They would push the disclosure pendulum back toward center and put muscle back in the law for the public. Comment: Only evildoers seek the darkness to hide their crimes... Goss Builds the Case for Turkey-Based Attacks Targeting Iran and Syria By GARY LEUPP December 30, 2005 Counterpunch Another year over, and we still haven't seen the widely-predicted U.S. (or U.S.-Israeli) attacks on Syria and Iran. But keep paying attention. The Turkish press reports that in a December trip to Turkey, CIA Director Porter Goss "asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria." Coming hot on the heels of FBI Director Robert Mueller, he brought with him a large delegation and three dossiers laying out the case against Iran. The first purportedly documents the existence of Iranian nuclear weapons, the second of Iranian ties to al-Qaeda and the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK), and the third depicts Iran as a mortal enemy of the secular Turkish state. Apparently the PKK issue was central to the discussions. This account follows Philip Giraldi's report in the American Conservative last July that Vice President Cheney has asked the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to draw up concrete, short term contingency plans for an attack on Iran, to involve "a large-scale air assault employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." This would occur in the aftermath of a terror attack on the U.S. which, whatever its origins, would be politically used to justify an attack on Iran, just as the al-Qaeda attack was used to justify the attack on Iraq. Cheney has also declared matter-of-factly that if the U.S. doesn't attack Iran, Israel might do so. James Petras persuasively documents Israeli intentions. As Kurt Nimmo notes, the full import of the Turkish story hasn't been echoed in the U.S. press. http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=164 But inquiring journalistic minds should be asking, "What does it mean for Turkey to be ready for U.S. actions against two more Muslim states?" In March 2003 the Turkish legislature refused to allow the deployment of U.S. troops from Turkey to Iraq in advance of the invasion. The then Prime Minister Abdullah Gul was on board the program, but the parliamentarians backed up by public opinion narrowly voted against it. Goss must have met with current Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a bid to avoid more embarrassment in future. Are Turkish rulers being asked to support air strikes from Incirlik Air Force Base? To contain mass protests as the Terror War widens? Are they being offered carrots in return for cooperation, such as a green light to operate against the PKK in Iran, as the German news agency DPP has claimed? Or in Syria and northern Iraq? Are they buying the arguments for attacks? Turkey seems a country of vital significance to the neocons, as it is for Israel. An overwhelmingly Muslim but secularist state, with strong military and political ties to Israel, it has received two neocon U.S. ambassadors in recent years (former State Department official Marc Grossman and "Scooter" Libby deputy Eric Edelman). It's been suggested that Valerie Plame was outed to impede her investigation of links between the neocons, the American-Turkish Council, and a Turkish nuclear program. As the only Muslim NATO country, supportive of U.S. policy in Afghanistan if not Iraq, it could play a key role in the planned attacks on Iran and Syria. The CIA, more inclined than before to "fix the intelligence around policy" naturally gets sent to show the Turks that there are multiple reasons to support an expansion of the American war in its part of the world. (This is the CIA headed by Goss, who once pronounced himself unsuitable for the agency chief post, and who a top outgoing CIA official, Robert Richer, told a Senate committee is out of touch with reality.) His argument to the Turks seems to have hinged on the Kurdish issue. The Turkish regime fears its large (20%?) Kurdish minority, and the Kurds' kindred in Iraq, Syria and Iran. The Kurds are the largest stateless people in the world and have been oppressed historically in all these nations. A key reason Turkey opposed war on Iraq was the prospect of confronting an autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan on its border that might encourage its own Kurds to demand independence. So naturally the Bush administration argues that Iran is helping both the universal demon al-Qaeda (which in point of fact hates Iran's Shiite regime) and the totally different, secular, quasi-Marxist PKK. The appeal seems terribly primitive, a repeat of the ridiculous linkages that the neocons drew before attacking Iraq. The charges of al-Qaeda-Iranian cooperation echo the charges about al-Qaeda operatives training at Salman Pak in Iraq, or those about high-level meetings between Saddam or his intelligence agents with al-Qaeda promoted by the neocons before and after the attack on Iraq. All discredited, to anyone paying attention. So too the charges about Iraq's nuclear program, eerily similar to tales of laptop designs for nuclear missile attacks and satellite "proofs" of nuclear weapons facilities effectively dissected by Nimmo and Gordon Prather and others who may some months from now have to say, "Told you so." Links between the PKK and Iran? Maybe, at points in the past. But its leftist ideology doesn't jibe very well with Shiite Islamism, and in 2003 Iran listed the PKK as a "terrorist organization." Last summer Erdogan and then-Iranian President Mohammad Khatami signed a series of strategic accords, including one directed against both the PKK and the Iraq-based Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK). (The latter, while listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization, is favored by the neocons in the U.S. as a tool to use against the Iranian regime.) In recent years the PKK seems to have received more cooperation from Syria, where captured Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan has reportedly told Turkish prosecutors (under who knows what circumstances) the PKK owns property. But Abdullah Gul, currently Foreign Minister, describes Turkey's relations with Syria as "excellent," adding "we don't want any new war in the region... all of us have been harmed by Iraqi war." The U.S. response seems to be, "You don't know what's in your own best interest. You'll be more harmed by not respecting your commitment to the NATO alliance, not showing appreciation for our aid all these years and our support for your EU entry. We plan to remake the whole region, damn it, and so you'd best get on board the program. We and our Israeli friends are using the Iraqi Kurds for our own purposes, while trying to keep your Kurds in the border areas from attacking you. It's in your interest to work with us and our good Kurds against your bad Kurds who-believe us-are being supported by the big bad Syrians and Iranians. Now's your chance to kick some butt, and when we're finished we'll all be happy." I don't know how this cowboy logic might go down in Ankara, as neighboring Iraq becomes a "democratically""established Shiite Islamist state aligned with Iran but also friendly with Iran-allied secular Baathist Syria. Ali Topez, a leader of the opposition Republican People's Party, charges that the Goss and Mueller visits were intended to "soften up" Turkey and make it accept Washington's demands. But he argues, "If they want to end terrorism, they should catch" the PKK forces in northern Iraq. The neocons all along have relied upon lies, shifting rationales, fear-mongering and essentialist portraits of "terrorism" to manipulate American public opinion and to cow foreign leaders into cooperation as they pursue their New American Century goals. They've done better on the first score, although the U.S. public has lost trust in the administration and the corporate press has become somewhat more inclined to raise questions. On the other hand it has scored significant successes in obtaining the unprincipled September IAEA vote against Iran and (with much French assistance) building the case for UN sanctions against Syria. Maybe such "diplomatic" activity including the Mueller and Goss visits to Turkey will pay off with the expanded war Gul says the Turks don't want. Nimmo plausibly describes the likely outcome of strikes against Iran and Syria. Intensified Hizbollah attacks on Israel; Iranian attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, utterly justified by the U.S. act of war; the collapse of Shiite Iraqi support at low ebb as it is for continued U.S. military presence in their country; the Yugoslav-like fracturing of Iraq into an Iranian-aligned Shiite state, a Sunni state, and a Kurdish state. Over this last, the interests of the U.S., Israel and Turkey might converge. Seymour Hersh has reported that Israel, disillusioned by the U.S. failure to produce an Israel-friendly regime in Baghdad, now feels itself best served by an Israel-friendly Kurdistan sharing its own antipathy to Arab Muslims. The warmongers play a complex game, and just as things haven't gone entirely as they hoped so far, they may careen way off the charted path in the hear future. "That'll serve them right," one might want to say. But how much suffering for Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Turks and others must occur before rational Americans (and Israelis) take firm measures to stay the hands of those calmly planning more attacks? Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades. He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu War Resister Jerry Texiero, the Marine Corps and Who Betrayed Whom? By: Jack Dalton Jack's Straight Speak “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” Henry Kissinger Just when was it we in this nation lost our ability to choose if and when we would be willing to kill another human being, or be killed ourselves? When was it that following the “rules” became more important than following what is right? Case in point: Jerry Texiero; who as an active duty Marine in 1965 refused to deploy to Vietnam and took off (For details see: Marine Refuser From 40 Years Ago Faces Court Martial). 40 years later the Marine Corps has Jerry incarcerated at the Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Why would the Marine Corps take so much interest in Jerry Texiero and want to court-martial him 40 years later, when we all know for absolute fact the ‘American War On Vietnam’ was contrived, a war crime on a grand scale, and a war in some ways that has never ended? After all, the Agent Orange we “salted” the earth with in Vietnam is still killing large numbers of people there, as well as here with veterans of that mess; thousands have been and still are being killed by all the unexploded ordinance and land mines all over the country, especially in Quang Tri Province. The Marines want to court-martial Jerry to send a message to the growing number of active duty military, who are becoming resistive to their participation in this new war of choice in Iraq, that if they are unwilling to deploy to Iraq, they will suffer the same fate as Sgt Kevin Benderman, who is doing 15 months at the RCF (or Gulag if you prefer as do I); If they take off, they will be hunted for the rest of their lives, like Jerry Texiero. The military, the Department of War and the Pentagon are in serious manpower trouble and they need to make examples of people for the purpose of intimidation and coercion—make them afraid to do anything but “follow orders”; to send a loud message to others so they will not follow the example of people of conscience. That’s why Sgt Benderman is in jail, and why the Marine Corps wants to court-martial Jerry Texiero. Two different men separated by 40 years; two different created wars and both are being “beat up” by an out of control Pentagon and Military for their refusal to be used for rather nefarious purposes. And all due to the fact both men refused to be turned into mindless obedient killers—or dead in the process, in mind and spirit if not body. They have refused to used as the “pawns” as stated by Kissinger among many, many others. Recruitment is down even with the lowered enlistment standards; officers are leaving in bigger numbers as are enlisted ranks’ divorces are soaring as a result of extended and repeated deployments to Iraq; thousands of active duty military have followed in the footsteps of the active duty war-resisters during the war on Vietnam and have left the country; suicides in just the Marine Corps alone since the invasion of Iraq has increased by over 29%, far above not only the national average but the increased overall military average as well. I have received many emails behind the story about Jerry Texiero saying that while the War on Vietnam may have been wrong, Jerry still volunteered to join and due to that he had an obligation to follow the “rules” and go to Vietnam regardless of what he though or how he felt about the war he was being ordered to go into. My reply to that thinking is simply this—Hogwash! When we enlist in the military, yes there are rules that must be obeyed and followed. No problem with that. Without that the military would simply fall apart, I realized that (after all, I did spend over 4 years in the Marine Corps myself). However, that all changes when it comes to being sent into a war that up front we know to be wrong, illegal, and by definition a war crime; A War Against the Peace. When it comes to following orders to kill or be killed, every single human being has the inalienable right to choose whether or not they will be a participant in those killing fields! To tag or label someone as a “criminal” for making the conscience choice not to kill is absurd. Simply “following orders” does not relieve one of the responsibilities of their actions, period. That is all compounded when the war you are being ordered into has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the security or defense of this nation; which is what we all swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend—this nation. No oath was sworn to be of assistance to “Empire Building” period. Not 40 years ago and surely not today. It was not Jerry Texiero who broke the faith, it was not Jerry Texiero who betrayed his oath; it was not Jerry Texiero who violated any trust; it was not Jerry Texiero who betrayed honor; it was not Jerry Texiero betrayed anything…it was those in command and control of the nation and the military who broke the faith, who broke trust, who betrayed everyone in uniform and the people of this nation as a whole. It has been said that free speech does not give a person the right to walk into a crowded theater and yell “fire”. My answer to that has always been—but what if there is a fire? The same principle applies to Jerry and his supposed “rule” breaking; what if the rules are wrong? The following report/essay, “War Resistance, Amnesty and Exile – Just the Facts” by Harold Jordan, explains in great detail the so-called Amnesty programs initiated in the 70’s by Ford and Carter. I strongly urge you to read it carefully and closely. Harold Jordan also goes into the tremendous numbers of people in uniform who opposed the War On Vietnam with up to 550,000 that went AWOL or deserted (those are the Pentagon’s own numbers). Why does the Marine Corps want to prosecute Jerry Texiero?—what if the same numbers of people in uniform today do what those in uniform did during the War on Vietnam and start putting down their guns in large numbers? Interesting proposition is it not? Now with so many standing in opposition to this new imperialistic misadventure in Iraq, what if those involved in following the “rules” take their lead from Sgt Kevin Benderman or Jerry Texiero and say no, or just put down their gun and just leave? No, it was not Jerry Texiero who betrayed anything. It is those who have been and are currently turning our Department of Defense into the Department of War; who for decades has been slowly turning this nation’s military into the U.S. Multinational Corporation’s enforcement arm. Or as Henry Kissinger who was quoted in the book, “Kiss the Boys Goodbye” stated, “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” .............. Jack Dalton is a disabled veteran of the American War on Vietnam and writer that lives in Portland, OR. His blog is Jack’s Straight-Speak and his email address is jack_dalton@comcast.net. He is widely published on the internet and was a contributor to the book, “Neo-Conned! Again!”, Published by Light in the Darkness publications, IHS Press. Is 2005 the Year Republicans and Bush Were Finally Seen as the Corrupt Destroyers of America they truly are? Or is 2005 the year the Republicans and Bush Cast the Straw That Broke America's Back? by Rob Kall 31 Dec 2005 As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. Justice William O. Douglas The horrific fall of the most basic rights and strengths of America-- democracy, privacy, truth and trust in government, transparency-- did not happen at once. But 2005 was the year when we the people, and the rest of the world were finally able to see clearly that the Bush Administration and its rubber stamp republican sycophants were not just a little, but outrageously, historically corrupt, brazenly breaking laws and flaunting their criminal actions. 2005 was the year when Bush decided he could declare his illegal actions. Perhaps he's appointed enough judges to make him feel safe that they will rule in his favor. 2005 was the year that the truth came out that the job of the Justice department to prevent bad laws from being implemented at the state level was blocked by political appointees who over-ruled career appointees who said laws allowing gerrymandering in Texas and pricey voter ID cards in Georgia should be illegal. This will forever cast a negative light on Attorney's General Gonzalez and Ashcroft. These two are running an agency that should be investigating and incarcerating them. 2005 was the year when Tom DeLay was censured for the third time by the congress, indicted in Texas, yet the president still supported this filthy, verminous miscreant who should be rotting in prison. 2005 was the year we learned that the military has been lying to us about the number of GIs who have died because of the Iraq insanity-- that when they say 2100 died in Iraq, they didn't count those who died in Helicopters over Iraq or in hospitals outside Iraq, from wounds produced IN Iraq. The real numbers are closer to 8,000 dead. 2005 was the year that Bush casually acknowledged that over 30,000 innocent Iraqis had been killed by American actions. 2005 was the year that the idiotic Medicare drug plan went into effect-- the one that congress passed the legislation for based upon lies told by Bush appointees, the one that will, by summer of 2006, stop paying for drug costs, inevitably leading many seniors to stop buying medications which are keeping them alive. Some of those seniors will die. 2005 was the year we saw the massive incompetence of Bush appointee Michael Brown, head of FEMA, and when it started dawning on the mass of Americans that his idiocy was just the tip of the Bush appointee iceberg. Or perhaps the rotting from the head down metaphor works better than the iceberg metaphor. 2005 was the year DLC republicrat insiders "annointed" an anti choice, anti-abortion, anti embryonic stem cell candidate to run against Major league Republican "man-on-dog" Rick Santorum. They say Bob Casey jr. is the best choice. This is the same guy who, just weeks before a gubernatorial race primary had a 17 point lead and lost. Casey is the same guy who has been unable to marshall enough grass roots support to win a single on-line poll. My pick for Santorum's opposition is Chuck Pennacchio, who's made over 170 stump speeches across the state and built a grassroots support network of over 5000. 2005 was the year that Dick Cheney and George Bush shamefully opposed a congressional ban against torturing prisoners. 2005 was the year desperate fool Bill O'Reilly tried to build his media stock by selling a war against Christmas. What he did was prove just how un-Christian he and his theo-fascist fundamentalist supporters really are. 2005 was the year that South America showed that they had a better idea of democracy than the republicans and Bush do. 2005 was the year the 9/11 commission reported what a terrible job the Bush administration has done protecting America from terrorism. 2005 was the year the major precendent was set that corporations could screw pensioners and workers, using money that was supposed to be put aside for pensions to bail out bad management. 2005 was the year that it became clear the Bush administration's appointees at the VA were there to screw, not support veterans who have faithfully served their country. 2005 was the year George Bush used the Katrina disaster to erase laws protecting blue collar workers. Bush cravenly returned the laws when he was about to be beaten on this game in congress by Democrats and enough republicans who'd been shamed into protecting their abused constituents. 2005 was the year Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby-- the first step in cleaning up a corrupt White House that exposed an undercover CIA agent for spite, because the agent, Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson told the world about Bush's yellowcake Uranium lies. 2005 was the year the the GAO confirmed that Bush stole the 2004 election. 2005 was the year the right wing and some sell-out DLC republicrats passed the consumer betraying bankruptcy laws. 2005 was the year when Bush's poll numbers hit the road, when middle Americans started to wake up. It seems there's always about 25-29% of the American populations who are just so stupid, brainwashed or greedy to wake up. I'm at the point where I feel like wearing a tee-shirt that reads "still Republican? You must be a total moron. And by the way the capital letter "W" is really an "M" turned upside down, and stands for moron. 2005 was the year America started waking up. Is it too late, or will she shrug off and recover from this vile Bush Republican infestation of maggots? 2005 was the year Michael Jackson moved to Bahrain, probably to avoid further prosecution and litigation. Now there's an idea. Why not cut a deal with Dubya-- let him move to Bahrain in exchange for quitting immediately and giving the USA back to the people, before he totally destroys it. God Bless these United States. I wish America a happy and healthy new year. Did I leave out any Bush/Republican horrors. Drop me a note with your items to add to this litany. rob@opednews.com Rob Kall is editor of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. The Incredible Bush Double-Standard on Classified Leaks Andy Ostroy The Ostroy Report 31 Dec 2005 Here's the scenario: our over-zealous, corrupt president flicks the switch some three-dozen times since 2001, authorizing the National Security Agency to use illegal wiretaps and other surveillance tactics on American citizens to supposedly intercept terrorist chatter and protect the nation from acts of terrorism. And when news of this flagrant violation of Congressional law finds its way to the front pages, as it did Dec. 16 in the NY Times, Bush's ire is raised and a special prosecutor is soon named to investigate the leak. Why? Because as we all know, Bush hates leaks and the leakers who leak them. Except of course when they're card-carrying Busheviks, in which case leaks are just fine. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. As reported in the Times Saturday, the Justice Department announced Friday that it had opened a criminal investigation into the leak about Bush's secret eavesdropping scheme. Incredulously, the DOJ finds it more appropriate to legally pursue the whistle-blowers than those who may have committed the original crime. And further, where is Bush's outrage over his administration's reprehensible leaking of classified information in the form of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity back in 2003? How is it that Karl Rove is still allowed to stink up the halls of the White House given his boss's disdain for leakers? Like everything else in this administration, it's "do as I say, not as I do." The hypocrisy is not only incredible, it's downright disgusting, especially when it involves breaching the safety of covert agents and the rights and civil liberties of American citizens everywhere. President or King? by Mick Youther 31 December 2005 In the mid 1970’s, Congress learned that both Democratic and Republican Presidents had been using “national security” concerns as an excuse to tap the phones of celebrities, war protesters and political activists. In response to these abuses of power, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which made it illegal to conduct electronic surveillance on Americans without a warrant or statutory authorization. President Bush explained: “… any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” -- April 2004 You can’t say it much clearer than that. So, it came as quite a shock to Bush-believers when the New York Times (12/16/05) revealed that, for the past four years, President Bush has been secretly authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on American citizens without a warrant. At first, the Bush Administration refused to even confirm that Americans were being spied on, but it wasn’t long before they were making a laundry list of excuses for breaking the FISA law. Their reasons run from the inane to the insane. Bush claims they don’t have time to get warrants because they need to “move faster and quicker” to catch the evildoers. That would make sense if FISA hadn’t set up a special court for the sole purpose of issuing the required warrants. Warrants can be obtained within hours—or even minutes, if necessary. If that still isn’t fast enough, the law allows the government to start the surveillance immediately, and then request the warrant later. You can’t get much faster than that. Bush’s attorneys claim the Constitution gives the President “inherent authority” as Commander in Chief to authorize unwarranted spying on Americans to protect our “national security”. Don’t bother looking. You won’t find that written in the Constitution. “A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens,” --Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion in a case in which Bush tried to claim the same “inherent authority” to hold U.S. citizens without charge or trial. “Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operation, to scientific advancement and the like.” --Justice William O. Douglas “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.” --Justice Charles Evans Hughes Bush also claims that when Congress authorized him to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against those responsible for the attacks of 9/11, they were really saying that he could ignore the law and spy on Americans without a warrant. Statements made at the time of the authorization dispute that claim: “In extending this broad authority to cover those ‘planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding the attacks’ it should go without saying, however, that the resolution is directed only at using force abroad to combat acts of international terrorism.” --Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), Congressional Record, 9/14/01 “The body of this resolution is appropriately limited to those entities involved in the attacks that occurred on September 11th… It reiterates the existing constitutional powers of the President to take action to defend the United States, but provides no new or additional grant of powers to the President.” --Rep. James McGovern (D-MA), Congressional Record, 9/14/01 Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader at that time, has come forward to say: “I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.” -- The Washington Post, 12/23/05 Mr. Daschle went on to explain, “Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change…. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas - where we all understood he wanted authority to act - but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens.” The Senate refused the request. This makes it clear that Bush’s secret spying on Americans is not the result of some innocent misunderstanding or misinterpretation. The Bush Administration specifically asked for authority to use its expanded powers within the United States and Congress said “No”. The fact that Bush went ahead and authorized unwarranted spying on Americans should surprise no one. He has already managed to get way with secret arrests, secret detentions, secret trials using secret evidence, secret prisons, and secret torture —why not secret spying on Americans? Bush has admitted to ignoring (breaking) the FISA law and vows to continue ignoring it as long as he is President of the United States. Now it is up to the Republican-controlled Congress to reassert its place as a coequal branch of government. Congress makes the laws. The President’s job is to enforce the laws —all the laws; not just the ones he likes. There have been some encouraging signs. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) says he is “skeptical” of Bush’s claim of authority, and he plans to hold hearings. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) have requested a joint inquiry by the judiciary and intelligence committees. “I took an oath of office to the Constitution. I didn’t take an oath of office to my party or to my president.” --Senator Chuck Hagel If enough members of Congress remember that oath; there will be hearings, and Bush will finally be held accountable for his actions. If they fail to do that, Congress might as well crown him King and go home. Mick Youther is an American citizen, an independent voter, a veteran, a parent, a Christian, a scientist, a writer, and all-around nice guy who has been aroused from a comfortable apathy by the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration. Heck of a Job, Bushie by Paul Krugman The New York Times December 30, 2005 "A year ago we didn't know..." A year ago, everyone expected President Bush to get his way on Social Security. Pundits warned Democrats that they were making a big political mistake by opposing plans to divert payroll taxes into private accounts. A year ago, everyone thought Congress would make Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent, in spite of projections showing that doing so would lead to budget deficits as far as the eye can see. But Congress hasn't acted, and most of the cuts are still scheduled to expire by the end of 2010. A year ago, Mr. Bush made many Americans feel safe, because they believed that he would be decisive and effective in an emergency. But Mr. Bush was apparently oblivious to the first major domestic emergency since 9/11. According to Newsweek, aides to Mr. Bush finally decided, days after Hurricane Katrina struck, that they had to show him a DVD of TV newscasts to get him to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. A year ago, before "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" became a national punch line, the rising tide of cronyism in government agencies and the rapid replacement of competent professionals with unqualified political appointees attracted hardly any national attention. A year ago, hardly anyone outside Washington had heard of Jack Abramoff, and Tom DeLay's position as House majority leader seemed unassailable. A year ago, Dick Cheney, who repeatedly cited discredited evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, and promised that invading Americans would be welcomed as liberators - although he hadn't yet declared that the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes" - was widely admired for his "gravitas." A year ago, Howard Dean - who was among the very few prominent figures to question Colin Powell's prewar presentation to the United Nations, and who warned, while hawks were still celebrating the fall of Baghdad, that the occupation of Iraq would be much more difficult than the initial invasion - was considered flaky and unsound. A year ago, it was clear that before the Iraq war, the administration suppressed information suggesting that Iraq was not, in fact, trying to build nuclear weapons. Yet few people in Washington or in the news media were willing to say that the nation was deliberately misled into war until polls showed that most Americans already believed it. A year ago, the Washington establishment treated Ayad Allawi as if he were Nelson Mandela. Mr. Allawi's triumphant tour of Washington, back in September 2004, provided a crucial boost to the Bush-Cheney campaign. So did his claim that the insurgents were "desperate." But Mr. Allawi turned out to be another Ahmad Chalabi, a hero of Washington conference rooms and cocktail parties who had few supporters where it mattered, in Iraq. A year ago, when everyone respectable agreed that we must "stay the course," only a handful of war critics suggested that the U.S. presence in Iraq might be making the violence worse, not better. It would have been hard to imagine the top U.S. commander in Iraq saying, as Gen. George Casey recently did, that a smaller foreign force is better "because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation." A year ago, Mr. Bush hadn't yet openly reneged on Scott McClellan's 2003 pledge that "if anyone in this administration was involved" in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, that person "would no longer be in this administration." Of course, some suspect that Mr. Bush has always known who was involved. A year ago, we didn't know that Mr. Bush was lying, or at least being deceptive, when he said at an April 2004 event promoting the Patriot Act that "a wiretap requires a court order. ...When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." A year ago, most Americans thought Mr. Bush was honest. A year ago, we didn't know for sure that almost all the politicians and pundits who thundered, during the Lewinsky affair, that even the president isn't above the law have changed their minds. But now we know when it comes to presidents who break the law, it's O.K. if you're a Republican. Former top US justice official objected to Bush spy program 2 January 2006 AFP A former top official at the US Justice Department objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program and refused to back it amid concerns about the program's legality and oversight. The revelation of the secret spy program, under which US President George W. Bush authorized a covert wiretap program targetting domestic telephone and Internet communications, has sparked a political firestorm in the United States. The New York Times reported Sunday that a refusal by James Comey, who in 2004 was the deputy attorney general of the United States, to back aspects of the program appears to have led to its temporary suspension. Citing officials familiar with the deliberations, who requested anonymity, the report said Comey's refusal to back the program led senior Bush aides Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales, who is now Attorney General himself, to make a hospital visit to then Attorney General John Ashcroft in a bid to win his backing for the program. The Times said it could not ascertain whether Ashcroft, hospitalized at the time for gallbladder surgery, gave his backing to the program or whether the White House moved ahead without his approval. The White House, Ashcroft and Comey declined to comment to the Times. Bush's 2002 order enabled the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor, without a court warrant, international telephone calls and the electronic mail of US citizens with suspected ties to Al-Qaeda. The decision on whether someone is believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda and should be monitored is left to a shift supervisor at the NSA, according to the Times. Domestic spying is a sensitive issue for many Americans who are proud of their civil liberties. Similar revelations about domestic spying led to legislation in the 1970s that allows wiretapping but requires government agencies to obtain a special court warrant for it. However, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, Bush approved the mass wiretap program underwhich the NSA could conduct domestic spying without a court warrant. Lawmakers plan to hold congressional hearings on the program -- which was first revealed by the Times in mid-December -- and some have questioned whether Bush has the legal authority to bypass the courts in ordering domestic wiretaps without warrants. The Justice Department announced Friday that it had launched an investigation into the leaking of the program's existence to the media. Comey left the Justice Department earlier this year and is the general counsel of Lockheed Martin. Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? 30 Dec 2005 Der Speigel Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program. It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006. German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago -- long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays. The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets -- a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work. According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission. DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations. In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year. Links to al-Qaida? According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question. The DDP report attributes the possible escalation to the recent anti-Semitic rants by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose belligerent verbal attacks on Israel (he described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map") have strengthened the view of the American government that, in the case of the nuclear dispute, there's little likelihood Tehran will back down and that the mullahs are just attempting to buy time by continuing talks with the Europeans. The German wire service also quotes a high-ranking German military official saying: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late." Despite the wave of recent reports, it's naturally difficult to assess whether the United States has any concrete plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. In a January 2005 report in the New Yorker, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that clandestine American commando groups had already infiltrated Iran in order to mark potential military targets. At the time, the Bush administration did not dispute Hersh's reporting -- it merely sought to minimize its impact. In Washington, word circulated that the article was filled with "inaccurate statements." But no one rejected the core reporting behind the article. Bush himself explicitly stated he would not rule out the "option of war." How great is the threat? So is the region now on the verge of a military strike or even a war? In Berlin, the issue is largely being played down. During his inaugural visit with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington last week, the possibility of a US air strike against Iran "hadn't been an issue," for new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a Defense Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE. But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin. Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims. Instead, the paper noted that the meeting between the CIA chief and Erdogan lasted longer than an hour -- an unusual amount of time, especially considering Goss had previously met with the head of Turkey's intelligence service, the MIT. The Turkish media concluded that the meetings must have dealt with a very serious matter -- but they failed to uncover exactly what it was. Most media speculated that Erdogan and Goss might have discussed a common initiative against the PKK in northern Iraq. It's possible that Goss demanded secret Turkish intelligence on Iran in exchange. Regardless what the prospects are for a strike, there's little chance a US air strike against Iran would be launched from its military base in the Turkish city of Incirlik, but it is conceivable that the United States would inform Turkey prior to any strike. Skepticism in Ankara Until now the government in Ankara has viewed US military activities in the region at best with skepticism and at worst with open condemnation. At the beginning of 2003, Ankara even attempted to prevent an American ground offensive in northern Iraq against the Saddam regime. A still-irritated Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly blamed military problems in Iraq on the fact that this second front was missing. Two weeks ago, Yasar Buyukanit, the commander of the Turkish army and probable future chief of staff of the country's armed forces, flew to Washington. After the visit he made a statement that relations between the Turkish army and the American army were once again on an excellent footing. Buyukanit's warm and fuzzy words, contrasted greatly with his past statements that if the United States and the Kurds in northern Iraq proved incapable of containing the PKK in the Kurd-dominated northern part of the country and preventing it from attacking Turkey, Buyukanit would march into northern Iraq himself. At the same time, Ankara has little incentive to show a friendly face to Tehran -- Turkish-Iranian relations have long been icy. For years now, Tehran has criticized Turkey for maintaining good relations with Israel and even cooperating with the Israeli army. Yet despite those ties to Israel, Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israeli outbursts were reported far less extensively in Turkey than in Europe. Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his recent recovery from heart surgery. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to the task. The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation here is that -- at least when it comes to the Kurdish question -- Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. But if the United States moves forward with an attack against Iran, Turkey will have no choice but to jump on board -- either as an active or passive partner. It's a scenario that has Erdogan and his military in a state of deep unease. After all, even experts in the West are skeptical of whether a military intervention against nuclear installations in Iran could succeed. The more likely scenario is that an attack aiming to stop Iran's nuclear program could instead simply bolster support for Ahmadinejad in the region. Iran is NPT compliant: German official 30 Dec 2005 mehrnews.com TEHRAN -- A member of the German parliament’s foreign policy committee, Ruprecht Polenz, has said that Iran presently complies with the NPT regulations, U.S. media reported Thursday. Polenz said Iran allows the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to visit and control its nuclear installations but the United States, the European Union, and Russia are trying to prevent Iran from achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle. “That is why the Russians have proposed to create a joint Iranian-Russian facility to enrich uranium in Russia,” he noted. The German official also said the United States should clarify when and under what circumstances it is going to improve its ties with Iran. The MP added that the United States has had military action against Iran in mind for a long time but such action would have detrimental consequences. Iraq's year ends in bloodshed Jan. 1, 2006 JASON STRAZIUSO ASSOCIATED PRESS BAGHDAD—Bombings and shootings killed at least 20 people across Iraq on the final day of the year, while U.S. troops shivered in the cold during a performance by an American Idol singer as part of New Year's Eve celebrations. The U.S. military also reported the death of an American soldier from wounds, bringing its death toll in Iraq for 2005 near the previous year's record level. Iraq's electoral commission, meanwhile, repeated a call for political groups to remove from their candidate lists 90 former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party before the agency issues final results next week from the country's Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. Many Iraqis, particularly from the long-oppressed Shiite Muslim majority and Kurdish communities, want to keep ex-Baathists out of the new government. Sunni Arabs, the backbone of Iraq's insurgency, see that as an attempt to deny their minority a role in politics. A letter from U.S. President George W. Bush lauded developments in Iraq and Afghanistan, praising the efforts of U.S. troops in helping Iraqis exercise the right to vote three times during 2005 and the people of Afghanistan to also cast ballots. "In the coming year, America will continue to stand beside these young democracies and lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren," Bush said. "We appreciate the brave men and women in uniform who protect our country and advance freedom around the world. We are grateful to their families for their support and sacrifice, and we pray for all those who have lost loved ones in freedom's cause." At Camp Victory near Baghdad's airport, American Idol 3 finalist Diana DeGarmo and other entertainers treated hundreds of U.S. service personnel to a New Year's Eve show. In another day of bloodshed, gunmen raided a house south of Baghdad yesterday, killing five members of a Sunni Arab family. A roadside bomb in the capital killed two policemen and another bomb killed five members of the Iraqi Islamic party near their headquarters in Al-Khalis, 16 kilometres east of Baqouba, police said. Police also said they found the bodies of six men who had been blindfolded, shot and dumped at a sewage plant in southeast Baghdad. A mortar round killed a policeman in Baghdad, and gunmen fatally shot the owner of a supermarket in the capital, officials said. A U.S. soldier died yesterday from wounds inflicted by a mortar attack in Baghdad, the military said. That put the American military death toll for the year at 842 — four short of 2004's record total despite dogged U.S. and Iraqi efforts to quash the insurgency. A total of 846 U.S. military personnel died in 2004 and 485 in 2003. The 90 former members of Saddam's Baath party that the election commission wants taken off political lists include two leading members of former Shiite prime minister Iyad Allawi's secular Iraqi National List. Saad Asem al-Janabi, a senior member of Allawi's group, said it had not received an official request from anyone. The election commission said it had insufficient evidence to bar the 90 people itself. The commission said that if the courts later determined allegations of Baath membership were true, the officials would be barred from elected office even if they were awarded parliament seats. 'US planning strike against Iran' By JPOST.COM STAFF Jan. 1, 2006 6:38 The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran. The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel collected various reports from the German media indicating that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are examining the prospects of such a strike. According to the report, CIA Director Porter Goss, in his last visit to Turkey on December 12, requested Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide military bases to the United States in 2006 from where they would be able to launch an assault. The German news agency DDP also noted that countries neighboring Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, and Pakistan were also updated regarding the supposed plan. American sources sent to those countries apparently mentioned an aerial attack as a possibility, but did not provide a time frame for the operation. Although Der Spiegel could not say that these plans were concrete, they did note that according to a January 2005 New Yorker report American forces had entered Iran in 2005 in order to mark possible targets for an aerial assault. 'Israel is trying to push us out of Jordan Valley' By ORLY HALPERN BARDALEH, WEST BANK Jerusalem Post 30 Dec 2005 The Palestinian Authority and Palestinian farmers are accusing Israel of trying to force Palestinians out of the Jordan Valley through economic pressure and physical barriers. Israel denies the charge, saying that new restrictions derive solely from security considerations. "Israel has been systematically making life difficult in the Jordan Valley in order to reduce the number of Palestinians living there," Ghassan Khateeb, Minister of Planning of the Palestinian Authority, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday. The IDF's recent decision to prevent Palestinian agricultural produce from crossing the Beka'ot checkpoint into Israel is putting Palestinian farmers in debt and threatening their ability to farm their land next year, he added. The IDF has also closed checkpoints west of the valley, barring entry to Palestinians not from the area. As a consequence, hundreds of Palestinian families from outside the valley are now squatting in tents inside the valley, so as to able to stay at their jobs there. Israel said the entry ban on Palestinians from outside the region is security related. "This is not a policy," said a spokesman from the Prime Minister's Office, Ra'anan Gissin. "This is a security issue. We need to protect terrorists from entering Israel." The banning of vegetables from crossing through the Beka'ot Cargo checkpoint is also for security reasons, he said. If the good were being blocked for security reasons, Khatib asked, why were they allowed to be transported the long distance to the Jalama checkpoint, north of Jenin, via checkpoints for which special permission is granted? A report published in October by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) stated that "The Jordan Valley has become increasingly out of bounds for Palestinians living in other parts of the West Bank." The report was released before the new regulations were introduced at the Beka'ot checkpoint. The Jordan valley is fertile and sparsely populated - with approximately 6,250 Israelis, who live in 21 settlements, and 53,000 Palestinians (including the population of Jericho). For generations Palestinian villagers in the valley have relied on manpower from the villages in the mountains above to cultivate and harvest the land. Settler farmer also rely on Palestinian labor. The Palestinian farmer in the valley export almost exclusively to Israel through the Beka'ot checkpoint a few hundred meters north of Bardaleh, the northernmost Palestinian village here. The ban on such exports was introduced on October 13. Initially, an IDF spokesman told the Post, "We are not aware of any prevention of agricultural goods through the Beka'ot checkpoint." However, Adam Avidan, spokesman for the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories, confirmed that a regional IDF commander had signed an order which prevents vegetables from crossing the checkpoint. "It's strangling us," said Issa Muhammad, 45, who owns 165 dunams in Bardaleh. Muhammad grows cucumbers, squash, peppers and eggplant. He has transported vegetables to Jalama, instead, but says the extra cost means he barely breaks even. If the ban is maintained, he said, "the farms won't be able to pay for pesticides, seeds and plastic for greenhouses. Many of us won't be able to sow our fields next year." The entry restrictions have been in force since May. Only Palestinians with an address on their identification card from the north of the Jordan Valley are allowed to reside there. All others need special permission, which must be obtained through the District Coordination Office. Among those affected are Palestinian women born outside the valley but married into a family here, who say they are afraid to leave for fear they won't be allowed to return. Entry permission is given to hundreds of Palestinian day laborers working in the settlements. They leave their villages early every morning and return in the evening, although they often wait hours at checkpoints in each direction. However, Palestinians claim that few of their landowners are granted permission to bring in such laborers. Israeli officials said they would look into this allegation. One consequence, local Palestinians say, is that many Palestinians from the town of Tubas - a 22-kilometer drive from Bardaleh in the valley below - are now squatting in the valley's villages. Locals estimate that more than 1,000 such Palestinian families spend nine months of the year in plastic tents on the land so that they won't be prevented from getting to work, with their children crowding the classrooms of local schools. Jordan Valley Palestinians have held two demonstrations at Beka'ot in the last month. Another is planned for next week. Israel: Democracy of lords and masters By Ze'ev Sternhell 29 Dec 2005 haaretz "Abusive practices," the repeated chopping down of olive trees, the theft of lands near the settlement of Modi'in Illit and the regular pogrom that is the daily lot of Hebron's Arabs (and these are examples only from the news of recent days) can surprise only those who never wanted to know. Among them, unfortunately, are many of those who work in the mass media. The actions of the Border Police, as well as other units that operate in the service of the settlements, have long been known. For over 25 years, from the Karp Report to the recently issued Sasson Report, everyone knows the law is not enforced in the territories, and therefore the police are not required to make an effort to deal with violators. There is no longer talk of basic norms of universal morality: In a colonial society, there are different types of human beings, and therefore, different rights and different values, as well. But the settlers do not bear sole responsibility for the oppressive regime beyond the Green Line; they only exploit the situation to make the lives of the inhabitants intolerable, in the hope that Palestinian society will disintegrate, so that when the time comes, it will be possible to get rid of it entirely. To the same extent, it is not the soldiers themselves who are to blame for harassing the population, and in the case of "an abusive practice" reported in Haaretz, they are not the only ones who bear direct responsibility for killing the Palestinian who was tied to his donkey. The heads of the military hierarchy and senior government leaders are personally responsible for these acts. These are the people who control the "system," with the lower field ranks at the bottom and the chief of staff, the minister of defense and the prime minister at the top. A government that was capable of carrying out the disengagement will have no difficulty, if it so wishes, in imposing law and order in the territories. If it does not do so, it means the crimes are being carried out with its knowledge. After all, that is our daily complaint to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), in spite of the fact that his ability to control what happens in distant Gaza is light years away from the ability of the Israeli government to impose its authority in the West Bank. But what can we really expect when the defense minister in charge of the territories is a spineless opportunist? Is this a man who will risk losing votes to preserve our humanity? And what about a chief of staff who, when he was the commander of the Israel Air Force, boasted - apropos dropping the one-ton bomb on a residential building in Gaza - that when he himself drops a bomb, he feels nothing more than "a slight blow to the wing of the plane"? None of these people hears or sees. Not the minister of public security, whose policemen were unable to locate those who chopped down the trees and who is responsible for the Border Police; not the attorney general, a weak man and a legal expert with narrow horizons who curtailed his role from the very beginning and not the justice minister, who also prefers not to get involved in an issue that is not exactly popular. That is liable, after all, to disturb a successful trip to some mall or other. However, what about Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the one-man ruler of Israel, beloved by the people and a favorite with the media, who wants to be David Ben-Gurion? For Ben-Gurion, who was neither a socialist nor a social-democrat, but no less of a radical nationalist than Sharon and a politician who was willing to use any means, basic human morality was still considered a fundamental component of the overall national strength. An army, police force and police investigation unit that sees nothing wrong with this new type of abuse, which ended in the death of the victim, are highy dangerous to Israeli society. This brutalization of Israeli society is a danger to our future. However, those who should have been the first to object and come out in defense of the Arabs, if only for their own selfish interests, are the settlers. The disintegration of basic precepts of the rule of law endangers all of society, but those who are more exposed are the minority groups within it. Trampling human rights in the territories is only a first stage. During the disengagement we saw how easy it is to undermine these rights, even among Jews. Mass administrative detention of activists and leaders of the settlements is a far more likely possibility than it seems at present. Human rights, justice and equality before the law are indivisible. An army that is prepared, as in Hebron, to allow regular abuse of Arabs, a police force that does not want to find and arrest felons, a government that bears supreme responsibility for the injustices become accustomed to living outside the law and consider these injustices an acceptable norm. If, after the elections, we do not get a government that is willing to stop the bankruptcy of the investigative and prosecution system in the territories and does not fundamentally change the reality of life there, without any relation to the nature of the future final status agreement, an integral part of the foundations of Israeli democracy will be lost. Without protected human rights, democracy is an empty word. Democracies of lords and masters, of the type that rules in the territories, that strictly adhere to the formal rules of majority decision only among the ruling nation, have existed in other places as well: They disappeared and no longer exist. Comment: Israel seems to be a psychopath magnet, just like the Old West was in the U.S. The difference is that Israel runs a very good risk of being obliterated in a nuclear war... hmmm... Israel considers protesting BBC show on `secret weapons' By Sharon Sadeh haaretz.com 30 Dec 2005 LONDON - Israel is considering lodging a vehement protest after the BBC airs a national program Sunday about the country's nuclear program, dubbed "Israel's secret weapon." The program reportedly examines the "double standard" of the international community with regard to Israel's and Iraq's unconventional weapons. The program allegedly claims the army used some form of unidentified chemical weapons against Palestinians in February 2001. It focuses on efforts made by Israel to cover up its development of unconventional weapons, among other things referring to Mordechai Vanunu, serving an 18-year term for passing information about Israel's nuclear program in Dimona to a British newspaper... ... and the trial of Brig. Gen. (res.) Yitzhak Yoav, who was convicted of showing two unpublished book manuscripts, one fictional and the other a memoir, to unauthorized people. The producers tried to meet with former workers from the Dimona nuclear reactor who in the past claimed they fell ill as a result of their work. But the program says the workers refused to be interviewed because they were frightened by the Shin Bet. Former prime minister Shimon Peres was interviewed for the program, rejecting any comparison between Israel and Iraq, but apparently evading questions about Israel's efforts to conceal its nuclear weapons program. A spokesman for the BBC said "the program was produced against the background of developments in the Vanunu case and tries to examine the double standards of the international community, particularly the United States, with regard to Israel's unconventional weapons programs compared to those of Iraq." The spokesman denied the program was produced for political reasons. He said the defense ministry refused to comment on the program, but that efforts were still underway to get a defense ministry comment. The Israeli embassy said "the producers did not ask the foreign ministry or the IDF Spokesman's Office for a reaction and we will respond after the program is aired." Likud members: Bomb Iran Ilan Marciano ynetnews 1 Jan 06 In conference organized Saturday night by Minister Yisrael Katz, 400 Likud members vote to 'bomb nuclear reactor before it is too late'; party's central committee expected to convene Sunday to approve change in constitution initiated by Likud Chairman Netanyahu About 400 Likud members, who took part Saturday evening in a conference organized by Agriculture Minister Yisrael Katz in the town of Hod Hasharon, voted by a large majority to "bomb Iran's nuclear reactor before it is too late," in the words of Likud member and Ra'anana Deputy Mayor Uzi Cohen. According to Cohen, "we have been following the Iranians for a long time now, but the defense establishment chiefs issue warnings without doing anything." "We must act as (former Prime Minister Menachem) Begin did when he bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor," he said. In the conference, Minister Katz praised the Likud members who did not leave "home" even after the "big bang" created when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon left the Likud and established his new party Kadima. "Kadima wants to pay its active members to bring voters to the polls. They miss the good days of the Likud, the real activists who work wholeheartedly because of their faith and views and not for money or bonuses," he said. 'Likud will win elections' "You, the active members, are the proof that Likud exists, Likud is growing, Likud will grow and Likud will win the elections," Katz added. Meanwhile, the Likud Central Committee is expected to convene Sunday in order to discuss a change to the party's constitution. The issue at the top of the agenda will be an initiative proposed by Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu that would see individuals with criminal records barred from the Likud's Knesset list. The members are expected to approve the change to the party's charter, thus enabling Netanyahu to score his first internal victory. Israeli army to deploy along Egypt-Israel borders www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-02 18:36:59 GAZA, Jan. 2 (Xinhuanet) -- Israeli army is planning to deploy a large number of forces along the borders with Egypt later Monday, Israeli daily Yedioth Ahranoth reported. The army is expected to deploy its forces starting from the Kerem Shalom crossing to the Nitzana salient entrances in the Negev on the borders with Egypt, the paper said. A large number of soldiers are expected to arrive at the borders on Monday afternoon, south of the Philadelphia route, it added. Several covered guarding towers will be built and armored personnel carriers and other various means will be placed in the area, said the report. The daily quoted a senior Israeli officer as saying that the army's goal is to create a fortified wall to prevent any infiltration into Israel. "We fear terror, but we will also try to prevent criminal activities," the officer said. Since Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September 2005, infiltrators have been trying to find indirect ways to carry out attacks, through the sea, underground tunnels and borders with Egypt, added the officer. Under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, Israel completed its withdrawal of soldiers and some 8,500 settlers from all 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip in mid-September, ending its 38 years of occupation in the tiny coastal area which, together with the West Bank, the Palestinians want for a viable state. Israel accused of obstructing Palestinian elections www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-02 18:34:26 RAMALLAH, Jan. 2 (Xinhuanet) -- Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat accused Israel on Monday of obstructing Palestinian legislative elections due on Jan. 25. Erekat told Palestinian radio Voice of Palestine that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) hasn't get any Israeli response on allowing Palestinians to vote in East Jerusalem as the election campaigns will start on Tuesday. "We didn't get responses on forming a Palestinian-Israeli joint committee to follow up and observe the operation of distributing ballots, voting and the movement of voters as well as candidates," Erekat said. He said the PNA insists on holding the elections as scheduled with all Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem to vote. He also called on the European Union and the international community to oblige Israel to carry out its commitments on the upcoming elections. However, senior officials from the ruling Fatah movement said on Sunday that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas should postpone the elections if Israel bars voting in East Jerusalem. Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki told reporters on Sunday that most committee members signed an internal memo which will be submitted to Abbas, recommending postponement of the elections if Israel bans polling in East Jerusalem. Sharon to undergo heart op on Thursday 1 Jan 2006 AFP Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will undergo a heart operation on Thursday, the Haaretz newspaper reported. Doctors at Hadassah Ein Kerem hospital in Jerusalem will perform a so-called balloon angioplasty, a standard treatment for coronary artery disease, in which the blood flow to the heart is restricted. In the operation a tiny balloon will be inserted into an artery to push fatty plaque back against the artery wall to make more room for blood to flow. This improved blood flow reduces the risk of heart attack and sudden cardiac death. "The decision to operate on the prime minister will be made by his doctors. An official communique will be published," a senior official at the prime minister's office told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity. Finance Minister Ehud Olmert, who is close to Sharon, played down the procedure. "It will be short and it will be over when it is announced," he said. Sharon "is strong and in good health," he added on public radio. Sharon, who will be 78 in February, suffered a minor stroke on December 18 which according to one of his doctors was caused "by a clotting of blood which came from the heart." The catheterization is to avert a similar incident, Professor Haim Lotan had said. Leave the field now - the Iraqi endgame is about to begin Simon Jenkins The London Times 1 January 2006 The good news is that 2006 will see the effective end of the western occupation of Iraq. It will end because everyone will be exhausted: the Americans, the British, the Iraqis and their neighbours. It will end because all justification for its continuance will have evaporated. The election whose result is to be declared this week is good news. The federal constitution fashioned by Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador, is good news. The resulting coalition government will be good news since it will put the strongest group, the cleric-backed pro-Iranian Sciri, or Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, in effective power. But all this good news will depend on one thing: the new government being seen to stand on its own feet. It must have the legitimacy and authority to forge its own alliances and hack its own deals. As long as its land is pockmarked with fortresses stuffed with 180,000 foreign troops, such independence will be unreal. Such a government will continue to be treated as an American puppet. On December 22 Tony Blair paid his Christmas call on British troops in Basra to tell them how much things were improving. This time he said security was “completely changed” from last year. What he meant was unclear. It was as if Gladstone had visited Gordon during the siege of Khartoum. Did it not seem strange to Blair that he could not move outside his walled fortress, could not drive anywhere or talk to any Iraqis? Did he wonder why British troops have withdrawn from two anarchic provinces? Was he really told that security is transformed for the better? If so he is horribly deceived. Reliable reporting from Iraq is now so dangerous that the level of insecurity can be gleaned only from circumstantial evidence. Baghdad outside the American green zone is now all “red zone”, off limits to any but the most reckless foreigner. The death rate and the number of explosions are rising. While some rural areas are relatively safe there is no such thing as national security. Iraq’s borders are porous. Crime is uncontrolled. The concept of an “occupying power” is near meaningless. The Americans cannot even protect the lawyers at Saddam’s trial, two of whom have been killed. Iraqis are meeting violent death in greater numbers probably than at any time since the Shi’ite massacres of 1991. Professionals are being driven into exile, children are kidnapped, women are forced indoors or shot for being improperly dressed. Those Britons who preen themselves for “bringing democracy to Iraq” would not dare visit the place. They have brought three elections, but elections without security do not equal democracy. This is no time to rehearse the self-delusion, vainglory, ineptitude and cruelty of this venture. The only sensible debate is how to help Iraq back on its feet after this bungled attempt to “defeat terrorism” in the region. It will not be easy. It requires the victorious Shi’ite leaders to respect a devolution of power and money to the Kurdish and the Sunni minorities, as ordained by the federal settlement in Khalilzad’s constitution. Local Sunni and Shi’ite power brokers must fix the boundaries of their domains and the spoils that go with them. Such deals are crucial to a future Iraq. The alternatives are tyranny or separatism, probably both. Such a settlement will have traction only if negotiated notunder American guns but by plenipotentiary ministers and provincial chiefs. Already such ministers depend for support and protection not on a national army or police force but on private militias and mercenaries. These include those of the interior minister, Bayan Jabr, allegedly responsible for reviving Saddam’s killing squads and torture chambers. Governors, mayors and police chiefs depend for their authority on cutting deals with gangs and militias. This, not the occupation, is the fact of power in Iraq. In reality the occupation cut and ran from Iraq in the course of 2004. This was when the Americans and their allies abandoned the policing of towns and cities and retreated bruised to more than 100 fortified bases. This is not like the Vietnam war, when American soldiers could move round Saigon at will. The bases are like crusader castles dotting a hostile Levant. Movement between them must be by air or heavily armoured convoy. Ferocious search-and-destroy sallies by the US Marines do not project power, only death and resentment. The recent Anbar operation reportedly turned local support for Al-Qaeda from a trickle to a flood. Money is sprayed at sub-contractors (much of it stolen), but America exerts no executive power outside the capital. It imposes no law and order and cannot even protect infrastructure. This is not an occupation. It is a military squat. The question for Tony Blair and George Bush is almost irrelevant to Iraq. It is how can the squatters leave with enough dignity to pass muster back home and not seem like weakness abroad? How can it be staged to fit in with Bush’s mid-term elections and Blair’s legacy agenda? The policy stance in both Washington and London is of withdrawal “as soon as the security situation permits”. Hence presumably Blair’s insistence that security is getting better. Since it is not getting better he must be saying it as cover for withdrawal. The exit strategy at present relies on there being a fixed moment when the Iraqi army will pass some notional Sandhurst test. It will be “ready to take on the insurgents” and thus “prevent civil war”. Such talk has long brought comfort to the armchairs of Pall Mall. Thus was the Indian army to keep the Empire intact. Thus were Diem’s soldiers to take on the Vietcong and Moscow’s surrogates to defeat the Taliban. The concept of locals being “almost ready” to replace our boys has long appealed to the imperial imagination. Having recently visited the Iraq army I can attest to the courage of its officers and the commitment of its instructors. But I was constantly being taken aside and told that it was inconceivable that these soldiers would obey an order from a partisan minister in Baghdad to advance against distant militias except under American protection. That was even assuming that the constitution allowed them to do so, which it probably does not. Only the Kurdish peshmergas would happily fight Sunnis or Shi’ites, and that would not be a good idea. As for the police, the basis of law and order, they are a long-lost cause. Treating the Iraqi army as the cement that will glue together a new Iraq is unreal. Some Baghdad units might form a new Republican Guard were a strongman to emerge from the forthcoming coalition haggle. But if the most devastating American firepower cannot find, let alone suppress, Al-Qaeda’s Musab al-Zarqawi, what hope is there for an Iraqi army? Zarqawi will be suppressed if and only if the Sunni militias take it upon themselves to do so. That must await the end of the occupation. The same goes for the pro-Iranian hotheads in the south. The operative word is await. All Iraq is waiting. Civil strife is appalling because the militias, gangs and police operate under no political authority and with an army supposedly being prepared to fight them. The idea that American or British withdrawal would “lead to civil war” suggests that Iraq is like Yugoslavia. It is not. Since the foreign troops spend most of their time in bases they have no role in policing Iraq’s communal strife. Their departure would rather end what Iraqis regard as a humiliation and remove a recruiting sergeant and target for the insurgency. The next stage in Iraq is no longer within the capacity of America or Britain to determine. All they can do is postpone it. The country is about to acquire its third government in as many years. Left to its own devices this government might just find enough authority to hold its country together. Imprisoned in its green zone castle as a puppet of the Pentagon, it will certainly not. That is why withdrawal needs a date, and an early one. I was told by a senior security official last month that the Iraq experience had been so ghastly that at least no British government would do anything like it “for a very long time indeed”. Funny, I thought. Why are 4,000 British troops leaving to fight the Taliban in southern Afghanistan, whence even the Americans have fled? Nobody can give me an answer. US teenager returns from Iraq Monday, January 2, 2006 (Baghdad) An American teenager, who secretly entered the Iraqi capital Baghdad around Christmas time, has returned to his home in Florida. Sixteen-year-old Farris Hassan, son of Iraqi immigrants, was sent home by the US military. The teenager skipped school and left the United States on December 11. He first landed in Kuwait and planned to take a cab to Baghdad. The border was closed for elections and Hassan went to stay with family friends in Lebanon before flying into Baghdad on Christmas day. Big dreams Hassan had only $1800 with him when he entered the Iraqi capital with the ambition of becoming a journalist. His parents received a phone call and an email saying he planned to stay for as long as it took. Hassan had no knowledge of Arabic, he was scared and turned up at the Baghdad bureau of the Associated Press before the US military stepped in. "He's happy to be home. It's not the time to explain anything. The whole thing is very abnormal," said Shatha Atiya, Hassan's mother. Hassan may have been lucky not to share the fate of hundreds of unwary foreigners caught up by Iraq's kidnap gangs and Islamist rebel groups sworn to killing Americans. But back home, he is likely to face the music. Hassan's parents say his passport stands confiscated, his allowance docked and they will now watch his every move. Australia: Voters abandon PM over Iraq wa John Kerin December 31, 2005 VOTER support for John Howard's decision to go to war in Iraq is in freefall, with even Coalition supporters who backed the 2003 invasion now questioning the value of the protracted conflict. Fewer than half of Coalition supporters now believe the Iraq war was worth it, according to a Newspoll conducted exclusively for The Weekend Australian. In total, two-thirds of Australians, about 66 per cent, now believe it was not worth going to war, up from 58 per cent a year ago. Just 27 per cent believe it was worth it, compared with 32per cent a year ago. Among Coalition voters, only 43 per cent believe it was worth going to war, a sharp drop from 50 per cent last December and 63 per cent early last year. Despite the figures, however, insurgent violence, kidnappings and a dispute over power-sharing in the wake of the December 15 Iraqi elections continue to jeopardise any plans by the Prime Minister to withdraw troops from the troubled country. Mr Howard has repeatedly said Australia will not "cut and run" from Iraq, prompting defence strategists to claim that the results would not have any political significance. Australia has 1320 troops in the Iraq theatre, including 450 troops protecting Japanese engineers and training Iraqi forces in al-Muthanna, in the south. The al-Muthanna taskforce was due home in May 2006, but its stay is likely to be extended. And Mr Howard could come under further pressure from Washington to supply more troops in the coming year if the US needs to support greater Iraqi reconstruction efforts. US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have also suffered with voters over the prolonged Iraqi conflict. Despite winning elections since the March 2003 invasion, recent poll results have shown both leaders under pressure on the Iraq issue. Mr Bush's admission last week that his administration had made mistakes in Iraq led to a 10-point jump in the number of Americans who believe he is handling the situation well, from 36 per cent to 46 per cent. The Newspoll figures represent another blow for the Howard Government, which has been suffering in recent polls as voters absorb the legislative blitz of the past two months, which included the controversial changes to industrial relations laws. A Newspoll published on Tuesday revealed that Mr Howard and his Government had lost support in every state and every demographic, including elderly voters, in the past three months. Coalition support is now well below the level of the 2004 election, with Labor on 52 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote and the Government on 48per cent. Mr Howard's personal rating has also fallen. Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland said last night the Iraq poll proved that Mr Howard's own supporters were passing judgment on the protracted Iraqi war. "First, people were told the war was about removing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and that was based on faulty intelligence," he said. "Then they were told it was about removing Saddam Hussein and creating a Western-style democracy. But there was no plan to fill the post-Saddam vacuum and no understanding of Middle East personality and culture or decades of, at times, brutal factionalism." But a spokesman for Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said talk of "abandoning Iraqis at a time when they were courageously trying to embrace democracy" was outrageous. "You would think all political parties would support the Iraqis rather than abandon them to the terrorists," he said. He said that on a recent visit to Iraq, Mr Downer had been struck by the level of optimism in the country and said Australia would not "abandon its support for the process". Australia Defence Association executive director Neil James said the poll result was predictable, but governments could not "develop strategy and fight wars on the basis of opinion polls". "You have to take a longer-term view ... it would have been great, wouldn't it, in 1940 if the Brits had decided to give up on World War II or the Americans did the same after Pearl Harbor," he said. Fellow defence strategist Alan Behm said he believed the poll result had "little political significance" for Mr Howard but it did "signify a weariness with the whole episode among voters". "I think we are just following the pattern of the US and the UK where war-weariness and a lack of palpable results has taken its toll," he said. "Of course the difference here is that John Howard and Australia have been able to avoid casualties." Meanwhile in Iraq, armed gunmen killed 12 members of an extended Shia family near Latifiyah, a Sunni-dominated town about 35km south of Baghdad, in the latest wave of violence. In Baghdad, a suicide bomber killed a police officer, gunmen assassinated an Iraqi driver working with a French company, and a university student was killed in a drive-by shooting. The political turmoil surrounding parliamentary elections since December 15 has dampened the Bush administration's hopes for a broad-based Government that would include minority Sunnis as well as secular Shi'ites, helping to draw disaffected Sunnis away from the insurgency. Imperialism and its young admirers Azmi Bishara Al-Ahram Weekly 29 December 2005 - 4 January 2006 Issue No. 775 Democracy talk was a sham, and realists in Washington are getting worried as the vacant character of the neo-cons is exposed for what it is: adolescent, dangerous bravado. Apart from the inevitable readjustments necessitated by having become bogged down in a bloody and intractable situation in Iraq, Washington's policy towards the region remains essentially the same. Spreading democracy was not originally one of its aims, and it was not the goal of the Iraqi parliamentary elections, the Palestinian presidential elections or the Saudi municipal elections, which nonetheless have been cheered as the first tender shoots of a democratic future. Following all these elections, violence in Iraq intensified and spread in new directions. In spite of these elections, the US bore down on regimes that were targets for the policy the US secretary of state dubbed "constructive destabilisation". Meanwhile, Washington's allies in the region have become increasingly bolder in making it choose between accepting them with all their corruption and the spectre of radical political Islam. The US still acts as though it is at the beginning of a historic mission in the region, as Britain had in the wake of World War I. Bush showered Sharon with promises in an exchange of letters in April 2004 that have a strong whiff of the Balfour Declaration. Then, as surreptitiously as Sykes and Picot, the US began to draw up plans for dividing the Middle East. Although these British and French colonial architects used their pens and straightedges to carve their map onto countries, Washington is carving up countries along sectarian and ethnic lines. As awry as things have gone in Iraq, the US administration cannot bring itself to look at that disaster in any way other than how it impacts on its popularity ratings or on its allies in the area who are cringing at the prospect of the growing influence of Iran. The destruction of Iraq and the suffering of the Iraqi people acquire importance only from this perspective. Therefore, the American president sat down with his military chiefs on 28 September to ponder a way to lift the morale of the American public, and came up with the ingenious "plan for victory in Iraq". The "plan" is to enable the Iraqis to defend "the freedom they have won" by building an Iraqi army capable of that aim. Then, once the Iraqi army "stands up" America will "stand down", as the US president so eloquently put it. The "victory plan" is reaping yet more bloodshed and more destruction. How odd it is that this is the US that inaugurated its occupation of Iraq by dismantling the Iraqi army in accordance with an imperial edict issued by Caesar Bremer the Great in May 2003, as part of its project to build a sectarian confederation. The effect of this project and its attendant policies was to increase the power and prestige of the Kurdish and Shia militias, and the operations and assassinations these militias have carried out have only worked to augment the violent rejection of the new order in so-called Sunni areas. The subdivision of Iraq into sectarian-based political areas was unknown to that country before the Iraq-Iran war, which was one of the disasters initiated by Saddam Hussein with the support of the US and all its then allies, and opposed by all of the US's current ones. However, the sectarian politicisation we see today, which exceeds all bounds of the imagination, is a purely American achievement. American journalists and commentators have wondered why statements issuing from the White House with regard to the reconstruction of an Iraqi army capable of taking on the "insurgents" have fluctuated so wildly between the optimistic and the pessimistic. In the course of an article recounting his impressions during a visit to Iraq, one American journalist smuggled in his conviction that the real culprit in the whole business is the culture of fear and apathy that had become ingrained under the Saddam dictatorship, and that this whole culture would have to be changed in order to build an effective Iraqi army. (Thomas Friedman, The New York Times, 29 September 2005). The funny thing is that this illustrious columnist, whose epigram regularly boasts of him being a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner, drew this conclusion after being witness to a single anecdote, during his visit to the Um Qasr naval base, of a boatload of Iraqi sailors who decided to take a long lunch break one scorching afternoon, causing training exercises to be delayed that day. Nor did he catch the inconsistency in the same article between this conclusion, and his admiration for the ingenuity of the insurgents who began to use infrared devices from garage door openers after coalition forces had introduced jamming methods to block the detonation of roadside bombs by means of cell phone signals. Why did Friedman not pick up on the fact that this "enemy" who "just keeps getting smarter" was made up of the same people who were reared under Saddam's alleged culture of fear and lack of initiative? Why did it escape him that the members of the new army lacked motivation whereas their adversaries had motivation in spades? Because he, like his military informants, has fallen into the habit of regurgitating half-baked truths about the culture of the US's Iraqi allies. The attitude is reminiscent of the disdain with which the Americans regarded their allies in South Vietnam, in contrast to their respectful awe for the Vietcong, even though the latter are as Vietnamese as the former. What is at work, essentially, is contempt on the part of the occupiers for those dependent upon them. It must be this contempt that has blinded them to the reality that the destruction of an entire economy and national infrastructure, the opening of the floodgates to theft and corruption, the subcontracting of the reconstruction of the Iraqi army to a host of greedy private catering, construction and security firms, and that recruitment into this army has become virtually the only source of livelihood for millions of unemployed, does not offer the greatest motives for fighting. One would think that the situation in Iraq would have compelled the powers that be in Washington to give much more careful study to the problems inherent in direct military intervention in other countries of the Arab world -- Syria for example. However, American policy has not changed. Indeed, it appears to be growing more obsessive in its intent to exploit the 11 September aftermath to settle old grudges, thereby keeping the train of destruction in motion. In so doing, the Bush administration wavers between the pragmatism needed to cater to domestic public opinion, so as to ensure that this is not the last Republican administration for a long time, and also needed to cater to international opinion in order to keep America's overseas interests up and running, and the fundamentalist idealism that characterises America's foreign policy creed under the neo-conservatives. While reading some American strategic studies recently, I was struck by how deeply the conviction runs in those circles that the aim of US intervention in the world since the Spanish-American war and the occupation of Cuba and the subsequent occupation of the Philippines was "nation-building", by which is meant spreading democracy and representational government. Clearly there has been some heavy ideological indoctrination going on in America's military academies, well before the neo-cons rose to power and imposed their philosophy on US foreign policy. Somewhere along the line, neo-con theorists, their consummate zeal and arrogance cloaked behind a façade of academic detachment, dressed the pretexts for colonialist intervention in pseudoscientific jargon and forged them into a fully-fledged theoretical underpinning for an evangelistic drive to export democracy and defend the American way of life, using the word "liberty" as its clarion call. Therefore, when the weapons of mass destruction pretext for invading Iraq collapsed with the reverberating ignominy that this "globalised lie" deserved, it was no great feat to pull "democracy" out of the hat. All that was needed then was some swift footwork to present this as the unique and noble characteristic that set American interventionism apart from all other forms of imperialism across the ages. As part of the packaging, the democracies of Germany and Japan were touted as renowned successes of this policy. What was not said, of course, was that this two-nation list that is always dragged out as ostensible proof of how democracy can be won by military occupation, forms the exception not the rule. Germany and Japan had already passed through a phase of modernisation and liberalisation not long before the American occupation of those countries. They had a strong unifying nationalist movement with which America could ally against divisive forces, and they were also relatively homogenous, linguistically and even ethnically. The American presence in those countries at the time also conformed to the commonly held domestic perception of the need to defend national interests against an outside threat emanating from China, the Soviet Union and East Germany. By contrast, in economically underdeveloped Iraq, which had not experienced democracy before the onset of dictatorship, the American presence encourages the disruptive tendencies, sectarian fragmentation, disunity and the building upon illegitimate sources of authority as opposed to legitimate ones that existed beforehand, even if these were not democratic. The American experience in Iraq should bring to mind not the exception but the rule, as exemplified by Cuba, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Panama, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Cyprus and other countries that had not had the luxury of a Marshall Plan, and in which most of America's "democratisation drive" met with dismal failure. Frequently overlooked, too, is direct American involvement in the security, politics and economies of the Central Asian republics, where the regimes that are being constructed with American supervision on the ruins of the soviet system are corrupt, despotic and anything but democratic. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, when the new American creed was being developed, Bush and Blair cited different reasons at various times for intervening militarily in Iraq: UN Security Council resolutions had to be enforced, Saddam had to be stripped of his weapons of mass destruction, the flow of oil had to be guaranteed, the Iraqi people had to be rescued from a cruel dictator, the democratic forces in Iraq needed support, and terrorism had to be fought. When one after the other of these myths toppled, Bush, reading from the neo-con script, continued to insist on the link between spreading democracy and fighting terrorism. The dictatorial regimes of the Arab world had the tendency to breed terrorism and export it to the US, he said. Therefore, breeding democracy in the Arab world was nothing less than a US national security imperative. Washington soon discovered, however, that after the fall of the Soviet Union -- after it was no longer necessary to maintain the status quo of dictatorial regimes if the status quo was in America's favour -- it was not necessarily in America's interests to promote regime change and impose democratic forms of government. After all, not only might the newly bred democratic governments prove unpredictable, sometimes it might better serve American security interests to keep existing dictatorships at the mercy of American blackmail. Thus it was that some neo-cons, in spite of their Trotskyite-like radical temperament (in the opinion of this author, radicalism is as much a psychological state of mind as it is a political position) and their belief in "permanent revolution", discovered that there were times when the US would have to adopt the realism of Lenin. If Lenin felt it necessary to build the communist order in one state before exporting the revolution as an instrument for global domination, and to ally himself with non-communist states in order to better secure that state, neo-conss reached the conclusion that they had to give priority, for the moment, to building the capitalist democratic state in one country, temporarily give up the idea of permanent revolution and ally themselves with non-democratic nations if that better served their interests. Not all neo-cons welcomed this shift. In his article, "Who killed the Bush Doctrine?" appearing in Haaretz of 30 September 2005, Michael Rubin, editor of the Middle East Quarterly, laments the compromise. A worshipper at the neo-con temple, the American Enterprise Institute, Rubin reminded his readers that Bush, in his inaugural speech of 20 January 2005, had pledged to support democracy and freedom around the globe. Rubin suspected that some clique had "got to the president or got around him," for nearly a year later it had become clear that the Bush administration had chosen to betray the "Bush Doctrine" and chosen, instead, to support the status quo in Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even Lebanon and Syria. Now, as we mourn the death of democracy, leaving only desolation, the spread of terrorism to other countries such as Jordan, and the growing Iranian influence in Iraq through the Iraqi elections, studies have begun to emerge refuting the established lore about the relationship between the spread of democracy and the fight against terrorism, or between dictatorship and the breeding of terrorism. Suddenly, scholars have observed that terrorism in non-democratic China pales next to terrorism in democratic India; that democracy in Britain did nothing to dampen the resolve of a group of native-born British youths to mount a series of terrorist acts, and that domestic terrorist movements emerged in democratic Germany, America, Italy, Israel and Japan in the 1970s, 1980s and up to the end of the last century. It is not true, of course, that democracy breeds terrorism. It is true that liberal democracy is the best of all systems of government, or more precisely, the least pernicious. However, there is no relationship between democratisation and ending terrorism. Nor has a clear relationship been established between dictatorship and the breeding of terrorism (see Gregory Gause, 'Can democracy stop terrorism?' in Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005). More importantly, terrorism has gained a new base of operations, in dictatorship-free Iraq. Odd how China and India can crop up suddenly -- or vanish just as quickly -- as the needs of proponents of the theory of exporting democracy to fight terrorism dictate. Liberal democracy is better than dictatorship because it is a more humane system of government, not because it is more effective in fighting terrorism. It is clearer than ever that this aphorism that used to be quoted in connection with communism -- "the idea is great; the problem is in its application" -- does not hold in the case of neo-con dogma. The problem is that the idea was turned into a creed of action, which is to say that it could no longer be distinguished from practice. The idea -- democracy -- was packaged for export and placed at the end of the barrel of a gun. The problem also resides in the belief that America's non-democratic allies who toe the line with US foreign policy are capable of building democratic governments just because they know which side their bread is buttered on. In addition, it is naïve to think that just because some hardcore neo-cons believe in exporting democracy, the pragmatists among US foreign policy architects designed their policy in accordance with this doctrine. Spreading democracy was not initially their creed. Rather, the creed served their purposes at a time in which they were drumming up support for a certain plan of action and exploiting the post-11 September hysteria towards this end. The constant in US foreign policy planning is imperial interests. Imperial interests may dictate that some of the young zealots who believed in Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld bewail the death of a doctrine, just as the tears shed by Israeli settlers at the time of disengagement served Sharon's designs. The bottom line is that national interests prevail. The concept is less emotive and less ideologically coherent than it appears. Its proponents are also less grandiose and less prone to feigning a worldly callousness than they appear, unlike adolescents trying to act as grownups and certainly unlike those neo-con intellectuals who had never fought a war in their lives, yet who swagger around spouting their notions about the greater picture. These self-styled intellectual giants are indifferent to petty details, such as the cries of misery issuing from the death and destruction below, as they stomp relentlessly forward to fulfil the historical mission to which they appointed themselves ever since they started working as journalists, think-tank scholars, congressional members or under-secretaries. The realists share this insensitivity to the suffering of others, of course. However, their insensitivity is real, not a pose, not the bravado of the university grad who prattles on blithely about the necessity of war, bloodshed, the displacement of people and the partition of nations. The neo-cons have a soft spot in their heart for such things as ideology, doctrinal consistency and the historic mission of imperialism. They are always taken by surprise by realists whose soft spot is in their pockets and by others for whom imperialism is not a religion, or a substitute for religion, or a logically coherent ideology to be used against heresy, but something to be implemented on the ground, with all the conflicting demands this makes, with all the trial and error that is required and with all the concessions to imperial interests that are needed in order to consolidate and expand the dominion of hegemony. This is why the realists in Washington have begun to recalculate their strategy. They realise that they have to keep the increasingly fidgety home front under control, and that they have to make some concessions to opinion abroad now that the disaster they wrought in Iraq has made the international situation so much more complex. The war against terror has produced only one result so far, which was to expand the range of terrorism. Nor has exploiting terrorism to expand the realm of American hegemony had any sure-fire results apart from having opened the gates of hell. And the Iraqi model of democracy has few buyers; indeed, it is repellent even to Syrian opposition forces. Russia cuts gas supplies to Ukraine Last Updated Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:37:37 EST CBC News Russia's state-controlled natural gas monopoly has halted sales to Ukraine after Kiev refused its latest offer on natural gas prices for 2006. Gazprom started reducing pressure in the pipelines to Ukraine even before the Sunday morning deadline to accept a new pricing deal. The proposals would see the cost of importing Russian gas more than quadruple to between $220 and $230 US per 1,000 cubic metres. Ukraine had been paying $50 US per 1,000 cubic metres of gas, a price reflecting Soviet-era subsidized rates. Russia supplies about 30 per cent of Ukraine's gas supplies. Ukraine pointed out that Belarus, a close ally of Russia, will pay just $46 per 1,000 cubic metres for gas after a recent agreement, while both Georgia and Armenia are also paying less. Ukraine's president, Viktor Yushchenko, said late on Friday that the most it was willing to pay was $80. In its offer, Moscow said it could maintain Ukraine's current fuel price for three months before the price hike. Ukraine wanted the increase to be phased in gradually over several years and said Moscow is using the gas issue to punish Kiev for its drive to join the European Union and NATO. Ukrainian officials have said the country has sufficient gas reserves to weather a Gazprom cutoff for at least several weeks but have declined to specify how much is in reserve. Ukraine accused of taking EU gas Monday, 2 January 2006, 10:43 GMT BBC News Russia has accused Ukraine of taking $25m of gas exports destined for Europe after it cut off supplies to the country on Sunday. Some European states say supplies from a pipeline running through Ukraine have fallen by up to 40%. Ukraine denied taking the gas, but said it would indeed siphon off a share if temperatures fell below freezing. Kiev has accused Russia of resorting to "blackmail" after the two countries failed to agree on higher gas prices. Both the European Union and the United States have expressed concern about the row. The US State Department said Russia's move to cut off the gas raised "serious questions about the use of energy to exert political pressure". Reduced supplies Alexander Medvedev, deputy head of Russian gas monopoly, Gazprom, was quoted as saying that Ukraine had taken 100 million cubic metres of gas in the 24 hours after supplies were cut off. Russia said it had no choice but to act after Ukraine refused to sign a new deal accepting an immediate increase in gas prices from $50 to $230 per 1,000 cubic metres. The average EU charge is $240. Russia supplies 30% of Ukraine's gas, and about 25% of Western Europe's needs. Gazprom says it is piping enough gas via Ukraine to meet its commitments to other countries. But Austria, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia have reported a fall in supplies, and have said they will in turn be pumping less gas to customers further down the line. Austrian oil and gas group OMV said on Monday that supplies from Russia were down by one third, after a further drop overnight. Hungarian gas firm MOL said its supplies were down by 40% and Slovakia said it was receiving just 60% of the gas it needs to export further West. Poland said on Sunday its supplies had fallen by 14%. Ukraine says the loss of Russian supplies will not hit ordinary Ukrainian consumers during the harsh winter. However, it has warned that supplies to industry could be affected. It says that it is being punished for its attempts to become more independent from Moscow and develop stronger ties with the West, after the Orange Revolution and the election of Western-leaning President Viktor Yushchenko. Other countries which remain in Russia's sphere of influence continue to receive gas at below-market prices. Emergency meeting Ukraine insists that under existing contracts it has the right to take 15% of the remaining supplies in the pipelines as payment for transporting the gas to Western Europe. It says Russia is in breach of contract by cutting off the gas and has called for a resumption of talks in the presence of international experts. Kiev has also said it is prepared to agree to a gradual increase in gas prices. EU governments are convening a meeting of their gas industry experts in Brussels on 4 January to discuss the crisis. Hungary notes gas pressure drop at border with Ukraine www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-02 19:02:14 BUDAPEST, Jan. 2 (Xinhuanet) -- Hungary on Monday noted a 25-percent drop in gas pressure at its border with Ukraine, as Russia had cut off gas supplies to Ukraine over a price dispute. "Twenty-five percent less natural gas is coming in," said Szabolcs Ferenc, spokesman for the leading Hungarian energy group Mol. "It is impossible to tell whether this drop is caused by the Ukrainians or the Russians but this is a question concerning not just Hungary, but also Austria, Italy, the Czech Republic," Ferenc told the commercial radio station Klubradio. According to the spokesman, major consumers of natural gas in Hungary might have to switch to oil, while common users won't feel much pinch from the reduced supply. Meanwhile, countries like Poland, Austria and Slovakia also noted drops in Russian gas deliveries. Russian gas giant Gazprom cut off natural gas supply to Ukraine on Sunday after Kiev rejected Russia's demand to more than quadruple the price from the 50 U.S. dollars per 1,000 cubic meters over the past year. The move also poses potential threats to its European consumers, as most of the gas they buy from Russia transited from Ukraine. Russia begins to cut off Ukraine's gas supply 1 Jan 2006 AFP Russia began lowering the pressure of natural gas entering Ukraine's pipeline system, a spokesman for the Gazprom energy company said, assuring supplies to the rest of Europe were not at risk. "We have been forced to start the operation to lower the pressure in Ukraine's gas pipeline system," state-controlled Gazprom's spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov told AFP. "Export gas will be delivered in its totality," Kupriyanov continued, referring to deliveries to the rest of Europe, amid European Union fears that Gazprom's move could disrupt supplies during the cold winter months. "We were ready to come to an agreement with the Ukrainian people... Our offer was rejected," Kupriyanov said. Russia and Ukraine have been locked in a bitter gas price dispute for months, sparking concerns in other European countries that depend on Russian energy supplies. Kiev has so far been paying 50 dollars per 1,000 cubic metres. Gazprom, which controls a third of the world's natural gas reserves, wants 230 dollars (195 euros), arguing that Soviet-era tariffs no longer apply and the price needs to be aligned with market rates. Gazprom said it would cut off Ukraine's gas supply at 0700 GMT unless Kiev agreed to the higher price but high-level talks in Moscow ended with no deal last week. In a last-minute move, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday said Kiev could pay the current price until April but made the offer conditional on Ukraine agreeing to a more than four-fold price hike thereafter and signing the agreement by a midnight deadline. Ukraine depends on Russia for around a third of its natural gas supplies, importing some 25 billion cubic metres per year, and many ordinary Ukrainians have expressed alarm despite official assurances that the country has enough reserves to last the winter. In a New Year's address, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko called on Ukrainians to ensure the country's "economic independence," invoking a popular revolt that brought him to power in a presidential election last year against a Russia-backed candidate. "A year ago we beat the dictatorship and won a real victory," Yushchenko said. "Today we have to go a step further to ensure together Ukraine's economic independence." The European Union's executive Commission has called a special meeting of its gas coordination group for Wednesday to discuss the Russia-Ukraine row and Austria which took over the EU presidency Sunday said a drop in supplies could "lead to not insignificant problems for natural gas supplies in western Europe." Polish Economy Minister Piotr Wozniak warned Poland would feel "the harmful potential effects" of a cut-off within days. Ex-Envoy: British Used Intel After Torture By SUE LEEMAN Associated Press 31 Dec 2005 LONDON - A former British ambassador has published government documents he says prove that Britain knowingly received intelligence extracted under torture from prisoners in Uzbekistan. Craig Murray, who was removed as ambassador to Uzbekistan after going public about his concerns, defied a Foreign Office ban to publish the internal memos on his Web site Friday. The documents include memos to Foreign Office chiefs in which Murray expressed his concern over the use of "torture material." In one memo, Murray said he was told by Foreign Office legal adviser Sir Michael Wood that it was not illegal to use information acquired by torture, except in legal proceedings. Intelligence officer Matthew Kydd had also told him the intelligence services sometimes found such material "very useful indeed, with a direct bearing on the war on terror," he said. Murray said that even after he alerted his bosses to his concerns, they continued to use material allegedly gained under torture "on the grounds that the UK could not prove that individual detainees were tortured to extract information." "I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the U.N. convention, was not employed," he wrote. A Foreign Office spokesman said Friday that while Britain condemns the use of torture, it would be "irresponsible" for the intelligence services to reject out of hand information which might protect British citizens from a terror attack. The spokesman spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with government policy. Uzbekistan has put more than 6,000 political prisoners in squalid jails where dozens of people have reportedly died of torture over the past several years, according to rights groups. But the central Asian country emerged as a key U.S. ally after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, and had hosted hundreds of American troops supporting operations in neighboring Afghanistan until last month. Hard-line President Islam Karimov had ordered the U.S. troops to leave in July after Washington joined international condemnation of a bloody government crackdown in the eastern city of Andijan that human rights groups say killed hundreds of civilians. British, Greek Intelligence Agents Accused of Torture By Jim Kouri, CPP American Chronicle December 31, 2005 With the United States being harangued by liberal-left organizations throughout the world over allegations of "secret CIA prisons" and torture, it now appears that it will be Britain's turn to become the recipent of torture allegations. And wouldn't you know it? A newspaper story is the instrument by which these allegations are gaining traction. According to a report appearing in Scottish newspaper The Scotsman, several Greek and British intelligence agents may be subpoenaed to appear in court in Greece to testify in a lawsuit alleging that almost 30 Pakistanis were abducted, transported to Greece, and were beaten and tortured. It's alleged that this occurred right after the July terrorist bombings in London. Frangiskos Ragoussis, a lawyer representing the Pakistani plaintiffs, claims his clients were illegally taken from their homes and interrogated by Greek and British agents for several days. He told the news media that he had filed a lawsuit against the intelligence agents he believes were involved in the operation. A number of intelligence officers, including a British agent, were named in an article in a Greek newspaper over the Christmas weekend as those responsible for the covert operation, but neither the newspaper nor the accusers' attorney stated how they knew this information. It's believed most of the information they are releasing was provided by the Pakistanis who were not named, as well. "I have sued everyone today named in that story as being part of the interrogation process and I have sued them for kidnapping and torture," Mr Ragoussis told reporters during a press conference in Greece. However, critics are not certain a case based on a newspaper report -- that came from the Pakistanis lawyer to begin with -- is sufficient evidence to move the lawsuit forward. While the Greek government may cooperate with the the plaintiffs' attorney, the British agent or agents probably will not. The Pakistanis claim they were kidnapped, had hoods placed over their heads, and then they were transported to a secret location near Athens. While there they said, through their attorney, they were beaten and questioned for about a week by Greek agents and at least two British officers. The Greek government and their secret National Intelligence Agency (EYP) have denied the allegations. However, they have been compelled to order two agents operating in Kosovo --who were named in the newspaper story -- to return to Greece. The Greek intelligence agency accused the newspaper of compromising security operations by printing the names of 15 Greek officers and said the allegations were "completely unfounded". Sources observing the case say that this is nothing more than the news media running with a story based on allegations leveled by suspected terrorists or terrorist associates. The plaintiffs attorney said he wants the agents to appear in court in front of his clients so they can identify them. But this on its face would be unconstitutional in the United States since the ID would be tainted. In the US, the accusers would have to pick out their alleged torturers from either a sequential photo ID process, or the standard police lineup. The case first surfaced weeks after the suicide bomb attacks in London last July which left over 50 people dead. The opposition party -- taking a page from the US Democrat Party handbook -- has demanded government officials to appear before the Greek parliament to answer questions regarding allegations made by a newspaper and an attorney. As with similar situations in the US, national security is being compromised in Greece for political reasons. Should the agents be forced to testify, they will reveal top secret sources and methods not only to the court, but also to the world, which includes terrorist cells operating in Pakistan. Ban leaves Spanish smokers out in the cold Last Updated Sun, 01 Jan 2006 19:48:36 EST CBC News Cigarette-loving Spaniards had to head outdoors Sunday as the first day of the new year ushered in a nation-wide ban on smoking in public places. As of Jan. 1, it's against the law to smoke in offices, hospitals, schools and shopping centres. Large bars and restaurants must provide separate smoking areas, while smaller ones can choose whether to uphold the ban or not. Europe's second biggest per capita consumer of tobacco after Greece, Spain joins a number of European Union countries who have similar smoking bans. Spanish legislators want to cut smoking by five per cent within two years. Currently, about one-third of Spain's population smokes, with the average Spaniard inhaling 2,300 cigarettes per year, according to market research firm Euromonitor. That's 850 more cigarettes than the average European. The new law also bans tobacco advertising and raises the minimum age for buying cigarettes from 16 to 18. Last year, Spanish legislators banned smoking from the corridors of parliament. Comment: Another great victory in the anti-smoking crusade. The lemmings are being conditioned to accept an authoritarian environment. Europe's New Year celebrations marred by violence 1 January 2006 AFP Europeans rang in the New Year with traditional firework displays and festive street gatherings, but the celebratory mood was punctuated by violence and injury in Britain and across the continent. On Paris's most famous avenue, the Champs-Elysees, half a million revellers, many with champagne bottles in hand, welcomed the arrival of 2006, according to police estimates. But outside the city center in the tough suburbs that erupted into violence two months ago, more than 150 cars went up in smoke. Throughout France, 425 vehicles were torched despite a massive police presence, according to an official tally. Security was tight Sunday for festivities in major cities across France, with 25,000 police and paramilitary gendarmes on duty. Street parties and glittering firework displays marked the end of 2005 in London, with crowds packing the banks of the River Thames to see the 10-minute pyrotechnical display centered on the city's landmark ferris wheel, the London Eye. The wheel lit up in the colours of the five Olympic rings to celebrate London being awarded the 2012 Games. The New Year was especially welcome to Londoners eager to shake off the lingering effect of terror attacks on the capital this summer, a sentiment echoed by Prime Minster Tony Blair in his New Year message. "We will not let our resolve slip to tackle the dangers we face, both at home," Blair said. Excessive drinking was blamed for 35 stabbings in London overnight Sunday, the first New Year's Eve since 24-hour drinking laws took effect in Britain. The London Ambulance Service said it dealt with 1,444 emergency calls between midnight and 4:00 am, most alcohol related. In Berlin, where nearly a million of people celebrated near the historic Brandenburg Gate, more than 700 people were injured over night, slightly more than last year. In Moscow thousands braved bitter cold and numerous police checks to greet the New Year in Red Square. Thousands of people in Lisbon watched as fireworks cascaded off the Vasco da Gama tower from a height of 150 metres (495 feet) to a river below for nearly two minutes in what organizers said was the biggest fireworks "waterfall" ever carried out anywhere in the world. The event was followed by a 10 minute traditional fireworks show launched from eight floating platforms which lit up the sky above the Portuguese capital. In the Netherlands, celebrations unfolded in Amsterdam without serious incident, but two men died -- one from a gun shot wound, the other from fireworks -- in Rotterdam. In Spain, three men were killed overnight, two stabbed to death and the third shot during a family dispute in Madrid. Across the Nordic countries, people ignited their own fireworks, making for a colorful display in towns and cities. In Stockholm, fog obscured the display, but some fire crackers breached the haze. Loud bangs, the popping of champagne corks and celebratory cheers sounded across the city. In Copenhagen a 25-year-old man had his hand blown off by a fireworks, while another man suffered life-threatening injuries when a New Year's Eve firecracker that he had jokingly put in his mouth suddenly exploded. In the Polish city of Bytom three people died and more than 20 others were injured when a fire broke out in a hospital overnight, police said. Austria takes over reins of embattled EU 1 Jan 2006 AFP Britain handed over the European Union's leadership to Austria, trumpeting success after six months at the helm, but Vienna faces an uphill battle to help get the embattled bloc back on track. British Prime Minister Tony Blair can claim credit notably for clinching a budget deal at an EU summit last month, as well launching entry negotiations with Turkey after overcoming fierce divisions within the 25-nation club. But Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, while relieved that the EU's 2007-2013 funding plans are finally agreed, faces a much bigger problem before handing the EU reins to Finland in July: the all-but-dead EU constitution. The half-century-old EU was plunged into unprecedented crisis last June after French and then Dutch voters rejected the institutional blueprint, designed to prevent decision-making gridlock in in the expanding bloc. Blair took over the EU only weeks later on July 1, with expectations low amid the deep sense of gloom triggered by the double referendum snub by two of the EU's founder states. But the British leader insisted the crisis should be seen as an opportunity, saying it underlined the need for fundamental economic reform to drag Europe out of its economic doldrums, and reconnect the EU with ordinary citizens. While there are few immediate signs of progress on the reform front, Blair surprised some by securing a last-minute deal in October to start EU entry talks with vast mostly-Muslim Turkey. In other, less high-profile successes, the British EU presidency hammered out a deal to toughen up rules covering the chemicals industry, while pushing through reform of sugar pricing, long sought by developing countries. But the biggest achievement had to wait until last, when Blair's surrender of part of London's long-prized EU rebate secured a last-ditch EU budget deal, avoiding the threat of funding gridlock to add to the institutional paralysis. There were huge sighs of relief all round, but with that deal done attention will inevitably return to the more fundamental question of the constitution. Schuessel -- who only six years ago was put in the EU deep freeze after forming a coalition with Joerg Haider's far-right Freedom Party -- has pledged that the revival of Europe will be his main priority over the next six months. The Austrian leader has promised to come up with "further proposals" for the future of the European constitution, to be discussed at a June summit ending his small country's turn at the EU tiller. "To renew ties with a visionary Europe, one must picture a choreography... to address with energy and confidence" the dilemma sparked by the rejection of the constitution, said his foreign minister Ursula Plassnik. But few expect any real breakthrough until at least 2007, after presidential elections in France which could in theory change the political dynamic there. "I do not have a magic potion," warned Plassnik during a recent trip to Brussels to set out Vienna's EU priorities. Another key issue on Austria's plate will be a decision likely in April or May on whether to delay the planned January 2007 EU accession of Romania and Bulgaria by a year. Even before that the EU is likely to start substantial negotiations with Turkey -- a sensitive issue in particular for Vienna, since Austria was the most strongly opposed to starting the talks in the first place. New German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- joining Schuessel in Vienna Sunday to launch Austria's EU presidency -- is also known to be highly skeptical, and could make her feelings known. Bolivia's president-elect to visit Venezuela www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-02 14:16:55 LIMA, Jan. 1 (Xinhuanet) -- Bolivia's President-elect Evo Morales will head for Venezuela on Tuesday to meet with President Hugo Chavez as part of his world tour, his spokesman said on Sunday. Morales' Venezuelan visit follows a Dec. 31 visit to Cuba, where he and Cuban leader Fidel Castro discussed ways to strengthen their countries' bilateral relations. Morales plans a brief six-hour stop in Venezuela's capital before starting a tour of several countries including European countries, South Africa and Brazil, said his spokesman Alex Contreras. Unlike his trip to Cuba, where he took a large support team of 60, Morales' party for his Venezuelan and European visits will be small, including his economic adviser Carlos Villegas, the spokesman said. Like Castro, Chavez also, has offered aid to Morales' government, including a program to provide identity documents for thousands of peasants in Bolivia's rural areas, said Contreras. Morales won the presidential elections on Dec. 18 with nearly 54 percent of the votes. Castro is the first head of state that Morales has met with since the elections. He officially takes office on Jan. 22. Churchill was ready to arrest De Gaulle: archives LONDON, Jan 1 (AFP) Britain's wartime prime minister Winston Churchill was prepared to have French resistance leader General Charles de Gaulle arrested if he tried to leave Britain, new documents released from British archives showed Sunday. The animosity between the pair, both revered in their homelands as heroes of the Second World War, is revealed in the first detailed records of British wartime Cabinet meetings to be made public. Describing the French resistance leader as having "insensate ambition", Churchill also said De Gaulle was a barrier to "trustworthy" relations between the two countries. In March 1943 when his request to visit Free French troops was turned down, the general, who had fled to Britain in 1940 after the German invasion, complained that he was being treated as a prisoner of war. Churchill's response was that the Frenchman must be told "bluntly" to do as he was told and must be kept in the country. "And arrest him if he tries to leave, eg by Fr(ench) destroyer. Security measures should be laid on to prevent that," Churchill said, according to notes taken by Deputy Cabinet Secretary Sir Norman Brook. The British leader feared that De Gaulle's requested visit would jeopardise ongoing discussions between the United States and its favoured General Giraud, De Gaulle's rival. However future Labour prime minister Clement Attlee warned against trusting US judgment on Giraud. "Don't pin all hopes on (Giraud) as tho' he was v good. Remember too that the name 'de G' stands throughout France as the spirit of resistance: the man who never gave up etc ... US views v unreliable, they know nothing about France," Brook's notes read. By April 1945, Churchill judged that there was "no hope of trustworthy relations with France until we are rid of de Gaulle". However that year De Gaulle returned to a hero's welcome in Paris and was given the presidency of the provisional government. The general would go on to repeatedly block Britain's entry into the European Economic Community. Though he didn't trust De Gaulle, Churchill's views on Stalin were more positive, according to the released files. Having met the Russian leader in Moscow, he told Cabinet in August 1942 that Stalin was a "large man: great sagacity". Dating from 1942 to 1945, the documents can be viewed in full at the National Archives in Kew, south-west London. Comment: When we look at the modern EU, seems like de Gaulle had the right idea. The Brits are still the shill for the US. Egypt's press decries refugee killings 1 Jan 06 Al-Jazeera Egypt's independent and opposition press has criticised police for forcibly breaking up a three-month protest by Sudanese refugees that left as many as 25 people dead. "Shame on Egypt," thundered the headline in the Al-Arabi newspaper on Sunday, as relatives held funerals across Cairo for the dead, who included women and children. "Prosecute the murderers and dismiss the minister of interior," the paper demanded. Thousands of riot police wielding sticks and water cannon forcibly removed hundreds of Sudanese demonstrators, in an operation that began at dawn on Friday. The independent Al-Isboa newspaper called it "the night the human conscience was lost". "The interior ministry lost its mind and killed 20 Sudanese in the Mohandiseen massacre," declared Sawt al-Umma, referring to the upmarket Cairo neighbourhood where up to 2000 refugees had been camping outside UN offices to draw attention to their cause. Defence The semi-official press carried statements by officials defending the action, which they insisted came after repeated demands by the UN refugee agency. Relatives were combing the city's hospitals and mortuaries on Sunday to find missing loved ones, as the government has not publicised information on the locations of the dead and injured. The international community, led by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, and the United States, voiced its concern at the violence, and the New York-based Human Rights Watch called for those behind the deaths to be punished. The Cairo church where many Sudanese Christians pray plans a memorial over the next few days. 'Leap second' subject of long debate BY GUY GUGLIOTTA Washington Post WASHINGTON Posted on Sun, Jan. 01, 2006 Scientists disagree over how to account for the minute discrepancy between atomic and astronomical time. Time marches on, but Earth is falling behind. The solution again this year is to add a "leap second" as 2006 arrives, so Earth can catch up with the atomic clocks that have defined time since their unerring accuracy trumped the heavens three decades ago. This will be the first leap second in seven years, and its arrival will be closely watched by physicists and astronomers enmeshed in a prolonged debate over the future of time in a world increasingly dominated by technology. Some experts think the leap second should be abolished because the periodic, but random, adjustment of time imposes unreasonable and perhaps dangerous disruptions on precision software applications including cell phones, air traffic control and power grids. Others, however, argue that it would be expensive to adjust satellites, telescopes and other astronomical systems that are hard-wired for the leap second, and besides, people want their watches to be in sync with the heavens. Nobody knows how disruptive the leap second really is, but researchers hope to find out soon. "We're going to look at what happens this year," said Naval Research Laboratory physicist Ronald Beard. "If there are no significant problems, the whole issue will go away, but I don't expect that to happen." Leap seconds are an outgrowth of the post-World War II development of increasingly accurate clocks based on the regular vibration, or "resonance," of atoms as they pass through a magnetic field. In 1958 an atomic second was defined as the time it takes for an atom of cesium 133 to tick through 9,192,631,770 cycles. At that point atomic time and astronomical time are approximately the same, with the traditional astronomical second defined as 1/86,400th of a "mean solar day," the average time between two consecutive noons. The trouble is that the heavens behave more capriciously than cesium. Also, the length of Earth's day is increasing by about two milliseconds per century because of the tides, whereas today's atomic clocks, unaffected by cosmic events, tick away with an accuracy within one second for every 20 million years. Because of this discrepancy, atomic time has been pulling ahead of astronomical time for the past 47 years. To fix this, the International Telecommunication Union in 1972 stipulated that "Coordinated Universal Time," an atomic time used as the world standard, could not diverge from astronomical time by more than 0.9 seconds. A "DIFFICULT" COMPROMISE The adjustment tool was the leap second, to be added or subtracted at the discretion of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service, either at the end of June or the end of the year. Beginning in 1972, there have been 21 leap seconds, the last one in 1998. "Astronomers wanted a time scale that represented the Earth's movement, and the clock community wanted a smooth scale," said physicist Judah Levine of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Colorado, who favors eliminating leap seconds. "The compromise has become increasingly difficult to maintain." The majority of scientists appear to agree that adding leap seconds, up to now an infrequent exercise, is likely to become a twice-a-year experience in about a century as Earth keeps slowing and the unvarying atomic clocks keep ticking away. And unlike leap years or daylight saving time, software designers cannot plan ahead because leap seconds get added only when they are needed. The current seven-year hiatus is twice as long as any previous gap. "At some point this will become so annoying that someone will want to change it," said astronomer Dennis McCarthy, retired director of the U.S. Naval Observatory's Directorate on Time and an advocate of abolishing the leap second. "I'm quite confident that people are not going to be happy with multiple leap seconds per year." So why not get rid of them? Industry could enjoy the regularity of atomic clocks without risking technological collapse on New Year's Eve. And the divergence from solar time would not be more than one or two seconds per year, perhaps two minutes per century. "The idea that it's going to be midnight in the middle of the afternoon is just nonsense," Levine said. Others, however, suggest that the hardship caused by leap seconds may be overblown, if not illusory, as experts on both sides of the debate agree that there is little data beyond a few anecdotes to suggest that leap seconds have in the past created havoc in time-sensitive endeavors. "The case hasn't been made," said University of Virginia astronomer Ken Seidelmann. "All there is is rumor that they're inconvenient, but we've had them for 30-plus years and there's no outcry. I see no reason to get rid of them." Furthermore, Seidelmann added, astronomers and satellite operators deploy sensitive equipment on the ground and in space on the assumption that the Coordinated Universal Time signal will match up within a second of astronomical time, critical in decisions such as when and how to point solar panels or satellite imagers. Still, cautioned McCarthy, "we need to make a decision" about the leap second because engineers are designing satellite systems today that "will be used 20 years from now. We need to do them a service so they're not stuck." "A PHILOSOPHICAL FEELING" In recent years, time mavens opened a discussion about what to do, and a "general consensus" emerged that "the advantage to astronomy was not worth the pain and suffering of leap seconds," Levine said. "It looked like a done deal." But it wasn't. Earlier this year Britain's Royal Astronomical Society decried a U.S. proposal to abolish the leap second, suggesting that doing so would disrupt not only astronomers but "all who study environmental phenomena related to the rising and setting of the sun." In November, a working group of the International Telecommunication Union meeting in Geneva decided to postpone discussions of the U.S. proposal, which would have abandoned leap seconds in 2007 and let Coordinated Universal Time and astronomical time diverge for several hundred years before inserting a "leap hour." The group said more time was needed to form a consensus, and suggested that this year's leap second offered a welcome opportunity to determine whether change is necessary. A brief history of time: Time lords By Cole Moreton 01 January 2006 What did you do with the extra second last night? Take another cup of kindness? Let a New Year kiss linger on the lips? Wonder why the radio was playing an extra pip? If you didn't even notice the leap second being added to all our lives at midnight then that's a shame, because it may be the last. Time, the universal notion that underpins everything we do, is changing: becoming ever more accurate and powerful, it may also be about to split apart. The trouble is that the experts who are supposed to tell us what time it is cannot agree how to do so. The time lords are falling out, as one group argues for the world to abandon ancient methods of timekeeping and rely solely on super-accurate atomic clocks instead. Systems such as the new Galileo satellite, launched last week, use atomic time to keep planes in the air and cities moving. American scientists believe it is time to measure out our lives only according to the rate at which the atoms of caesium-133 vibrate. They are opposed by equally passionate astronomers who are keen that we should all continue to measure time by using the movement of the sun in the sky to define a day. These two versions of time have drifted 32 seconds apart, because the rotation of the Earth is irregular and slowing down. But since 1972 they have been reconciled to within 0.9 seconds of each other using leap seconds announced from the Paris Observatory. This produces a compromise called Co-ordinated Universal Time, which is why the most accurate clocks in the world were set to show an extra second as 23:59:60 last night, before 00:00:00. Many other clocks and computers also had to be reset, by operators who really did not see the point. They call leap seconds a dangerous and unnecessary disruption to the complex software used to run everything from mobile phone networks and power grids to traffic lights and life-support systems. That is why American scientists have proposed abolishing the leap second - or at least letting their own version of time drift as much as an hour away from old-fashioned "sun time" before it has to be reset, which could take hundreds of years. The prevalence of technology would then make atomic time the standard, and the old kind just a minority pursuit. The world's top techies first challenged the stargazers at a meeting in Geneva in November, but they agreed to disagree until after last night's leap second. The debate continues to tick away like a time bomb inside the International Telecommunications Union, where governments and private companies work together to keep the blizzard of emails, radio and television broadcasts, faxes, phone calls, satellite signals and internet activity in the world from meltdown. All these things rely on accurate digital sources of time - which is why technology and the corporations funding it are pushing a debate that could lead to the most profound change in the way we measure time since the beginning of human history. We have always instinctively measured time according to the movement of the sun. The Egyptians had sundials dividing daylight into 10 parts, plus one for dawn and one for dusk. Water clocks measured out the time from when the sun appeared overhead at noon to when it returned the next day, but the use of 24 identical hours became widespread only with the weight-driven mechanical timepieces of the 15th century. This story is told at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, where tourists from Australia and Japan stand astride the meridian and have themselves photographed with one foot in the eastern hemisphere and one foot in the west. "The centre of time and space," is what Greenwich calls itself, with language echoing the days of certainty, precision and empire. (The train drivers of the Raj were regulated by time defined here.) For £1, Cindy Marshall from Nebraska buys a certificate declaring to one-100th of a second that she was at this Unesco World Heritage Site at 15.09.05.01. "That's so cool," she says. "How do they determine that?" Then she asks what everybody asks at Greenwich, even now: "Is my watch right?" People have been checking their timepieces here since Charles II set up the Royal Observatory to seek a solution to the problem of longitude. Sailors needed to know where they were in the world, so the first Astronomer Royal, John Flamsteed, was appointed to map out the stars and prepare accurate charts of their movements to aid navigation. It was decided that zero degrees longitude should be at Greenwich: then if sailors knew when it was noon in London they could use the amount of time it took for the sun to appear over their own head to calculate their position. But no clocks worked at sea, until John Harrison invented his watch H4, and was awarded, after considerable wrangling, a prize by the Crown. There was still no standard time in Britain until the railways came. That noon in London was 11.44am in Plymouth did not matter until there was a timetable to observe. A master clock was set up at Greenwich in 1852 to send electrical pulses out to clocks across the country. Some called this "railway aggression", resenting government interference in their lives, but by 1855 nearly all public clocks in the country kept the same time. Similar things were happening across the world. In 1884, delegates from 25 countries met in Washington to set up a series of time zones. For every 15 degrees of longitude there would be an hour difference. There had to be a base level and there was some dispute about whether it should really be at Greenwich - but since American railways and most of the ships in the world kept time on that basis, it was agreed. So Greenwich acquired the status it is so proud of today, with £15m being spent on four new galleries and a planetarium to celebrate its position at the heart of time. It is still at the prime meridian, but soon even that may be only history. If the world goes over to atomic time, the rotation of the earth will mean the meridian gradually slips eastwards. "Greenwich is just a museum now," said Peter Whibberley, senior time scientist at the National Physics Laboratory in Teddington, Middlesex, where two scientists built the first working atomic clock in 1955. It used caesium-133, as modern versions do, although they are more accurate. There are 230 of them in 65 laboratories across the world, and 100 in orbit around the earth, all sending data to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Paris. Mr Whibberley is the man who added the leap second to the caesium clock which is kept at Teddington in stable laboratory conditions, with humidity, temperature and vibrations all controlled. At the NPL, a second is not defined as a tick-tock, a 60th of a minute or the time it takes to fall in love, but as 9,192,631,770 cycles of electromagnetic radiation in an atom of caesium-133. The method is apparently accurate to within one second every 60 million years. Mr Whibberley reset his clock in advance of New Year's Eve. "Apart from having a quick drink, there's not much you can do with an extra second," he said."That's probably what I'll be doing." Extra drink or not, the NPL is not in favour of only using atomic time. It sympathises with astronomers, whose work tracking distant stars would be thrown into chaos. The Royal Astronomical Society said last week: "Over a few decades, when the error might grow up to half a minute or so, one can imagine the arguments that lawyers and insurance companies might have about whether an event had occurred before or after midnight." Nevertheless, the heads of American technology corporations tend to get their way, and they seem to think of Greenwich Mean Time and the rotation of the Earth as quaint, old-fashioned, a bit wobbly - and 32 seconds slow. So if you saw someone pop their cork half a minute early last night, it was probably one of them. Ahead of their time or out of step? Only time will tell. From sundials to atomic clocks 1: Our understanding of the passage of time has always been based on the movement of the sun and Earth. The ancient Egyptians had sundials dividing daylight into 10 parts plus dusk and dawn. The rotation of the Earth, "moving" the sun from directly overhead on one day to the same position on the next, has formed the basis of time-keeping ever since. This includes Greenwich Mean Time, whose status as a universal standard for the world is under threat. But everyone agrees that 24 hours equals one day 2: The Greeks were the first to use water clocks regulated by a constant drip from a stone vessel. The same principle powered the first known mechanical clock, which was built in a tower 30ft high by the astronomer and inventor Su Song in China in 1088. A globe inside the tower rotated once a day 3: The next step forward was to use a system of falling weights to drive the mechanism, instead of water. This made possible the large public clocks that would be built into towers in town centres across the world, starting with Italy in the 14th century 4: The need for sailors to know where they were led to agreement that the position of the sun at noon in Greenwich, London, should be considered 0 degrees longitude. This called for a clock that stayed accurate at sea in any temperature and regardless of motion. H4 was invented by John Harrison 5: Until the coming of the railways it did not matter that noon in London was 11.44am in Plymouth. But in 1852 a master clock was set up to send electrical pulses from Greenwich across the country. Despite some local opposition, soon all British public clocks were set by it 6: In October 1884, delegates from 25 countries met in Washington to decide on a system of time zones for the whole world. Since most of the vessels at sea already used charts with Greenwich as 0 degrees longitude, this was declared the prime meridian 7: The position of Greenwich as the centre of time was first threatened when quartz clocks were made in the 1920s. They count the seconds using the vibration of electricity through crystals, and have nothing to do with the sun. They made good cheap watches, but were soon surpassed in accuracy 8: Time changed for ever when the first atomic clock was built at the National Physics Laboratory in Middlesex in 1955. Accurate to within a second every 300 years, it established a new standard, far more reliable than the rotation of the Earth 9: The modern atomic clock uses the gas caesium-133 in a vacuum. Lasers are used to push the atoms together into a ball, which cools them. The ball is then projected a metre upwards through magnets and a microwave chamber, which heats the atoms. Any that have absorbed energy glow as they fall back down to where they came from, past a detector 10: Each atom is like a mini solar system, with electrons orbiting a central nucleus. As the electrons absorb or release energy, they move up or down to different orbits. This produces electromagnetic radiation, which vibrates at a precise frequency. Recording this vibration with the detector in the clock gives scientists a measure of time accurate to within a second every 60 million years: one second equals 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation from a caesium-133 atom. The need to reconcile this new standard of time with the old version leads to leap seconds. Comment: It's odd that this "time" issue keeps coming up. As we have reported before, the subject was brought up in the Cassiopaean Transmissions as early as 22 Feb 1997, but in a very particular context: A: Climate is being influenced by three factors, and soon a fourth. 1) Wave approach. 2) Chloroflorocarbon increase in atmosphere, thus affecting ozone layer. 3) Change in the planet's axis rotation, orientation. 4) Artificial tampering by 3rd and 4th density STS forces in a number of different ways. Be vigilant. Be observant. [...] Q: (Laura) All right, were those given in the order in which they are occurring? The fourth being the one that's coming later? A: Maybe, but remember this: a change in the speed of the rotation may not be reported while it is imperceptible except by instrumentation. Equator is slightly "wider" than the polar zones. But, this discrepancy is decreasing slowly currently. One change to occur in 21st Century is sudden glacial rebound, over Eurasia first, then North America. Ice ages develop much, much, much faster than thought. Q: (Terry) Is the Earth expanding?...(Ark) Yes, that's the theory: the idea is that the continents move away because the Earth is expanding, and this is much faster than you know, than geologists were thinking. A: Continental "drift" is caused by the continual though variable, propelling of gases from the interior to the surface, mainly at points of magnetic significance. Q: (Jan) What causes the change in the axis? A: By slow down of rotation, Earth alternately heats up and cools down in interior. Q: (Laura) Why does it do that? What's the cause of this? A: Part of cycle related to energy exerted upon surface by the frequency resonance vibrational profile of humans and others. And then, on 31 October 2001: Q: (L) Now according to these guys who are writing this web page about pole shift, they say it can be predicted where the poles will shift to. Is this in fact the case? A: No. Q: (L) Why can't pole shifts be predicted? Can't we know where the new pole will end up? A: Chaotic function here. Q: (A) There are three possible things that would come under the name pole shift. Only one of them may come, or two, or three, okay? And these are the following - the axis of rotation with respect to stars is changing, straightening out for instance; this is one thing; while all the rest goes with the axis, the lithosphere and the magnetic field. Second, the axis stays where it is, maybe it shifts a little bit; the lithosphere stays where it is - maybe it wobbles - but the magnetic field changes: for instance reverses. Third, axis stays, magnetic field stays, but the lithosphere is moving. So that's three ways a pole shift can happen. And of course there are things that come together. The most dramatic one which is seen from outside is when the axis of rotation changes. The next dramatic one is probably when the lithosphere changes. And the third of unknown consequences is when the magnetic pole changes, okay? So, we want to have an understanding what will be the main change. (A) Are we looking at a pole shift during the next ten or so years with a high degree of probability? A: Yes. Q: (A) In this concept of pole shift, what would be the main feature of this pole shift, of all those which we were discussing? A: New axial orientation, and magnetic reversal. Q: (L) That's fairly dramatic. (A) Alright, now, change of axis or orientation of axis of rotation: can we say we would straighten up, getting almost perpendicular to the ecliptic? Or the other possibility is that it will fall down being almost parallel to the ecliptic. The third is that we'll flip completely by 180 degrees. We know it's highly unpredictable, but can we have a clue from which one is, so to say, dominate? A: Perpendicularity will be restored. Q: (A) You didn't mention a change or shift of the lithosphere alone. Can we... A: Lithospheric shift will feature to some extent. Q: (A) But, that means eventually that the equator will almost not change because... A: Correct. Q: (A) So it will just shift a little bit, but its not going to go to Hawaii? What about changes in the lithosphere: can we predict a little bit of change in geography, coming from motions in lithosphere and changes in water level? A: Chaotic features predominate but in general it will be safer inland and in mountainous areas since less folding occurs in such locations. Q: (A) Now, the change of the orientation of the axis, what would be the main trigger, force, or activity, or what kind of event will trigger this change of the axis? A: Cometary bodies. Q: (L) Are the planets of the solar system going to kind of shift out of their orbits and run amok [as some are theorizing]? Is that a possibility? A: Yes. Q: (A) Due to cometary orbits alone? A: Yes. Twin sun also. Q: (A) When we speak about these cometary bodies, are we speaking about impacts? A: Some will hit. Q: (A) What would be - if any - the role played by electric phenomena? [The Electric Universe] A: Twin sun grounds current flow through entire system setting the "motor" running. Q: (L) Does this mean that all of the different bodies of the solar system are like parts of some kind of giant machine, and once this electric current flows through them, depending on their positions relative to one another at the time this current flows, that it has some influence on the way the machine runs? A: Yes, more or less. An intriguing way to look at history Smithsonian Magazine | January 1, 2006 Archaeologists call it the Persian carpet effect. Imagine you're a mouse running across an elaborately decorated rug. The ground would merely be a blur of shapes and colors. You could spend your life going back and forth, studying an inch at a time, and never see the patterns. Like a mouse on a carpet, an archaeologist painstakingly excavating a site might easily miss the whole for the parts. That's where the work of aerial photographers such as Georg Gerster comes in. For four decades, Gerster, 77, has been flying over sites from the Parthenon to Ayers Rock to provide archaeologists with the big picture. Seen from high above, even the most familiar turf can appear transformed, with a coherence and detail invisible on the ground. "In the Middle Eastern and classical [archaeology] world, it's a tool people recognize as extremely valuable," says archaeologist William Sumner, a University of Chicago professor emeritus, of aerial photography. "The thing about Georg's images is they are superb. If there's anything to be seen, it's in his images." In Gerster's recent book, The Past From Above: Aerial Photographs of Archaeological Sites (J. Paul Getty Museum), places we've seen a thousand times in pictures from ground level take on a whole new meaning. His photographs dramatize the scale of ancient structures and show them, as if for the first time, in relation to their surroundings. Stonehenge, so impressive at eye level, is a little underwhelming from above; the Great Wall of China appears shockingly large. And some mysterious structures -- the Nazca lines, 300 giant figures etched into desert sand beginning in 200 B.C. and located south of Lima, Peru, for example -- seem as if they were designed to be seen from above. Gerster, who was born in Switzerland and lives near Zurich, developed a passion for aerial photography in 1963, when, at 35, he chartered a small plane to photograph Egyptian and Sudanese sites about to be flooded by construction of the Aswan High Dam. Since then, he has photographed sites in 108 countries and Antarctica, usually while perched in an open doorway as his plane or helicopter roars over a site. Not a new idea Of course, the urge to get above it all has obsessed photographers since the invention of the camera. The first known aerial photograph was taken from a balloon in 1858. But not until the invention of the airplane did the idea of photographing ruins become practical. Even then, it was usually a byproduct of military reconnaissance. German pilots documented Egypt's pyramids during World War I. Between the wars, British military fliers made important advances in aerial photography. Even aviator Charles Lindbergh found the idea captivating, making low flights over the jungles of Central America in 1929 to search for hidden Mayan ruins while his wife, Anne, took photographs. Modern technology has only expanded archaeologists' interest in aerial imaging. Today, "landscape archaeology" is one of the field's hottest disciplines, combining satellite imagery (including declassified spy photos from the 1960s) with Global Positioning System data to tease out a landscape's hidden details, such as long-buried roads and canal systems. Not welcome everywhere Yet, despite growing academic acceptance (and even appetite) for aerial archaeology, there are places where it has become a virtual impossibility. In unstable areas of the Middle East -- a region rich in photogenic ruins -- aerial photographers are viewed with hostility. "All the secrecy is ridiculous, but still when you come and want to take aerial photographs, you're regarded as a spy," says Gerster. That pressure makes Gerster's work from the 1960s and '70s all the more valuable. "A lot of the areas he covered are denied to us today because of the suspicion of archaeologists," says Harvard University landscape archaeologist Jason Ur. "I just can't get good low-level aerial photography of Syria." Since Gerster visited Iraq in 1973, many of the sites he documented have been damaged by war and looting. As politics, development and time take their toll on the world's precious ruins, the irreplaceable images by Gerster and others become even more important portraits of the past. Cuba, Bolivia Make Literacy, Health Plans By ANDREA RODRIGUEZ The Associated Press HAVANA — Fidel Castro and Bolivian President-elect Evo Morales say cooperation between their countries will bloom despite U.S. worries about more nations allying with communist Cuba and a growing leftward tilt in Latin American politics. The two men late Friday announced a 30-month plan to erase illiteracy in Bolivia, the latest move by left-leaning South American leaders calling for increased cooperation among nations in the region without U.S. influence. Cuba also agreed to offer free eye operations to up to 50,000 needy Bolivians as well as 5,000 full scholarships for young Bolivians to study medicine on the island. "Could it be that the government of the United States feels hurt that Cuba cooperates with a brother nation?" Castro said. "Does that offend the U.S. government ... is it antidemocratic, is it a crime?" Morales, 46, said he would not allow himself to be pressured by Washington while in power. "I never had good relations with the United States, but rather with the American people," he said. Morales, a coca farmer and left-wing activist, says he won't resume the U.S.-backed coca eradication campaign in Bolivia. But he has vowed to crack down on drug trafficking while promoting legal markets for coca leaf, which is used to make cocaine but has medicinal and other legal uses in Bolivia. Castro and another close ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, have over the past year launched plans to share programs in social cooperation among countries in the region while rejecting a U.S.-backed plan for hemispheric free trade. Washington has expressed concern about their growing alliance. Speaking to about 400 young Bolivians already studying in Cuba under full scholarships from Castro's government, the two leaders did not spell out details of the literacy plan. But Cuba has launched similar programs in other countries, most recently Venezuela, sending Cuban advisers with educational materials to work with local instructors to teach reading and writing to disadvantaged people. Cuba carried out its own literacy program in the first years after the 1959 revolution that brought Castro to power, sending young teachers into poor regions in the island's mountains and other remote areas. Among the poorest and least developed countries in Latin America, Bolivia nonetheless has a literacy rate of more than 87 percent. "We have agreed to the first measures of cooperation," Morales said, adding that his meetings with Castro Friday were "an encounter of two generations in the struggle for dignity." Castro is the first head of state visited by Morales as he starts reaching out to other leaders before taking office. "Our brother Evo possesses all the necessary qualities needed to lead his country," said Castro, who sported a miner's hard hat given to him by Bolivian mining union leaders who traveled with Morales to Cuba. Although he won't be inaugurated until Jan. 22, Morales was welcomed by a red carpet, a military band and a smiling Castro when he stepped off the Cuban plane that brought him from Bolivia. Castro, dressed in his typical olive green uniform, welcomed Morales' election as an important triumph over U.S. influence in the region. "The map is changing," said the 79-year-old Cuban leader, who marks 47 years in power on New Year's Day. Morales won the presidency Dec. 18 with nearly 54 percent of the vote _ the most support for any Bolivian president since democracy was restored there two decades ago. He left Cuba on Saturday to be back in Bolivia in time for a New Year's Eve celebration in his hometown of Orinoca. On Jan. 3, he departs on a world tour that will include Spain, France, Brussels, the Netherlands, South Africa, China and Brazil. Bitterness returns to D.C.-Havana relations U.S. diplomat gives caustic speech; Castro responds in kind By Gary Marx Tribune foreign correspondent Published December 30, 2005 HAVANA -- After months of relative calm on the U.S.-Cuba diplomat front, the two nations have returned to the caustic rhetoric that has often characterized their relationship since Fidel Castro took power in 1959. The brief period of calm coincided with the replacement of James Cason, the tough-talking former top U.S. diplomat in Havana, with Michael Parmly, an experienced career diplomat who spent his first three months in Cuba quietly meeting with fellow diplomats, opposition figures and others. But that changed when 54-year-old Parmly delivered a blistering speech in which he criticized Cuba for being out of step with the global shift toward democracy. "The Cuban regime does not represent the people, nor does it have any interest in bettering their lives," Parmly told a crowd of 100 gathered at his residence Dec. 10. "Rather, the regime is obsessed with self-preservation." In the speech marking International Human Rights Day, Parmly compared the practice of Cuban government supporters surrounding the homes of dissidents and hurling insults to tactics used by Nazi "brown shirts" and Ku Klux Klan members. Cuban officials reacted with indignation. Comparison `hurtful' "To compare Cuba to the worst fascism, and the worst racism of the United States ... it is very hurtful," said Randy Alonso, moderator of state television's nightly "Round Table" program, which reflects the view of the Cuban government. Last week, Castro referred to Parmly as "that little gangster," and Cason as the "former gangster." He later called U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a "madwoman" after she reconvened a U.S. government commission whose stated goal is to assist Cuba's transition to democracy. "I am going to tell you what I think about this famous commission," said Castro, who then used vulgar language to describe the group to the Cuban National Assembly. The return of mutual enmity does not surprise diplomats and other observers who argue that officials in Cuba and the United States often appear more comfortable confronting each other than trying to resolve their differences. While the two nations cooperate on everything from migration to anti-narcotics operations, experts say Castro goes out of his way to portray the U.S. as Cuba's mortal enemy to tap into Cuban nationalism and rally support around his government. By the same token, President Bush's confrontational approach toward Castro garnered votes among some Cuban exiles in South Florida and may have helped secure his re-election in 2004. Yet Bush also appears to hold a deep antipathy toward Castro, experts say. "It goes beyond the benefit of the Florida vote," said Mark Falcoff, a Latin American scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington. The relationship between Cuba and the United States has been in decline since 2002, when Bush appointed Cason as the top U.S. diplomat in Cuba. Cason became the very public face of a toughened U.S. policy toward Cuba characterized by tightened sanctions and increased material support for the island's dissident movement. "I was a big fan of Mr. Cason," said Alfredo Mesa, executive director of the Cuban American National Foundation, a powerful Miami-based exile group. "He was very effective. He had a very interesting way of delivering his message." Cason's tactics were often unconventional. Unconventional diplomacy During his three-year tenure in Havana, Cason placed a mock prison cell at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana to highlight the plight of jailed Cuban opposition activists. In December 2004, he infuriated Cuban officials by adorning the front lawn of the U.S. mission with holiday decorations that included Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman but also a sign with the number 75, a reference to the 75 Cuban dissidents jailed in 2003. Cuban officials responded by placing a huge billboard outside the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana showing hooded and bloodied Iraqi prisoners being tortured by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Cason also was lampooned in a cartoon series that aired on Cuban national television. In one episode, Cason -- in a wizard's hat -- tries to change Cuba's socialist system by waving a magic wand. Angry Cubans react by chasing Cason, who transforms into a rat as he sprints back to the U.S. diplomatic mission. Falcoff argued Cason's in-your-face style of diplomacy raised the profile of Cuba's struggling dissident movement internationally. But others said Cason may have harmed the dissidents by provoking a backlash from Cuban officials. "He made his support for the dissidents a bigger story than their own activities," said Philip Peters, a Cuba expert at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area policy group. A specialist in postconflict situations with stints in Afghanistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina, Parmly has pledged to bring a lower profile to the job than his predecessor. But he vowed to continue implementing Bush administration policy, whose stated goal is to speed the end of Cuba's one-party system of government. "Cuba's future will be determined by Cubans," Parmly said in his Human Rights Day speech. "Our role is to support those working for democratic change." Comment: When Parmly says "The Cuban regime does not represent the people, nor does it have any interest in bettering their lives. Rather, the regime is obsessed with self-preservation." it sure sounds like he is talking about George Bush and the Neocons. Which is not to say that Castro is squeaky clean. No single individual can be a dictator for that many years without imposing some serious rights violating draconian measures on large segments of his population. But, relatively speaking, Castro is the "Diet Coke of evil, (just one calorie)" compared to Stalin, Hitler and Bush & the Neocons. (Never forget that Bush is just the puppet, not the master.) Secret Invasion: US Troops Steal into Paraguay By W.T. Whitney Jr 29 Dec 2005 ICH The Bush administration has sent troops into Paraguay. They are there ostensibly for humanitarian and counterterrorism purposes. The action coincides with growing left unity in South America, military buildup in the region and burgeoning independent trade relationships. In a speech on July 26 in Havana, Fidel Castro took note of the incursion and called upon North American activists to oppose it. In that vein, an inquiry is in order as to why the US government has inserted Paraguay into its strategic plan for South America. In addition, we should look at factors that favor Bush administration schemes for the region and others that work against US plans. In December 2004, the Bush administration canceled $330 million in economic and military aid to 10 South American countries. They were being penalized for turning down a US request for granting its soldiers immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit within the countries’ borders. On May 5, however, the government of Paraguay took the bait. It signed an agreement authorizing an 18-month stay, automatically extended, for US soldiers and civilian employees. The previous limit had been set at six months. On May 26, in a secret session, Paraguay’s Congress passed legislation protecting US soldiers from prosecution for criminal activity, both within Paraguay and by the International Criminal Court. Reportedly, 400 or 500 US troops – estimates vary – arrived in Paraguay on July 1, with planes, weapons, equipment and ammunition. They are billeted at a base near Mariscal Estigarribia, a small city located 200 kilometers from the Bolivian border in the arid, sparsely populated Chaco area of Paraguay. That facility, built by US contractors in the waning years of the Stroessner dictatorship (1954-1989), offers a runway long enough to accommodate large military transport planes and bombers. It provides barrack space for 16,000 troops. Journalist and human rights activist Alfredo Boccia Paz, stated in Asuncion that immunity from prosecution for US soldiers, extension of their stay, and joint military exercises all provide the groundwork for the eventual installation of a US base in Paraguay. He quoted Argentine Nobel Peace laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquivel: “Once the United States arrives, it takes it a long time to leave. And that really frightens me.” The US embassy in Paraguay declared that the United States has “absolutely no intention of establishing a military base anywhere in Paraguay” and “has no intention to station soldiers for a lengthy period in Paraguay.” The government of Paraguay seconded that notion. Brazil, however, responded. In late July, its army undertook military maneuvers along that country’s border with Paraguay. Paratroopers staged a mock occupation of the Furnas electrical substation, located on the Brazilian border with Paraguay. Paraguay’s vice president, Luis Castiglioni, met with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and former Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs Roger Noriega last July in Washington. Observers suggested that this welcoming committee was unusually high-powered for a visiting vice president of a small South American nation. According to Rumsfeld, experts would soon be going to Paraguay to develop a “planning seminar on systems for national security.” The secretary visited Paraguay in August. The FBI announced that it would be opening an office in Paraguay in 2006. The official US version of the Paraguay initiative is that for the next 18 months, in addition to joint military exercises, 13 US military teams would be working on humanitarian aide projects, provide counterterrorism and police training and ameliorate the effects of poverty. It turns out that US military personnel have been providing medical care for poor peasants in a northern province since 2002. Boccia Paz commented: “These missions are always disguised as humanitarian aid.… What Paraguay does not and cannot control is the total number of agents that enter the country.” There is of course no shortage of US bases in Latin America. They are located in Guantánamo, Cuba; Fort Buchanan and Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico; Soto Cano, Honduras; and Comalapa, El Salvador. New US air bases are situated in Reina Beatriz, Aruba; Hato Rey, Curacao; and Manta in Ecuador. The latter was officially described as a weather station on a dusty road, until it came out that a full-fledged air base had materialized on the site at a cost of $80 million. Washington also operates a network of 17 land-based radar stations (three in Peru, four in Colombia, plus 10 mobile radar stations in secret locations.) All of these installations come are under the control of the US Southern Command, based in Miami. The US rationale for converting Paraguay into a military satellite is worth exploring. For one thing, Washington is responding in catch-up fashion to mounting popular resistance in the region to US bullying. In neighboring Bolivia, for example, two US-friendly presidents have been chased from office in the past two years. And mass opposition to the US-backed candidate in last December’s national election was no exception to the trend. There’s more. Paraguay’s neighbor, Uruguay, put a social democrat into the presidency in 2004, and last February President Kirchner of Argentina violated world financial orthodoxy when his government negotiated a 60 percent cut in Argentina’s $82 billion debt obligations. Both Argentina and Brazil have quietly rejected the FTAA. Paraguay has joined them in the South American Common Market (Mercosur), which shelters its members from US and International Monetary Fund dictates. For Paraguay to defect would serve US ends. Washington took major exception to declarations emanating from a gathering March 29, 2005 of Brazilian, Colombian, Venezuelan and Spanish heads of state at Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela. They had discussed the use of raw materials and regional trade patterns to combat poverty and secure peace in South America. A few weeks later Washington was miffed when its candidate for the secretary generalship of the Organization of American States was rejected. And right under the US nose, Latin American nations are coming together to form Telesur and Petrosur, continent-wide television and energy corporations, and developing banking services that serve people’s needs. Natural resources may also figure into the US motivations for expanding its military presence in South America. One branch of the main opening for a huge Bolivian natural gas field apparently crosses the international border and is accessible in Paraguay at the Independencia I site, not far from Mariscal Estigarribia. If US troops occupied the base there, they would be in striking distance of the Bolivian provinces of Santa Cruz and Tarija, where US natural gas corporations are active. Bolivia will soon be voting on autonomy for the provinces. A “yes” vote is expected to result in privatization. In the event of civil unrest following that outcome, the corporations could call for military protection. The military base overlies the Guarani aquifer, one of the world’s largest underground fresh water reserves. Already water wars have riled Bolivian politics. Oligarchic interests in both the United States and South America have great longings to advance the process of turning water into a commodity. The Bush administration has an additional interest in Paraguay through its war on terrorism. The so-called triple border, where Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay meet along both sides of the Parana River, is the storied locus for smuggling, money laundering, commerce in child prostitutes, counterfeit operations, and fixing of illegal border crossings. Some 20,000 Middle Eastern, Muslim expatriates, most of them Lebanese in origin, live in Ciudad del Este on the Paraguayan side of the river and Foz do Iguacu in Brazil. The cities supposedly are centers for Islamic extremism and sources of funding for terrorist groups. Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah operatives reportedly have passed through the area, and training camps, sleeper cells, and passport factories are said to be located there. After September 11, 40 FBI agents joined Paraguayan colleagues to investigate some of these networks. Dozens of suspects were arrested. US military authorities advertise their operatives moving into Paraguay as experts in counterterrorism. US meddling in South America has great potential to add to existing tensions in the region as it adds its might to ongoing South American military expansion. According to Uruguayan Raúl Zibechi, an expert on the continent’s military landscape, South America is experiencing unprecedented military growth. Nations there have reacted to the excesses of US Plan Colombia and to new military modalities, particularly the privatization of military forces on display in Columbia. They are also attempting to emulate Brazil’s new posture of strategic military autonomy. And, as is their habit, ruling circles in many countries, following Washington’s lead, respond to social unrest through military expansion. In December 2004, Venezuela agreed to buy 110,000 Kalashnikov rifles, 33 helicopters and 50 fighter-bombers from Russia. Spain supplied Venezuela with naval aeronautical material, 10 transport planes, and four coast-guard cutters. Venezuela will be buying 50 training and combat jets from Brazil. Venezuela earlier this year activated a two million-member reserve component of its national military force. Yet according to the journal Military Power Review Venezuela comes in at sixth place among South American nations in terms of military strength. Brazil is far in the lead; Peru places second; Argentina, third; followed by Chile and Colombia. Increased military power, operating in tandem with nationalist stirrings, may inhibit US military meddling. Brazil, for example, with its own strategic defense plan and brisk economic growth, is an unlikely US acolyte. The nation is the 10th largest industrial power in the world and has become the world’s fifth largest arms exporter. Brazilian industry builds warships, several types of fighter jets, and is constructing a nuclear submarine. And to facilitate its expanded trade with China, Brazil is paying 70 percent of the $1 billion cost of a 1,500 mile long highway that extends from Peruvian ports to Santos on Brazil’s Atlantic coast. Brazil recently sent military planners to Vietnam to learn about guerrilla war. The head of Brazil’s Amazon military command, General Claudio Barbosa, has predicted that Brazil may in the future face wars similar to the war that convulsed Vietnam and the one transpiring in Iraq now. The priority would be guerrilla warfare, “an option the army will not hesitate to adopt facing a confrontation with another country or group of countries with greater economic and military power.” What nation could the general be thinking of? Brazil opposes Plan Colombia. The nationalist orientation of its industrial leaders persuaded them to put off joining FTAA. Brazil has no US bases on its soil, nor does Brazil engage in joint military exercises with the United States. Military cooperation between Brazil and Argentina apparently is flourishing, and in February, Brazil signed strategic accords with Venezuela. The Brazilian example of independent pursuit of national interests has emboldened other South American nations. The single-minded pursuit of national interests, however, may work against popular struggle and Latin American unity. Analysts agree that Brazil and Argentina’s preoccupation with internal interests has created a power vacuum that encouraged Washington to court Paraguay successfully. Relations between the two nations have long been plagued by trade clashes. Ideally, Brazil might have utilized its economic power to further Latin American unity and ward off predatory US behavior. Instead it operates according to free market rules and, unlike Venezuela, looks for salvation through from the US-led world market economy, distancing itself from Latin America’s agenda. Worse, jostling for market advantage creates divisions that lay the region open to tactics of divide and rule. The Herculean labors of unified democratic struggle elsewhere in Latin America point to strategies through which Bush scheming and US military probing in the region might be resisted. The example of the FARC-EP, in its survival and apparent growth, has meaning for revolutionaries far beyond Colombia’s borders. The organization now maintains a presence in nearly 100 percent of the municipalities in Colombia, and, according to Monthly Review, “with the exception of Cuba, [the FARC-EP] has become the largest and most powerful revolutionary force – politically and militarily – within the Western Hemisphere.” Chávez forces in Venezuela, under the aegis of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), have fused the twin causes of Latin American unity and social justice. Mass protests in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, even Chile keep empire minders in Washington on edge. The point here is that growing solidarity on the part of US activists with struggles throughout Latin America may act as a brake on US meddling in Paraguay. Opposition likely will materialize within Paraguay itself. In recent years peasants there have mounted protests against privatization, economic restrictions imposed by the International Monetary Fund, unfair land holding patterns, and antiterrorism legislation. There is no lack of awareness. Orlando Castillo of the human rights group Servicio Páz y Justicia recalls that, “US soldiers taught torture and other forms of human rights violations in courses at the School of the Americas.” He warns that “the United States has strong aspirations to convert Paraguay into a second Panama for its troops and is not far removed from reaching its objective of controlling the Southern Cone.” While attending the 2nd Jubilee South World Assembly in Havana, Sixto Pereira of the Paraguayan Initiative for People’s Integration told Cuban-based Prensa Latina: We demand the abolition of regulations that harbor and give impunity to Pentagon troops. It is a demand in favor of Paraguay and Latin American integration. Pereira indicated that mobilization against the presence of US troops is gaining momentum in Paraguay. Zapatista rebels to launch campaign tour of Mexico 31 Dec 2005 ASSOCIATED PRESS Toronto Star LA GARRUCHA, Mexico — Mexico's Zapatista rebels are emerging from their jungle hideout for a six-month campaign tour of Mexico designed to be an "alternative" to this year's already contentious presidential race. The tour begins Sunday, on New Year's Day, to coincide with the anniversary of a brief Zapatista uprising in the name of Indian rights 12 years ago. This time, however, the Zapatistas are not expected to wield Kalashnikov rifles and declare war when they march into the main Chiapas city of San Cristobal de las Casas, about 75 miles southwest of this village. Instead, the ski mask-wearing Zapatista leader Subcomandante Marcos has promised to build a nationalist leftist movement that will "shake this country up from below" during a visit to Mexico's 31 states. Marcos has promised the movement won't be violent, saying he will no longer be a military "sub commander" but a civilian known as "Delegate Zero." But he said the Zapatistas won't run for elected office or join Mexico's mainstream political process, which he describes as corrupt and out of touch with the people. The rebels say the national tour, which they have dubbed the ``Other Campaign" in reference to Mexico's July presidential election, is a third phase in the Zapatista revolution. On Saturday in the Zapatista village of La Garrucha, pickup trucks and buses formed a line along the dirt road leading out of town in preparation for Sunday's journey to San Cristobal. Inside wooden huts painted with red stars and murals of ski-mask wearing rebel Indians, the Zapatistas pored over final details of their tour. Meanwhile, in the village square, men in sombreros and baseball caps drank soda while listening to Mexican folk ballads on the local Zapatista Radio Insurgente as smiling children ran about and played. "We want to show people that we really have something to offer," said 45-year-old Zapatista Pedro Bautista. Zapatista sympathizer Bertha Navarro, 60, a Mexico City film producer who flew to San Cristobal on Friday, said she sees a Zapatista-inspired movement as a way for ordinary Mexican people to get involved in politics. "There are a lot of people in Mexico like me who are fed up with the corrupt parties and are looking for a new way of doing politics," Navarro said. Migrants: Down and out in Moscow Jan. 1, 2006 MICHAEL MAINVILLE SPECIAL TO THE STAR Lying on his cot in the steel container where he lives with seven other migrant workers, Farukh Montzarov's thoughts turn to his home in the mountains of southern Tajikistan. "I would rather be there, but I have no choice," says Montzarov, 26. "There's no work there; life is very hard. At least here I can earn some money and send it to my parents." In his impoverished Central Asian homeland, Montzarov would have been lucky to land a job paying the equivalent of $20 a month. In Moscow, he's earning $520 monthly as a labourer at a Moscow construction site. But in exchange for the chance to support himself and his family, Montzarov joined the desperate world of Russia's illegal migrant workers. He works at least 11 hours a day as a loader and brick-hauler in the deep cold of the Moscow winter. At night, he sleeps in the cramped storage container, thankful that it has electricity and a small heater. His last employer fired him after he complained about not being paid for two months' work. In his three years in Russia, he estimates he has paid more than $2,500 in bribes to police who threatened to deport him. In 2003, Montzarov spent two months in hospital after a gang of young Russians attacked him on a Moscow subway platform, calling him a "dirty foreigner" as they punched and kicked him. He was beaten for a second time last summer, he says, after refusing to hand over his mobile phone to a group of youths. "Of course, it makes me angry sometimes, the way they treat us," he says. "But what am I going to do? I have to just accept it and try to survive." Millions of people like Montzarov have flocked to Russia from former Soviet territories since the 1991 collapse of the U.S.S.R. and more migrant workers arrive every year, seeking wages that far outstrip anything available at home. Keeping track of them is difficult, with estimates of their numbers ranging from at least 5 million to as many as 10 million now working in Russia. Though disdained and often abused, migrants are the foot soldiers of Russia's booming economy, building the skyscrapers, manning the markets and sweeping the streets. Over the years, certain ethnic groups have come to dominate certain jobs: Azerbaijanis run the fruit and vegetable markets; Ukrainians, Belarussians and Moldovans work as builders, renovators and house cleaners; Tajiks and Uzbeks do the toughest and dirtiest jobs that no one else will do. With Russia's population dwindling due to declining birth rates and a decrease in life expectancy, economists say the extra muscle of migrant workers will be needed to prevent a sharp drop in economic growth and living standards. A recent World Bank report estimated that Russia's population would drop by 17 per cent by 2050, from 144 million to 119 million. Said the report: "To compensate for this, Russia would need an annual inflow of 1 million immigrants, which is ... five times the official flow in recent years." But Russia still has no coherent immigration policy and 90 per cent of current migrants work illegally, under constant threat of being deported and with no protection from ruthless employers. "They are nothing. They are not people; they're like slaves," says Gavkhar Dzhuraeva, head of Migration and Rights, a Moscow-based legal support group. Residents of most former Soviet republics do not need visas to visit Russia but are required to obtain residency and work permits if they want to live and work in the country. Most employers prefer to hire workers without permits, says Said Mirzomudinov, head of a local of the Russian Union of Construction Workers that represents 3,000 migrants. "That way, the employers can do whatever they want with the workers. They take their passports so they can't leave. They make them work for more than 12 hours a day and often don't pay them for months. "If the workers complain, they just call the police and have them deported." Said Haitov, a 25-year-old Tajik who works with Montzarov, says he went six months without being paid at his last job on a construction site. "About 15 of us went on strike and told them we weren't going to work any more unless they paid us. They just told us to leave or the police would come and deport us." A recent International Labour Office survey of 442 migrant workers in Russia found that nearly one-quarter had not been paid by their employers and that 39 per cent had been paid less than promised. More than 20 per cent complained of employer violence, debt bondage and threats of deportation. "About 10 to 20 per cent of illegal workers are literally enslaved by their employers," says Elena Tyuryukanova, author of the ILO study. Migrants can rarely afford Moscow's sky-high rents and most sleep in premises temporarily provided by their employers. For the lucky ones, that means a shared apartment or makeshift barracks on a construction site. Many of those less fortunate are packed in dank basements like cattle. "The worst place is the Cherkizovsky market in Moscow, where 700 people live in the cellars without any amenities," says Dzhuraeva of the Migration and Rights support group. Migrants say police harassment is common and officers routinely demand bribes Haitov tells of being taken to a police station and severely beaten last year after he was unable to pay a bribe. "They smashed my face so badly that my friends couldn't recognize me," he says. Abusupyan Gaitaev, a lawyer who represents illegal workers, says police feel they can target migrants with impunity. "Migrants are not seen as human beings, so the police know they can take any illegal actions against them and they won't face any punishment." Only the most egregious incidents of police violence are ever prosecuted, says Gaitaev, who represented 20-year-old Tajik worker Rustam Baibekov in one of the few cases that yielded a conviction. Baibekov was detained by officer Boris Kostruba at a Moscow subway station in July 2004 and ordered to pay a bribe. When he refused, Kostruba put a gun in his mouth and shot him. Baibekov survived and Kostruba was sentenced to nine years in prison. Gangs of street thugs that routinely attack migrant workers are another threat. The Moscow Bureau of Human Rights counts 44 racially motivated murders in Russia in 2004, more than double the number of the previous year, and hundreds of racist attacks. "You are taking the risk of being attacked every time you walk the streets," says Montzarov. Dzhuraeva, whose support group sends doctors to treat victims and document their injuries, says the attacks are fuelled by the media and nationalist political parties that "portray migrants as the enemy — here to take jobs away from Russians or commit crimes." In a recent poll of 1,600 Russians, 63 per cent of respondents blamed migrants for rising crime and 60 per cent said migrants were stealing jobs from Russian citizens. Support for nationalist groups is on the rise and the Rodina (Motherland) party — which recently ran a controversial ad campaign calling for migrants to be cleared from Moscow's streets like garbage — is Russia's fastest-growing political force. Dzhuraeva says some positive steps are being taken, including an experimental amnesty program that will give up to 1 million illegal migrants the right to work next year. Still, she worries that mistreatment of migrants could eventually provoke a backlash similar to the rioting that shook France in November. "If we don't change things for the better, we will have problems like they did," she says. The head of the department overseeing labour issues at Russia's Federal Migration Service, Vyacheslav Postavnin, raised similar fears of civil unrest when he announced the amnesty program last month. "If we don't legalize migrants, we push them toward marginalization and crime; we strip them of their rights," he told reporters. "With such a large number of illegal migrants who are deprived of basic rights and who experience pressure from the police, all kinds of unrest can be provoked. We must offer them protection and the opportunity to work in peace." Comment: Ah! The joyful Capitalist Life! Austria will be "vitamin boost" for EU 1 January 2006 Austria should provide a "vitamin boost for Europe", Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik has said as her nation took over the 6-month rotating presidency of the European Union from Britain. Plassnik said the priorities of the Austrian EU presidency would include jobs, growth and improved confidence in the EU. She also emphasised Austria's role in bridging Eastern and Western Europe, the Austrian press agency reported. Austria must aim to make the 25-nation union "more comprehensive, timely and sensible for its citizens," she said Sunday. Meanwhile, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso challenged Austria to resolve the EU constitution problem and lead the Union towards growth. "The constitution must not be buried," he said in an interview published Sunday with weekly title Profil, in which he also criticised growing scepticism in Austria toward the EU. "If there is a country which has without a doubt profited from the European Union, it is Austria," he said, adding "maybe the Austrian presidency is a good opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of membership" in the union. Kibaki says Kenya faces 'famine,' 'national disaster' 1 January 2006 AFP Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki has declared food shortages ravaging parts of the east African country a "national disaster" and for the first time used the word "famine" to describe the crisis. "To ensure that we have adequate interventions on the ground, I am declaring the famine a national disaster," Kibaki said in a New Year's Day speech to the country. Some 2.5 million people in the country's northeastern, eastern and coastal regions are in need of food aid which the government estimates will cost some 11 billion shillings (150 million dollars, 130 million euros). "I renew my appeal to both our local and international friends and partners to join the government in extending a helping hand to our brothers and sisters who are experiencing this difficult situation," Kibaki said Sunday. Declaring a national disaster "is a wise move by the government as it gives it the power to utilise all the available resources," said Farid Abdulkadir, chief of disaster operations of the Kenyan Red Cross Society (KCRS) which is coordinating the relief distribution. Relief efforts have intensified in the drought-affected areas with the government dispatching the army last month to help distribute supplies. "So far the distribution is going on well," Abdulkadir said, adding that more people were responding to appeals with cash and kind donations. He said food had been distributed in 17 districts in Wajir, Mandera and Marsabit in the north and that these areas had received some 100 metric tonnes of food as well as 373,000 dollars (315,000 euros) from local and international donors. Meanwhile, some 2,000 inmates in Naivasha Maximum Prison, Kenya's largest detention facility, made good their promise to skip lunch to save money as part of a nationwide agreement by the country's prisoners to help those facing hunger. "The inmates have agreed as a block to assist those suffering by skipping their meals on selected days until they hit their target," said Ambrose Ngare, the officer in charge of the prison. "Though our efforts are like a drop in the sea, we are sure our small donations will save a life if not two," said Bonaventure Mutali, another official at the prison. At least 20 people and hundreds of livestock have died as a result of the drought and severe food shortage. In neighbouring Tanzania, President Jakaya Kikwete warned that his country may be faced with food shortages in the coming months owing to dismal rains. "Many parts of the country have received inadequate rainfall and food shortage is now looming," Kikwete said in his New Year's message. "Because of the drought we expect poor harvest in the short rains season which accounts for 30 percent of annual food stock," he said, urging citizens to use available stocks carefully. 7.3 Earthquake Located East of the South Sandwich Islands USGS 2006-01-02 USGS 2006-01-02 -- A major earthquake occurred at 06:10:49 (UTC) on Monday, January 2, 2006. The magnitude 7.3 event has been located EAST OF THE SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS. (This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.) A magnitude 7.3 earthquake EAST OF SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS has occurred at: 60.81S 21.46W Depth 10km Mon Jan 2 06:10:49 2006 UTC Time: Universal Time (UTC) Mon Jan 2 06:10:49 2006 Time Near Epicenter Mon Jan 2 05:10:49 2006 Eastern Standard Time (EST) Mon Jan 2 01:10:49 2006 Central Standard Time (CST) Mon Jan 2 00:10:49 2006 Mountain Standard Time (MST) Sun Jan 1 23:10:49 2006 Pacific Standard Time (PST) Sun Jan 1 22:10:49 2006 Alaska Standard Time (AST) Sun Jan 1 21:10:49 2006 Hawaii Standard Time (HST) Sun Jan 1 20:10:49 2006 Location with respect to nearby cities: 345 km (215 miles) SE of Bristol Island, South Sandwich Islands 565 km (350 miles) SE of Visokoi Island, South Sandwich Islands 1155 km (720 miles) SE of Grytviken, South Georgia 3270 km (2030 miles) N of South Pole, Antarctica Moderate earthquake strikes sea near Guam First posted 12:01pm (Mla time) Jan 02, 2006 Associated Press HONG KONG -- A moderate earthquake struck under the sea near the island of Guam in the Pacific Ocean, Hong Kong seismologists said Monday. It was not immediately clear whether there were casualties or damage. The magnitude-5.7 quake was recorded at 0108 GMT Monday, the Hong Kong Observatory said in a brief statement. The epicenter was about 90 kilometers (60 miles) south of the city of Agana, Guam, it said. The small island of Guam is a US territory about 2,500 kilometers (1,550 miles) east of the Philippine capital, Manila. Moderate Earthquake In Banda Sea, Indonesia January 02, 2006 11:52 AM KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 2 (Bernama) -- A moderate earthquake measuring 5.7 on the Richter scale occurred in the Banda Sea, Indonesia, at 3.33am Monday, according to the Malaysian Meteorological Services Department. The centre of the earthquake was located 1,180km southeast of Tawau, at co-ordinates 2.9 South, 125.9 East, it said in a statement here. Based on its location and magnitude, the earthquake was not expected to generate a tsunami, it added. California Storm Prompts Evacuation Plea By PAUL ELIAS 31 Dec 2005 NAPA, Calif. (AP) - A powerful storm sent rivers and creeks over their banks and into cities and set off mudslides that blocked major highways across Northern California on Saturday. At least a dozen people had to be rescued from the rushing water, and forecasters were warning of another storm on Sunday. California officials urged residents along the Napa and Russian rivers and on hillsides to collect their valuables, gather emergency supplies and get out. In the city of Napa, near the heart of wine country, the river rose 5 feet over flood stage as water surged into downtown before beginning to recede. Napa officials estimated about 1,000 homes flooded. "We had so much water in such a short amount of time that man hole covers were popping all over the city," said Napa City Councilman James Krider. The Russian River was menacing the Sonoma County town of Guerneville, where forecasters warned that the river was still rising and could reach 14 feet above flood stage, and officials were urging residents to evacuate. Farther inland, Reno, Nev., was seeing its worst flooding since New Year's Day 1997, when high water caused $1 billion in damage. The Truckee River swamped downtown buildings on Saturday, and parts of nearby Sparks were under 4 feet of water. Many businesses along the river closed and owners spent the day piling sandbags. Rescue crews also had their hands full, plucking stranded drivers from cars and flooded homes across the region. In Sonoma County alone, helicopters were used in six rescues, and firefighters rescued two more people from a mobile home park, where 4 feet of rushing water washed at least one home off its foundation. "We are just very strongly recommending that people living in the lower areas lock up everything and go to higher ground," said Linda Eubanks of Sonoma County's Office of Emergency Services. "Just because it stopped raining doesn't mean the water is going down." Rick Diaz took off on his own through a flooded Petaluma neighborhood in a 14-foot Zodiac boat, ferrying residents to dry ground and rescuing their pets. "He's a hero," said a tearful Suzi Keber after the wetsuit-clad Diaz rescued two pet lizards from her home. In downtown San Anselmo, the creek overflowed into as many as 70 businesses, said town administrator Debbie Stutsman. Two people rescued from the rising water there were hospitalized with hypothermia, she said. "I'm looking out of my office now at merchants bringing their damaged goods out into the street," Stutsman said. "The entire downtown area was under 4 1/2 feet of water." "It's pretty bad all across town," she said. Mudslides closed several major roads, including Interstate 80 in the Sierra Nevada about 25 miles west of Reno. Six tractor-trailer rigs were caught up in one slide on the interstate early Saturday, but no injuries were reported. I-80, the major corridor linking Northern California and points east, was expected to remain closed for at least two days, said California Department of Transportation spokesman Mark Dinger. "No work can be done until the slide stabilizes and we don't know when that will occur," Dinger said. Together, the two weekend storms could add as much as 6 inches of rain to the already water-logged region, said Rick Canepa, a weather service meteorologist in Monterey. More than 2 feet of snow was also forecast in the Sierra Nevada. One woman suffered a broken leg when a mudslide destroyed her home in Santa Rosa late Friday. It took firefighters nearly an hour to free her from the mud and debris, said Santa Rosa Fire Battalion Chief Andy Pforsich. Flash flooding and landslides temporarily closed Interstate 5 both ways near the Oregon line. U.S. Highway 101 was closed by fallen trees and mud south of Crescent City. Rain also started moving into Southern California on Saturday, and flash flood watches were issued for areas scarred by wildfire in Santa Barbara, Ventura and Los Angeles counties. Even Pasadena's Rose Parade was in danger of rain on Monday. The parade has had dry days for half a century, but float builders were still prepared to roll out sheets of clear plastic to protect delicate flowers. "I'd hate to be selfish to ask God just for this favor, but I came far to help decorate and see the parade for the first time," said Jean Steadman, 79, of Georgetown, Texas, as she gathered yellow roses for a safari-themed float. Mount St. Helens releasing lava at astonishing pace 30 Dec 2005 CNN/AP SEATTLE, Washington -- Roughly every three seconds, the equivalent of a large dump truck load of lava -- 10 cubic yards -- oozes into the crater of Mount St. Helens, and with the molten rock comes a steady drumfire of small earthquakes. The unremitting pace, going on for 15 months now, is uncommon, said U.S. Geological Survey geologist Dave Sherrod. Experts say it is unclear what the activity signifies or how much longer it will continue. "One view of this eruption is that we're at the end of the eruption that began in 1980," Sherrod said. "If it hadn't been so cataclysmic ... it might instead have gone through 30 or 40 years of domebuilding and small explosions." St. Helens' violent May 18, 1980, eruption blasted 3.7 billion cubic yards of ash and debris off the top of the mountain. Fifty-seven people died in the blast, which left a gaping crater in place of the perfect, snowclad cone that had marked the original 9,677-foot peak known as "America's Mount Fuji." St. Helens -- now 8,325 feet -- rumbled for another six years, extruding 97 million cubic yards of lava onto the crater floor in a series of 22 eruptions that built a 876-foot dome. The volcano, about 100 miles south of Seattle, fell silent in 1986. Then, in September 2004, the low-level quakes began -- occasionally spiking above magnitude 3. Since then, the mountain has squeezed out about 102 million cubic yards of lava, more in 15 months than in the six years after the eruption. Sherrod describes the movement of lava up through the volcano as being "like a sticky piston trying to rise in a rusty cylinder. These quakes are very small -- we think they're associated with that sticking and slipping as the ground is deformed and relaxes." The dome collapses and grows and collapses and grows, he said. "It changes its location ... it can't seem to maintain its height at much more than it is now " -- about 1,300 feet. "Then it kind of shoves the sandpile aside and starts over." It's not entirely clear where the lava is coming from. If it were being generated by the mountain, scientists would expect to see changes in the mountain's shape, its sides compressing as lava is spewed out. At the current rate, "three or four months would have been enough time to exhaust what was standing in the conduit. ... The volume is greater than anything that could be standing in a narrow 3-mile pipe," Sherrod said. That suggests resupply from greater depths, which normally would generate certain gases and deep earthquakes. Neither is being detected. "That's one of the headscratchers, I guess," Sherrod said. All the recent activity has remained within the crater, though scientists -- keenly aware of the potential damage that silica-laced ash can pose to jet engines -- monitor St. Helens closely for plumes of smoke and ash. Some have gone as high as 30,000 feet. Fires destroy homes as heatwave hits Australia 1 January 2006 AFP Raging bushfires have destroyed at least 10 homes and threatened scores more in southeast Australia as a scorching heatwave hit Sydney with its hottest New Year's Day on record. Temperatures soared up to 47 degrees Celsius (116 degrees Fahrenheit) as hundreds of firefighters backed by aircraft battled the blazes and sweltering residents of coastal cities flocked to the beaches. To the north of Sydney, capital of New South Wales and Australia's most populous city, four fires were burning out of control on the central coast, with flames of up to 20 metres (66 feet) high fanned by searing winds. More than 50 homes in Woy Woy, across the Pittwater estuary from Sydney's upmarket Palm Beach, had been evacuated and at least three houses and seven cars were destroyed, national radio reported. Helicopters dropped water bombs to help firefighters struggling to bring the blazes under control as they threatened to engulf scores of homes in nearby towns. "Black smoke covering the sun, just scorching hot, 44 degrees. It's burning up here," a local resident told ABC radio. Major roads from Sydney to the central coast were closed, stranding holidaymakers in their cars. Authorities said they would investigate reports that some of the fires may have been deliberately lit. In Sydney the temperature hit 45 degrees (113 degrees Fahrenheit), causing the failure of a major air conditioning unit at the international airport and leaving sweltering passengers at the mercy of fans and improvised coolers. "The airport reached 45 degrees at about 4.00pm but the city office at Observatory Hill also hit 44 degrees and that's the hottest New Year's Day ever recorded in Sydney," said weather bureau spokesman Chris Webb. "The previous warmest was 38.1 back in 1928." New South Wales fire officials said a total of 44 fires were burning across the state, with some 3,000 firefighters in action or on high alert as weather conditions were expected to worsen later in the day. "Unfortunately the winds look like they are picking up at this stage and we are expecting them to increase," said spokeswoman Rebel Talbert. Sydney hospitals had treated a stream of patients affected by the heat, particularly the elderly and those with cardiovascular disease, a spokeswoman for Sydney's health service said. The heat also caused power failures and delays in city train services, which were hit by faults in overhead wiring on city and regional lines. Bushfires forced the closure of a section of the central coast rail network, while some 2,500 homes in the area were hit by blackouts. In neighbouring Victoria state a major fire destroyed seven homes as it swept across a 30 kilometre (18 mile) front, officials said. The fire has burned through about 9,000 hectares (22,000 acres) of bush and farmland, damaging dozens of properties and leaving two people injured. The government's bureau of meteorology said recently that average temperatures for the first 10 months of 2005 were 1.03 degrees above the 30-year mean and that the country was on track for the hottest year on record. The city of Melbourne, capital of Victoria state, topped off its warmest-ever December with a record hot New Year's Eve, the bureau said. The temperature peaked at 42.9 degrees, breaking the previous record of 41.7 degrees on December 31, 1862. Fires Ravage Oklahoma City, Texas Towns Monday January 2, 2006 10:32 AM By ANGELA K. BROWN Associated Press Writer CARBON, Texas (AP) - Bill Sandlin and his wife saw smoke on the horizon as they returned home from church and started watering their yard. But as flames approached, they packed clothes, pictures and his gun collection. They drove off just as flames started to engulf their house and three barns, located about 125 miles west of Dallas. ``We hate losing our stuff, but at least everybody's OK,'' Sandlin said. Wildfires raged across Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico on Sunday, burning homes and sparking a patchwork of flames across the region as gusting winds blew flaming embers into the dry grass. Crews flying over northern and western Texas to assess the damage Sunday reported the tiny communities of Ringgold and Kokomo, together home to about 125 people, had essentially been wiped out by flames, Texas Forest Service spokeswoman Traci Weaver said. In New Mexico, just across the Texas line, two dozen elderly residents were moved out of a nursing home in Hobbs, and a casino and community college in the town of 29,000 were evacuated as firefighters battled grass fires that only began settling down as night fell and the winds eased. Dozens of fires burned across the dry Oklahoma landscape as the wind gusts reached 50 mph, forcing the evacuations of two neighborhoods in the northeast part of Oklahoma City. Several homes were in flames late Sunday. ``Today has been extremely intense,'' fire Maj. Brian Stanaland said in Oklahoma City, where fire crews battled at least 15 flare-ups as the flames snaked in long lines through dry, mostly open areas. ``I think it's maybe starting to take its toll on our department.'' Some injuries were reported in the three states Sunday, but no deaths. The previous week, grass fires had killed four people, destroyed about 100 homes and ravaged more than 50,000 acres across the region. Officials warned Sunday that the dry, gusty conditions and extreme fire danger would continue. Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry urged people to avoid any kind of open flame, even throwing a cigarette out a car window. ``We will overcome this challenge,'' Henry assured residents in a televised news conference Sunday night as firefighters battled the flames in Oklahoma City. He said he had urged President Bush to quickly approve a federal disaster declaration. Power lines were blamed one grass fire in the city, Stanaland said. While firefighters battled that blaze, high winds tossed material from a nearby construction site into power lines, causing the debris to burn before it landed on a nearby nursing home. ``You basically had flying, flaming debris,'' Stanaland said. ``Luckily, we were already on the scene putting out the fires when it happened so we were able to put it out.'' Across Oklahoma, dozens of wildfires swept across more than 5,000 acres and destroyed at least a dozen homes on Sunday, said Michelann Ooten, a spokeswoman for the Department of Emergency Management. One large blaze was burning near Guthrie. Another near Wainwright in Muskogee County had charred about 4,000 acres and was at least a mile wide, Ooten said. In New Mexico, the winds began dying down with nightfall, and firefighters contained several grass fires that had broken out near Hobbs, Lovington, Tatum and Logan, said Dan Ware, a spokesman for the state Forestry Division. ``That's the nature of grass fires, they burn hot, and they burn fast,'' Ware said. ``They're driven by wind. Once the wind comes down, once the temperatures come down, they lie down.'' But that doesn't mean the danger is over, he said. ``As soon as the temperature comes up tomorrow (Monday), as soon as the wind comes up - bam, we're off to the races again.'' Tropical Storm Zeta Drifts Across Atlantic Monday January 2, 2006 9:17 AM MIAMI (AP) - Tropical Storm Zeta was expected to weaken Monday as it drifted westward over the central Atlantic, forecasters said. The 27th named storm of a record-breaking hurricane season, Zeta had top sustained winds near 50 mph, according to the National Hurricane Center. Forecasters said Zeta was not expected to become a hurricane or threaten land. At 4 a.m. EST, the storm was centered about 1,565 miles east-northeast of the northern Leeward Islands and moving west near 7 mph. A motion toward the west or west-southwest is expected during the next 24 hours. The storm developed Friday, about a month after the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season officially ended. It tied a record for the latest developing storm since record keeping began in 1851. The 2005 season featured 14 hurricanes, including Katrina, which devastated Louisiana and Mississippi in August and became the most costly disaster in U.S. history. The season also saw forecasters exhaust their list of 21 proper names and begin using the Greek alphabet to name storms for the first time. Earlier this month, Hurricane Epsilon became only the fifth hurricane to form in December in 154 years of record keeping.     Readers who wish to know more about who we are and what we do may visit our portal site Quantum Future Remember, we need your help to collect information on what is going on in your part of the world! We also need help to keep the Signs of the Times online. Check out the Signs of the Times Archives Send your comments and article suggestions to us Fair Use Policy Contact Webmaster at signs-of-the-times.org Cassiopaean materials Copyright ©1994-2014 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk Republication and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.