"...America has a lot to answer for. Despite the willful perversion of language used to conceal unpopular truth, the soul of a nation is revealed not by what it says, but by what it does. We are not the people we purport to be. Our actions, our policies, do not portray a democratic republic concerned with human welfare, the common good..."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12139.htm

Shining Light into the Abyss

By Charles Sullivan

03/02/06 "ICH" -- -- If one is to understand the apparently incongruent actions of the U.S. government it is imperative to view events in the proper context. Too many of us are muddled in trying to explain U.S. policy from the perspective that we are a democratic republic undivided by socioeconomic class. This is not surprising. After all, this is what we were taught from earliest childhood; and the belief has been reinforced all the way to the grave. However, the absurdity of this assertion should be obvious to any student of history. The hypocrisy of rhetoric versus the reality created by policy is simply too great to ignore, and it is growing worse every year.

To understand American policy in historical context we must divorce ourselves from the old paradigm that has been ingrained in us—America as a classless democratic republic. This is simply a popular myth used by the ruling class to deceive and subvert the working class into servitude. U.S. policy makes sense only when we examine its formulation as stemming from plutocratic interests, rather than democratic principles

America as we know it was founded upon the eradication of its indigenous people—the American Indians. When the declaration of independence was written, slavery was the institution that drove the economic engines of the country. The merchant class emerged as the ruling class—the farmers and the artisans fell into the working class. From its very inception, America was never a true democracy because it did not allow the citizenship a great proportion of the population—including non-white males, women and slaves. The founding fathers never intended to create a true democratic republic. This was the basis for what was to become a nation divided by class and gender.

Ironically, there was a viable democracy in operation during this period of colonial history—the Iroquois nation. Thomas Jefferson recognized this fact and sought to base the Constitution in part on these behaviors. But like all democracies encountered by plutocracy, the Iroquois nation was brutally eradicated. Democracy and plutocracy cannot peacefully coexist. Plutocracy is a doctrine of conquest and subjugation that cannot be reconciled with democracy. It was the elitism fostered by plutocracy that morphed into the doctrine of Manifest Destiny that drives U.S. policy to this day.

We are witnessing the continued attempted overthrow of democratic governments throughout the world by the U.S. led plutocrats—most notably in Latin America. But even as the pentagon sends our troops to conquer and subdue the people of Iraq (a feat it will never accomplish), Democratic Socialism is taking root in several South American Countries, including Venezuela, Bolivia, and Chile—and it is spreading.

The U.S. has a long history of covert actions against democratic republics. For example, a few years ago covert C.I.A. operatives succeeded in ousting Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez from office; but only for two days. The immense popularity enjoyed by Chavez is something that a puppet like George Bush and his minions can only envy. That kind of respect cannot be given—it is earned through service to the people.

Indeed, Hugo Chavez and other Lain American leaders pose a viable threat to the United States, but not for the reasons we are told. The threat is not against the people of the U.S.; it is against plutocratic rule. Removing control from a privileged few and placing power in the hands of the people, would eliminate the class divisions that have always characterized America. Colossal wealth would no longer be concentrated among the top one or two percent of society—it would be equitably distributed among the people for the good of the Commonwealth.

America’s ruling elite cannot abide even the least vestige of a true democratic republic. They rail against democracy wherever they find it, as evidenced by countless U.S. sponsored acts of terror around the world. These often covert actions virtually always occur against left leaning governments that are not amendable to exploitation of their natural resources and human labor by U.S. business interests. This is what is meant when the president and cabal speak of ‘protecting American interests.’ They are referring to their own hold on power and wealth, not the welfare of the republic, as is so widely assumed.

The U.S. plutocracy has a long and bloody history of fomenting upheaval and violence against Democratic Socialism. For example, on September 11, 1973 a U.S. backed coup d’ etat was carried out against Chilean president Salvador Allende, in which the Popular Unity (socialist) government was overthrown, and Allende was assassinated. President Allende was replaced by Augusto Pinochet, a brutal dictator who with C.I.A. backing tortured and murdered thousands of people. Pinochet is the kind of man the U.S. always backs. His kind makes the host country safe for plunder by U.S. corporations. Look at the litany of brutal dictators the U.S. has supported all over the world. The list reads like a who’s who of world class terrorists. How can this be reconciled with democracy?

The assassination of Allende is part of a familiar pattern of intervention that can only be described as terrorism. The C.I.A. is involved in creating instability and insurrections in democratic governments all over the world—your tax dollars at work.

It is the plutocrats who foment political instability in democratic societies, and conduct campaigns of terror in order to exploit and to conquer. Their purpose is to extend hegemony for the creation of private wealth. Let us call it what it is—empire building. This is Manifest Destiny in action—a supremacist ideology that provides the moral underpinning for conquest and exploitation. As we have already seen, it was this doctrine that resulted in the extirpation of the American Indians and sanctioned the institution of chattel slavery. The same misguided ideology is driving U.S. Middle Eastern policy.

As critical thinkers, we must ask ourselves whom these policies benefit and whom they harm. Is the conquest of Iraq beneficial to the average American? Is it beneficial to those who live in the Middle East; or does it profit corporations such as Halliburton and individuals like Dick Cheney? When the evidence is presented in this way the truth becomes obvious.

The ideological divide between plutocracy and democracy are philosophically and ethically irreconcilable. Plutocratic government serves those possessed of wealth and power by exploiting the middle class and the under class. Democratic government places the welfare of the people above profiteering. Seen in these terms, which kind of government do we have? Once again, the truth is made clear.

The divergence comes into clear focus when we contrast George Bush with Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. During the height of Hurricane Katrina last year, George Bush went on vacation. Dick Cheney was fly fishing in Arizona. Condi Rice was buying thousand dollar shoes in New York. The clear lack of concern for the welfare of the Gulf Region’s poor speaks volumes about the Bush cabal’s priorities. Hugo Chavez offered aide to the people of the Gulf Coast Region that our own government blithely abandoned. Bush flatly refused Chavez’s generous offer. What does this say about who George Bush serves?

This question can be answered by investigating another Bush policy. Last year Exxon-Mobil enjoyed a $36 billion profit, primarily through the outright theft of Iraqi oil, as the result of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. This is the largest single year corporate profit in history. Exxon-Mobil paid its CEOs handsomely, and its shareholders. But it did share the wealth. Bush responded by giving U.S. oil companies an additional $7 billion of corporate welfare by giving away oil from our public lands. Can there be any doubt about whom Bush serves?

Conversely, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is providing Citgo oil to America’s poor at deep discounts ranging from forty to fifty percent. By now it should be clear that the president of Venezuela is doing more for our nation’s poor than our own government. The corporate media has responded to Hugo Chavez’s humanitarian aide with predictable cynicism. It is often reported that Chavez is only seeking to embarrass the president. However, this assertion does not square with the facts in the case. Chavez has a history of service to the people that Bush does not. Bush caters to the elite, his self proclaimed political base. Chavez is a servant of the people, especially the poor.

Nothing more clearly delineates the contrast between Bush and Chavez than their divergent social policies. Bush consistently chooses profits over people; Chavez places people above profits. Thus, in my view, George Bush is not worthy to carry Hugo Chavez’s shoes.

Socialist Venezuela does not ransack its treasury or human capital on invading and occupying foreign nations in the service of empire. Conversely, plutocratic America sends its youth to serve as canon fodder for empire. Venezuela is not involved in the invasion of sovereign nations in order to pilfer their resources. As a result of a more humane social policy, Venezuela has the financial resources to provide health care to every citizen, and higher education to all who seek it. What does this say about our own national priorities? Whose interest do they serve?

Even the most florid language cannot conceal the obvious contempt the Bush cabal has for the poor, or the world’s working class people. All rhetoric aside, their actions, as well as their inactions, speak loud and clear about whose interest they are protecting.

America has a lot to answer for. Despite the willful perversion of language used to conceal unpopular truth, the soul of a nation is revealed not by what it says, but by what it does. We are not the people we purport to be. Our actions, our policies, do not portray a democratic republic concerned with human welfare, the common good. They depict the will of self-interested plutocrats who will gleefully kill every one of us in order to expand their power and increase their personal wealth. They do not care about us. To them, we are expendable servants who exist to do their evil bidding.

Occasionally events occur that reveal transitory glimpses of painful truths that are ordinarily kept hidden from public view, as when lightning strikes in darkness and reveals the contours of a landscape. Hurricane Katrina was such an event. As that powerful storm wrecked havoc upon the Gulf Coast, the world saw with absolute clarity who this government serves. Unvarnished truth of this kind is rarely a pretty sight. Yet we must see it and recognize it for all that it is.

Because we have eyes does not guarantee that we can see the truth that lies before us. Vision requires substantially more than eyes—it requires heart and soul and conscience. Our eyes may be open, yet we do not see or comprehend the travesty that unfolds before us, the hoax that is being perpetrated against us by those in power. Let us open our hearts and our minds and admit the light of truth that much of the world already knows. Let us see, for the first time, perhaps, who we really are. We must then reconcile that vision with our own conscience.

Charles Sullivan is a photographer and free-lance writer living in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia. He welcomes your comments at earthdog@highstream.net.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03022006.html

March 2, 2006

When You Can't Obscure the News, Buy It

How the Economic News is Spun

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Readers ask me to reconcile the jobs and debt data that I report to them with the positive economic outlook and good news that comes to them from regular news sources. Some readers are being snide, but most are sincere.

I am pleased to provide the explanation. First, let me give my reassurances that the numbers I report to you come straight from official US government statistics. I do not massage the numbers or rework them in any way. I cannot assure you that the numbers are perfectly reported to, and collected by, the government, but they are the only numbers we have.

Here is how to reconcile my reports with the good news you get from the mainstream media:

(1) When the US Department of Labor, for example, releases the monthly payroll jobs data, the press release will put the best spin on the data. The focus is on the aggregate number of new jobs created the previous month, for example, 150,000 new jobs. That sounds good. News reporters report the press release. They do not look into the data to see what kinds of jobs have been created and what kinds are being lost. They do not look back in time and provide a net job creation number over a longer period of time.

This is why the American public is unaware that higher paid jobs in export and import-competitive industries are being phased out along with engineering and other professional "knowledge jobs" and replaced with lower paid jobs in domestic services. The replacement of higher paid jobs with lower paid jobs is one reason for the decline in median household income over the past five years. It is not a large decline, but it is a decline. How can it be possible for the economy to be doing well when median household income is not growing and when economic growth is based on increased consumer indebtedness?

Many economists mistake offshore outsourcing with free trade based on comparative advantage. As a result of this mistake, ideology speaks instead of economic analysis. For example, Matthew J. Slaughter, an economics professor at Dartmouth, commits a huge error when he writes: "for every one job that US multinationals created abroad in their foreign affiliates they created nearly two US jobs in their parent operations." If Slaughter had consulted the BLS payroll jobs data, he would have realized that his claim could not possibly be true. Slaughter did not come to his conclusion by examining aggregate job creation. Instead, he measured the growth of US multinational employment and failed to take into account the two reasons for an increase in multinational employment: (1) multinationals acquired many existing smaller firms, thus raising multinational employment but not overall employment, and (2) many firms established foreign operations for the first time and thereby became multinationals, thus adding their existing employment to Slaughter's number for multinational employment.

ABC News' John Stossel, a libertarian hero, recently made a similar error. In debunking Lou Dobbs' concern with US jobs lost to offshore outsourcing, Stossel invokes the California-based company, Collabnet. He quotes the CEO's claim that outsourcing saves his company money and lets him hire more Americans. Turning to Collabnet's web page, it is very interesting to see the employment opportunities that the company posts for the US and for India.

In India, Collabnet has openings for 8 engineers, a sales engineer, a technical writer, and a tele-marketing representative. In the US, Collabnet has openings for one engineer, a receptionist/office assistant, and positions in marketing, sales, services, and operations. Collabnet is a perfect example of what Lou Dobbs and I report: the engineering and design jobs move abroad, and Americans are employed to sell and market the foreign made products.

(2) Wall Street economists are salesmen. The companies that employ them want to sell stocks and bonds. They don't want bad news. A bear market is not good for business. Similarly, business associations have the agenda of their members. Offshore outsourcing reduces their labor costs and boosts their profits and performance-based bonuses. Therefore, it is natural that their association reports put a positive spin on outsourcing. The same organizations benefit from work visas that allow them to bring foreign workers in as indentured servants to replace their more fractious and higher paid American employees. Thus, the myth of a US shortage of engineers and scientists. This myth is used to wheedle more subsidies in the form of more H-1B visas out of Congress.

(3) Official US government reports are written to obfuscate serious problems for which the government has no solution. For example, "The Economic Report of the President," written by the Council of Economic Advisers, blames the huge US trade deficit on the low rate of domestic savings. The report claims that if only Americans would save more of their incomes, they would not spend so much on imports, and the $726 billion trade gap would close.

This analysis is nonsensical on its face. Offshore outsourcing has turned US production into imports. Americans are now dependent on offshore production for their clothes, manufactured goods and advanced technology products. There are simply no longer domestic suppliers of many of the products on which Americans depend.

Moreover, many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, having lost their jobs to offshore outsourcing. They are living on credit cards and struggling to make minimum payments. Median household real incomes are falling as higher paid jobs are outsourced while Americans are relegated to lower paying jobs in domestic services.

They haven't a dollar to save. As Charles McMillion points out, the February 28 report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that all GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2005 was due to the accumulation of unsold inventory and that consumers continued to outspend their incomes.

Matthew Spiegleman, a Confeence Board economist, claims that manufacturing jobs are only slightly higher paid than domestic service jobs. He reaches this conclusion by comparing only hourly pay and by leaving out the longer manufacturing work week and the associated benefits, such as health care and pensions.

Stossel simply does not know enough economics to be aware that he is being used. The bought-and-paid-for-economists are simply earning their living and their grants by serving the interests of corporate outsourcers.

(4) Policy reports from think tanks reflect what the donors want to hear. Truth can be "negative" and taken as a reflection on the favored administration in power. Consider, for example, the conservative, Bruce Bartlett, who was recently fired by the National Center for Policy Analysis for writing a truthful book about George Bush's economic policies. Donors to NCPA saw Bartlett's truthful book as an attack on George Bush, their hero, and withheld $165,000 in donations. There were not enough Bartlett supporters to step in and fill the gap, so he was fired in order to save donations.

When I held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, I saw internal memos describing the grants CSIS could receive from the George H.W. Bush administration in exchange for removing me from the Simon chair.

In America "truth" has long been for sale. We see it in expert witness testimony, in the corrupt reports from forensic labs that send innocent people to prison, and even in policy disputes among scientists themselves. In scholarship, ideas that are too challenging to prevailing opinion have a rough row to hoe and often cannot get a hearing.

Even the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, an academic economist of some note and a former Secretary of the Treasury, was forced to resign because he offered a politically incorrect hypothesis about the relative scarcity of women in science.

The few reporters and columnists who are brave or naive enough to speak out are constrained by editors who are constrained by owners and advertisers. For example, it is impermissible to examine the gaping holes in the 9/11 Commission Report. Publications and editors are intimidated by the charge of "conspiracy theory," just as criticism of Israel is muted for fear of being labeled "anti-semitic."

All of these reasons and others make truth a scarce commodity.

Censorship exists everywhere and is especially heavy in the US mainstream media.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

Part I...

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12048.htm

A Global Infrastructure for Mass Surveillance

By Nolan K. Anderson

02/24/06 "ICH" -- Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. --Harry S. Truman

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage. --Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition . . ." Does this ring a bell? How about the name Joe Wilson - does that name sound a bell? What about Valerie Plame - any bells yet? General Shenseki?

Where do Americans find themselves in Sir Alex Tytler's cycle? The United States can boast a 230-year history so our actions and the time factor would bring us well into the "apathy-dependency" stage. If this is true, the return to the "bondage" stage is not far off - as witnessed by world events - especially those of the last 5 years. However, the "apathy" stage of our self-destruction cycle seems to be in "fast forward". One would have to search American history with an extremely fine-toothed comb to find a comparable period where apathy played such a major role in the individual's life and that of his government. Even if one were to successfully separate normal political corruption from apathy, he would still have a hard time finding a comparable era in our history where the theoretical "opposition party" in the Congress apparently watches the Executive Branch with "eyes wide open" and still refuses to acknowledge or act to restrict even the most blatant abuses of power by the Executive. Congress not only refuses to acknowledge malfeasance in the actions of the Executive, but also seems determined to abet whatever excesses the Executive wants to heap upon the country.

One could argue forever about whether poor education breeds apathy or apathy breeds poor education. The same can be said of complacency and apathy. However, the "chicken and the egg" arguments are not pertinent to the discussion at this point.

These points become a preface to a topic which is now crowding other subjects "off the radar screen" in all forms of mass media. American's attention is now being focused on the White House wire tapping of citizens without regard for the law. The topic becomes a bonanza for blaring headlines and sniping between the two political parties. However, the real threat to Americans lies buried under layers of apathy and total ignorance of the extent of our government's progress toward TOTAL surveillance of its citizens within the United States and through cooperation and coercion of other governments, the surveillance of Americans and foreigners on a global scale. This surveillance is not being designed to monitor only citizen movement on a global scale, but is also being designed to lay open to the various governments ALL personal and private matters of finance, health, political affiliation, and religious preferences, electronic communication and on, and on, and on.

The following information is not something torn from the pages of Franz Kafka or Orson Well's 1984. The information presented here is taken from an April 2005 report made by The International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS) http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/apr/icams-report.pdf (Pdf). (Refer to References and Notes below).

The programs described below were designed before 9/11; since 9/11 these programs have been put on steroids. The world in which these programs are being constructed is one in which "individuals are presumed guilty, detained and not told the charges against them, denied the right to face their accusers, denied the right to know the evidence against them and the criteria by which they are being judged and given no legal recourse and no one to advocate for them". [1] Please note, this does not refer to the present definition of terrorist or enemy combatant. These programs apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS as well as the citizens of the global network of countries being brought together to form an unparalleled net of surveillance, arrest, detention, torture and indefinite detention - either with or without formal charges - and finally death. (This could have served as an agenda for The New World Order).

For one who sits idly in front of the television and watches the nightly news- reader tell about another Guantanamo prisoner (terrorist) being held for an indefinite period without any of our democratic safeguards, the "news" doesn't even register on the listener's Richter Scale. Little does the American know that the prisoner's plight being presented may be merely a prelude to his own plight under the plans presently being secretly refined and expanded by the global community under coercion and intimidation by the United States.

To bring these programs into focus and allow the reader to glimpse a portion of their scope and the progress being made in their implementation, signposts of program characteristics will be shown as well as the myths being created to conceal the progress of this global cancer. (The following may bring more meaning to the fact that the KBR arm of Halliburton has recently been awarded a contract to build a 385 million dollar detention center to set up temporary detention, processing and deportation facilities in case of a sudden influx of immigrants!!).

Signposts:

First Signpost: The Registration of Populations. [2]

1. Mass Detentions of Muslim Immigrants and Registration through NSEERS.

2. US-VISIT and the E.U. Visa Information System a) Biometric visas. b) Linkage of biometric information to a global web of databases. c) U.S. acquisition of domestic and foreign databases.

Second Signpost: The Creation of a Global Registration System. [3]

Biometric passports.

Third Signpost: The Creation of an Infrastructure for the Global Surveillance of Movements. [4]

1. U.S. demands for sharing passenger name records (PNR).

2. Surveillance expansion to other transportation systems.

Fourth Signpost: The Creation of an Infrastructure for the Global Surveillance of Electronic Communications and Financial Transactions.[5]

1. Mandatory data detention.

2. Expansion of ECHELON.

In 1948, the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand created a program under which they trawled the world's telephone communications to spy on each others' countries and to share information on each others' citizens that could not be obtained by their own officials under domestic laws. Since the early 1980s, this program has been called ECHELON, and has been expanded to intercept e-mails, faxes, telexes, electronic transactions and international telephone calls carried via satellites.

3. Mandatory information-gathering and reporting for financial transactions.

Fifth Signpost: The Convergence of National and International Databases.[6]

The extent of the characteristics of this signpost is very extensive and a complete listing is past the scope of this paper. However, in countries known for their oppressive regimes, the extent to which an integration of functions and information sharing with the US has been occurring is probably the greatest. Countries like Georgia, Indonesia, Egypt, Malaysia and Uzbekistan are sharing information suspects, and in some cases intelligence and military operations, with the US.

Sixth Signpost: Data Mining.

The use of computer models to assess masses of data for selected criteria. The masses of data being scanning make human interface and interpretation impossible. This amounts to having one's actions and motives interpreted by a computer.

Seventh Signpost: The Loss of Sovereignty Checks and Balances.[7]

When all the signposts or initiatives described above are viewed together, what emerges are the "contours of a vast, increasingly integrated multinational registration and surveillance system, with information floating more or less freely between subsystems.

As this system emerges, the police, security, intelligence and military operations of many nations are becoming deeply integrated with US operations. National governments are giving up sovereignty and throwing aside national checks and balances in favor of an integrated security system that is largely being designed and controlled by the US.

Eighth Signpost: The Corporate Security Complex.[8]

For the government security/intelligence community, the "war on error" offers an unprecedented opportunity to increase its investigative surveillance powers by tapping into the possibilities offered by new information technologies.

Ninth Signpost: The Expropriation of the Democratic Principles.[9]

Governments have been able to make these changes in democracy in democratic countries by declaring a state of crisis. But, the "war on terror" is a war without end, so the state of crisis is permanent, not temporary. As a result, democratic societies are in grave danger of being turned, over time, into surveillance societies -- or worse, into police states.

Tenth Signpost: A loss of Moral Compass - Rendition, Torture, Death.[10]

It is now clear that the U.S. and other countries participating in the global surveillance project are engaging in torture, inhumane treatment, and indefinite detention . . . in their own facilities, as well as sending suspects to third countries where they face torture, inhumane treatment, and indefinite detention. The worst that individuals have to fear from the global system of mass surveillance is something far darker than "mere" loss of privacy, civil liberties, freedom of movement, or loss of democratic patrimonies. (They face indefinite detention in a global gulag).

At this point the reader may be convinced he is reading something from a science fiction book. But this is not science fiction. This is what is being planned and constructed in real time - our time. Of these 10 signposts, the one most identifiable in today's mass media coverage is Rendition and Torture. Even the most hardened cynic would be forced to admit there is at least a coincidental association between the Rendition and Torture being discussed in the media and that presented here as a glaring warning signpost to all Americans of a global trend being sponsored by the United States. For those who say that "all is well" and we merely need to trust our government, please take the time to read these ten signposts again - slowly and carefully. After a second reading, take the time to read and absorb the following myths about your safety as an American.

Myth No. 1: We are merely being asked to sacrifice some of our privacy and conveniences for greater security.

Myth No. 2: These initiatives facilitate travel.

Myth No. 3: If one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to worry about.

Myth No. 4: The technology being used is objective and reliable.

Myth No. 5: Terrorist watch lists are a reliable product of international cooperation and consensus.

Myth No. 6: If one is mistakenly caught up in the global surveillance net, one's government can protect one.

Myth No. 7: Governments want to implement these systems to protect their citizens from terrorists.

Myth No. 8: Western democracies are defending democracy and human rights around the world.

Myth No. 9: These initiatives make us safer.

Myth No. 10: Guaranteeing security is the paramount responsibility of governments.

Myth No. 11: At least, these initiatives are better than doing nothing.

For any American to have read this far and not have at least a twinge of unease about the direction and intentions of his government, is impossible. If any American has even the remotest contact with or interest in the true condition of today's world, there has to a twinge of unease by this point. If any one of these 11 myths is in any degree false, then any global citizen should be extremely worried and any American should be terrified because Americans have more to lose than the citizens of any other country in the world.

Reference:

The International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS) was founded by the American Civil Liberties Union, Focus on the Global South, the Friends' Committee on National Legislation, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and Statewatch.

ICAMS was launched on April 20 2005 in London, Manila, Ottawa and Washington.

Notes:

Full credit for the information in this article is given to the April 2005 ICAMS report. References from ICAMS April 2005 Report:

[1] Page 39. [2] Page 5 [3] Page 8 [4] Page 12 [5] Page 14 [6] Page 18 [7] Page 33 [8] Page 35 [9] Page 38 [10] Page 39

The myths quoted are taken from the same report.

Nolan K. Anderson is a retired engineer and a veteran of Korea who was once a "conservative" until he found there was nothing left to conserve and as a veteran hates to see a tour in Korea go to waste. (He may be reached at nkanders@bellsouth.net ).

Copyright Nolan K. Anderson

---

Part II...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12140.htm

A Global Infrastructure for Mass Surveillance

Part 2 - Part 1 Here (or above)

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out...without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable. --H. L. Mencken

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. --Woodrow Wilson

By Nolan K. Anderson

03/02/06 "ICH" -- -- In today's world we have been dumbed down through our government educational system, television and Hollywood's interpretation of history and current events to the point where no one seems to have the faintest inclination to study and examine, with a critical eye, what our political parties fob of on us for the truth. How many in the Republican Party view their party as dishonest, insane, and/or intolerable? When Clinton was in power, how many Democrats were able to see that selling our defense secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions was dishonest, insane AND intolerable? We apparently assume that anything said by our government - especially the President - is true and needs no examination or comment. For the most part, even a cursory examination of anything a politician says can be found to be false and is presented for his/her own reason(s).

The myths surrounding our dealings with the government's avowed purpose of "protecting" us needs more objective scrutiny than almost any other scam politicians have to inflict upon us. "Scam" is a harsh word, but as one examines the true nature of the programs for mass surveillance of global populations it will be seen that "scam" is a word far too benign to truly describe the programs presently underway. The programs, under the sponsorship and goading of the US intelligence community, are truly terrifying in scope and content. The insidious part of this "racket" is that it continues to grow irrespective of which party is in power. Each administration hands its "rogue baton" to its successor that in turn builds upon the foundation being handed it. After all, what politician has ever been guilty of reducing the size and scope of government? In essence, this succession is exemplified by Clinton's domestic and global surveillance system being handed to Bush who was "honor" (sic) bound to embellish whatever Clinton had in place. Bush's embellishments have been Orwellian in scope and stature - especially after 9/11. For each embellishment that has been unearthed, there has had to be a myth created to soothe the uneasy electorate. The following popular myths will be examined to see what is behind the facade of deceit for each mass surveillance program presently under development.

Myth No. 1: We are merely being asked to sacrifice some of our privacy and convenience for greater security:

Why is this a myth? Because like most myths, it doesn't examine any of the ramifications that would allow the citizen to analyze the pros and con's in order to arrive at a rational conclusion. Like most myths this one sounds so good that anyone wanting to argue the premise must be a "terrorist in drag".

In the first place, we aren't being "asked" anything. The scheme toward global surveillance is being pursued with the utmost stealth by all the government entities participating in the programs. Secondly, "some" is not in the development lexicon. We are talking here of the sacrifice of TOTAL individual privacy. This is a program development necessity because the programs are being built with an objective of "risk assessment". Risk assessment for the most part is concerned with the analysis of huge blocks of data to determine trends or patterns. Most of the analysis is done without human interface so it is up to computers to determine the trends. Fourth, this data sharing is done without regard to which government or governmental agency sees it or uses it. This means that while a citizen may be living within the laws of a particular country, his shared data can put him in grave danger under the laws of some other country that may be examining his "dossier".

Myth No. 2: These initiatives facilitate travel:

Facilitating travel is the least of "Big Brother's" objectives. "Brother" is more interested in creating a record of passengers' private information. Passenger information is being stored for data mining purposes to identify risk patterns.

"There are no legal avenues of redress to challenge one's risk "score". Those who are pulled over as moderate or "unknown" risks will miss flights. Those who are flagged as high risk may be "rendered" by the United States and other countries without any kind of due process, to third countries where they may face torture, arbitrary detention and even death". [1]

Myth No.3: If one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to worry about.

Again we have a "flag and apple pie" myth created by the bureaucracy to disguise the 800-pound gorilla watching television in the living room. The key inaccuracy here is in not asking "nothing to hide from WHOM"? The problem is that the data that is stored and data-mined is shared with any and all agencies with which the US cooperates in this burgeoning global surveillance network. Therefore, one can never be sure who will be looking at and analyzing one's particular personal data. As previously stated, if a computer decides your data "score" isn't correct, there is no appeal to the totally impersonal system under which your score was calculated because the data hasn't been touched by human hands. Thus, the only variable for a security score unsatisfactory to some computer will be: is the victim to be tortured and killed in the area where his "score" was found to be unsatisfactory, or will one be rendered to some other country for "special handling"?

Myth No. 4: The technology being used is objective and reliable:

"First, the factual base on which the technology rests in unreliable. The 'best information available' on which data mining or risk-scoring technology depend is often inaccurate, lacking context, dated or incomplete. It might even be 'dirty' information - extracted by torture, or offered by an informant who is vulnerable or is acting in bad faith.

None of the data mining programs contains a mechanism by which individuals can correct . . . or object to the information that is being used against them, or even know what it is. Indeed, these systems are uninterested in this kind of precision. They would be bogged down if they were held to the ordinary standards of access, accuracy and accountability. Operating on a precautionary principle, they are not really concerned with the truth about individuals: they are meant to cut a broad swath". [2]

Myth No. 5: Terrorist watch lists are a reliable product of international intelligence cooperation and consensus.

Again, how can "mere" citizens quarrel with such a premise? Who would think their government is operating a flawed system that isn't designed for his/her protection? The reality is that there is no central, planned criteria for determining whose name goes on the list(s) or why. Various governments and intelligence entities establish their own criteria for establishing the lists.

"Equally troubling is the fact that "there is no due process afforded individuals or groups to allow them to challenge the inclusion of their names on a list. And, once the "terrorist" label is fastened to them, actions are taken against them without normal legal protections being afforded (protections such as presumption of innocence the right to know the evidence and allegations against one and to respond, the right to remain silent, and habeas corpus). This is the essence of the risk assessment model: it treats as intolerable risks the very legal protections that are fundamental to free and democratic societies". [3]

Myth No. 6: If one is mistakenly caught up in the global mass surveillance net, one's government can protect one:

The fact is that once a citizen of any country is caught in this international surveillance web, there is little his government can do to protect him.

Myth No. 7: Governments want to implement these systems in protect their citizens from terrorists.

Who would be so foolish as to argue with such an obvious, lofty goal? Answer, anyone who is even remotely aware of the manner is which the mass surveillance systems operate. The agreements between governments are many times irresponsible and do not have adequate controls concerning the sharing of information.

There is also the economic factor involved. Some countries, to gain information on foreign citizens, freely use various forms of economic coercion. For example, the United States has the lever of withholding landing rights to force airlines to hand over passenger information. Threatened withholding of foreign aid by the US and the EU is also used as a bludgeon to force countries to acquiesce on sharing personal information on their citizens.

Myth No. 8: Western Democracies are defending democracy and human rights around the world.

Do the following examples of "justice" sound as though Western Democracies are interested in defending human rights?

1. The UK allows the CIA to operate one of its extraterritorial detention centers on the British island of Diego Garcia.

2. Sweden has allowed US, UK and German agencies to question suspects held in Sweden and have cooperated in the rendition of asylum applicants from Sweden to Egypt for torture and imprisonment.

3. In Italy, US intelligence agents kidnapped an Islamic militant and sent him to Egypt where he was tortured.

4. A German is alleged to have been seized by Macedonian police, hel d for weeks incommunicado, striped and beaten, flown to a jail in Afghanistan controlled by US agents where he was held and tortured for five months before being dumped in Albania.

5. The governments of Austria, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Turkey, and the UK have themselves sought to deport terrorist suspects to countries where torture is used.

Myth No. 9: These initiatives make us safer:

Another illusion from the masters of "illusion". The oceans of data mined by the various governments using faulty logic and conceived biases, yields outrageous number of errors. For the statistically large number of people misidentified, the consequences can be dire. What is required is good information about specific threats, not crude racial profiling and useless information on the nearly 100 percent of the population that poses no threat whatsoever. [4]

Myth No. 10: Guaranteeing security is the paramount responsibility of governments.

If this myth is true, why did 9/11 happen? The point here is that the various US intelligence agencies DID receive generalized warnings from several sources that an attack on the US using civilian airplanes was being planned, but no increased security measures were taken to safeguard the country. "Three years after the attack, 120,000 hours of recorded telephone calls had yet to be translated by the FBI". So how then could the oceans of data that are now being made available for computer analysis have averted an attack? The United States security apparatus did not need, before 9/11, the ocean of general irrelevant information they are now collecting and would very likely have drowned in it altogether.

Myth No. 11: At least, these initiatives are better than doing nothing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Besides the fact that these initiatives are robbing the American people of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, they are doing much more harm than good to the goal of increasing domestic security. Resources are being diverted from more useful projects and in their present form and application these initiatives are not effective deterrents to terrorists.

Conclusions:

The fallacies of these myths are apparent after even a cursory glance at what they conceal and evade. The "slope" they represent is not even a slippery one - it is a cliff over a disaster. Once these initiatives are in place and affecting the governments of many countries around the world having different laws, different values and different agendas, the genie is truly out of the bottle and free to run wild around the globe creating a myriad of unforeseen consequences. The genie can never be put back in the bottle.

One of the more sinister aspects of what the United States in unleashing on the world is the fact that these programs are being done with utmost stealth and with no oversight and safeguards for the citizens of any country. For repressive regimes, the rulers can always point to acting in cooperation with their "friend", the United States. For countries having varying degrees of democracy, the despotic urgings of the US can be used to justify the persecution of their own citizens.

For we totally unsuspecting Americans, the totalitarian aspect of these programs is truly alarming. We have worked 230 years to build a nation with a constitution that would safeguard us against the actions of a government doing exactly what this Administration is doing now. All this is being done under the cloak of hysteria created after we were attacked in September of 2001. These things are being done by a government that tries to keep its every action hidden from the people. In the eyes of our present government, it is we Americans who are the enemy. "Terrorists" are only a handy tool to be used against America and its founding principles.

We Americans still have time to stop our headlong fall into totalitarianism, but at this late hour it is going to take a very concentrated effort to overcome the gravity of the lack of information and apathy acting to pull us into disaster. Americans must put their democracy to the test by contacting their elected representatives and demanding that they become conversant with these initiatives. For every program approved there must be an active oversight program. Congressional representatives must be called upon to investigate these programs and weigh them against our Constitution. Any program that jeopardizes the individual or collective "American Rights" under our Constitution must be stopped. There must be no blind acceptance of "Executive Privilege". Executive Orders must be examined and challenged when necessary for the preservation of our democracy - even as badly damaged and fragile as it is.

Reference: The International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS) was founded by the American Civil Liberties Union, Focus on the Global South, the Friends' Committee on National Legislation, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and Statewatch.

[1] ICAMS April 2005 Report pdf file, Page 14; [2] Page 24; [3] Page 32; [4] Page 48.


Nolan K. Anderson is a retired engineer and a veteran of Korea who was once a "conservative" until he found there was nothing left to conserve and as a veteran hates to see a tour in Korea go to waste. (He may be reached at nkanders@bellsouth.net ).

Copyright Nolan K. Anderson

Story leads from RawStory.com

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060302/ts_nm/security_ports_deal_dc

Ports deal to close by Monday: official

Dubai Ports World's $6.85 billion acquisition of Britain's P&O will close on Friday or Monday, despite an additional 45-day review by the U.S. government in response to security concerns, a U.S. Treasury Department official said on Thursday.

"My understanding is that the deal will not close today," Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told a Senate panel. "Although they had announced March 2 as the closing date ... that deal will not now close until tomorrow or Monday."

Kimmitt made his statement in response to a question from lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.

-0-

www.telegraph.co.uk

UAE warns of threat to investments in political row

By David Litterick in New York (Filed: 02/03/2006)

The US could lose a host of much-needed inward investment as foreign countries disturbed by the row over the control of US ports look elsewhere to invest money.

The economy minister of the United Arab Emirates, the country at the heart of the row, said that while political pressure to block the deal would not prevent the Gulf state from seeking further investments in the US, it would likely give other countries pause.

Sheikha Lubna al-Qassimi said other markets in Asia and Europe would now prove more attractive to wealthy Arabs and other investors.

"There is no hesitation, this will not deter the UAE from investing further. This is a business deal that somehow got politicised. But when you have deals that are prolonged by interference of a political nature, it may encourage many countries to go into investments in other places." She said India, China and some countries in Europe would be the likely beneficiaries.

The US is running a massive current account deficit and relies on inward investment to finance it. It has been able to count on petrodollars from countries like Saudi Arabia as a result of the booming world oil market. However, Middle Eastern investors are thought to be becoming jittery.

Hany Hussein, fund manager at Mashreqbank in Dubai, said: "Political risk is there in varying degrees in any transaction. But in this case one can ask 'Would this have happened if Dubai Ports World had not been an Arab company?'"

President Bush has been a staunch defender of the deal, which would see DP World assume control of operations at six US ports following its takeover of P&O. However, politicians have claimed it would be a threat to national security.

The sides have agreed to a fresh 45-day review but DP World has pledged to complete the deal, subject to a ruling in the High Court in London today. "It has certainly reinforced the perception here that Arab investors can be singled out," said Steve Brice, head of Middle East research at Standard Chartered bank in Dubai.

Ironically, the comments came as US commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez travelled to Saudi Arabia to urge the country to be more welcoming to foreign investment.

The High Court is expected to rule on whether to allow the scheme of arrangement that will seal the $6.8bn merger, after hearing arguments from Eller & Co, a Miami joint venture partner of P&O which claims the deal will adversely affect its business.

Federal courts in the US are due to hear representations from the port authorities of New Jersey, which want the deal blocked.

-0-

RawStory.com

DEMS CIRCULATING LETTER TYING FIRM, HAMAS...

Published: March 2, 2006

Democrats plan to force a vote on the Dubai ports deal through a procedural measure in the House Thursday. The move is expected to fail.

However, a broad coalition of Democrats in the House are collecting signatures for a letter to President Bush decrying the United Arab Emirates funding of Hamas and its boycott against Israel. That letter -- which RAW STORY has learned has already been signed by the Democrats' campaign chair in the House -- Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is making the rounds now.

The letter follows. Current signatories include Democratic Reps. Ackerman, Berkley, Bishop (NY), Cardoza, Crowley, DeLauro, Emanuel, Engel, Gene Green, Hastings (FL), Higgins, Holt, Lantos, Levin, Lowey, Maloney, McNulty, George Miller, Nadler, Pallone, Rothman, Sanders, Towns, Visclosky, Wasserman Schultz, Watson, Waxman and Wexler.

#

We write to express our deep concerns regarding your Administration’s decision to allow Dubai Ports World (DP World), a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to manage operations at six U.S. ports. The UAE has pledged to provide financial support to the Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority and openly participates in the Arab League boycott against Israel. The agreement that your Administration approved not only could place the safety and security of U.S. ports at risk, but enhance the ability of the UAE to bolster the Hamas regime and its efforts to promote terrorism and violence against Israel.

History has shown that the UAE has not shied away from supporting terrorist regimes. Prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, the UAE was an active supporter of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. And, on February 2, 2006, just two weeks after the port deal was approved, Reuters reported that Arab countries, including the UAE and Saudi Arabia, pledged millions to help the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority offset any potential cut in Israeli fund transfers and U.S. foreign aid. Under the current port agreement, there are no limitations to prevent money earned by the UAE from being be used to continue funding terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, which seek the destruction of Israel.

Additionally, current law prohibits U.S. companies and individuals from participating in international economic boycotts or embargoes. In fact, we understand that the Department of Commerce Office of Antiboycott Compliance has fined several U.S. companies in the last year for complying with DP World’s and UAE’s enforcement of the Arab League boycott against Israel. The Administration’s decision to reward a company that actively enforces the anti-Israel boycott violates the spirit and intent of our anti-boycott law and runs counter to the efforts of those of us in Congress who have sought an end to this offensive and unfair practice. The UAE should have been required to renounce its anti-Israel boycott as a condition for the deal to be approved.

Finally, press accounts have noted a breakdown in communication at the highest levels in the Administration during the process of evaluating the port agreement. Reports are now surfacing that concerns raised by the Coast Guard, the frontline defenders of our ports, were not taken into account. These omissions, coupled with UAE actions that counter our interests in the Middle East, clearly demonstrate that the Administration did not adequately evaluate the domestic and international security risks posed by this accord.

As the Administration belatedly begins a full 45-day review of the DP World investment, we strongly urge you to thoroughly examine these concerns and take all appropriate steps to ensure the security of the American people and our allies.

Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to your response.

-0-

news.yahoo.com

British Court OKs Dubai Company Takeover

By JANE WARDELL, AP Business Writer

LONDON - Britain's High Court approved the takeover of British shipping company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by Dubai's state-owned DP World on Thursday, despite a last-minute objection by a U.S. company.

Justice Nicholas Warren dismissed the appeal from Miami-based cargo handler Eller & Co. as he gave the required go-ahead for the 3.9 billion pound ($6.8 billion) deal.

"The objections of Eller do not persuade me that I should not sanction the scheme," Warren said.

Eller had argued that U.S. concerns about a United Arab Emirates company owning significant operations at six major U.S. seaports could substantially harm its business.

The proposed deal has caused consternation among some lawmakers and businesses in the United States.

The judge said he took into account U.S. concerns.

"I have been treated to a large amount of evidence on press releases and articles which were no doubt being spun to this direction or that," Warren said.

DP World, which has already received approval from the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CIFIUS, has tried to douse some of the U.S. outcry by volunteering to submit to a second 45-day investigation of the deal's potential security risks.

Paul Downes, Eller's lawyer, argued that it was irrelevant to Eller's case whether the U.S. worries about DP World's takeover were justified.

"The concern was that the United Arab Emirates was a player, was involved, was associated with terrorist funding," Downes told the court. "It doesn't matter whether this is right or wrong, that is the mindset of the individuals that are concerned about this takeover."

Martin Moore, a lawyer for P&O, had told the High Court during a three-day hearing that Eller's case against the deal was "woefully thin."

President Bush has supported the deal and lawmakers initially opposed have appeared to soften slightly, tempering calls for an immediate vote to block the takeover. Many said that the new probe reassured them and negated the need for legislation for now.

Warren noted that the company has agreed to the extra review.

"The ports involved will continue to operate and it will be an overriding concern of everyone, including Congress and the president, to ensure that is so," he said.

A U.S. federal judge has also ruled against a request by New Jersey to order an investigation into the takeover.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.

-0-

RawStory.com

Al Qaeda bragged of infiltrating Emirates government, casting shadow on security of port deal

Published: March 2, 2006

Al Qaeda bragged of infiltrating the United Arab Emirates government, according to a 2002 letter posted on a U.S. military site and discovered by ThinkProgresshttp://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/01/aq-infiltrated-uae/.

In the letter, dated in May or June of 2002 and translated by the U.S., al Qaeda declares that the Emirates is "committing acts of injustice" in order to "appease the Americans' wishes which include: spying, persecution and detainment." In return, the group says they have infiltrated the Emirate government. The letter can be seen herehttp://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-603856-Trans.pdf [PDF] (REPRODUCED BELOW).

"You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned," the authors write. "Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing such policies, which do not serve your interests and will only cost you many problems that will place you in an embarrassing state before your citizens."

"Our policies are not to operate in your homeland and/or tamper with your security because we are occupied with others which we consider are enemies of this nation," they continue. "If you compel us to do so, we are prepared to postpone our program for a short period and allocate some time for you."

It concludes by asking that the Emirates release all detainees "since [the] September incidents."

The claim that al Qaeda had infiltrated the UAE government seems to raise serious concern as to whether a U.S.-backed plan to turn over 21 ports to a company owned by the country's governing monarchs is sound.

During the initial 30-day review of the port deal, the Coast Guard warned of gaps in intelligence as regards the Arab firm, saying, "There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment" of the potential merger.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the half-page assessment added.

Another assessment by the General Accountability Office -- which has received scant attention -- concluded that the Committee for Foreign Investment, the arm of the Treasury Department that approves such deals, could not possibly conduct a thorough intelligence review in 30 days. It adds that the U.S. has put pressure for the reviews to be conducted faster.

“In complex cases in which national security concerns have been raised ... case documentation we reviewed revealed the significant pressures some agencies face to complete analysis within 23 days,” the GAO said in a 2005 report, noting that the Justice Department “shared our concern with respect to the time constraints imposed by the current process. Specifically, Justice stated that ‘gathering timely and fully vetted input from the intelligence community is critical to a thorough and comprehensive national security assessment. Any potential extension of the time available to the participants for the collection and analysis of that information would be helpful.'"

The GAO report was revealed by ROLL CALL in a relatively unnoticed piece by John Stanton.

ENTIRE PDF FROM ABOVE COPIED & PASTED HERE:

Page Translation AFGP-2002-603856 1 American document numbers 2 In the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate and Merciful

Number (blank) Date 14/ May/June/2002

Al-Jihad Qaida’s [TC: Qaida: also means base in Arabic]

{Get the idolaters out of Arab Island} [TC: Gulf Countries]

To: Officials in the United Arab Emirates and especially the two emirates of Abu-Dhabi and Dubai:

We have come to know definitely that the Emirate country is committing acts of injustice against the striving youth of the Emirates and others who sympathize with us in order to appease the Americans’ wishes which include: spying, persecution, and detainments. The United Emirates authorities have recently detained a number of Mujahideen and handed them over to suppressive organizations in their country in addition to having a number of them still in its custody. Undoubtedly, these practices bring the country into a fighting ring in which it cannot endure or escape from its consequences especially since the Emirates’ social composition is the most productive, and very explosive.

You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned. Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing such policies, which do not serve your interests and will only cost you many problems that will place you in an embarrassing state before your citizens. In addition, it will prove your agencies’ immobility and failure. Also, we are confident that you are fully aware that your agencies will not get to the same high level of your American Lords. Furthermore, your intelligence will not be cleverer than theirs, and your censorship capabilities are not worth much against what they have reached. In spite of all this Allah has granted us success to get even with them and harm them.

However, you are an easier target than them; your homeland is exposed to us. There are many vital interests that will hurt you if we decided to harm them, especially, since you relyon shameless tourism in your economical income!!

Finally, our policies are not to operate in your homeland and/or tamper with your security because we are occupied with others which we consider are enemies of this nation. If you compel us to do so, we are prepared to postpone our program for a short period and allocate some time for you.

Therefore, we ask you to release all the Mujahideen detainees since September incidents and anyone who was detained and suspected of having a connection with these incidents; otherwise, we will be compelled, with no regret, to change our policies towards you.

Al-Jihad Qaida Organization

-0-

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM WMR:

http://waynemadsenreport.com/

March 2, 2006 -- There is another aspect of Bush's Dubai Ports World deal to take over operations at 21 U.S. ports that is being largely overlooked by the U.S. media.

Dubai is the location of the world's third largest international weapons of death exhibitions -- the Dubai Air Show. This event brings together the global military industrial complex. Deep pocketed foreign military officials, including billionaire Arab Gulf sheikhs, make the periodic pilgrimage to Dubai International Airport and are wooed by the likes of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and behind the scenes, but with tremendous influence and clout -- the omnipresent Carlyle Group, the corporate contrivance that brings together the Bush crime cartel with billionaire Saudi, Emirati, and Kuwaiti investors, including the Bin Laden family.

The Dubai Air Show, scheduled next for Nov. 11-15, 2007, is the arms festival where the Bush criminal cartel rakes in even more billions.

The Dubai Air Show was held last November and reading just one press release from the show indicates how important Dubai is to the U.S. military-industrial complex:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates; FORT WORTH, Texas, Nov. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) is featuring the most advanced F-16 fighters this week at the Dubai International Air Show -- the Block 60 F-16 E/F and the Block 50/52 F-16 C/D.

The new Block 60 aircraft made its aerial debut at the show on Monday November 21 -- in the home country of the first and only nation flying this aircraft today. Troy Pennington, Lockheed Martin test pilot, is flying the aircraft in the demonstrations this week.

"The Block 60 is a great plane to fly and is an outstanding addition to our air force," said Brigadier General Ali Khadem Salem Al Mansoori, [UAE] Assistant Air Force commander for air defense during the F-16 briefing today. "The aircraft meets our requirements and we look forward to the continued support of Lockheed Martin as we work together to build a great air force structure for our nation. We are proud to see our new aircraft perform aerial demonstrations during the show this week."

"This is a proud moment for the UAE and for Lockheed Martin. The Block 60 possesses breakthrough technological features and advanced systems. It exemplifies the evolution of Lockheed Martin aircraft, matching capability with customer needs," said John Larson, vice president and deputy, Lockheed Martin F-16 programs. "We are honored to provide the UAE with the Block 60 and are committed to sustaining and maintaining their F-16s to the highest levels of capability and readiness into the future."

And its not just the U.S. defense industry's business dealings with Dubai that are important to the Bushes and Carlyle.

Carlyle is a majority owner of Italy's Avio SpA, a major manufacturer of aircraft engine components.

Carlyle is a partner in Avio with Finmeccanica, the Italian defense giant that wrested the contract to replace the President's Marine One helicopter -- another foreign deal approved by the Bush administration that surprised many defense industry observers.

WTF?

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/U.S._reviewing_second_Dubai_deal_Firm_0301.html

U.S. reviewing second Dubai deal: Firm was to make military components

Published: March 1, 2006

The Bush administration, stung by the public outcry over the Dubai port deal, has launched a national security investigation of another Dubai-owned company set to take over plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make precision components used in engines for military aircraft and tanks, The Washington Post reports on Thursday page ones.

Excerpts:

The administration notified congressional committees this week that its secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is investigating the security implications of Dubai International Capital's $1.2 billion acquisition of London-based Doncasters Group Ltd., which has subsidiaries in the United States. It is also investigating an Israeli company's plans to buy the Maryland software security firm Sourcefire, which does business with Defense Department agencies.

Administration officials are privately briefing leaders of half a dozen House and Senate committees this week about the two planned transactions, concerned that both deals could stir controversy in a political climate that remains supercharged over the Dubai port deal.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers angrily protested after learning late last month that the administration had approved a $6.8 billion deal to allow a maritime company based in the United Arab Emirates to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports without a thorough investigation and without consulting members of Congress. Last weekend, the Dubai maritime company agreed to a 45-day investigation to stem the protest and allay concerns of a possible breach of U.S. port security.

Full story now at the Washington Post:

U.S. Reviewing 2nd Dubai Firm

Israeli Deal Also Faces Security Check

By Jonathan Weisman and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 2, 2006; A01

The Bush administration, stung by the public outcry over the Dubai port deal, has launched a national security investigation of another Dubai-owned company set to take over plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make precision components used in engines for military aircraft and tanks.

The administration notified congressional committees this week that its secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is investigating the security implications of Dubai International Capital's $1.2 billion acquisition of London-based Doncasters Group Ltd., which has subsidiaries in the United States. It is also investigating an Israeli company's plans to buy the Maryland software security firm Sourcefire, which does business with Defense Department agencies.

Administration officials are privately briefing leaders of half a dozen House and Senate committees this week about the two planned transactions, concerned that both deals could stir controversy in a political climate that remains supercharged over the Dubai port deal.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers angrily protested after learning late last month that the administration had approved a $6.8 billion deal to allow a maritime company based in the United Arab Emirates to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports without a thorough investigation and without consulting members of Congress. Last weekend, the Dubai maritime company agreed to a 45-day investigation to stem the protest and allay concerns of a possible breach of U.S. port security.

In the past, the foreign investment committee rarely told Congress of such inquiries. Wary of another misstep, administration officials decided to inform lawmakers of the two other pending transactions with national security implications for the United States.

There have been suggestions in the trade press that the publicly traded Israeli firm, Check Point Software Technologies, has been subjected to more scrutiny than Dubai Ports World, the state-owned Arab company that was initially cleared to take over operations at the six major U.S. ports with no security investigation. That inquiry was initiated only after an outcry about turning over port security to a country that has been cited for ties to terrorism. Sources familiar with the Israeli investigation said cybersecurity officials at the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security all raised serious concerns about the purchase before the port controversy erupted.

Dubai International Capital's acquisition of Doncasters could present some of the same political problems created by Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. Once again, a state-controlled Dubai company with deep pockets is purchasing a British firm with U.S. holdings. Doncasters has operations in nine U.S. locations and manufactures precision parts for defense contractors such as Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric.

A spokesman for Doncasters' corporate office in Connecticut said the company had no comment on the security investigation.

Although many foreign companies manufacture parts used in U.S. military equipment, in this instance CFIUS members decided to look more carefully at the Doncasters transaction. The CFIUS met last week and tentatively decided to subject that proposal to a 45-day investigation, and it finalized that decision in a conference call late Monday. The decision came on the final day of the regular 30-day review period. Aides on the Senate banking committee said the panel was notified late Monday that the CFIUS had initiated both national security inquiries.

"The CFIUS process is charged with determining if there are national security concerns in any transaction, and it takes that role very seriously," said Tony Fratto, spokesman for the Treasury Department, which leads the interagency committee. "It looks at each transaction on a case-by-case basis, and if security concerns are raised by any member of the committee at the end of an initial 30-day review, the case goes into investigation."

The 45-day investigation of the Israeli deal began in early February, several weeks before the controversy erupted over the Dubai port deal, administration officials said. The investigation of the Dubai-Doncasters deal began this week, at the height of the political turmoil over the port issue.

Yet Fratto said that neither of the new investigations were started "because of public reaction to some other transaction."

Of the 1,500 acquisitions that have been referred to the CFIUS, one has been rejected. But deals with security implications tend to fall through before the 45-day investigation. In 1989, 204 deals involving the purchase of a company with significant U.S. operations triggered a security investigation. Last year, only 65 went that far.

In the case of Check Point, the security questions were apparently raised early on, according to people familiar with the review. Check Point's proposed $225 million purchase of Laurel-based Sourcefire raised red flags with government cybersecurity officials.

Check Point was built by Gil Shwed, whom Forbes magazine has described as an Israeli billionaire who served in the electronic intelligence arm of the Israeli Defense Forces.

Sourcefire makes network defense and intrusion detection software for an array of customers, including the Defense Department. The company has deep roots in the National Security Agency. Its founder and chief technology officer, Martin Roesch, has served as an NSA contractor. Its vice president of engineering, Tom Ashoff, developed software for the secretive spy agency.

Last August, the Israeli government signed an agreement with the Pentagon to alert the United States before selling other countries technology related to national security. The United States asked for the agreement after learning that Israel had sold unmanned aerial vehicles to China in late 2004.

The CFIUS investigation is to be completed in mid-March.

Check Point officials declined to comment yesterday on the security investigation. In announcing that its deal would be investigated, the company released a statement pledging that "Check Point and Sourcefire are both committed to working cooperatively with the committee during the investigative period."

In the case of Dubai International Capital and Doncasters, an acquisition that ordinarily may have been whisked through the process without objection is now under security investigation, administration sources said. Dubai International Capital is the financial arm of Dubai Holding, an investment conglomerate that is the third-largest shareholder of DaimlerChrysler Corp. and is a major investor in Holiday Inn Express in the Middle East.

Doncasters' expertise is in forging, fabrication, machining and alloy production. The company owns a plant that makes aerospace turbine blades and components in Farmington, Conn.; a turbine and generator plant in Rincon, Ga.; a steel foundry in Springfield, Mass.; and a metal-rolling plant in Groton, Conn. The company's Web site says the Georgia and Connecticut plants manufacture "engine ready airfoils," for aircraft, helicopter and tank engines.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company