- Signs of the Times for Tue, 21 Nov 2006 -

• Signs Editorials
• Planting The Seeds Of "Armageddon" 1
• Planting The Seeds Of "Armageddon" 2
• Living In America
• Willful Destruction Of Iraq
• Global Lock-Down Here We Come
• Spys R US
• Rockin', Starvin' And Shiftin' - What's The Link?
• Euro Trash
• Weird Science

A handbill circulated on November 21, 1963 In Dallas, Texas, one day before the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

On November 21st, 1963, 43 years ago today, the 1,035th day of John F. Kennedy's tenure as President, he asked the Congress for $95.7 million in supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1964. He also asked his economic advisers to prepare a "War on Poverty" program for 1964. Then, President Kennedy and Mrs. Kennedy departed for a two-day trip to Texas. It was to be his last full day on Earth.

At the dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center, Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas he gave a talk in which he reminisced: "Frank O'Connor, the Irish writer, tells in one of his books how, as a boy, he and his friends would make their way across the countryside, and when they came to an orchard wall that seemed too high and too doubtful to permit their voyage to continue, they took off their hats and tossed them over the wall -- and then they had no choice but to follow them... This Nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space, and we have no choice but to follow it."

And he predicted, "When some meet here in 1990 they will look back on what we did and say that we made the right and wise decisions. 'Your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions,' the Bible tells us, and 'where there is no vision, the people perish.'" (Remarks at Dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center, San Antonio, Texas , November 21, 1963)

Later, President Kennedy made brief remarks to the League of United Latin American Citizens at the Rice Hotel in Houston, Texas following which he attended a dinner honoring Representative Albert Thomas, Houston, Texas.

Yesterday, we talked about Oil and Oilmen; today, we want to look at Texans, keeping always in mind that George W. Bush is a transplanted Texan, and he and his father have both been "Oilmen." After that, we'll look at the Secret Service, the men who were supposed to protect the President. From Farewell America:

Texans

The Panhandle State owes more to oil than it does to the Alamo. Texas didn't really come into its own until oil gushed forth from the swamps of Beaumont on January 10, 1901. Fed by more than 100,000 barrels a day from the Spindletop well, (1) a lake of oil formed which was soon consumed by fire. Spindletop set off a second Gold Rush. The area was overrun by prospectors, the oil field was plundered, and the price of oil fluctuated wildly. At first, Rockefeller ignored the Texas strike.

But after Standard Oil of New Jersey was broken up in 1911, Standard Oil of Indiana bought up Humble, thereby becoming the largest producer in Texas, while Socony took over Magnolia. By 1930, the American oil empire was controlled by 20 big companies which seemed destined for eternal prosperity. But on October 9, 1930, a stubborn prospector named "Dad" Joiner struck oil at 3,000 feet in East Texas. He had discovered the richest oil field in the United States. Forty miles long and 2 to 5 miles wide, its reserves have been estimated at one and a half billion tons. By the time Standard and the other big companies arrived on the scene, thousands of prospectors were drilling away on tens of thousands of rural and urban plots. It was the most ruinous waste in the history of oil, and just at the start of the Depression the bottom dropped out of the market.

Standard, Gulf, Texaco and Shell managed to regain control with the help of the federal government. Laws were voted by the states, concessions were closed down by force, and the Connally law on "black oil" put a stop to illegal production in East Texas. When the basin had been pumped dry, production quotas were established and order prevailed. Some independent producers managed to survive, but they were obliged to comply with the rules set by the Big Four, who tolerated them because their greater production costs enabled the larger companies to keep prices high and increase profits.

Thirty years later, in 1963, Texas accounted for half the proven oil reserves on American soil. With 95,000 active oil wells owned by 6,500 oil companies (of the 12,325 in the United States), it constituted a key position for the big corporations, for it controlled production in the neighboring states of Louisiana and Oklahoma (65% of the American total), and therefore prices.

Six companies control 80% of Texas oil production. Humble produces 15% and refines 30% of this total. These giants command not only the oil, but also the sulfur and natural gas markets, and consequently real estate, transportation facilities, power, water, and banks throughout the state.

Even without oil, Texas would be one of the richest states in the Union. One hundred times larger than Delaware, five times larger than New York, four times larger than Missouri, three times larger than Minnesota, twice as large as Montana, it covers 100,000 square miles more than the state of California, and each of its 254 counties is bigger than the state of Rhode Island. There are 227,000 ranches in Texas, and the King Ranch covers more territory than Switzerland. Texas raises 10 million head of cattle and provides one-quarter of the rice, one-third of the cotton, and half of all the synthetic rubber consumed in the United States. In 1963 the state had a population of 10,228,000, including one million Negroes and one million 'Wetbacks'.

The Second World War turned Texas into an industrial state. Thanks to the Cold War, its industries expanded five times faster than those of the rest of the nation. This industrial expansion reached a climax in 1963, when General Dynamics of Fort Worth was awarded the TFX fighter plane contract. The fantastic development of smaller firms such as Texas Instruments is directly linked to the war in Vietnam.(2)

Texas offers these industries lower taxes, cheap labor (poor whites, Negroes and Wetbacks), restrictive labor legislation (the union shop is prohibited by state law), and its outstanding natural resources in oil, natural gas, and sulfur.(3) The federal government is one of the state's principal benefactors. Texas ranks second in the nation in terms of federal aid, with $3.9 billion in 1960-61, or 20.1% of the total state revenue.(4) The wealthiest of the wealthy states, Texas in 1960 had 53% more federal employees and received 65% more federal aid than the average American state.(5) Washington's favors touched every sector of the economy. Texas, with the most extensive highway system (constructed with federal funds) in the country,(6) received the largest amount of federal aid for paralyzed children, and the highest subsidies for flood prevention.

But not all the inhabitants of Texas share in this munificence. In 1963, the state of Texas spent only $282.46 per person on social welfare (education, health, hospitals, public welfare), as compared to the national average of $343.64 per inhabitant (a difference of 18%). In the field of education, Texas ranked third in the nation in terms of federal aid per inhabitant, and 31st in terms of expenditures. It ranked first in terms of federal aid for child welfare, and 44th in terms of expenditures. It was second in the nation in terms of federal aid for the aged, and 40th in terms of expenditures. Nor does Texas neglect only its people. In 1963 it received more federal aid for experimental agricultural stations than any other state in the union, but ranked 47th in terms of the amount spent on improvements in cattle breeding.

There is little indication that the people of Texas merit such favoritism. Their state is first in the nation in terms of murder and armed robbery, and second for rape. Texas is the realm of intolerance. It calls itself Democratic, but for the past 25 years it has elected Republicans or would-be Democrats. It claims to be progressive, but only 15% of its 2.5 million non-agricultural workers are unionized, and since 1954 a fine of $20,000 and 20 years in prison punishes membership in the Communist Party. In 1952, Governor Allan Shrivers even tried to obtain the death penalty for this "crime."

Texas sees nothing wrong with prescribing the death penalty for a political opinion, but it protects the right to commit homicide. It is the paradise of murder, and even of murder for thrills.

The name "Texas" comes from the Indian "Tejas," meaning "Friendship," which is also the state motto. In 1879 Harper's Bazaar wrote, "In the past 12 years there have been 300 murders in Texas, and only 11 death sentences." Since then, Texans have done even better. In 1960 there were 1,080 murders in Texas, and 5 death sentences.

Moreover, Texas has its own definition of murder. Only 3 of the 254 counties in Texas require a coroner's examination in the case of sudden or suspicious death. The 251 others leave it to the Justice of the Peace (7) to determine the cause of death. A verdict of death due to natural causes has been known to coincide with the discovery of a bullet in the body of the deceased. The FBI estimates that the number of murders actually committed in Texas is several times the official figure. Between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths occur every year in Texas because of brutality, greed, or just because.(8)

One hundred and thirty-two counties in Texas are prohibitonist, another form of intolerance that satisfies the puritanism of its inhabitants and the interests of the business community. One out of every 12 Texans -- 800,000 in all -- is illiterate, the highest percentage in the nation. Texas delivers fewer high school diplomas than the poorest state in the union, Mississippi.(9) It ranks third in the nation in terms of the number of registered automobiles, but only 36th in terms of insurance coverage.

Backwards, intolerant, and irresponsible, Texas lifts its soul only towards God, if one is to judge from the number of its churches. There are more than 1,000 churches in Dallas alone. Waco (100,000 inhabitants} has 122, Midland (68,000 inhabitants} 82, and Tyler (50,000 inhabitants) 94.(10) Evangelist Billy Graham is popular in Texas, and playboys are frowned upon.

Texans never tire of looking at money. The center of attraction at the Dallas Petroleum Club is a long ebony table inlaid with coins from all over the world. The homes of Highland Park, University Park, and River Oak are decorated with Cezannes and Renoirs (many of them fakes), but they rarely contain books. Texans don't read, with the possible exception of the Sunday papers. Unlike other American cities, Texas cities don't have bookstores. There is a second-hand bookstore in Dallas, but it is in the suburbs. The other bookstores are run by the churches. On the other hand, Dallas has an opera, a Museum of Contemporary Art, and 700 garden clubs. Texans like flowers.

Texas has 1,128 banks, more than any other state in the Union,(11) but despite its wealth, the total income of the inhabitants of Texas falls well below that of many other states.(12) An oligarchic state if there ever was one, Texas is nevertheless first in the nation in terms of the number of personal incomes exceeding $1 million a year. Four-fifths of these millionaires are oilmen.

In this state of nabobs and beggars, where whole regions are still without electricity and where hundreds of thousands of people sleep out of doors, corruption is an institution, professional witnesses are a dime a dozen, and if you dial a certain number you can hear a recorded anti-Semitic diatribe.

Such a privileged state has to have influence in Washington. It has had, since before Roosevelt. In 1947, Harry Truman modified the law providing for the succession to the Presidency in favor of Texan Sam Rayburn, making the House Majority Leader the third most important person in the country. Eisenhower, born in Tyler, Texas, faced a Congress led by House Majority Leader Rayburn, a Texan, and Senate majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, another Texan. But despite the special favors, all the federal aid, and the federal employees paid by Washington, the state treasury has often verged on bankruptcy. In 1959, Texas even paid its employees with rubber checks. Once again, the federal government was obliged to bailout the richest state in the union. In 1961, while it was still young and naive, the Kennedy Administration tried to enforce the payment of the federal tax on business transactions in Texas. No Texan could remember this law ever having been enforced. Texas, the state that fortune smiled upon, lay outside the frontiers of America. What did it want with the New Frontier?

Texas is a separate way of life. The oil industry controls the government, the politics, and the social life of the state.(13) Its contribution to the economy is so important, and its influence so widespread, that it can make or break a project. The independent producers wield as much, if not more, power than the Presidents of the major oil companies, and because their fortunes are generally the result of personal success and their base of operations less far-flung, they are also more aggressive. They are thus far more vulnerable to any attack on the privileges of the oil industry, and in particular to any change in the laws that govern it.

It has been estimated that there are more than 500 millionaires living in Houston, and probably as many in Dallas. The income of the twenty richest independent oil producers put together would be enough to cover the state budget.

Texas, which doesn't know the meaning of income tax, has no more idea of what a constitution should be. The Texas Constitution dates back to 1876. Consequently, the state government has no power to deal with the abuses of its inhabitants. The state legislature meets only once every two years. Its members are paid $10 a day for a period of 120 days. If the session is prolonged beyond that limit, their pay is halved. As a result, most state congressmen are either lawyers representing their clients at Austin or students glad for a chance to make a little extra money. For that matter, poor students and teachers interested in politics are especially well regarded by the real proprietors of the state. The oilmen finance the studies of a certain number of gifted and deserving students, and if they are elected to the state legislature they are rewarded with land leases, stocks, and allowances enabling them to devote themselves to the service of their country. The oilmen have little difficulty in getting their candidates elected to office -- they control the press, radio and television. Their influence over the police and judicial authorities is such that only the most insignificant criminal and civil cases, and those in which they have no interests at stake, are ever bought to court.

One of the most eminent figures in Texas and the oil industry appeared one day in the Cokesbury Bookstore, a Methodist bookshop in Dallas, to autograph a book that he had published himself. This man rates only seven lines in Who's Who: "Haroldson Lafayette Hunt, oil producer; Vandalia, Ill.; ed. pub. Schs; m. Lynda Bunker (died May 7, 1955); married 2nd Ruth Ray Weight, December 1957. Oil producer, Hunt Oil Co. Established Facts Forum, a foundation producing radio and TV programs relating to nat. issues. Democrat. Address: 4009 W. Lawther Dr., Dallas."

Seven lines isn't much for a man who was, in 1963, and probably will be until he dies, the richest man in the world, (14) with a fortune conservatively estimated at $4 billion. When you get into those kind of figures, you are no longer talking about wealth, but about power.

The book that the richest man in the world had come to autograph was called Alpaca, undoubtedly after the llama-like South American ruminant of the same name so noted for its resistance. Alpaca is Hunt's Bible. It describes a mythical new nation where income taxes are limited to 25%, and where every citizen is accorded a number of votes in direct proportion to his income-tax bracket.(15)

Hunt was accompanied by his second wife and his two stepdaughters, and the little girls -- Helen, 11, and Sewannee, 10 -- sang a little song:

How much is that book in the window? The one that says all the smart things.

How much is that book in the window? I do hope to learn all it brings.

How much is that book in the window? The one which my Popsy wrote.

How much is that book in the window? You can buy it without signing a note.

Alpaca! Fifty cents!(16)

Hunt is a hard man to figure out. Few journalists have even tried. The real personality of this Puritan who was 74 in 1963 lies hidden behind a few cautious descriptions:

"As rich as Croesus, as shrewd as a riverboat gambler, as tight as a new pair of shoes . . ."

"He thinks communism started in this country when the government took over distribution of the mail . . ."

"If he had more flair and imagination, if he were not basically such a damned hick, he could be one of the most dangerous men in America."

For gifted psychologist Hugh Hefner, Hunt is "an irritating enigma."

"No one, not even his own family, professes to understand him; no one, not even the partners he's made rich, seems to have any idea what drove him to amass his vast fortune; and no one, not even Hunt himself, seems able to explain just what he is trying to accomplish in the political arena."(17)

Hunt is the incarnation of Texas, but he was born into a prosperous family in Illinois. He left home at 15 with a pack on his back and worked for a time as a lumberjack. At 22, he took his inheritance of a few thousand dollars and set out for Arkansas, where in 1912 he bought plantation land that hadn't overflowed for 35 years. That year and the next, it overflowed. The following year World War I broke out and the price of cotton dropped to 5 cents a pound. Hunt was ruined.

1918 brought a big land boom, and Hunt sold his plantation and bought more land. Three years later, he headed for an oil strike in El Dorado, Arkansas and began trading in leases. He drilled a few wells in the West Smackover fields and soon owned a hundred wells in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. In 1930 he went to East Texas and bought the famous Dad Joiner well, the Number One Daisy Bradford, which the big oil companies had disregarded. Before the Second World War, Hunt had made his first billion, mostly in oil, and re-invested it not only in oil and natural gas, but also in a multitude of other undertakings integrated vertically or horizontally, or completely diversified.

Hunt is the nation's biggest farmer. His business interests cover five continents and run from drugs to real estate, cotton, cattle, and timber. It has been estimated that "the Hunt assets are equal to those of such corporate complexes as General Electric."(18) Hunt owns and controls companies the names of which have never been associated with his.(19) His name does not appear on the list of the 500 largest international corporations, although he is probably among the top five. The Hunt Oil Company (incorporated in Delaware in 1934) owns producing properties in Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, and 9 more states, as well as undeveloped acreage in 18 other states, including Alaska. Hunt is behind a multitude of independent oil companies such as Placid Oil, the Hunt Petroleum Corp., and Placid International Oil, Ltd. (incorporated in 1958 in Delaware), with offices and activities in Australia, the Netherlands, Lebanon, England, and 17 other countries.

Haroldson Lafayette Hunt has neither stockholders nor board of directors. He owns 85 to 90% of the shares in all of his companies.(20) (His family owns the rest.) This 200 lb. six-footer is a latecomer to politics. Until he was 60, he occupied himself with drilling his wells and building his empire. He likes to describe himself as "a registered Democrat who often votes Republican." The last President of whom he approved was Calvin Coolidge. He calls Franklin D. Roosevelt "the first President to institute the struggle of class against class." Roosevelt also recognized the Soviet Union, thus bearing, in his view, the responsibility for "the surrender of hundreds of millions of people into Communist domination." He violently attacks the "myth of the indispensable man" created by Franklin D. Roosevelt and reclaimed by Kennedy. "This myth must be broken if our country is to survive," he has been quoted as saying. For him, the principal arms of the "Indispensable Man" of the Sixties were "Communism" and "taxes." Communism and taxes, it must be said, are the keys to the mind and activities of Haroldson Lafayette Hunt.

"The United States have been in charge of the world since World War Two, during which time the Communists have taken into domination one third of the world's population.

"Communist activities in the United States are criminal and can be spoken of along with other criminal offenses."

"All services to the public should be abolished in favor of personal enterprise where they can be more efficiently and economically performed."

Hunt condemns the "strange persons with a twisted education who would prefer to be defeated." He also attacks federal welfare programs for "harming the general public and giving some persons and groups an advantage over others." He dismisses Social Security as "thousands of frivolous projects." He declares, "People who have wealth should use it wisely, in a way that will do society the most good. They should be careful that in making supposedly charitable gifts, their money will not be used to destroy or impair the American system and promote atheism."

For Hunt, Kennedy's assault on the tax privileges enjoyed by the oil industry were "criminal offenses" against "the American system. Depletion allowances are necessary for irreplaceable resources. The increased net income for the Government from their elimination would finance the Government 3 or 4 days per year . . ." he declares, adding, "We are losing the right to keep a fair share of the money we earn and a fair share of the profits we make."

Hunt's letterhead describes him as an "operator."(21) He considers himself one of the best poker players in the country, and he probably is. He has always placed his reliance on competent technicians. His personal bodyguard is made up of former FBI agents. Years ago he acquired the habit of acting through intermediaries. He has his own intelligence network, and his decisions are carried out by a powerful general staff. His business interests are so extensive that he subsidizes (along with other important oilmen) most of the influential men in Congress, men like Lyndon Johnson. Hunt was one of the financial backers of Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose deputy Roy Cohn attracted his attention and has since worked for him on several occasions.

Hunt is the most powerful American propagandist of the Far Right. In 1951 he financed "Facts Forum," a series of radio and television programs which was later replaced by "Life Line," a one-sided series of 15-minute radio broadcasts carried daily on 409 stations throughout the country. His propaganda campaign costs him $2 million a year and is financed by companies that he owns, or on which he is in a position to exert pressure. (22)

Hunt's brand of anti-Communism has found support in the military camp. In 1952, Hunt supported the "MacArthur for President" campaign, and he has called MacArthur "truly the man of this century." He was also impressed by the MacArthur-trained group of strategists. (23) He once declared, "We should do whatever our generals advise us to do."

Beginning in 1952, several influential military men, flattered by Hunt's attention and conscious of his power, acquired the habit of consulting and confiding in him. Thus General George C. Kenney (born in 1889), former Commanding General of the Strategic Air Command, who retired from the Air Force in 1951, told him of his personal plan for knocking out Russia's nuclear capacity, based on the strategy of a preventive strike. General Albert C. Wedemeyer (born in 1897), author of the "Wedemeyer Reports" and an active member of the John Birch Society, (24) retired from the Army in 1951, (25) and Admiral James Van Fleet (born in 1892 and retired from the Navy in 1953) (26) were among the specialists consulted by Hunt, who shared their passion for strategy and extermination. The advent of Kennedy and McNamara created a stir among the military, and there were many retirements and dismissals.

The leader of this warrior clan was General Edwin A. Walker (born in 1909), a Texan who returned to Dallas after leaving the Army and contacted H. L. Hunt. Then, with the support of the John Birchers, (27) the Minutemen, and several of his former subordinates in the US forces in Germany, he launched an extremist and militarist campaign. Robert A. Surrey, Walker's "associate," had the financial backing of Hunt's companies. In 1962 ex-General Walker ran for Governor of Texas but was defeated by John Connally, whereupon he plunged headlong into a campaign of politico-economic action. By the winter of 1962-63, plans were being made for a preventive strike.

Hunt is the Big Man in Texas, the Giant, the richest and the stingiest, (28) the most powerful and the most solitary of the oilmen. He has always shied away from the other Texas and Louisiana oil producers, men like Michel Halbouty, Ray Hubbard, R. E. Smith, Algur H. Meadows, J ake Hamon, Kay Kimbell, O. C. Harper, C. V. Lyman, J. P. Gibbins, Ted Wiener, Thomas W. Blake, John W. Mecom, Billy Byars and Morgan Davis, but they have interests in common. Only the solidarity of the oil industry and, in some cases, fear kept certain habitues of the Fort Worth Petroleum Club, the Bayou and International Clubs in Houston, the Club Imperial, the Cipango Club and the Public Affairs Luncheon Club of Dallas from talking in the months and weeks preceding November 22. Instead, they let matters take their course.

The opinions and the aversions of obstinate old men often lead to excesses. Embittered puritan potentates frightened to see their lives drawing to an end are an even greater danger. Representatives Bruce Alger and Joe Pool stopped up their ears. In the streets of Texas, "Knock Out the Kennedys" stickers were already appearing on bumpers and windshields. Hunt liked to say, "It is through weakness -- not strength -- that we lose esteem in the world."

FAST FORWARD: At 12:23 on November 22, from his office on the 7th floor of the Mercantile Building, Haroldson Lafayette Hunt watched John Kennedy ride towards Dealey Plaza, where fate awaited him at 12:30. A few minutes later, escorted by six men in two cars, Hunt left the center of Dallas without even stopping by his house.

At that very moment; General Walker was in a plane between New Orleans and Shreveport. He joined Mr. Hunt in one of his secret hideaways across the Mexican border. There they remained for a month, protected by personal guards, under the impassive eyes of the FBI. It was not until Christmas that Hunt, Walker and their party returned to Dallas.

In February, 1964, Elgin E. Crull, Dallas City Manager, declared, "The vast majority of people in Dallas were affected by the murder of the President as they would have been by a sudden, violent death in their own family." But he added, "When life resumed its regular rhythm, there was general agreement that the actions of two maverick gunmen -- the alleged assassin and his slayer -- would not impede the dynamic growth of Big D."

See also: Halliburton Is Houston's 'Greater Hermann Göring Werke' for details on the relationship between H. L. Hunt, Halliburton, Brown & Root and Permindex, the company with which Guy Bannister - accused by Jim Garrison of being involved in the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy - was associated.

According to the Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal manuscript written under the nom de plume "William Torbitt," both Halliburton and George and Herman Brown were among the principal financiers of Permindex, along with Jean de Menil, mob lawyer Roy Cohn, Dallas oilman H.L. Hunt, and others.

The Vice President and his neo-con allies such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al., are agents of a power which is committed to eliminating the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, in favor of a global bankers' dictatorship. This same oligarchic power, acting through merchant banks like Lazard Frčres and Rothschild and other financial institutions, controls a large swath of Wall Street and corporate America, including Halliburton. Halliburton's power does not flow from Cheney, but from Cheney's backers, the Synarchist bankers. Cheney's policy toward the people of Iraq is the same as Halliburton's policy toward its asbestos claimants, and the same as Göring's policy toward the people in the Nazi work camps.

Arbeit Macht Frei (Work Makes You Free) read the sign over the entrance to Auschwitz. It was an example of Göring's "big lie" tactic in action. The Cheney cabal's pronouncements that we must accept police-state tactics in our own nation and pre-emptive strikes against other nations in the name of freedom, rings just as false. Hermann Göring would be proud. ...

Halliburton also has strong intelligence ties, notably through the presence on its board from 1977 through 2000 of the King Ranch's Anne Armstrong, who chaired the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) from 1981 until 1990, in addition to a stint as U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, and her long-standing role as chairman of the executive committee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a powerful Washington think-tank.

Armstrong's successor as Halliburton's top spook is Ray Hunt, one of five Dresser directors to join the Halliburton board. Hunt, the son of reputed Permindex funder H.L. Hunt, was appointed to the PFIAB by President George W. Bush in October 2001. Oilman Hunt is also a trustee of the CSIS and a director of the King Ranch, suggesting that Hunt is taking the retiring Armstrong's spot in a long-standing Texas intelligence network. Hunt is also a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library and a former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

See: Top-secret cronies Bush has stacked his foreign advisory board with his Texas business pals, who stand to profit from access to CIA and military intelligence.

November 17, 2005 | No discussion of cronyism in the Bush administration would be complete without talking about PFIAB, short for the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. George W. Bush's latest appointments to the PFIAB, which advises the president on how various intelligence agencies are performing, represent a who's who of the Halliburton-Texas Rangers-oil business crony club that made Bush into a millionaire and helped propel him into the White House. ...

Created in 1956 by President Dwight Eisenhower, the PFIAB is designed -- according to the White House press release -- to give the president "objective, expert advice." In an ideal world, the PFIAB members would analyze the intelligence they get and give the president their unvarnished opinions about the relative merits of the different agencies and the work they are doing. PFIAB members are granted access to America's most secret secrets, known as SCI, for Sensitive Compartmented Information. Members of PFIAB have security clearances that are among the highest in the U.S. government. They have access to intelligence that is unavailable to most members of Congress. They are privy to intelligence from the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the military intelligence agencies and others.

Everything that members do as part of PFIAB is done in secrecy. None of the information that they discuss or view is available to the public. They are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. And unlike other public servants who work for the president, there is no public disclosure of the PFIAB members' financial interests. ...

For Bush, it appears that campaign cash counts far more than expertise. And few backers have given Bush's campaigns more cash than Ray Hunt, son of the legendary Dallas billionaire bigamist oilman H.L. Hunt. PFIAB membership is a plum position for Hunt, who raised about $100,000 for Bush during the 2000 campaign and also served as the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Hunt's position at PFIAB may benefit a familiar entity in the Bush crony network: Halliburton, which is doing billions of dollars' worth of reconstruction and logistics work for the U.S. government in Iraq and on the Gulf Coast. Hunt sits on Halliburton's board of directors. He got his spot on the Halliburton board in 1998 while Dick Cheney was running the company. As soon as Hunt got on the Halliburton board, he was put on its compensation committee, where he helped determine Cheney's pay. Indeed, in 1998, Hunt's committee decided that Cheney deserved a bonus of $1.1 million and restricted stock awards of $1.5 million on top of his regular salary of $1.18 million.

Hunt has been on the PFIAB since 2001. Presumably, months ahead of everyone else, he had access to intelligence indicating that the Bush administration was going to invade Iraq -- information that could have been of value to certain oil service companies with operations in the Middle East.... the decision to appoint Hunt [and other cronies] is part of the "familiar pattern that we've seen so often with this administration: The president's pals and supporters are esteemed more highly than those who have genuine competence." He continues: "These people aren't the best and the brightest. They are the best connected. And the quality of our government suffers as a result."

The decision had been made, the money raised. The political visionaries made way for the politicians.(1) It was time to make plans. It isn't enough to want to kill the President. There is also the Secret Service to think about. The Presidential assistants were prepared to affront political obstacles, but their "grace and their airy flanerie" (2) had shielded them from the brutal side of American life. Innocent of violence and ignorant of hate, they failed to see the danger. Only Daniel P. Moynihan, a former longshoreman, had some idea of such things. Of all the Cabinet officials, only Bob Kennedy knew the risks of the Presidency. But he couldn't be behind his brother every minute of the day.

Kennedy himself did little to discourage them. He was tolerant, he liked people, and he had a firm belief in his destiny. His boisterous sophisticated cronies were barely conscious of the feelings aroused by the President's revolutionary action, and they paid little heed to his protection. Ken O'Donnell, who was in charge of the White House staff, had authority not only over the personnel, but also over the Secret Service. He could transfer or fire anyone he wanted, and he had the power, to introduce reforms. He was also in charge of the President's trips.

O'Donnell is the soul of integrity, and, as he liked to say, he would have given his life for the President. He would have done better to protect him. It is surprising to realize that this man, chosen by Kennedy for his intellectual ability, acted without thinking. As he said one day to Jerry Behn, in his mind, "politics and protection don't mix." He was mistaken. It is a difficult and dangerous combination, but it is possible.

O'Donnell, though an excellent administrator, was a weak man, and he was unsure of himself. This became evident after the President's death at Parkland Hospital when, as the highest-ranking White House official present with the exception of President Johnson, he proved himself incapable of doing anything more than "standing off to one side and eyeing the medical examiner icily" when the latter opposed the removal of President Kennedy's body. It became all the more evident when, after behaving rudely towards the new President during the plane trip back to Washington (which was perhaps his right), he agreed to serve on his staff. It was he who kicked up such a fuss, only the day after the assassination, about a Boston funeral, proving once and for all that John Kennedy was for him more a friend than a President. He was so happy to have such a man as a friend that he gave too little thought to his enemies. We know how much these words may hurt Ken O'Donnell, and how unjust they may appear, but we imagine that O'Donnell must be blaming himself.

The 56 Secret Service agents assigned to the White House detail were under the authority of the Treasury Department, but the responsible official, Assistant Treasury Secretary Robert Wallace, left the everyday direction of the Service to James Rowley, a mediocre civil servant. Gerald Behn, head of the White House Secret Service detail, lacked the necessary intelligence and qualifications for the job.

Three Presidents before Kennedy had been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley), and four others (Jackson, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and Truman) had escaped assassination. This record, unequaled in any other stable republic, should have inspired the Secret Service to extra vigilance. Margaret Truman's overzealous bodyguards caused trouble in Sweden, which has some of the toughest policemen in the world. Eisenhower's trips abroad were meticulously organized. But since the advent of television, the protection of the President on American soil had become a difficult job. So that the public could see the President, his bodyguards were banished from the running-boards of the Presidential car. At first they ran alongside it; later they rode on the back bumper. But nobody tried to kill Eisenhower during his two terms in office, and the Secret Service relaxed. Its relaxation was doubly dangerous, for the illusion remained that the President was well-protected.

It is difficult, of course, to protect an active President, and it is impossible to protect him completely during his public appearances. But there are ways to reduce the risk, and there are certain rules which are applied by Presidential security forces throughout the world, be it in France, the USSR, or Bolivia. The protection of the President witnin the United States(3) presents a special problem. The Secret Service is obliged to cooperate with the local police, which are sometimes incompetent or unreliable, and can even, as in Dallas, be dangerous.(4) But a Presidential security force should be able to rise to the challenge. The guerrilla warfare specialists who organized the Dallas ambush were amazed to discover that Kennedy's Secret Service worked like a troop of boy scouts.

Since its creation following the assassination of McKinley in 1901, the Secret Service had degenerated into a myth and a sinecure. In the first place, it wasn't secret. O'Donnell used Secret Service agents as errand boys, and at airport stops they handed out souvenirs to the crowds.(5) They all dressed alike in blue suits with white shirts and striped ties, and during Presidential trips they each wore an identical badge. The insignia for the Texas trip was known three weeks in advance: double white bars on a red background.

Several members of the White House detail were not qualified for their jobs. Their average age was 40, and as in the Senate the highest positions were awarded on the basis of seniority. Bill Greer, the driver of the Presidential Lincoln, was 54 and had 35 years' experience, enough to lull anybody's reflexes. After O'Donnell and perhaps Kellerman (the agent who rode in the front of the President's car in Dallas), Greer bears a heavy responsibility for the success of the assassination. We shall explain why a little later.

Finally, the Secret Service lacked direction. A security force must follow certain procedures and apply certain regulations without exception. The White House agents had no real leader. During Roosevelt's term in office, Frank J. Wilson ruled with authority, but the Secret Service chiefs who succeeded him were nothing but mediocre bureaucrats.

The White House agents had two sessions a year on a Washington firing range, but they practiced only target shooting like any amateur. Their reflexes were never tested. At any rate, a security agent's gun is of secondary importance. Generally, he has no time to shoot. His job is to anticipate an attempt on the President's life. Soviet security agents, for instance, have narrowly defined responsibilities. In official motorcades, one agent watches the windows on the first floor, another those on the second, another the spectators in the front row, still another the people standing alone, another the local policemen and a sixth the soldiers lining the road. Every time a Soviet official travels, his security agents run down a checklist of security precautions. No detail is omitted, and there are no exceptions. The same is true in France for the protection of President De Gaulle.(6)

Lawson, the Secret Service advance man in Dallas, let the local authorities show him around the city, and his report reached the White House only the day before the President's departure. A secretary whose married boss is planning an amorous weekend in Miami takes more precautions than Ken O'Donnell did for John Kennedy in Texas. Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 was about as heavily guarded as the Grand Canyon on a winter day, and Robert Kennedy's bodyguards showed little more vigilance on June 5, 1968. Of course, as the Warren Commission Report points out, "the limited effectiveness of the Secret Service make it impossible to watch hundreds of buildings and thousands of windows." That, however, is not the problem.

There is a standard procedure for assuring the security of a motorcade traversing a city. As Superintendent Ducret, the man responsible for President De Gaulle's security, describes it: "Of course, it is impossible to watch everything and occupy everything along the President's route. But it can be assumed that occupied office or apartment buildings are relatively safe. A potential assassin might, of course, try to enter one of these buildings, but he would be at the mercy of a witness. Serious conspirators will rarely take such a risk.

"On the other hand, all unoccupied buildings, administrative buildings outside of working hours, warehouses, building sites, and naturally all bridges, walls, and vacant lots that would be ideal for an ambush must not only be watched, but actually occupied by forces placed directly under the supervision of the Presidential security division."

Surrounded by five buildings(7) and a great deal of open ground, Dealey Plaza was the most dangerous spot on President Kennedy's route, but a few men would have sufficed to guard it effectively.

A representative of the Committee followed the President's trips at the end of September through Wisconsin, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Utah, Oregon, Nevada and California. Apparently the Committee planned to assassinate Kennedy, first in Chicago and then in Florida the week before his trip to Texas, but both times the Secret Service was alerted. The Chicago trip was canceled, and special precautions were taken in Miami (the President used a helicopter). The Committee would have preferred to act in Florida, but it had its doubts about the reliability of the Florida state police and the Tampa and Miami police departments, and the operation was postponed until Dallas on November 22.(8)

On November 21, the two men in charge of the ambush observed the Kennedy motorcade in Houston. In Texas, as in Utah, the Secret Service was entirely dependent upon the local police. Not only did the agents behave on these trips as if they were members of the party; they were always one step ahead. At 12:30 pm, seconds before the assassination, agent Emory Roberts jotted in his shift report, "12:35 pm, the President arrived at the Trade Mart." The Secret Service was already thinking ahead to tomorrow, when Kennedy was to visit Lyndon Johnson on his ranch.

Every time the President travels, the Protective Research Section (9) makes a security check of the area. The PRS had reservations about the Florida trip because of the large number of Cuban refugees and the rumors of an assassination attempt, but it issued no warning about Texas. The Secret Service, therefore, took no special precautions. The security measures taken in Dallas were the same as those in effect in New York, Palm Beach, Tampa, Miami, Houston and Fort Worth. The Secret Service could count on the reinforcement of its 28 agents in Texas, including 5 based in Dallas. Eight agents were assigned to guard the Trade Mart, but there were none at all at Dealey Plaza. The Secret Service was so unconcerned about the Texas trip that it even left its chief behind. At the time of the assassination, Jerry Behn was dining in a Washington restaurant. Roy Kellerman, who took his place at Dallas, proved so incompetent that at Parkland Hospital his men started taking orders from agent Emory Roberts. Later, during the flight back to Washington, Rufus Youngblood took over. These men had traveled 200,000 miles with the President. Somewhere along the line, they had neglected the first rule of security: they had lost their reflexes.

When the first shot rang out at Dealey Plaza, agent Clint Hill, who was later decorated, was the first to move, and it took him 7 or 8 seconds to react. In eight seconds, the average sprinter can cover 80 yards. Yet "Halfback," the back-up car in which Hill was riding, was almost touching the Presidential limousine, and neither vehicle was traveling more than 12 miles an hour.(10)

Kennedy's Secret Service agents apparently had no idea of the importance of a second in an assassination attempt. Agent Hickey, riding in Halfback, had an AR-15 automatic rifle on his lap, but it took him two seconds to load it and get ready to fire. In two seconds a modern bullet travels more than a mile.

The organizers of the ambush knew, of course, that the Secret Service was inefficient, but they had never imagined that their reflexes were that slow, and they had laid their plans in the assumption that Kennedy's agents would react immediately. The tactical and ballistic aspects of the operation, which we shall examine later, were based on a hypothetical operating time of three seconds. This was the estimated reaction time of Kennedy's bodyguards. But the President's driver could have reduced it even more. The President's car was a Lincoln with a souped-up engine specially designed for rapid accelerations, and we shall see later how speed affects the accuracy of a gunman.

On November 18 in Tampa, the President ordered the two Secret Service agents off the back bumper of his car. The men from the Committee noted this change, which persisted at Fort Worth, San Antonio and Houston, but they maintained their original plan, which took into account the possibility of instantaneous intervention by the bodyguards.

The blame must be laid not so much on the Secret Service agents as on their chiefs, and on the White House assistant responsible for the President's security. We have cited only their most glaring errors, but there were others -- less important perhaps, but characteristic of their lack of discipline, such as their drinking on duty. (11) Abraham Bolden, the only Negro in the Presidential bodyguard, asked to testify before the Warren Commission on the subject of some of these accusations, but the Committee refused to hear him. Later, he was fired from the Secret Service on grounds of professional incompetence.(12)

The Secret Service was guilty of negligence, as the highly respected Wall Street Journal commented. But its agents were professionals, and they recognized the work of other professionals. They were the first in the President's entourage to realize that the assassination was a well organized plot. They discussed it among themselves at Parkland Hospital and later during the plane ride back to Washington. They mentioned it in their personal reports to Secret Service Chief James Rowley that night. Ten hours after the assassination, Rowley knew that there had been three gunmen, and perhaps four, at Dallas that day, and later on the telephone Jerry Behn remarked to Forrest Sorrels (head of the Dallas Secret Service), "It's a plot." "Of course," was Sorrel's reply. Robert Kennedy, who had already interrogated Kellerman, learned that evening from Rowley that the Secret Service believed the President had been the victim of a powerful organization.

President Kennedy was dead, but the Secret Service was never officially inculpated. There were several staff changes in the White House detail, but two agents, Youngblood and Hill, were decorated. Because it reinforced its thesis, the Warren Commission blamed the Presidential guards, but a soldier is worth no more than his commanding officer, and the heads of the Secret Service were not worth much.

As for Ken O'Donnell, ex-captain of the Harvard rugby team, at Dallas he was up against a team that played rough.

NOTES: Texans

1. Discovered by the Dalmatian engineer Luchich. His associates Galey and Guffey eased him out and formed a partnership with the richest man in Western Pennsylvania, Andrew W. Mellon. Other petroleum properties near Spindletop were ceded to certain Texas politicians in exchange for their support, in particular to former Governor Jim Hogg. This concession gave birth to the Texas Company. Spindletop was also the birthplace of American Shell. After a time, Andrew Mellon eased out Guffey and reorganized his company under the name of Gulf Oil.

2. WASHINGTON, Jan. 9, 1968 (UPI) -- President Johnson's home state of Texas, which only a few years ago ranked seventh among states getting prime defense contracts, now has nosed out New York for no. 2 spot, Pentagon showed today.

California still holds along lead in first place, but its percentage of total contract awards during the fiscal year that ended last June 30 has now slipped to 17.9. Texas got 9.5 percent of the contracts and New York 8.7 percent.

During fiscal 1966, the percentages were: California 18.3, New York 8.9, and Texas 7.2. And as recently as 1962, the percentages for the three were: California 23.9, New York 10.7, and Texas 4.0, with Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and Ohio ahead of Texas that year.

But Texas has moved up steadily since Mr. Johnson moved into the White House, thanks in large part to the controversial F-111 fighter-bomber (formerly the TFX).

Nearly a third of the contracts Texas received during fiscal 1967 -- just under $1.2 billion worth -- were for the F-111, which is being produced by General Dynamics Corp. at Fort Worth.

3. Texas is the fifth state in the nation in terms of population (after New York, California, Pennsylvania, and Illinois), but it is by far the richest in terms of natural resources. In 1963, the mineral production of Texas totaled $4,413,084,000.

Texas accounts for 35% of the crude oil and 42% of the natural gas produced in the United States. Louisiana, whose petroleum resources are exploited in large part by companies based in Texas, produced $2,662,061,000 worth of mineral products. The combined oil production of Texas and Louisiana equals 35% of the national total.

4. This percentage was only 12.7% for the state of New York, and 10. I% for the state of Illinois, despite their poorer natural resources.

5. Texas (10,228,000 inhabitants and a revenue of $21,451 billion in 1963) had in 1964 121,376 federal employees, 24 times more than the state of Wyoming (339,000 inhabitants and a revenue of $834 million, and 5,175 federal employees), and 17 times more than the state of Nevada (389,000 inhabitants, $1,246 million in revenue, and 7,039 federal employees). Ohio, with a population and revenue comparable to Texas (10,000,000 inhabitants and $25,164 billion) had only 88,785 federal employees. As for Delaware (480,000 inhabitants), it had only 3,624 federal employees, more than 40 times fewer than Texas, for there is a certain minimum of personnel required by any administrative infrastructure.

Statistics concerning the increase in federal employees per state since 1939 provide a further illustration of the favoritism shown the state of Texas:

6. 17,744 miles. California has 9,653 miles of highways, New York 10.700. Illinois 10,995.

7. In Texas, the Justice of the Peace is an elected magistrate, and not, as in the East, a minor functionary.

8. In the city of Dallas alone, there were 120 "official" murders in 1960, and 810 "accidents."

9. Texas ranks 39th in the nation in terms of the amount spent on education.

High school graduates in 1963: Texas -- 0.8% ; Mississippi -- 1%

High school students in 1964: Texas -- 6% ; Mississippi -- 10%

10. The population of Texas is 80% Protestant, 19% Catholic, and 1% Jewish.

11. The state of Illinois has 1,030 banks, New York 479, and California 200.

12.

13. Nevertheless, there is a strong opposition to the oil interests in Texas. It is made up of people who are more interested in the good of their country than the state of their pocketbooks, and who are more American than Texan, together with a certain number of progressive labor leaders. But this opposition comprises only one-third of the voters.

14. Contrary to the statistics published by Fortune in March 1968, which place John Paul Getty and Howard Hughes at the top of the list.

15. Hunt has written three other books of the same type: Fabians Fight Freedom, Why Not Speak? and Hunt for Truth. He also writes a daily and weekly newspaper column.

16. Bainbridge, The Super-Americans.

17. Playboy, 1966.

18. The assets of General Electric, the fourth largest American corporation, equaled $4,851, 718,000 in 1966, or one-third of the assets of Standard Oil of New Jersey, the largest corporation in the world, more than Standard Oil of California, and half again as much as American Shell or Standard of Indiana.

19. The man who is probably the richest oil producer after Hunt, Roy Cullen of Quintana Petroleum, has only about a million dollars.

20. The Dallas headquarters of Placid Oil are located at 2500 First National Bank Building. H. L. H. Products are located at 700 Mercantile Bank Building, but most of Hunt's businesses are grouped at 1401 Elm Street: Hunt Oil Co., Hunt Petroleum Corp., Hunt Caroline Trust Estate, Hunt H. L., Hunt H. L. Jr., Hunt Hassie Trust, Hunt International Petroleum Company, Hunt Lamar, Hunt Lamar Trust Estate, Hunt Margaret Trust Estate, Hunt N. B., Hunt Nelson Bunker, Hunt W. H., Hunt William Herbert Trust Estate, etc.

21. Described by the Internal Revenue Service as a person "who holds the management and exploitation rights and is responsible for production costs."

22. Not only the Placid Oil Corp. of Shreveport, but Baker Oil Tools (Dallas and California), the Harry W. Bass Drilling Co. (Dallas), the Empire Drilling Co. (Dallas), the Mid-Continent Supply Co., United Tools, the Hudson Engineering- Corp., the Nation and Geophysical Co., the New Seven Falls Co., and the First City National Bank of Dallas.

23. Which included former Generals like Courtney Whitney and Bonner Fellows, and also certain of their disciples, such as the brilliant Lawrence Bunker.

24. Texas had as many as ten John Birch Society chapters, mainly in Dallas and Houston.

25. Commander of the China Theater (1944-46), Chief of Staff of Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek, then Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Combat Operations (1947-48).

26. Commander of the US Naval Forces in Korea (1948-50).

27. Of which he, like General Wedemeyer, was a member.

28. Hunt lives modestly, buys ready-made suits, drives his own standard-make cars, dislikes private planes, cuts his own hair, and carries his lunch to work in a brown paper bag.

1. We estimate the cost of the preparation, the assassination itself and the post-assassination clean-up at between $5 and $10 million. Contributions varied between $10,000 and $500,000, and there were about 100 beneficiaries.

2. Manchester, Death of a President.

3. When the President travels abroad, the police of the host country are responsible for his security. In general, they take greater precautions than those taken in the United States.

4. The California and New York police are considered relatively reliable.

5. Secret Service agents are less qualified on the average than FBI agents. They earn between $600 and $1,000 a month, considerably less (even with overtime pay) than J. Edgar Hoover's men.

6. The security officers charged with the protection of President De Gaulle even take the precaution of photographing the VIPs received by him or who are in contact with him, for example at the VIP Waiting Room at Orly Airport. The crowds lining the streets during a parade are also photographed at vital spots before he passes, and if De Gaulle stops and approaches the crowd, a camera follows his every move. Later, these photographs are carefully studied.

Whenever De Gaulle travels by car, he is protected by 47 motorcycle policemen spread out in rows. Several police cars precede and follow the Presidential vehicle, and the car immediately following the President contains a sharpshooter and a photographer equipped with an automatic Japanese camera similar to a Robot. When de Gaulle makes shorter, routine trips, he is protected by a smaller force of 8 motorcycle policemen who surround the car.

There were only 4 motorcycle policemen at Dallas and all were following President Kennedy's car, making them totally ineffective. The role of a motorcycle policeman in this case is (1) to make it difficult to fire at the President from a crowd, and (2) to stop anyone who tries from approaching the car . During a parade along the Champs Elysees in Paris, a woman somehow managed to climb over the barriers and started towards De Gaulle's car. She was carrying a bouquet of flowers and was completely harmless, but the policeman who was supposed to be watching the barriers at that point lost his job.

7. The Texas School Book Depository, the Dal-Tex Building, the Dallas County Records Building, the Criminal Courts, and the Old Court House.

8. The Committee was also probably trying to throw the Secret Service off the scent.

9. The Protective Research Section, headed by Robert I. Bouck, had 65 offices across the country and 50,000 files on people who had threatened the President. Between November 1961 and November 1963, it investigated 34 Texas residents and opened 115 other files on Texans. On November 8, 1963, the PRS spent ten minutes inspecting Dallas.

10. Clint Hill reached the back of the President's car 2.6 seconds after the final shot. The shooting lasted about 7 seconds. At least twelve seconds elapsed between the first shot and the instant when Hill was in a position to cover the President's body. Vice-President Johnson was covered by agent Youngblood in less than three seconds.

11. Several Secret Service agents were notorious alcoholics. The regulations stipulate that any Secret Service agent found drinking on duty will be fired forthwith, and when the President is traveling, his agents are on duty 24 hours a day. But they were so little concerned about Texas that four of them In the President's party sat and drank in a Fort Worth bar until the wee hours of the morning on the day of the assassination. A century earlier, President Lincoln's bodyguard had sneaked off for a drink when Booth entered the Presidential box at Ford's Theatre.

12. In 1967, Mr. Bolden was being held at the federal medical center in Springfield, Mo.
Comment on this Editorial

"The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: 'If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?' But ... the good Samaritan reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?'" Martin Luther King, Jr.[1]

"The truth shall set you free? Maybe. But first the Truth must be set free." Wole Soyinka, Nigerian playwright, educator.[2]

Since the events of 9/11 the government has implemented powerful new prosecutorial tools to gain convictions in its War on Terror. In an article entitled, "Terrorist Financing," Jeff Breinholt, Deputy Chief of the Department of Justice's Counterterrorism Section, explains these tools and how they are being used to win convictions.[3] On page thirty-one of the article he lists the statutes being used in the criminal prosecution of terrorist financing and among these statutes is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Breinholt also labels as "United States economic sanctions."[4] IEEPA provides the President of the United States with authority to deal with any "unusual and extraordinary threat" that has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States; this includes threat to "national security, foreign policy, and the economy."[5]

Prosecutors armed with the statutes listed in Breinholt's paper are further empowered by using them in conjunction with the "material support of terrorism" laws, Executive Order 13224, and civil asset forfeiture laws, particularly those under IEEPA, which were amended by the PATRIOT Act. Under the IEEPA civil asset forfeiture provisions the government can close down an organization and seize its assets while an investigation is ongoing, without probable cause of criminal activity and without any charges ever being brought against anyone.[6]

E.O. 13224 was issued on September 23, 2001, and introduced a blacklist of organizations and individuals suspected of terrorism, materially aiding terrorism, or associating with terrorists. IEEPA and international law permit humanitarian assistance for these suspects, including food, clothing and medicine, but this humanitarian aid is outlawed under the E.O. 13224.[7] The penalty, for an IEEPA violation, for organizations that knowingly engage in terrorist financing already carries a sentence of twenty years to life in prison. What this new provision does is "drastically increase the penalties for knowing violations of non-terrorism-related IEEPA offenses."[8] People with a concern for civil liberties are troubled by the fact that the government provides no legal definition of what they consider a "specially designated terrorist" and by the broad manner in which the government is interpreting the new rules.[9]

Muslim charities and individuals connected with these charities are bearing the brunt of the effects of this new law.[10] Since September 11, 2001, six major U.S. Muslim charities and several smaller Muslim charities have been shut down.[11] And working in close collaboration with the U.S. government does not provide charities with protection from this fate. In 2002 a new charity, KindHearts (KH), was established after the U.S. government had closed the three largest Muslim charities in the country in December 2001, accusing each of supporting terror.[12] Despite working closely with government agencies to ensure it complied with all the new rules, KH has suffered the same consequences as the other charities. In February 2006, KH?s assets were seized and its operation frozen because of dubious allegations of financing terror.[13]

In a March 2006 article in The Washington Post, Laila al-Marayati and Basil Abdelkarim, board members of Kinder USA, a Muslim-American nonprofit humanitarian organization said,



"We are among those American Muslims who decided that because it is our right as Americans to fulfill our religious obligation to help the needy both here and abroad, we would start a new charity. We did so in 2002 and have experienced our fair share of government harassment as a result. None of us is interested in engaging in illegal activity; it is immoral, unethical and un-Islamic, and it serves no useful purpose whatever. Our crime is that we care about what happens to the children of Palestine. Who knows what price we will have to pay for our hot-breakfast program for hungry kids in Gaza, for our playground project in the West Bank, for our psychological trauma center in Hebron."[14]

THE EFFECT ON MUSLIM CHARITY

In a report titled, "Muslim Charities and the War on Terror," OMB Watch,[15] documented its concerns about the treatment of Muslim charities and the people involved with the charities.[16] Among the many concerns OMB voiced are use of questionable evidence to shut down the largest U.S.-based charities that has resulted in much needed humanitarian assistance not reaching people who desperately need it, use of anti-terrorist financing policies that deny Muslim charities the right of due process and are unequally enforced, and holding of organizations and individuals associated with humanitarian work "guilty until proven innocent." They conclude that despite the new investigative powers the authorities have failed to produce evidence of terror financing by U.S.-based charities.[17]

In May 2005, David Cole, professor of law at Georgetown University and legal counsel in several "material support" cases, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary about the constitutional implications of use of these statutes. Speaking about how the statutes impose "guilt by association" and therefore violate the First and Fifth Amendments, Cole said,

"The statutes described above prohibit virtually all associational support to selected political organizations, while granting executive branch officials effectively unreviewable discretion to target disfavored groups. These laws make it a crime to write an op-ed, provide legal advice, volunteer one?s time, or distribute a magazine of any 'designated' group, even if there is no connection whatsoever between the individual's support and any illegal activity of the proscribed group.

"Under these statutes, an American citizen who sends a treatise on nonviolence to the Kurdistan Workers? Party to encourage it to forgo violence for peace can be sent to prison for fifteen years. This is so even if he proves that he intended the treatise to be used only for peaceful ends, and that it was in fact used solely for that purpose. Such a moral innocent can be said to be 'guilty by association." [18]

THE "HELP THE NEEDY" CASE

This is precisely the situation in which Dr. Rafil A. Dhafir found himself. In direct response to the humanitarian catastrophe created by brutal sanctions on Iraq, Dhafir, a man of Iraqi descent and Muslim faith, and an American citizen for almost thirty years, started the charity Help the Needy (HTN). According to United Nations (UN) statistics, every month throughout the 1990s almost 6,000 children under the age of five in Iraq were dying from lack of food and access to simple medicines.[19] Three senior UN officials resigned because of what they considered a "genocidal" policy against Iraq.[20]

When Madeleine Albright, then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., was asked in a CBS interview if the deaths of half a million children was a price worth paying to punish Saddam Hussein, she infamously replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price-we think the price is worth it."[21] When the deaths of children over the age of five and adults are added, the number killed as a direct result of the sanctions rises to between 1.5 and 2 million dead civilians.[22]

Dr. Dhafir is a pillar of the Muslim community in Central New York. He was a founding member of the local mosque, and he served as the imam at Syracuse University until they hired a full time imam. He paid a substantial amount of the running costs of the mosque and provided free medical consultation to those at the mosque without health insurance. His medical practice was in Rome, New York, an underserved area in which he was the sole oncologist. In his practice he provided free health care to people without insurance, and he paid for their expensive chemotherapy medicine out of his own pocket.[23]

For thirteen years Dhafir worked tirelessly to help publicize the plight of the Iraqi people and to raise funds to help them.[24] According to the government, Dhafir donated 1.25 million dollars of his own money over the years.[25] As an oncologist, he was also concerned about the effects of depleted uranium on the Iraqi population that experienced skyrocketing cancer rates.[26] For the crime of breaking the U.S. and U.K. sponsored UN sanctions on Iraq and sending humanitarian aid to sick and starving civilians, Dhafir was held without bail for thirty-one months and then sentenced to twenty-two years in prison.[27]

Since the day of Dhafir's arrest, February 26th, 2003, when eighty-five agents went to his home, government officials at national and state levels have portrayed Dhafir's humanitarian work as support of terrorism.[28] Simultaneous to Dhafir's arrest, between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 a.m., others associated with HTN were arrested in Syracuse, New York; Boise, Idaho; and Amman, Jordan. At the same time about 150, mainly Muslim, families who had donated to HTN were interrogated by government agents.[29] On the same day, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that supporters of terrorism" had been apprehended, a completely unfounded assertion that was reiterated by New York Governor George Pataki in August 2004, just prior to the start of Dhafir's trial.[30]

At the same time, and throughout the trial, local government officials, the prosecutors and District Attorney, denied that the case had any connection to terrorism and instead portrayed Dhafir as a common thief.[31] District Attorney Glenn Suddaby said: "there's no evidence that any of the Help the Needy money went to al-Qaida, the Iraqi government, or to buy arms and bullets that could be used against U.S. soldiers."[32]

The inconsistencies in the government's position have been a startling feature of this case from its inception, and they suggest two possibilities: either one hand of the government doesn't know what the other is doing or the government is aiming deliberately to deceive. No media outlet has challenged the government directly and demand that it provide an explanation for its contradictory assertions, although Michael Powell of the Washington Post drew attention to them shortly before the trial began:

"There is a shadow-boxing quality to the terror allegations lodged against Dhafir. In August, Gov. George E. Pataki (R) described Dhafir's as a 'money laundering case to help terrorist organizations . . . conduct horrible acts.' Prosecutors hinted at national security reasons for holding Dhafir without bail. But no evidence was offered to support the allegations."[33]

Despite Pataki's pre-trial announcement, which was perfectly timed to reach potential jurors, the prosecution successfully petitioned Judge Norman Mordue not to allow the charge of terrorism to be part of the trial.[34] Not surprisingly the specter of terrorism hung over the trial throughout the proceedings, and prosecutors could hint at more serious charges but the defense lawyers were never allowed to follow this line of questioning.[35]

Dhafir's seventeen-week court case was conducted as a sixty-count case of white-collar crime with no charges of terrorism, and as a direct result of this only the local Syracuse newspaper, the Post Standard, covered the proceedings. The paper proved to be little more than a mouthpiece for the government; on the rare occasion that it did provide coverage of cross examination, it immediately followed with a re-statement of the charges in the indictment.[36] During the seventeen weeks of daily coverage of the proceedings the paper failed to give more than a passing mention to an ecumenical group that met every morning outside the federal building to worship for half an hour before the trial commenced at 8.30 a.m., or to the ACLU court watchers who were present in court every day.[37] Concern has been expressed about reporters being embedded in war zones; there should be equal concern about them being embedded in federal buildings.

Of the sixty counts in the indictment, most were related to breaking the sanctions: conspiracy, mail and wire-fraud, money laundering, and tax evasions. These charges are easily explained when viewed in the context of the sanctions, but the government did everything it could to prevent the condition of Iraq during the sanctions from being referred to at the trial.

According to the government, the investigation of HTN began with a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) from a bank. The government encourages financial institutions to report "suspicious activity" by watching out for money transfers between related accounts of related entities. But many non-profit organizations that have nothing to do with supporting terrorism make these kinds of transfers on a regular basis.[38] Because of the SAR report seven government agencies investigated Dhafir and HTN for five years. They intercepted mail, email, and faxes; bugged his office and hotel rooms; and conducted physical surveillance.

Because the government was unwilling to prosecute Dhafir for sanctions-related charges alone, the last twenty-five counts of the indictment are related to Medicare fraud. The government evidence for this part of the case was extremely weak. For example, a bar chart that supposedly compared the dollar amount of Dhafir's billing of Medicare with other doctors' billing was completely meaningless. It showed Dhafir's bar as being very tall and the other doctors' bars being much smaller, but when the witness was asked by the defense to say what types of doctors the other doctors were, or what their geographic location was, she could not answer.[39]

The whole of the Medicare case revolved around a single rule called "incident to," meaning any treatment performed by someone other than the doctor. The government claimed that Dhafir had filled out the forms incorrectly, and was therefore entitled to no reimbursement from Medicare, despite the fact that patients had received treatment and chemotherapy drugs. The defense contended that even if Dhafir's office had filled out the forms wrongly, which they did not believe he had; Medicare had only overpaid 15% of $1102.80--the difference between what they pay for a doctor's time as opposed to a nurse practitioner's time--a total overpayment of $166.[40] This was not fraud but merely incorrect billing. Medicare fraud usually involves fictitious patients and made-up illnesses; Dhafir's case had none of this.

The government presented the Medicare evidence in the same way they presented the evidence related to the sanctions. After weeks of testimony following checks from bank to bank, they then turned to day after day of testimony regarding Medicare forms, asking individuals from Dhafir's office to validate their signatures on the forms, thus proving that they had indeed signed the forms, but nothing else.[41] The defense presented one witness for fifteen minutes, Dr. Edward Cox, head of the carrier organization that processes claims for Medicare.[42] Reading from the New York State Handbook Cox confirmed the defense's contention that in order to bill Medicare under the "incident to" rule, a non-physician was required to have a license or training.[43] Thus, according to the handbook, Dhafir's billing of Medicare was proper.

The Post Standard reported this testimony correctly the day after it was given, but on the following day the paper had a front-page correction with a picture of the witness who was apparently contradicting his testimony of the day before.[44] And despite the testimony of this witness, the judge in his "charge to the jury" told them that under New York law a laboratory technician required a license; in other words, training alone was not sufficient.[45]

On the day of the sentencing of Mrs. Dhafir, she was ordered to pay back $62,000 to Medicare. Mrs. Dhafir worked in the billing department of her husband's practice with several other people. Asked on the same day how much of that money had actually been spent on chemotherapy medicine that was administered to patients, Michael Olmstead, the head prosecutor, was unable to say. When Dhafir was asked the same question, he said that 90% of this money had been spent on medicine.[46] This leaves 10% of the money for the doctor's time, the nurse's time, and blood work. Dhafir also said that in 2002 Medicare reimbursed him less than he had spent on medicine alone. A look at the records would confirm or refute this, but Dr. Dhafir has been continually denied access to his own records that were taken from his house and office on the day of the arrest.

Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree and author of The Twilight of Democracy[47] has written a two-part article on Dhafir's case entitled "New American Law: The Case of Dr. Dhafir" and "New American Law: Legal Strategies and Precedents in the Dhafir Case."[48] In this article and other writings Van Bergen warns about the danger of civil liberties being undermined when the government uses parallel legal tracks not intended to be mixed.[49] She notes that, as happened in Dhafir's case, conspiracy laws and money laundering laws used "creatively" with the PATRIOT Act and IEEPA can be used to construct a vast distorted picture. Dhafir's case sets a legal precedent and means that others who provide humanitarian and medical assistance to those in need could, like Dhafir, end up being put away for the rest of their lives.

THE GOVERNMENT STRATEGY REVEALED

In November 2005, just weeks after Dhafir was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison for white-collar crimes, the government presented a lecture to a group of third-year law students at Syracuse University Law School in which Dhafir and the HTN case were highlighted. Jeff Breinholt, author of the article on terrorist financing mentioned above, and Greg West, one of the Dhafir prosecutors, presented the lecture, which was entitled, "A Law Enforcement Approach to Terrorist Financing."[50] The other two Dhafir prosecutors, Michael Olmstead and Steve Green were also present, along with law school faculty and representatives from the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT), a sponsor of the lecture.[51]

The slant of this lecture, along with Breinholt's 2003 "Terrorist Financing" article, and the fact that Dhafir and the other HTN defendants are listed on the FBI's list of "terrorism convictions since September 11, 2001," give credence to the idea that the government's creative use of parallel legal tracks was a strategy from the outset.[52]

Breinholt told the students at this lecture that Dhafir's case had been under-prosecuted. In the context of the lecture title -- "A Law Enforcement Approach to Terrorist Financing" -- the implication was clear. He told students about the statutes being used as powerful tools for prosecution of terrorist financing and explained that these tools were not widely known even among prosecutors. And he voiced a hope that law schools could serve as a kind of farm system educating students in this new field of law and that this in turn would create lawyers who would be familiar with and who could use these new prosecution tools.[53]

He explained that because the "American public won't tolerate anything less than the rule of law," creative ways had to be figured out to draft laws that can be used to prosecute what they are trying to prevent.[54] According to Breinholt, this task was addressed by a Department of Justice Terrorist Financing Task Force that came together to craft ways to apply white-collar expertise to the problem of terrorism. In his article, Breinholt says:

"Persons cannot be convicted of the federal crime of terrorism because there is no such crime. Instead, terrorism crimes have developed in the same manner as other crimes, policymakers determine what evil (or 'mischief') should be prevented, and then craft criminal laws that take into account how such mischief is generally achieved. On occasion, acts that are criminalized are not ones that should necessarily be discouraged, if committed by persons not otherwise involved in the targeted conduct. In such cases, laws are crafted to criminalize such conduct only when in particular circumstances."[55]

A major tool that emerged from the work of this task force, Breinholt told students, is the use of IEEPA violations to gain convictions in terrorist financing cases. Breinholt said that to convict under IEEPA all that was necessary was to build a chain of inferences from available circumstantial evidence.[56]

In Breinholt's article, Dhafir and other HTN defendants are listed under the heading "Examples of 'clean money' cases."[57] Listed under this same heading are Enaam Arnaout of Benevolence International Foundation (BIF); Sami Al-Hussayen, a graduate student at the University of Idaho, associated with Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA);[58] and Sami Al-Arian, a Palestinian professor from Florida.[59] Later in the article, under the heading, "crimes of terrorist financing," Breinholt lists the statutes being used in prosecution of these cases.[60] Statutes under this heading that were used in Dhafir's case are 50 U.S.C. ss 1701,1702 (IEEPA) and U.S.C. ss 1956(a)(2)(A), "operating an unlicensed money transmitting business."[61] One of the Dhafir prosecutors, Mr. West, explained to the class that one of the biggest frustrations of his career was having access to intelligence and not being able to share it.

Neither Breinholt nor West told the class that these "powerful prosecution tools" are being used mostly against Muslim charities and individuals associated with those charities, while violations by large corporations like Halliburton, which did billions of dollars worth of business in defiance of IEEPA, go largely unpunished. At the most these corporations have gotten a slap on the wrist and a fine, but no individual board member or officer has ever faced prosecution. [62] And although many non-Muslim charities work in the same troubled regions of the world as Muslim charities, not a single non-Muslim charity has been closed.[63] None of this was mentioned at the lecture.

By hosting this lecture on Dhafir and HTN, Syracuse University Law School gave credence to a charge never brought against Dhafir, and in doing so they became an accomplice in the government's subterfuge. After the lecture a request was made that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) court watchers who attended the trial be provided with "equal time" to speak to the students.[64] Syracuse Law School Dean Hannah Arterian denied this request.

In testimony given on Capitol Hill by the U.S. Treasury Department, prosecution of Muslim charity cases is being used as a model of success in efforts to disrupt terrorism.[65] However, the testimony often contradicts the actual rulings in the cases and the testimony fails to acknowledge that there are no terrorist convictions among any of the cases. At a 2004 Pace University Law School symposium, Dr. Laila al-Marayati addressed the way this Treasury Department targeting of Muslim charities threatens civil liberties, constitutional rights, and the rule of law for not just Muslims, but for every American, regardless of creed:

"The ever present threat of a 'terrorist designation' by the Treasury Department functions based on the principle of 'guilty until proven innocent.' The use of secret evidence, hearsay, erroneous translations, guilt by association and press reports in recent court cases further erodes the ability of charities to rely on basic assumptions regarding their constitutional rights, especially when the courts ultimately favor the government when 'national security' is allegedly at stake. Over-zealous surveillance tactics of the intelligence community such as wiretapping, infiltrating organizations by bribing employees to work as spies (thereby disrupting normal and lawful humanitarian activities), and engaging in other forms of harassment - when added to the above bleak picture - will not only chill, but will freeze completely American Muslim charitable giving overseas. Perhaps this is the goal of the US government. However, no one should be fooled into thinking that America or the American people will be much safer as a result."[66]

LESSONS FROM HISTORY

Writing during the McCarthy era, Judge Irving R. Kaufman warned,

"We are not inclined to dismiss lightly claims of constitutional stature because they are asserted by one who may appear unworthy of sympathy. Once we embark on shortcuts by creating a category of 'obviously guilty' whose rights are denied, we run the risk that the circle of the unprotected will grow."[67]

Writing after the Holocaust Pastor Martin Niemoeller said,

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a communist; then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a socialist; then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a trade unionist; then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-because I was not a Jew; then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak out for me."[68]

We appear once again to have entered a dark time in which the civil liberties of a select group of people are being denied. The message being sent to Muslim communities across the country is that pillars of their community can be knocked down without any call for equal justice from the non-Muslim community. It is incumbent upon each of us to defend civil liberties for all, not least because "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."[69]

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

Katherine Hughes began attending the seventeen-week trial as a court watcher for the ACLU but quickly found that she could not in good conscience be the uninvolved observer their organization required. For the last two years she has worked to achieve justice for Dr. Dhafir. More information can be found at her website: www.dhafirtrial.net

Donations to the Dhafir appeal fund can be made to Dhafir Appeal Fund, c/o Peter Goldberger, Esq., Attorney at Law, 50 Rittenhouse Place, Ardmore, PA 19003. Write "Dr. Dhafir Appeal Fund" in the memo line and please note that donations are not tax deductible.
Comment on this Editorial

"It's not one or two or three coming through in the night," he continues. "It's an invasion. It's nothing short of that. The federal government's not doing anything about it, so, by God, the Minutemen will do it for them."

The crowd erupts into applause. At least one man is carrying a gun and extra ammunition.

"We're not vigilantes. We're not the KKK. We're a majestic form of neighborhood watch," Garza says. "And in the last few years, it's become so powerful in its momentum that we've gone from 10 people to well over 8,000 nationwide."

Pitner was furious, protesting that the militia had been unfairly smeared as a pack of radical revolutionaries. "We're not anti-government, we're anti-bad politicians," he said. "We feel it's time to change the way government does things."

He argued that all citizens are members of the militia under the law. "We're volunteering ourselves beforehand," he told Cathy Logg. "We're just painters, carpenters, bricklayers. We're trying to help our communities. We were out sandbagging in the floods and helping save livestock in Lynden. We're directing traffic at accident scenes. We serve when we're called to serve. We have Christmas programs for children. We?re community-oriented people."

Pitner issued a plea for understanding: "Don't judge us by what we say -- judge us by what we do."

A deep voice accompanied by the sound of shattering glass ominously warns of the perils posed by illegal immigration.

"Every minute, they're crossing our borders looking for quick-cash jobs, transportation and accommodations," the voice intones. "Some may be Mideastern terrorists with look-alike resemblance to our south-of-the-border neighbors."

The second message: "Did you know that your congressmen and the president take an oath of office ... to protect each state from invasion? So what about the millions of illegals from alien nations crossing our borders ... ? Is that an invasion? Would you call a burglar in your home a houseguest?"

And then the third: "These folks in Washington, D.C. ... are granting amnesty to illegal aliens, and giving them everything from Social Security to free health care is just the tip of the iceberg.... Is that what you want? We don't think so."

"They've taken over California," Hayes tells the crowd. "They're working on Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. We're going to become a minority of illegal immigration." He tells them to research the National Council of La Raza -- the nation's largest advocacy organization focusing on the civil rights, education and employment of Hispanic Americans. "They're a Salvadoran group of terrorists. We have them in Kansas City right now. La Raza believes the Southwest is theirs and we should leave. They want illegals to come up here and have babies and take over the United States."

Hayes' emotion builds before he stops for a disclaimer that punctuates each meeting.

"This may insult some of your intelligence. But we're not bigots. We're American patriots. If you're a skinhead or a member of an extremist group, leave now."

(Before the meeting, Hayes told the Pitch: "We've been called bigots, racists, homophobes. I could go on and on. When the pro-illegal-immigration folks start cutting us down like that, though, we know we're doing something right. When they start calling me names, I look at them and I see the real racist. Because we are not. They're either a racist or an employer.")

Hayes tells the group that these issues are too important for the Minutemen to be intimidated by schoolyard name-calling. There are terrorist camps in Mexico, he says.

"They're teaching Middle Easterners Spanish, teaching them how to dress Hispanic, and now they're all over this country, and Lord knows what they'll do." He says illegal aliens are draining the health-care system, bankrupting hospitals and crowding schools. As a former law-enforcement officer, Hayes says, the thing that really burns him is the impact on public safety.

"They're in vehicular accidents where they leave the scene or have no insurance," he says. "Rapes, robberies, killing cops and running back to their home country -- these people are breaking the law every day they're here. They're 10 percent of the nation's crime, and our prisons are full of them."

The two friends, who met thanks to their adjacent cubicles at a local engineering company, were inspired to join the Minutemen by a trip to the border in March 2006. They set aside 10 days for the trip and checked into a hotel just outside Tucson, Arizona. The plan was to spend three days driving down to the Minuteman Command Center, 50 miles southwest of the city, check in for a briefing and then head to "the line."

They admit that they didn't see much. Griffin says "the line" is actually 30 miles from the border. Volunteers there station themselves on public lands and on the private property of ranchers who are supportive of the Minuteman mission. Cox says they ate a lot of peanut-butter crackers.

Though they didn't witness confrontation, Cox says, they did hear about it.

"It didn't happen directly in front of us, but, from what the Border Patrol said and during different shifts in different areas, a number of the people they were finding coming across the desert weren't from Mexico. A large contingency were from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan -- many that had confirmed ties to Al Qaeda."

"I think when these [immigrants' rights] groups started doing demonstrations and burning the American flag and wanting to sing the national anthem in Spanish ? these people that are here as criminals, these people who came here illegally and started demanding their rights as U.S. citizens ? I think that just took some good old Americans and pissed them off," he says. "I guess, being a U.S. Army vet, I don't take too well to burning the flag, either, especially when it's foreign nationals doing that."

"There is every prospect of the 'war on terror' extending for 30 years or more," declares a report released by the Oxford Research Group, an independent think tank in Britain. "What is required is a complete re-assessment of current policies but that is highly unlikely, even with the recent political upheavals."

Professor Paul Rogers, who authored the report and is associated with the oldest university in the English-speaking world, believes "recent political upheavals," i.e., the Democrat victory in Congress, will not change the course of events. Democrats are not about to engage in a "complete re-assessment of current policies," but rather continue them, as there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans when you turn them upside down.

"Most people believe that the recent elections mark the beginning of the end of the Bush era but that does not apply to the war on terror," writes Rogers. "In reality there will be little change until the United States faces up to the need for a fundamental re-think of its policies."

I'm afraid the economy will need crash, the world community will turn against the United States, its people reduced to the sort of penury and humiliation suffered by the Germans at the midpoint of the last century before a "re-think" occurs.

Both Democrats and Republicans are on schedule with the "clash of civilizations," although they differ only slightly in style, not substance.

Democrats have gone out of their way to dismiss the large and growing antiwar faction of their party. Democrats do not consider George Bush and his camarilla of neocon fascists war criminals. Democrats will not impeach Bush. Democrats are traitors to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as they will not repeal the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, or put an end to the high-tech surveillance state. Democrats are soft and fuzzy Republicans. Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, allow stem-cell research, and protect the "right" to abortion (there are no rights beyond those enumerated in the Constitution), but when it comes to the phony "war on terrorism," they are indistinguishable from Republicans.

"The report showed that the United States is now faced with a dilemma: if it withdraws from Iraq, insurgent groups will be able to operate freely in the biggest oil reserve in the world," reports Yahoo News. "If it stays, though, then US soldiers become an increasing magnet for radical factions, with Iraq becoming a training ground for new generations of paramilitaries, just as Afghanistan was in the 1980s against the Soviet occupying forces."

A bit of casual googling reveals that Mr. Rogers in a professor of "Peace Studies," BSc PhD Lond., DIC ARCS, MIBiol, at the University of Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK. One has to wonder if they teach modern history at Bradford, for if they do Rogers should realize the "paramilitaries" in Afghanistan were wholly the creation of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI, with more than a little help from reactionary religious types in Saudi Arabia. In fact, the CIA, ISI, MI6, Mossad, and other intelligence agencies have a long-standing and continued interest in creating a never-ending stream of "radical factions," and the more radical, that is to say cruel and murderous, the better. Prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, there were precious few "radical factions" in Iraq. Now there is a surplus, including those working for the British SAS, caught with their wigs and explosives, and more circumspect "covert counter-terror" P2OG operatives, loosely based on Frank Kitson's "pseudo-guerrillas" used against the Mau Mau in Kenya and elsewhere.

Actually, Mr. Rogers has his timeline wrong. As we know, if we read beyond the official history books, the United States supported "radical factions" in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion of December, 1979. "Former CIA director Robert Gates later admitted in his memoirs that aid to the rebels began in June 1979. In a candid 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's national security adviser, confirmed that U.S. aid to the rebels began before the invasion," writes Phil Gasper.

The CIA became the grand coordinator: purchasing or arranging the manufacture of Soviet-style weapons from Egypt, China, Poland, Israel and elsewhere, or supplying their own; arranging for military training by Americans, Egyptians, Chinese and Iranians; hitting up Middle-Eastern countries for donations, notably Saudi Arabia which gave many hundreds of millions of dollars in aid each year, totaling probably more than a billion; pressuring and bribing Pakistan-with whom recent American relations had been very poor-to rent out its country as a military staging area and sanctuary; putting the Pakistani Director of Military Operations, Brigadier Mian Mohammad Afzal, onto the CIA payroll to ensure Pakistani cooperation.

Indeed, the crowning glory of this effort was "al-Qaeda," a rather unusual Arabic phrase for a "radical faction" ("Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet," according to Kawther Salam). Osama bin Laden ran Maktab al-Khidamar, the "Services Office" of the CIA created and organized Mujahideen, and was closely associated with the CIA's favorite fanatic, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. J. Michael Springmann, head of the non-immigrant visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in 1987-88, said he learned that the CIA had a "program to bring people to the United States for terrorist training, people recruited by the CIA and its asset Usama bin Laden, and the idea was to get them trained and send them back to Afghanistan to fight the then Soviets" (see CIA Visas For Patsies).

Not willing to let a good thing slip away, the CIA later used "going to the toilet" in Kosovo, a fact corroborated by the German TV ZDF Network (see German Intelligence and the CIA supported Al Qaeda sponsored Terrorists in Yugoslavia). And then the group surfaced amidst the ranks of Chechen rebels. As to the former, "the US Administration's undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia have been fully documented by the Republican Party... The RPC Congressional report accuses the Clinton administration of having 'helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base' leading to the recruitment through the so-called 'Militant Islamic Network,' of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world," explains Michel Chossudovsky.

In regard to Iraq, Mr. Rogers' report claims "the 'fundamental mistake' was to remove the regime of president Saddam Hussein by force, which was a 'gift' for Al-Qaeda and extremist groups because the deployment of 150,000 US soldiers in the heart of the Arab world is considered by many to be 'an occupation force,'" Yahoo News reports. "At the same time, the war in Afghanistan, that has so far lasted six years, has seen 'a marked increase in Taliban activity at a time of record revenues from opium production' and the insurgency there 'shows no sign of ending.'"

Of course, the removal of Saddam Hussein, a documented CIA asset (see Saddam Was key in early CIA plot, United Press International), was part of the "Clean Break" connivance, based on earlier work by the Israeli Oded Yinon (according Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz, the Israelis have long hankered for the "dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part," a plan currently unfolding with bloody efficiency). Such violent balkanization, according to Yinon, will "guarantee ... peace and security in the area in the long run" and the "dissolution of Syria and Iraq ... into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target."

Mr. Rogers is wrong. Getting rid of Saddam was not a "fundamental mistake," but part and parcel of the primary plan, sketched out well before Oded Yinon wrote his paper in the mid-1980s. Indeed, it is a "gift" to the "going to the toilet" terrorist group, as the point is to break Iraq into more easily isolated Bantustans. "The Mujahideen Shura Council-the Al-Qaida umbrella group for extremist mujahideen factions operating in Iraq-has attempted to make history today by announcing the foundation of a Sunni Islamic state out of the remnants of Iraq," Evan Kohlmann wrote last month.

But even after Iraq is sliced and diced into more easily manipulated chunks based on ethnicity and religion, the United States will remain ensconced in its elaborate and expensive "enduring camps," and well past my 84th birthday. "The importance of oil in the region 'means that it would be entirely unacceptable for the United States to consider withdrawal from Iraq, no matter how insecure the environment.'" On this point both sides of the war and property party, otherwise known as Democrats and Republicans, agree, although the oil card is an ostentatious play designed to cover other, more immediate objectives.

The Oxford Research Group, as well as Democrats, Republicans, and corporate media op-ed scribes, assiduously avoid all mention of the Israeli master plan for the Arab and Islamic Middle East, a plan shared by Israel First neocons and bankster neolibs keen to domesticate one of the last remaining areas not comfortably under the thumb of "free trade," that is to say unopposed thievery and exploitation. In order to cover the plan, we are told "radical factions" (courtesy of the CIA-MI6-ISI-Mossad, etc.) are on the loose, dispensing terror and severed heads, and we must engage them for the next thirty odd years, although the neocons put this figure at a hundred years or more. Anything less, of course, is Chamberlainesque appeasement of "Islamofascists."

Finally, the "recent political upheaval" of the Democrat victory in Congress plays nicely with the plan. "Anxious to chart a centrist course with Democrats' new majority in Congress [i.e., fascist neocon, but with classic Democrat fuzziness], incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top deputies are busily working in private and public to rein in the liberal ambitions of some senior party heavyweights," reports the Boston Globe. One such "liberal ambition" is putting an end to the occupation of Iraq and another is investigating and prosecuting the Bush criminals.

Of course, by the time this happens, I will be much older than 84.
Comment on this Editorial

Now tell us: what is the source of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Comment on this Article

"In a statement to the U.N. Observer website, the imam of the An-Nasr Mosque in Beit Hanun, Sheikh Sihda Abu Zreyk said that the mosque, which was established in 1240, was completely destroyed during the Israeli operation.

The mosque was built after the Um An-Nasr war with the Crusaders between Gaza and Askelon [now, Ashkelon], the imam explained.

The targeting of places of worship during military operations is considered to be a war crime according to the 16th article of the Geneva Convention."

"By late Thursday the Israeli army believed dozens of armed gunmen were in the 700-year-old Nasser mosque in the town centre. Tanks surrounded the building and loudspeakers broadcast messages for the gunmen to surrender."

It was the early, pioneering ice coring efforts in Greenland in the 1980s and 90s that first revealed the abrupt climate shifts called "Dansgaard-Oeschger events" (or simply DO events), which have fascinated and vexed climatologists ever since. Temperatures in Greenland jumped up by more than 10 şC within a few decades at the beginning of DO events, typically remaining warm for several centuries after. This happened over twenty times during the last great Ice Age, between about 100,000 and 10,000 years before present.

The latest results of the EPICA team (the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica) are published in Nature today (see also the News & Views by RealClimate member Eric Steig). Their data from the other pole, from the Antarctic ice sheet, bring us an important step closer to nailing down the mechanism of the mysterious abrupt climate jumps in Greenland and their reverberations around the world, which can be identified in places as diverse as Chinese caves, Caribbean seafloor sediments and many others. So what are the new data telling us?

These data connect the Antarctic ups and downs of climate to the much greater ones of Greenland. This is hard, as dating an ice core is a difficult art (no pun intended). If one makes an error of only 5% in determining the age of an ice layer, for 40,000-year-old ice that's an error of 2,000 years. But to understand the mechanisms of climatic changes, one needs to know the sequence of events - for example, one needs to know whether a particular warming in Antarctica happens before, after, or at the same time as a warming in Greenland.

To get around this problem, Thomas Blunier and colleagues nearly ten years ago pioneered an ingenious method to synchronise the ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica by analysing changes in the amount of methane in air bubbles in the ice. Changes in methane are recorded at both poles, and they should occur almost exactly in step as gases are quickly mixed through the whole atmosphere. After the ice cores are synchronised by aligning the methane variations, the relative timing of Greenland and Antarctic temperature changes can be seen.

While Blunier and colleagues were originally able to connect only a handful of large climate events, the results published today take this method to a new level by applying it to the new, high-resolution Dronning Maud Land ice core. The new data confirm with unprecedented precision what Blunier found: Antarctica gradually warms while Greenland is cold. But as soon as Greenland temperatures jump up in a DO event, Antarctic temperatures start to fall (see graph). This happens for every DO event, and it is a peculiar and tell-tale pattern that is also found in model simulations of these events (see graph).

It is (at least in the model) a result of a big change in northward heat transport in the Atlantic. If the heat transport by the Atlantic thermohaline circulation suddenly increases for some reason (we'll come to that), Greenland suddenly gets warm (an effect amplified by receding sea ice cover of the seas near Greenland) and Antarctica starts to cool. Changes in Antarctica are much smaller and more gradual, as it is far from the centre of action and the vast reservoir of ocean around it acts as a heat store. The basic physics is illustrated very nicely in a simple "toy model" developed by Thomas Stocker and Sigfus Johnsen.

There is still debate over what kind of ocean circulation change causes the change in heat transport. Some argue that the Atlantic thermohaline circulation switches on and off over the cycle of DO events, or that it oscillates in strength. Personally, I am rather fond of another idea: a latitude shift of oceanic convection. This is what happens in our model events pictured above: during cold phases in Greenland, oceanic convection only occurs in latitudes well south of Greenland, but during a DO event convection shifts into the Greenland-Norwegian seas and warm and saline Atlantic waters push northward. But I am biased, of course: my very first Nature paper (1994) as a young postdoc demonstrated in an idealised model the latitude-shift mechanism. Other oceanic mechanisms may also agree with the phasing found in the data. In any case, these data provide a good and hard constraint to test models of abrupt climate events.

But irrespective of the details: the new data from Antarctica clearly point to ocean heat transport changes as the explanation for the abrupt climate changes found in Greenland. We are thus not talking about changes primarily in global mean temperature (these are small in the model results shown above). We are talking about what I call a climate change of the second kind: a change in how heat is moved around the climate system.

As an analogy, think of your bath tub and the types of change to the water level you can get there. A change of the first kind would be a change in mean level, e.g. if you add water. A change of the second kind would be the changes you get by sloshing around the water in the tub.

There are very few possibilities to change the global mean temperature, a climate change of the first kind: you have to change the global heat budget, i.e. either the incoming solar radiation, the portion that is reflected (the Earth's albedo), or the outgoing long-wave radiation (through the greenhouse effect). Temporarily, you can also store heat in the ocean or release it, but the scope for changes in global mean temperature through this mechanism is quite limited.

Changes of the second kind are due to changes in heat transport in the atmosphere or ocean, and these can occur very fast and cause large regional change. Think of your tub: if you want 10 cm higher water level at one end, you can achieve this by turning on the tap - but you can get there much faster by pushing some water over there with your hand, albeit temporarily and at the expense of the water level at the other end. That kind of "see-saw" (but with heat, not water) apparently happens during DO events, as the new data confirm.

The two kinds of climate change are sometimes confounded by non-experts - e.g., when it is claimed that DO events represent a much larger and more rapid climate change than anthropogenic global warming. This forgets that our best understanding of DO events suggests they are changes of the second kind. The same error is made by those who claim that the 1470-year cycle associated with the DO events could lead to an "unstoppable global warming". A global warming of 3 or 5 şC within a century, as we are likely causing in this century unless we change our ways, has so far not been documented in climate history.

One crucial point has been left unanswered thus far. If DO events are due to ocean circulation changes, what triggers these ocean circulation changes? Some have argued the ocean circulation may oscillate internally, needing no trigger to change. I am not convinced - the regularity of the underlying 1470-year cycle speaks against this, and especially the fact that sometimes no events occur for several cycles, but then the sequence is resumed with the same phase as if nothing happened. I'd put my money on some regularly varying external factor (perhaps the weak solar cycles, which by themselves cause only minor climate variations), which causes a critical oceanic threshold to be crossed and triggers events. Sometimes it doesn't quite make the threshold (the system is noisy, after all), and that's why some events are "missed" and it takes not 1,500, but 3,000 or 4,500 years for the next one to strike. But the field is wide open for other ideas - the cause of the 1470-year regularity is one mystery waiting to be solved.

References

Alley, R.B., 2002: The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future. Princeton University Press.

Blunier, T. and E. J. Brook, 2001: Timing of millennial-scale climate change in Antarctica and Greenland during the last glacial period. Science, 291, 109-112.

Blunier, T., J. Chappellaz, J. Schwander, A. Dällenbach, B. Stauffer, T. F. Stocker, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. B. Clausen, C. U. Hammer, and J. S. Johnsen, 1998: Asynchrony of Antarctic and Greenland climate climate change during the last glacial period. Nature, 394, 739-743.

Braun, H., M. Christl, S. Rahmstorf, A. Ganopolski, A. Mangini, C. Kubatzki, K. Roth, and B. Kromer, 2005: Solar forcing of abrupt glacial climate change in a coupled climate system model. Nature, 438, 208-211.

EPICA community members, 2006: One-to-one coupling of glacial climate variability in Greenland and Antarctica. Nature, 444, 195-198.

Ganopolski, A. and S. Rahmstorf, 2001: Rapid changes of glacial climate simulated in a coupled climate model. Nature, 409, 153-158.

Rahmstorf, S., 1994: Rapid climate transitions in a coupled ocean-atmosphere model. Nature, 372, 82-85.

Steig, E.J., 2006: Climate change: the south-north connection. Nature, 444, 152-153.

Stocker, T. F. and S. J. Johnsen, 2003: A minimum thermodynamic model for the bipolar seesaw. Paleoceanography, 18, art. no. 1087.