Hello world!

Well, my massive Word file that I’ve been throwing all of the news articles that I read into has gone corrupt.  I wanted to dump it into here, but it wouldn’t take.  So I had to c/p into Notepad and sacrifice my formatting.  At least it will all be online and searchable.

****

NEWS ARCHIVE

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
by William Clark
www.globalresearch.ca      27 October 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
________________________________________
The Iranians are about to commit an “offense” far greater than Saddam Hussein’s conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare – Iran’s upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York’s NYMEX and London’s IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran’s objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes…known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
Madison’s words of wisdom should be carefully considered by the American people and world community. The rapidly deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq portends an even direr situation for American soldiers and the People of the world community – should the Bush administration pursue their strategy regarding Iran. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian “petroeuro system” for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, upcoming operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.
It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 statements by former administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a “petroeuro.” However, subsequent events show this strategy to be fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving forward towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia discusses this option.
Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. [1] In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China – were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed in Iraq.
Indeed, the author’s original pre-war hypothesis was validated shortly after the war in a Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the five US major media conglomerates who appear to censor this type of information, but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial – yet overlooked – rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.
“The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars — the international currency of oil sales – despite the greenback’s recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq’s oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq’s recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar.” [2]
Unfortunately, it has become clear that yet another manufactured war, or some type of ill-advised covert operation is inevitable under President George W. Bush, should he win the 2004 Presidential Election. Numerous news reports over the past several months have revealed that the neoconservatives are quietly – but actively – planning for the second petrodollar war, this time against Iran.
“Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is “busier than ever,” an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries”…”Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran.”
“…administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran – by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled “draft” or “working draft” to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration’s abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime’s promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there’s no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level.” [3]
To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil ‘marker’ as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the spring of 2003, Iran has required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports – although the oil pricing for trades are still denominated in the dollar. [4]
Therefore, a potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran’s intentions to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word “bourse” refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.
The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data).
Acknowledging that many of the oil contracts for Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to the United Kingdom’s Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a significant shift in the flow of international commerce into the Middle East. If Iran’s bourse becomes a successful alternative for oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a factor not overlooked in the following article:
“Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and OPEC producers that could threaten the supremacy of London’s International Petroleum Exchange.”
“…He [Mr. Asemipour] played down the dangers that the new exchange could eventually pose for the IPE or Nymex, saying he hoped they might be able to cooperate in some way.”
“…Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility.
The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. “We would not have any comment to make on it at this stage,” said an IPE spokeswoman. “[5]
It is unclear at the time of writing, if this project will be successful, or could it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions – thereby signaling the second phase of petrodollar warfare in the Middle East. News articles in June 2004 revealed the discredited neoconservative sycophant Ahmed Chalabi may have revealed his knowledge to Iran regarding U.S. military planning for operations against that nation.
“The reason for the US breakup with Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could be his leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran before Christmas 2005, but the American government has not changed its objective, and the attack could happen earlier if president George W. Bush is re-elected, or later if John Kerry is sworn in.”
“….Diplomats said Chalabi was alerted to the Pentagon plans and in the process of trying to learn more to tell the Iranians, he invited suspicions of US officials, who subsequently got the Iraqi police to raid the compound of his Iraqi National Congress on 20 May 2004, leading to a final break up of relations.”
“While the US is uncertain how much of the attack plans were leaked to Iran, it could change some of the invasion tactics, but the broad parameters would be kept intact.” [6]
Regardless of the potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle East is not entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. According to Mohammad Javad Asemipour, an advisor to Iran’s oil ministry and the individual responsible for this project, this new oil exchange is scheduled to begin oil trading in March 2005.
“Asemipour said the platform should be trading crude, natural gas and petrochemicals by the start of the new Iranian year, which falls on March 21, 2005.
He said other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries – Iran is the producer group’s second-largest producer behind Saudi Arabia – as well as oil producers from the Caspian region would eventually participate in the exchange.” [7]
(Note: the most recent Iranian news report from October 5, 2004 stated: “Iran’s oil bourse will start trading by early 2006″ which suggests a delay from the original March 21, 2005 target date). [8] Additionally, according to the following report, Saudi investors may be interested in participating in the Iranian oil exchange market, further illustrating why petrodollar hegemony is becoming unsustainable.
“Chris Cook, who previously worked for the IPE and now offers consultancy services to markets through Partnerships Consulting LLP in London, commented: “Post-9/11, there has also been an interest in the project from the Saudis, who weren’t interested in participating before.”
“Others familiar with Iran’s economy said since 9/11, Saudi Arabian investors are opting to invest in Iran rather than traditional western markets as the kingdom’s relations with the U.S. have weakened Iran’s oil ministry has made no secret of its eagerness to attract much needed foreign investment in its energy sector and broaden its choice of oil buyers.”
“…Along with several other members of OPEC, Iranian oil officials believe crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the IPE is controlled by the oil majors and big financial companies, who benefit from market volatility.”[9]
One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in 2005 or 2006, when it appears international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $50 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE – or purchase a barrel of oil for €37 – €40 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar – and assumes that some sort of “intervention” is not undertaken against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world – global oil and gas trades
During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros. [10] He stated this would be based on (1) if and when Norway’s Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU’s proposed expansion plans were successful. (Note: Both of the later two criteria have transpired: the euro’s valuation has been above the dollar since late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004 from 12 to 22 countries). In the meantime, the United Kingdom remains uncomfortably juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers (Paris/Frankfurt).
The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse (exchange) in 2005/2006 – if successful in utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency standard – essentially negates the necessity of the previous two criteria as described by Mr. Yarjani regarding the solidification of a “petroeuro” system for international oil trades. [10] It should also be noted that during 2003-2004 Russia and China have both increased their central bank holdings of the euro currency, which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World Reserve currency. [11] [12] In the meantime, the United Kingdom is uncomfortable juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. (New York/Washington) banking nexus and that of the E.U. financial center (Paris/Frankfurt).
The immediate question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 in an effort to prevent the formation of a euro-denominated crude oil pricing mechanism? Commentators in India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention potential effects on the U.S. economy.
“The giving up on the terror war while Iran invasion plans are drawn up makes no sense, especially since the previous invasion and current occupation of Iraq has further fuelled Al-Qaeda terrorism after 9/11.”
“…It is obvious that sucked into Iraq, the US has limited military manpower left to combat the Al-Qaeda elsewhere in the Middle East and South Central Asia,”…”and NATO is so seriously cross with America that it hesitates to provides troops in Iraq, and no other country is willing to bail out America outside its immediate allies like Britain, Italy, Australia and Japan.”
“….If it [U.S.] intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to improve the situation – Iraq shows America has not the depth or patience to create a new civil society – and will only make matters worse.”
“There is a better way, as the constructive engagement of Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has shown….”Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently, and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic intervention, if at all.” [13]
It is abundantly clear that a 2nd Bush term will bring a confrontation and possible war with Iran during 2005. Colin Powell as the Secretary of the State, has moderated neoconservative military designs regarding Iran, but Powell has stated that he will be leaving at the end of Bush’s first term. Of course if John Kerry wins in November, he might pursue a similar military strategy. However, it is my opinion that Kerry is more likely to pursue multilateral negotiations regarding the Iranian issues.
Clearly, there are numerous risks regarding neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, a repeat of any “Shock and Awe” tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz. [14] In the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more. World oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption would escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global Depression. Why are the neoconservatives willing to takes such risks? Simply stated – their goal is U.S. global domination.
A successful Iranian bourse would solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar’s hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an ‘Operation Iranian Freedom,’ or perhaps an attempted CIA-sponsored repeat of the 1953 Iranian coup – operation “Ajax” part II. [15] Indeed, there are very good reasons for U.S. military leaders to be “horrified” at the thought of a second Bush term in which Cheney and the neoconservatives would be unrestrained in their tragic pursuit of U.S. global domination.
“NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, “The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.” [16]
Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate “interventions,” it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the U.S to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey Institute of International Studies provided an extensive analysis of the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and warned of the following:
“Considering the extensive financial and national policy investment Iran has committed to its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that an attack by Israel or the United States would result in immediate retaliation. A likely scenario includes an immediate Iranian missile counterattack on Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to destabilize Iraq and foment all-out confrontation between the United States and Iraq’s Shi’i majority. Iran could also opt to destabilize Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with a significant Shi’i population, and induce Lebanese Hizbullah to launch a series of rocket attacks on Northern Israel.”
“…An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran’s international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran’s nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term”…”one thing is for certain, it would not be just another Osirak. ” [17]
Synopsis
Regardless of whatever choice the U.S. electorate makes in the upcoming Presidential Election a military expedition may still go ahead.
This essay was written out of my own patriotic duty in an effort to inform Americans of the challenges that lie ahead. On November 25, 2004, the issues involving Iran’s nuclear program will be addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and possibly referred to the U.N. Security Council if the results are unsatisfactory. Regardless of the IAEA findings, it appears increasingly likely the U.S. will use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq.
Pentagon sources confirm the Bush administration could undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades. The later would require forced “regime change” and the U.S. occupation of Iran. Obviously this would require a military draft. Objectively speaking, the post-war debacle in Iraq has clearly shown that such Imperial policies will be a catastrophic failure. Alternatively, perhaps a more enlightened U.S. administration could undertake multilateral negotiations with the EU and OPEC regarding a dual oil-currency system, in conjunction with global monetary reform. Either way, U.S. policy makers will soon face two difficult choices: monetary compromise or continued petrodollar warfare.
“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”
- Abraham Lincoln
“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”
- Thomas Jefferson

________________________________________
References:
[1] “Revisited – The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth,” January 2003 (updated January 2004) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
[2] Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, “Iraq returns to the international oil market,” Financial Times, June 5, 2003 http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/FINANCIAL%20TIMES_Iraq%20returns%20to%20international%20oil%20market.htm
[3] “War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike,” Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/
[4] Shivkumar, C., “Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms,” The Hindu Business Line (June 16, 2003). http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/2003061702380500.htm
[5] Macalister, Terry, “Iran takes on west’s control of oil trading,” The [UK] Guardian, June 16, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html
[6] “US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas,” News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 9, 2004 http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=2789
[7] “Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse; IPE Chairman Visits Tehran,” Rigzone.com (July 8, 2004) http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=14588
[8] “Iran’s oil bourse expects to start by early 2006,” Reuters, October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com
[9] “Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse, IPE Chairman Visits Tehran,” ibid.
[10] “The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill,” Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC’s Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain’s Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm
[11] Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar,” AFP, June 9, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm
[12] “China to diversify foreign exchange reserves,” China Business Weekly, May 8, 2004 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm
[13] “Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have terrible consequences,” News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 11, 2004 http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World
[14] Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm
[15] J.W. Smith, “Destabilizing a Newly-Free Iran,” The Institute for Economic Democracy, 2003 http://www.ied.info/books/why/control.html
[16] “War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike,” ibid.
[17] Salama, Sammy and Ruster, Karen,”A Preemptive Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences,” Monterry Institute of International Studies, August 12, 2004 (updated September 9, 2004) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
[18] Philips, Peter, “Censored 2004,” Project Censored, Seven Stories Press, (2003) http://www.projectcensored.org/
Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html

William Clark is the author of an award-winning essay published online in early 2003 entitled: ‘The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth.’
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html , also published by Global Research at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA302A.html This essay received a 2003 ‘Project Censored’ award, and was published in the book, Censored 2004) [18] This pre-war essay hypothesized that Saddam sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s oil-for-food program, and switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export transaction currency.
Retrieved 4/6/07

US Navy denies reports of offensive military build-up in Gulf
dpa German Press Agency
Published: Monday February 19, 2007

Manama The US Navy’s top Persian Gulf commander on Monday
denied reports of a US naval offensive military build-up in the
region, affirming however that the coalition was keeping a close
watch on increasing Iranian naval exercises in Gulf waters.
Commander of the US Naval Forces Central Command and the
Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, said that this
was “an unprecedented time of instability and insecurity in the
region,” with tension in Somalia, Lebanon, Eastern Mediterranean,
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.

He also said that Iranian military naval exercises in the past
nine months showed the suggestion of the use of mines and the threat
of the closure of the strait of Hormuz, the only sea access into and
out of the region.

Walsh, who was speaking to the media at the US Navy 5th Fleet
Command in Manama before being replaced by Vice Admiral Kevin J
Cosgriff in the coming days, described the Iranian exercises in the
strait as provocative.

“Mines are an offensive terrorist type of weapon,” he said.

“We are not giving up water to Iran. This is international waters,
it therefore should have international access and we will safeguard
that with our regional and coalition partners.”

Walsh added that concerns over Iranian intentions are augmented by
the firing of ballistic missiles into the Gulf and some of the
rhetoric coming out of the Iranian leadership.

“The question is not what the Americans are planning but what the
Iranians are planning,” he said.

“When they conduct their exercises and they fire their
missiles we are watching very closely and we are sharing that
information with our Gulf partners.”

Walsh emphasized that the US military presence in the region was
of a defensive nature, dismissing rumours of an impending attack on
Iran.

The outgoing commander also said the US had no intentions of
abandoning its allies in the region and dismissed reports that the
US 5th Fleet command would be transferred out of Bahrain.
http://rawstory.com/news/dpa/US_Navy_denies_reports_of_offensive_02192007.html
4/6/07 retrieved

The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representative last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy.  It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington.  To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.

To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008.  When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion.  So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.

About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case.  In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.

For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq.  This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.

The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference.  The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007.

My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year.  Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%?  We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.

Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no force of law beyond the coming fiscal year.  Thus budget projections are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future.  But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than projected.

The only certainty when it comes to federal budgets is that Congress will spend every penny budgeted and more during the fiscal year in question.  All projections about revenues, tax rates, and spending in the future are nothing more than empty promises.  Congress will pay no attention whatsoever to the 2008 budget in coming years.

(Ron Paul online)
I know, it’s really weird of me to throw my support behind a republican, but this guy is the ‘libertarian’ I’ve been waiting for.

Check out his MySpace page, which has a brief run-down of his stances and positions on things that you would want to know. There’s also a link to his official campaign page, go click and read about the guy. http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

If you actually have the attention span to care about our elected officials, read the things I’ve reposted here from his webpage.

Debt and Taxes

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy – that means all of us.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply – making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

American Independence and Sovereignty

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our
independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government
to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.

War and Foreign Policy

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Border Security and Immigration Reform

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

Privacy and Personal Liberty

The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data – a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.

We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you’re vulnerable. Under so-called “medical privacy protection” rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.

Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 in your local bank will generate a “suspicious activity report” to the federal government.

And then there’s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed,

* Expanded the federal government’s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
* Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
* Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
* Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and
* Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.

Property Rights and Eminent Domain

We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.

Our country’s founders would roll over in their graves if they saw the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment used to justify booting people out of their homes for the profit of private developers and tax-hungry local governments. The Supreme Court’s Kelo decision said government power could be used to condemn private homes and churches to benefit a huge pharmaceutical corporation and a large property developer.

Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties – all without paying “just compensation.”

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Voting Record

* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government-paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He voted against regulating the Internet.
* He voted against the Iraq war.
* He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
* He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

MOSCOW, March 30 (RIA Novosti) – Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces have nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran, and will be ready to strike in early April, a security official said.
The source said the U.S. had already compiled a list of possible targets on Iranian territory and practiced the operation during recent exercises in the Persian Gulf.
“Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory,” the source said.
American commanders will be ready to carry out the attack in early April, but it will be up to the country’s political leadership to decide if and when to attack, the source said.
Official data says America’s military presence in the region has reached the level of March 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq.
The U.S. has not excluded the military option in negotiations on Iran over its refusal to abandon its nuclear program. The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran Saturday toughening economic sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a military solution to the crisis.
The source said the Pentagon could decide to conduct ground operations as well after assessing the damage done to the Iranian forces by its possible missile strikes and analyzing the political situation in the country following the attacks.
A senior Russian security official cited military intelligence earlier as saying U.S. Armed Forces had recently intensified training for air and ground operations against Iran.
“The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost,” the official said.
Russian Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week the Pentagon was planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran’s military infrastructure in the near future.
“I have no doubt there will be an operation, or rather an aggressive action against Iran,” Ivashov said, commenting on media reports about U.S. planned operation against Iran, codenamed Operation Bite.
A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006. The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, however, was rather optimistic about the situation and said he ruled out a military resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.
“We are constantly working on how to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear program and other conflicts peacefully,” Lavrov said. “This policy is unchanged and we will pursue it in the future.”
Russia and the U.S. are two of the six negotiators on Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran says is aimed at generating energy.

SUNDAY, APRIL 01, 2007
0:12 MECCA TIME, 21:12 GMT
Israeli PM denies Iran attack plans

Standing alongside Merkel, Olmert insisted that Israel had no desire to see  fresh conflict in the region [AFP]

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has dismissed suggestions that Israel is working with the US in drawing up contingency plans for conflict with Iran.

His comments followed an assessment given to the Israeli cabinet on Sunday on the possible outcomes of a confrontation between Tehran and Washington.

“Declarations that there is an American plan to strike Iran that is being co-ordinated with Israel which would at the same time attack Syria and Lebanon is not familiar to me, and is a baseless rumour,” Olmert told a Jerusalem news conference on Sunday.

St
anding alongside Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor who was on a visit to Jerusalem, Olmert insisted Israel had no desire to see a fresh conflict in the region.
“Israel is not planning an attack and does not wish for war, as it did not want one in the past,” he said.

Intensifying confrontation

Olmert’s comments followed a briefing given to the Israeli cabinet earlier on Sunday by Amos Yadlin, the military intelligence chief, in which he set out his assessment of the likely reactions of Iran’s main regional allies, Syria and Hezbollah, to an intensifying confrontation between Tehran and Washington.

Related stories
Olmert invites Arab states to talks

Olmert plays down talk of Gaza raid

“They fear a war initiated by the Americans because they understand that there might be an attack against Iran over the summer, but not by Israel,” a senior government official quoted Yadlin as telling cabinet ministers.

Although Yadlin insisted that Israel had no intention of becoming  embroiled in such a conflict, he warned that any moves by the Jewish  state could be wrongly interpreted by its neighbours as a sign of hostile intent.

“If the Americans launch an offensive in Iran, Hezbollah and Syria will think the move had been co-ordinated with Israel and would expect Israel to strike them too,” another government official at the meeting told AFP.

‘New conflict’

Yadlin said he was concerned that the region might inadvertently stumble into a new conflict.

Your Views

“The new government should show signs of maturity and responsibility”
Husky, Ottawa, Canada
Send us your views

“We might again find ourselves in a war no one wanted,” he told ministers. “Israel must be prepared and make sure its steps will not lead to any miscalculation on the other side.

“Israel is closely following developments on this front out of a concern that the three players might misinterpret certain steps taken by Israel.”

Yadlin said Hezbollah was abiding by a UN-brokered ceasefire in south Lebanon, but charged that the Shia fighters were busy rearming north of the Litani river – out of the jurisdiction of UN peacekeepers.

Civilian deaths

Israel fought a 34-day war against Hezbollah last summer after two soldiers were captured in a cross-border raid.

Around 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers, died in the conflict.

“Hezbollah has no intention of getting into a second round of conflict,” Yadlin was quoted as saying.

“But it is busy rebuilding its forces and has accelerated those efforts for fear of a summer attack.”

On Saturday, Iran’s joint chief of staff warned Arab states neighbouring Israel against what he called a “Zionist suicide attack” this year.

“The Zionists plan to carry out a suicide plot in the summer,”  the semi-official Fars news agency quoted major general Hassan  Firouzabadi as saying.

He predicted that an Israeli attack would start from Lebanon and Syria and proceed to Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Source: Agencies

April 3, 2007
Iranian Diplomat Is Said to Be Released in Iraq
By CHRISTINE HAUSER (NY Times online)
An Iranian diplomat detained in Iraq for the last two months has been released, returning today to Iran, according to the Iranian news agency IRNA.
Jalal Sharafi, who was the second secretary of Iran’s Embassy in Iraq, was abducted in Baghdad on February 4 by men wearing Iraqi military uniforms and with official identification. Iran immediately held the United States responsible for his safety and demanded his release, but at the time, an American military spokesman said the military had no knowledge of the event.
Mr. Sharafi arrived today at Tehran’s Mehrabad International Airport and was greeted by the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, and other ministry officials, the IRNA report said.
IRNA, a government news agency, provided no details in an English language report about the circumstances of his release, which Iran has been demanding along with the release of other Iranians still in detention in Iraq.
In Baghdad, a senior Iraqi foreign ministry official said the Iraqi government was “intensively” seeking the release of five other Iranians who had been detained there by the United States, according to The Associated Press.
Mr. Sharafi’s release from detention comes amid heightened tensions between the Iranian government and Britain over the capture of 15 British sailors who are being held in Iran.
Today, there was a glimmer of hope that the issue could be resolved by political channels. Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an interview on a Scottish radio station, Real Radio, that the next 48 hours would be “fairly critical” in resolving the dispute and that the release of the sailors could still be secured by diplomatic efforts.
Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, was scheduled to address reporters today about regional and international developments, IRNA said, but the news conference was postponed without explanation until Wednesday.
Iran and the United States have also been in a standoff of sorts in Iraq. The Bush administration has warned Iran against meddling in Iraq and American forces have detained several Iranians there on charges of providing assistance to illicit armed groups.
Iran, a Shiite state with deep and longstanding ties to Iraq’s Shiite political parties, has denied those charges and has announced that it plans to expand its ties with Iraq.
In January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that President Bush had authorized a series of American raids against Iranians in Iraq after deciding to undertake a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in the country.
That month, American forces conducted several raids against suspected Iranian operatives in Iraq, including a raid in Erbil where the Iranians had said they were in the process of establishing a consulate, and detained several Iranians.
Graham Bowley contributed reporting for this article.

Clinton promises education improvements
By Holly Ramer, Associated Press Writer  |  March 30, 2007
CONCORD, N.H. –Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday criticized the Bush administration for outsourcing teaching to private tutoring companies, arguing that many firms have close ties to Republicans.
“This is Halliburton all over again,” the New York senator said.
The 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires school districts to provide free tutoring in math and reading to poor children in schools that repeatedly fail to meet state testing standards. Clinton said that amounts to $500 million a year being paid to tutoring companies and other supplemental service providers that aren’t held accountable.
“Nobody’s looking over their shoulder. And we’re not really seeing results,” she members of the National Education Association’s New Hampshire chapter.
“Why would we outsource helping our kids to unaccountable private sector providers?” she said. “They don’t have to follow our civil rights laws, their employees don’t even have to be qualified, they aren’t required to coordinate with educators, there’s a grand total of zero evidence that they’re doing any good.”
Many of the providers have close ties to the Republican Party and President Bush, she told reporters later.
“It’s not enough that there are no-bid contracts that are taking money away from our troops not delivering services to them in the field, now we have these contracts going to these cronies who are chosen largely on a political basis, and we have nothing to show for it,” she complained.
Clinton, who voted for No Child Left Behind, said she had concerns with the bill from the start but thought it was worth taking a risk to see a greater investment in education.
“It hasn’t been funded properly. It hasn’t been administered correctly. It hasn’t been implemented appropriately,” she said. “It’s all stick and hardly any carrot, and it’s driving teachers and parents and everyone who cares about education a little bit crazy.”
The law’s focus on testing ignores the fact there are many ways to learn, she said, recounting a pivotal moment in her own education. When her high school staged a mock debate before the 1964 election, she was prepared to play Republican Barry Goldwater and was shocked when her teacher assigned her to portray Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. But the assignment opened her mind in a way a lecture wouldn’t have, said Clinton, who grew up in a conservative Republican home.
“It was one of the greatest educational experiences I ever had,” she said. “I had to lock myself in the library because we didn’t talk about President Johnson in my house.”
Clinton said among her priorities as president would be universal preschool education.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/30/clinton_criticizes_federal_funding_of_private_tutors?mode=PF

Lavrov against using force in Iran, talks Kosovo, Karabakh
03/04/2007 17:57 YEREVAN, April 3 (RIA Novosti) – Russia is totally against using force in international conflicts, including the Iranian nuclear problem, and advocates diplomacy in Kosovo and a breakaway region in the Caucasus, the foreign minister said Tuesday.
The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran March 24 toughening economic sanctions against the country suspected of a covert nuclear program. Russia, which is building a $1-billion nuclear power plant in Iran, has resisted any strict sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
“The UN Security Council has set an international legal framework for influencing Iran, and it excludes the use of force. We call on those who have such ideas to keep within international law,” Sergei Lavrov, who is in Armenia for a two-day visit, said in an apparent reference to recent media reports about possible U.S. strikes against Iran.
The U.S. Administration sees Iran as a “rogue state” and is determined to stop the Islamic Republic, diplomatically or otherwise, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Washington now plans to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe allegedly to protect itself from potential missile strikes from Iran or North Korea.
In comments on another international problem, the status of the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo, the Russian minister said a unilateral approach to the issue was unacceptable.
“Russia will only support a resolution that meets the interests of both Belgrade and Pristina,” Lavrov said.
The UN Security Council will consider a plan of Martti Ahtisaari, a special envoy for talks on Kosovo, outlining the future status of the province April 3. Ahtisaari pushes for Kosovo’s internationally supervised sovereignty. Serbian authorities strongly oppose the plan as a threat to their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As a veto-wielding member in the 15-nation UN Security Council and a traditional ally of Serbia, Russia has insisted that a decision on Kosovo satisfy both Kosovar and Serbian authorities, and that it must be reached through negotiations.
The Russian foreign minister said the UN Security Council decision on Kosovo would affect other territorial conflicts and set a precedent for other self-proclaimed regions, including the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh province in Azerbaijan.
The breakaway province, which was plunged into bloodshed in the early 1990s, has been a bone of contention between Azerbaijan and Armenia ever since. Moscow has been more supportive of Armenia’s position in the conflict.
“We hope an agreement will soon be reached on Nagorno-Karabakh,” Lavrov said.
The minister said the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict where the Minsk Group of mediators – France, the U.S. and Russia – were working under the auspices of Europe’s largest security organization, the OSCE, was unique because the interests of Russia, the European Union and the U.S. did not contradict each other and those of the conflicting sides.
But Lavrov added the leadership of Armenia and Azerbaijan would have the final say in the issue.
“We appreciate the efforts of Yerevan and Baku to promote the negotiations, above all, between the presidents and foreign ministers,” he said.
Special report: Iran Nuclear Crisis
The White House renewed on Monday its denial of increasing rhetoric that the United States is preparing for war against Iran.
“We reject any notion that suggests that we are ratcheting up the language in terms of trying to prepare to go to war with Iran. That is certainly not the case,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said at a news briefing.
The reiteration by the White House occurred at the time when U.S. aircraft carrier Nimitz and its support ships are leaving for the Persian Gulf to join another aircraft carrier strike group already in that region.
Last week, Perino said the United States is not escalating tensions with Iran and insisted that its naval exercises in the Gulf has been long planned.
Editor: Yan
http://www.newsgd.com/specials/specials1/irannuclearcrisis/irannews/200704030050.htm

Special report: Iran Nuclear Crisis
Iranian Foreign Minister said on Saturday that the United States was in no position to launch military strike against the Islamic Republic, stressing that talks were the only choice to resolve the nuclear standoff.
“We do not see the U.S. in a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers by starting another war in the region,” Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters during a press conference with his Bahraini counterpart, in a response to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s warnings over Tehran earlier Saturday.
“But the Islamic Republic of Iran has prepared for two scenarios. We prefer the second one which is based on dialogue and constructive interaction,” Mottaki added.
During his trip to Australia, Cheney Saturday refused to rule out the possibility of taking military action against Iran, saying that “all options are still on the table” over Tehran’s nuclear programs.
Cheney said Washington was still working with other countries to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear programs and prefers to achieve the goal peacefully.
“But all options are still on the table,” Cheney said, adding that it is still being debated in the U.S. how to move next to deal with Tehran over the nuclear issue.
In an interview with U.S. media, carried out in Australia and released on Friday, Cheney said that the United States will “do everything” it can to stop Iran’s nuclear programs.
Mottaki also stressed that dialogue was the only choice to resolve the current deadlock, urging the U.S. and its allies to return to the negotiation table.
“The only way to reach a solution for disputes is negotiations and talks. Therefore, we want the London meeting to make a brave decision and resume talks with Iran,” said the minister.
The United States, along with some other Western countries, has been accusing Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of civilian nuclear programs. Tehran has rejected such accusations, saying that its nuclear programs are designed for peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1737 on Dec. 23,2006, demanding Iran stop all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities including research and development, and work on all heavy water-related projects, in 60 days.
Iran refused to heed the Security Council’s demand by the deadline that fell on Feb. 21, 2007.
Editor: Yan
http://www.newsgd.com/specials/specials1/irannuclearcrisis/irannews/200702250002.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CNNShooting.html?hp
Shots Fired in CNN Building
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:56 p.m. ET
ATLANTA (AP) — Gunfire was heard inside the building complex that houses CNN’s headquarters, and at least one person was carried out on a stretcher.
CNN reported that the offices of its Internet operations, CNN.com, were evacuated and that a suspect was in custody. Video footage showed police pointing guns at a man lying on the ground inside a building.
An announcement over the complex’s public-address system said there had been gunfire “with potential casualties by the escalators” near the main entrance, facing Centennial Olympic Park.
“I heard four or five shots. I really didn’t see it. I got out of there quick,” said Jas Stanford, 27, who had been helping take down a stage in the park used for Final Four festivities.

Iranians release British sailors
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.
He repeated Iran’s view that the British sailors and marines “invaded” Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a “gift” to Britain.
He said they would be taken to Tehran airport and flown home within hours.
Downing Street welcomed news of the release, while Iranian state media said the British crew members “shouted for joy” on hearing the news.
Television pictures showed the Iranian president smiling and chatting with the crew.
HAVE YOUR SAY
Of course diplomacy worked, it was a diplomatic incident
Colin Campbell, Stockholm, Sweden

He joked to one: “How are you? So you came on a mandatory vacation?”
The Britons were wearing suits, rather than the military uniform and tracksuits they wore in previous pictures. The one female crew member, Faye Turney, wore a blue headscarf and jacket.
An unidentified crew member said: “I’d like to say that myself and my whole team are very grateful for your forgiveness. I’d like to thank yourself and the Iranian people… Thank you very much, sir.”
Mr Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi: “You are welcome.”
‘Theatrical gesture’
Mr Ahmadinejad announced the decision to release the Britons at a news conference marking Persian New Year.
UK VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters
2 HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters
3 Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters
4 After UK points this out, Iran provides alternative position, now within Iranian waters

He spoke at length, attacking the West over its policy in the Middle East, and it was more than an hour before he even mentioned the captives issue.
He repeated allegations that the Britons were captured in Iranian waters, and awarded medals to the Iranian commanders responsible for detaining them.
It was all part of the build up to his extraordinary theatrical gesture, says the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.
“We have every right to put these people on trial,” Mr Ahmadinejad asserted.
“But I want to give them as a present to the British people to say they are all free.”
The British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
“I’m asking Mr Blair to not put these 15 personnel on trial because they admitted they came to Iranian territorial water,” he added, referring to taped “confessions” made by the British sailors and marines.
Britain says the 15 were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate when they were captured nearly two weeks ago. It says the confessions were extracted under duress.
“I ask Mr Blair: Instead of occupying the other countries, I ask Mr Blair to think about the justice, to think about the truth and work for the British people not for himself,” Mr Ahmadinejad said.
“Unfortunately the British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth, that it made a mistake.”
The Iranian leader said no concessions had been made by the British government to secure the releases, but that Britain had pledged “that the incident would not be repeated”.
IRANIAN VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Royal Navy crew stray 0.5km inside Iranian waters
2 Iran gives set of co-ordinates to back up their claims
3 According to seized GPS equipment, the Royal Navy crew had previously entered Iranian waters at several other points
4 Iran informs Britain of the position where the crew were seized, inside Iranian waters

The solution to the crisis – freeing the Britons while rewarding the Iranian commanders of the operation – appears to be a face-saving compromise, says the BBC’s Frances Harrison in Tehran.
She says speculation is likely to continue over whether it had anything to do with developments in Iraq, where an Iranian envoy has reportedly been given access to five Iranians captured by US forces, and where a kidnapped diplomat was released on Tuesday.
Earlier on Wednesday Syria revealed that it had been mediating between Iran and the UK over the sailors and marines.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said: “We welcome what the president has said about the release of our 15 personnel. We are now establishing exactly what this means in terms of the method and timing of their release.”
The family of one of the captives, Royal Marine Adam Sperry, hailed the announcement as “the best present imaginable”.
“Whoever has been in the right or wrong, the whole thing has been a political mess, so let’s just get them home,” said his uncle, Ray Cooper.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

Published: 2007/04/04 15:23:18 GMT

© BBC MMVII
NOTE: released on Wednesday; Russia predicts US attack as early as Friday of this same week (today is Wed. 4/4/07)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 04, 2007
12:07 MECCA TIME, 9:07 GMT
Israel ‘planning Gaza invasion’
By     Tom Spender in Jerusalem

Israel says rockets continue to be fired by
Palestinian fighters in Gaza [AP]
A day after Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, called for a regional peace conference with Arab states, his defence minister said his forces had received authorisation to begin new military actions in Gaza.
Amir Peretz said Israeli intelligence indicated that Hamas, which leads the Palestinian government, was rearming and planning “terrorist” attacks.
The Israel military has said that it has finalised preparations for incursions it says are to tackle the threat of Qassam rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli towns.
The Israeli media quoted the military as saying that between last November, when a ceasefire deal was agreed, and the end of last month, 185 rockets had been fired, 152 of which reached Israeli territory.
On the diplomatic front, Israel is reaching out to Arab states such as Saudi Arabia – but it has refused to deal with the new Palestinian unity government.
Hamas has so far refused to recognise Israel’s existence and has reiterated the right of Palestinians to resist the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.
Reservist Brigadier General Tzika Fogel says such conditions of attrition leave the Jewish state no choice but to reoccupy Gaza to prevent a future war and crush Hamas once and for all.
He says Hamas is building up a Hezbollah-style military capacity and claimed that Western and regional countries would support an offensive to remove it.
“Hamas is working towards the point that they will be like Hezbollah. At that point they will start the war and it will not be good for Israel. We can’t let them start the war. We will lose a lot of respect,” he said.
“The last thing the West wants is for Hamas to have its own country. It will be an Al Qaeda zone. So Israel, the Arab countries and the free world all want us to begin a war and win it.”

Pre-emptive strike
Fogel, a former Israeli army second-in-command for the southern territories who says he is regularly called up for active duty as a reservist, believes that the Israeli military has completed its preparations and is ready to reoccupy the Gaza Strip – except Gaza City – for up to six months.
Tzika Fogel
“Hamas is a part of real Islamism. It’s a threat to Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon and they want that we finish the power of Hamas in Gaza”
He says the invasion of the area could begin as early as April 15.

“It will not be before April 15 because that’s the end of [the Jewish holiday of] Passover, and to be on the safe side it will not be after June 15, because we want it to be finished before the winter.”

“We have 200,000 Israelis living in fear of attack. Their towns are getting more and more like bunkers. But the Palestinians don’t really want to hit us with their rockets.
“They have been using the last four months just to train their people, not to damage the Israeli side.”
In recent days, Israeli media quoted military intelligence reports that Hamas was rearming with advanced weaponry and boosting its defences by building tunnels and booby-trapping several incursion points.
But the Israeli military has declined to comment on Fogel’s remarks.
A spokeswoman said: “This officer has retired and has nothing to do with the army any more. We don’t want to talk about anything he said.”

Diplomacy versus war
For their part, Palestinian officials have said that any military strike into the Gaza Strip would indicate the credibility of Israel’s claims to be a country seeking peace.

Khaled Abu Hillel, spokesman for the Palestinian Interior Ministry, said: “We have a unity government that unites the Palestinian people behind a single programme. Any step Israel takes against this government shows that they are neither ready for nor want peace”.
Palestinian analysts have also said an Israeli invasion of Gaza could wreck chances for a peace deal with the Arab world and prompt international criticism.

Jehad Hamad, a professor of political sociology at Al Azhar University in Gaza City, said: “The Mecca agreement showed that Hamas is willing to be part of a rational Palestinian programme.

“Israel will take a hard line against this. But if they invade there would be a hugely negative reaction internationally. It will not help them make a deal with the Arab world, which has made it clear it wants peace.”
Undeterred

But Fogel said Israel would invade regardless of the potential damage to its image.

“If Israel initiates the war, the world will give us the same time window and expectation as they gave us at the beginning of the second Lebanon war,” he said.

“There’s no other choice. Hamas is a part of real Islamism. It’s a threat to Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon and they want that we finish the power of Hamas in Gaza. They can’t say it but they do want it.”

Fogel said previous campaigns against Hamas failed and the Israeli military would need to employ new tactics against them.

“It’s like a big swamp – you have to dry it. You have to go house by house everywhere. We cannot simply repeat what we have done before – it leads to nothing.”

‘Humanitarian disaster’

Not everyone in Israel, however, believes that Hamas is looking for a Hezbollah-style war of attrition with Israel.
Zeev Schiff, a military analyst at the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, said: “I don’t think Hamas wants to get into a large-scale war. It wants to build itself up. It needs a few clashes but they prefer a kind of ceasefire.
“So Israel can act here and there, but I don’t think we are going to go big in Gaza unless something big happens first. In the army you have all sorts of opinions, but in the end it’s up to the political echelon.”
In an interview late last week, Olmert did not rule out a military strike in Gaza, but he said it would not be the first course of action he would take.
Meanwhile, the UN said any Israeli invasion of Gaza would worsen already poor living conditions.

David Shearer, head of the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Jerusalem, said: “An invasion would be a disaster from a humanitarian point of view. Things are bad enough as it is and it would make them seriously worse.”

About 400 Palestinians died last year during Israeli incursions into Gaza, he said.

Source: Al Jazeera

Authorities: Fifth-graders posted lookout, had sex in class
Story Highlights
• Four students allegedly have sex in classroom while fifth acts as lookout
• Four children charged with obscenity, fifth with being an accessory
• Teacher who was to supervise class went to assembly instead
• Word of incident passes from students to teacher to sheriff’s office
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) — Five fifth-grade students face criminal charges after authorities said four of them had sex in front of other students in an unsupervised classroom and kept a classmate posted as a lookout for teachers.
The students were arrested Tuesday at the Spearsville school in rural north Louisiana, authorities said. Two 11-year-old girls, a 12-year-old boy and a 13-year old boy were charged with obscenity, a felony. An 11-year-old boy, the alleged lookout, was charged with being an accessory.
“After 44 years of doing this work, nothing shocks me anymore,” said Union Parish Sheriff Bob Buckley. “But this comes pretty close.”
Authorities said the incident happened March 27 at the school, which houses students from kindergarten through 12th grade. A high school teacher normally watches the fifth-grade class at the time, but went to an assembly for older students and the class was inadvertently left unattended, Buckley said. (Watch authorities try to determine if a crime was committed)
The class, which had around 10 other students, was alone for about 15 minutes, he said.
“When no teacher showed up, the four began to have sex in the classroom with the other elementary students in the classroom with them,” he said.
It took a day for authorities to find out about the incident. A student who had been in the class told a high school student about it the next day, Buckley said. The student told a teacher, and school officials notified the sheriff’s office. Detectives began questioning students Thursday.
School officials did not return calls seeking comment.
The students, who were not identified because of their age, were released to their parents after their arrests, Buckley said. They will next be arraigned in juvenile court.
A message seeking comment from the district attorney was not immediately returned.
Buckley said it was unclear what penalties the children could face.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
(Cutler)
Now that those British sailors are being freed (Yay! No big war [hopefully]!) I can get back to the usual sad hypothesizing.

“It was a political deal, revealing the circus that the alleged Gitmo court system really is.”

Yup, appears to be so. Remember that guy, the al-Queda Mastermind, who confessed to everything from…well, everything, a month or so ago? Doesn’t seem quite so plausible now. Though it didn’t seem plausible before because he was most probably tortured before confessing.

I was reading a Batman comic last night and came to a realization: I like it when Batman beats the piss out of criminals and hangs them from high places to get information from them. It gives me pleasure. Makes me feel like they’re getting what they deserve. Then I thought, “Wow, but I don’t agree with the idea of torture at all. When I read about real people being tortured it makes me sick.” What’s the difference?

I decided that I could keep my moral stance because the comic is NOT REAL. The characters are caricatures, either good or bad or something ominously in-between (reserved for Catwoman and Two-Face). It’s an Idealized World full of simple conclusions and easy solutions. It’s a world based upon stories that feed our imaginations and our moral egos, but it’s a world that is decidedly not real.

That’s obvious, right?

But even in a Batman comic the majority of people in power are corrupt.

And you’ll never see Batman or Commissioner Gordon punish a person who isn’t proven to have it coming.

Sometimes I think my ideology goes to far, that it blinds me to Truth. Sometimes I think my ideology keeps me a moral human being.

It is wrong to put someone in a hidden, illegal prison for a very long time, not prove that the person did something wrong, then sentence the person to prison time and a gag order that coincides with a certain P.M.’s political timing, putting a Terrorist Hat on the said person’s head for the rest of his natural life–either punishing him horribly for something he never did, or not punishing him enough for something he DID do, all because Bush Administration Ally Howard wants to be re-elected in Australia.

It’s wrong.

Guantanamo is wrong. Secret renditions are wrong. Torture is wrong (and not even helpful in getting information). Firing U.S. Attorneys for political reasons is wrong. Taking away personal freedoms given by the Bill of Rights is wrong.

This Administration is wrong.

We don’t live in an Ideal World. Doesn’t everyone know that?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/02/gitmo-hicks-deal/#comments

Suspicion Of Cheney Intervention Surrounds Guantanamo Plea Bargain

In February, Vice President Cheney traveled to Australia to visit with his close ally Prime Minister John Howard. At the top of Howard’s agenda was a plea to release Australian Gitmo detainee David Hicks. Last Friday, Hicks became the first person to be sentenced by a military commission convened under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, accepting nine months of imprisonment and a gag order that will not allow him to discuss the case for 12 months.

Howard lobbied Cheney during the February visit for the trial to “be brought on as soon as humanly possible and with no further delay.” The plea bargain itself was brokered by Susan Crawford, the top military commission official and a former Department of Defense inspector general under then-Secretary of Defense Cheney, without the knowledge or input of the lawyers prosecuting Hicks. The lead prosecutor expressed shock over the light sentence.

Given the nature of the deal, suspicions are being raised that the plea agreement may have been an orchestrated gesture by Cheney to benefit Howard in his re-election fight. Howard, who is lagging behind Labor Party rival Kevin Rudd in the polls, faces a tough election contest in less than nine months. Now, legal experts on both continents are sounding alarms. Some examples:

– Terry Hicks, David’s father, said in a statement that “it is clearly a political fix arranged between Mr. Howard and the Bush administration to shut up Hicks until after the election in November.”

– Bob Brown of Australia’s Green party described the deal as a political “fix” meant to benefit Howard, saying that “the message has gone very clearly from Canberra to Washington to Guantanamo Bay: don’t allow Hicks to be released until after the elections and certainly don’t allow him to speak.”

– Lex Lasry, an Australian who observed the trial, remarked, “What an amazing coincidence that, with an election in Australia by the end of the year, he gets nine months and he is gagged for 12 months from talking about it.”

– Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, said: “I’m not naive. I know that they probably worked out – I’m quite sure they worked out – a plea bargain, that would allow the United States to appear to have effected a reasonably fair proceeding, would allow David Hicks to return to Australia, and satisfy Prime Minister Howard’s needs.”

Andrew Sullivan emphatically states, “If you think this was in any way a legitimate court process, you’re smoking something even George Michael would pay a lot of money for. It was a political deal, revealing the circus that the alleged Gitmo court system really is.”

Cutler, cont’d:

Hard to substantiate any of this, from either side. But it’s all over the Australian news now, evidently. This is from ABC.

“The White House says it is ‘very pleased’ that the US Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case about whether prisoners at Guantanamo Bay can challenge their detention.”

We have a right to challenge detention, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, though I suppose citizens of other countries imprisoned by ours do not.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1888126.htm

David Hicks feared he would be shot by his American interrogators after he was captured in Afghanistan, according to an affidavit he recently placed before an English court.

The affidavit, obtained by the ABC’s Four Corners program, sets out Hicks’s claims about his mistreatment in detail.

He says he was slapped, kicked, punched and spat on, could hear other detainees screaming in pain, saw the marks of their beatings and had a shotgun trained on him during interrogation.

“I realised that if I did not cooperate with US interrogators, I might be shot,” he said.

The affidavit also includes Hicks’s claim that he was twice taken off a US warship, flown to an unknown location and physically abused by US personnel for a total of 16 hours.

Two American investigations have found that claim unsubstantiated.

Last week Hicks pleaded guilty to a charge of providing material support for terrorism and as part of the bargain he agreed to withdraw all claims that he had been mistreated during his time at Guantanamo Bay.

But in the affidavit he says he saw one detainee set upon by dogs and physically abused, another’s face slammed into the concrete until he was unconscious and was shown a photo of fellow Australian Mamdouh Habib looking like a corpse with his face black and blue.

The allegations formed part of an affidavit that Hicks signed in an unsuccessful bid to seek British citizenship

Colonel Lawrence Wilkersin, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, says he believes the claims of mistreatment are credible.

“I know this kind of abuse happened,” he told Four Corners.

“I’ve talked to people who participated in it – CIA, military and contractor.”
In other developments:

* The father of confessed terrorism supporter David Hicks says he is still seeking advice on whether he will be restricted from speaking about his son’s time at Guantanamo Bay. (Full Story)
* The White House says it is “very pleased” that the US Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case about whether prisoners at Guantanamo Bay can challenge their detention. (Full Story)

Shouting Big Brother Cameras To Use Child Voices
Psychological warfare to shame dissenters into obedience

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, April 4, 2007

A previously localized trial of CCTV cameras that allow local government officials to monitor people in the streets and shout orders at anyone they deem to be acting in an anti-social manner is to be enforced nationwide across the UK. In a bizarre psychological move the cameras will speak in a child’s voice.
In an incredibly Orwellian move, loudspeakers are to be fitted to surveillance cameras throughout major cities, allowing CCTV operators to bark commands at people who drop litter, act in an aggressive manner or loiter.
Last October we reported on the trial scheme of these cameras in Middlesbrough. At the time we predicted “The voice of Big Brother has already echoed across several major cities and the program will no doubt be unfolded nationwide once the salivating control freaks in council offices have their way.” Now this has indeed come to pass.
Council workers in a control centre can monitor pictures from 12 talking cameras in the town, and communicate directly with people on the street at the flick of a switch.
Communities are being coerced into adapting existing cameras with the offer of nearly £500,000 in grants.
Home Secretary John Reid has denied that the plans were “Big Brother gone mad”, stating “This is a hugely popular scheme in Middlesbrough and the vast majority of the people here are right behind it.”
Sadly it seems Reid is right as once again the simpering jellyfish-like people of the UK have not reacted in protest to a control freak’s dream come true scheme that surpasses any methods that were ever employed by the state in the Soviet Union or currently in Communist China.
The BBC has put out a new report on this loving scheme:
Note the terroristic “skater boy” who will soon have cease and desist orders barked at him. No longer are skate boards cool and fun, Bart Simpson may still have one, but now they are the tools of evil and must be clamped down upon by the state.
The shouting cameras have been on the table for a long time and were spotted in London, along with large black megaphone apendages, up to one year ago:

In an even more frightening and conniving move it has today been revealed that the bureaucrats behind the cameras will use recordings of children’s voices to discourage any adult they target from dissenting and shouting back at the cameras.
As tech web site The Register today put it:
Using recordings of children’s voices will make it harder for those in opposition to the surveillance society to be defiant of the talking cameras. Moonies and rude gestures will most definitely be a no-no.
Children will be recruited from schools to take part in the scheme and will be shown round CCTV operating rooms on school trips, learning how wonderful the big brother state is and how forcing people to behave in a certain way in public is the essence of a free society.
The use of children’s voices to control adult behaviour is all out psychological warfare when you consider that it constitutes a total reversal of social norms. The government knows this full well and justifies it by suggesting that some people in the UK are now so devoid of morality that there is no way of setting that right other than by ritualistic public isolation and humiliation.

What does it say about the state of a society in general that the government has given up on a portion of people and has decided that the best course of action is to extradite them and label them as fair game for methods of control that wouldn’t look out of place in a horrific dystopian science fiction film?
The current divisions within society are frightening. We have reached the point where the general public is willing to accept massive invasions of their own privacy in order to deal with people they consider to be a bit of a nuisance from time to time.
It would not be surprising at all to see some people reveling in the control, egging on the shouting cameras and engaging in a proverbial “two minutes hate” against those they no longer dare stand up to themselves because they, quite rightly, fear for their own safety if they were to do so.
The most dangerous form of tyranny is one that has the consent of the people.
At the other end of the social divide the “louts” and “yobs” that are the primary target of such control mechanisms feel so divorced from society that their only means of articulation is to resort to acts of violence and vandalism.
How is it possible that further alienating these people, and almost rubbing their faces in the fact, is going to solve the problem?
Because modern day government is so obsessed with short term appearance over long term reality we are witnessing the literal unraveling of society as each problem is provided a solution that in turn engenders an even worse set of problems.
In short, such surveillance state methods are greasing the skids for the police state. As the general public cry out for more and more state intervention in society, and the dropouts become more and more alienated and reactionary, there is only one place we are all going to end up.
In a culture where people are not instilled with internal limiters on their behaviors, increasing external limiters is demanded and thus must be provided. Welcome totalitarianism.
Behind Winston’s back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
“Smith!” screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. “6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You’re not trying. Lower, please! That’s better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.”
- George Orwell, 1984.
Post script – Only by standing up and saying no to such schemes will we be able to continue to live in a truly free society. If shouting cameras come to your area start petitions, lobby your local council, organize protest events, and most importantly send us the details!

We can’t enforce Hicks gag: Ruddock
THE gag on David Hicks speaking to the media for 12 months would not be enforceable in Australia, the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, admitted last night.
Mr Ruddock said Australia had no law making it a crime for Hicks to talk, and the United States would be able to act on a breach only if Hicks came “within their reach”.
However, in an interview with the Herald earlier yesterday, Mr Ruddock had said the order preventing Hicks, his family, friends and associates from telling his story was reasonable and enforceable. “What that’s suggesting is that the agreement can’t be avoided by telling [the story] to a family member and then they say it on his behalf,” he said.
Mr Ruddock said the extraordinary condition had nothing to do with the Federal Government. “It’s their agreement,” he said. “I didn’t seek it. The Australian Government didn’t seek it.”
Mr Ruddock said he expected the order to be enforced in Australia because it was agreed by the parties in the plea bargain and that agreement was the basis for Hicks being sent home.
But later, speaking on the ABC’s Lateline he said that for Australia to agree to an extradition, a charge similar to the one laid overseas must exist under Australian law. “In Australia, we have a position about freedom of speech.”
Asked if the gag order meant nothing, and Hicks would be able to speak to the media, Mr Ruddock responded: “I suspect you are probably right”.
Mr Ruddock said the US included the clause in the plea bargain and it was a matter for the US, Hicks, his prosecutors and his counsel. “I don’t think it’s a matter for us to enforce,” he said.
The Australian authorities could act if Hicks tried to profit directly or indirectly by selling his story, under proceeds of crime legislation.
Hicks’s military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, had suggested that if Hicks breached any of the conditions in the plea bargain – such as by speaking to the media – he could be returned to Guantanamo Bay to serve the entire seven-year sentence, which is to be suspended after the nine months.
Major Mori told the ABC: “He could potentially be brought back to Guantanamo to serve it. I hope that doesn’t happen. I hope the media respects that he’s under oath, under obligation not to talk to media, and they don’t try to set him up for failure.”
But Major Mori said the condition of silence might be a blessing. “I do think that David needs a period of time to get back to Australia, to decompress from this whole situation, get back in touch with his family, get back into his education, finish his high school qualifications, without the media harassing him,” he told the ABC’s 7.30 Report.
Hicks’s father, Terry, has expressed his outrage that the gag order extends to him, and constitutional law experts have said that it breaches Australia’s fundamental guarantees of free political discussion.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/we-cant-enforce-hicks-gag-ruddock/2007/04/03/1175366240217.html#

I think there’s a connection but no one can admit it because of the non-negotiation policy referring to the trading of prisoners. (Cutler)

4/5/07

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070404/pl_afp/iranbritainmilitaryus_070404185353

by Sylvie Lanteaume 2 hours, 51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Wednesday welcomed Iran’s release of 15 British naval personnel, but remained evasive about the fate of five Iranians held incognito since being seized in Iraq three months ago.

President George W. Bush “welcomes the news,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said, after Tehran announced it was releasing the 15 captured on March 23 in Gulf waters.

But the US administration was at pains to deny any link between the release, and reports Wednesday that five Iranians captured by US forces in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil in January would be granted their first consular access.

On Tuesday Bush appeared to rule out any deal to win the Britons’ release, saying he agreed with British Prime Minister
Tony Blair “that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.”

“There is no link whatsoever. Neither we nor the British nor anyone else, as far as I know, has made that link,” State Department spokesman Tom Casey said when asked if there was a connection between Wednesday’s events.

“It would be pure speculation on my part to try and ascribe motive to any of this stuff. I simply don’t know and I don’t think anyone does short of the Iranians,” the spokesman added.

Blair also insisted Wednesday there had been “no negotiation” to secure the freedom of the captured British sailors and marines.

“Throughout we have taken a measured approach: firm but calm, not negotiating but not confronting either,” he said.

But he thanked Britain’s partners, including “friends and allies in the region,” for their efforts, amid reports that he had called on
Syria to help mediate with Iran.

The surprise announcement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the 15 were being freed coincided with the release on Monday in Baghdad of Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, kidnapped at gunpoint in Iraq in early February.

Iranian state media also said earlier Wednesday that the five Iranian officials captured in January in Iraq were expected to receive their first visit by an Iranian diplomat.

But US military spokesman Major General William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad that a consular request to visit the five was still being examined.

“There is a consular request and it is being assessed,” he said.

The five were arrested by US forces in Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan on January 11, with the United States accusing the men of being members of the elite Al-Quds brigade of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

In both cases, the US administration has denied any linkage to the release of the British sailors and marines.

The United States was not behind the kidnapping of Sharafi and therefore was not responsible for his release, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Tuesday.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said however the foreign ministry had been working to secure Sharafi’s release for some time saying the ministry had pursued the matter with “all the relevant authorities.”

“We approached, contacted, followed that case with both Iraqi entities and American entities with the same vigor to ensure the release,” the minister said.

But asked about the Sharafi case, McCormack expressed surprise at any US involvement: “Certainly not to my knowledge. I don’t think we have had or have anything to do in any respect with this case.”

As for the timing of the announcement of the Britons’ release and the granting of consular access to the five detained Iranians, the State Department said it was pure coincidence.

The US administration has so far remained vague about the fate of the five, who Theran has said were diplomats working in a consulate office in Arbil.

“They are being treated as any other security detainee in Iraq,” McCormack said.

“Let’s remember why they are being detained. They are being detained because they were involved in networks that were providing EFDs (explosive foreign devices) to individuals in Iraq for using those EFDs against our troops.”

Washington has accused Iranian groups of arming Iraqi insurgents with sophisticated explosives capable of penetrating armored vehicles and fomenting trouble in Iraq.

But despite repeated questions neither the State Department or the
Pentagon has provided answers as to where the five Iranians are being held, their status or the charges which could be leveled against them.

THURSDAY, APRIL 05, 2007
4:01 MECCA TIME, 1:01 GMT
Iran strikes blow in propaganda war

Britons were shown on Iranian television
thanking Ahmadinejad [EPA]

Iran’s blame game with Britain over the capture of 15 sailors appears to have been defused after the Iranian president announced they were to be released, but the claim game is just beginning.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his country’s decision to free the soldiers after 13 days was a gift to the British people.

In the process, his country was able to deflect attention from its nuclear programme and prove it could cause trouble in the Middle East if it wanted to.

But it did not get the main thing it sought – a public apology from London for entering Iranian waters.

Britain, which said its crew was in Iraqi waters when seized, said it never offered a quid pro quo, but relied on quiet diplomacy.

Your Views

“It is Iran’s responsibility to find a quick solution”
Emkay, Auckland, New Zealand
Send us your views

Tony Blair, the British prime minister, said London’s “measured approach” had been effective.

“Throughout we have taken a measured approach – firm but calm, not negotiating, but not confronting either,” adding a message to the Iranian people that “we bear you no ill will.”

However, Iran’s announcement coincided with the release in Baghdad of an Iranian diplomat seized in Iraq in early February.

Iran had blamed US forces for the abduction but the US denied involvement.

Iranian state media also said five Iranian officials captured by US forces in northern Iraq in January and accused of seeking to stir trouble were expected to receive their first visit by an Iranian diplomat soon.

James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan, said: “It allowed the Iranians to demonstrate that they can’t be trifled with. They have a capacity to take action, and that will undoubtedly make people more careful.”

The US cautiously welcomed Iran’s announcement, although Dick Cheney, the vice-president, said “it was unfortunate that they were ever taken in the first place”.

He said he hoped there would be no “quid pro quo” for their release.

More careful

But what Iran might have won is a more careful Western approach to the Middle East power.

The US says its policy is to arrest Iranians in Iraq who are funnelling arms or money to Shia fighters there. But it may be more cautious if it thinks Iran is willing to retaliate by seizing US troops.

Iran may also have been trying to moderate Ahmadinejad’s hardline reputation, allowing him to announce the release to appear benevolent.

Or, it might have aimed to simply show that it can compromise, which may help it in its dispute with the US over its nuclear programme.

Timeline

How the diplomatic standoff unfolded

But some analysts said Iran’s actions had caused it to be distrusted more by the international community, even if Tehran may have scored a slight propaganda victory at home.

Ahmadinejad said the British government was “not brave enough” to admit the crew had been in Iranian waters when it was captured.

But he said Britain had sent a letter to the Iranian foreign ministry pledging that the incident “will not happen again”.

Britain’s foreign ministry would not give details about the letter but said its position was clear that the detained crew had been in Iraqi waters.

Ahmadinejad declared that even though Iran had the right to put the Britons on trial, he had “pardoned” them to mark the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad, celebrated on March 30 this year, and the coming Easter holiday.

“This pardon is a gift to the British people,” he said.

‘Welcome’

After the news conference, Iranian television showed a beaming Ahmadinejad on the steps of the presidential palace shaking hands with the Britons decked out in business suits and Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only female crew member, wearing an Islamic head scarf.

One of the British men told Ahmadinejad: “Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much.” Another said: “We are grateful for your forgiveness.”

Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi: “You are welcome.”

But it was not just Iran and Britain who were trying to come off looking good in this standoff.

The president gave the coast guard commander
a medal for the capture of the Britons [Reuters]
Syria, Iran’s close ally, said it had played a role in winning the release of the sailors.

Walid al-Moallem, Syria’s foreign minister, said in Damascus on Wednesday: “Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue between the two parties.”

The breakthrough appeared to have caught the British government by surprise.

On Tuesday, Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, had told reporters not to expect a quick end to the standoff.

Some analysts say Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, decided the crisis had gone far enough at a time when Tehran faces mounting pressure over its nuclear programme.

Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, explained: “The thing … about Iran’s negotiating strategy is that they say, ‘No, no, no’ until it suddenly becomes ‘Yes’.”

Whether that is a sign of internal dissent in Iran or finely honed, clever brinkmanship, Iran clearly gained some things from the dispute – at least enough to make the West cautious that it would be willing to enter into such a standoff again.

Observers fear that the 13-day crisis may be precursor of things to come in Iran’s confrontations with the West.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

THURSDAY, APRIL 05, 2007
18:32 MECCA TIME, 15:32 GMT
Amnesty: Guantanamo ‘deteriorating’

Amnesty says Guantanamo’s Camp Six is more confined than older facilities at the military jail [AP]

Conditions for detainees at the US military jail at Guantanamo Bay are deteriorating, a report by Amnesty International says.

The rights group says some detainees at the camp are close to mental and physical breakdown.

Amnesty says about 165 detainees – a third of those at the jail – are now being held at the new Camp Six facility.

“Amnesty International believes that conditions in Camp Six, as shown in photographs or described by detainees and their attorneys, contravene international standards for humane treatment,” the report says.

Increased confinement

“To be in the situation where one can’t walk more than three steps in any direction … is one of the most harrowing experiences one can have”
Moazzam Begg, former Guantanamo Bay detainee
Read Amnesty International’s latest report on the conditions at Guantanamo

Camp Six is composed of windowless, steel cells where inmates are confined for at least 22 hours a day.

The US authorities say the new facility allows inmates more “privacy” but Amnesty says Camp Six has created increased conditions of extreme isolation, to the detriment of prisoners’ mental health.

Amnesty says Camp Six is more “enclosed” than Camp Five, where detainees are thought to have been held in confinement for up to 24 hours at a time.

“While conditions in both camps are extremely harsh, according to a contact who has viewed cells in each facility, the difference in Camp Six is that detainees have no way of knowing whether it is day or night,” the report says.

“One detainee has described Camp Six as being a ‘dungeon above the ground’.”

Findings ‘unsurprising’

Moazzam Begg, a former detainee who was released without charge from Guantanamo Bay in January 2005, told Al Jazeera that he was unsurprised at the findings contained in the Amnesty report.

“I think the facts that are now coming out are highly unsurprising considering that the US government has always maintained [the] posture that people need to be broken – physically, spiritually and mentally – in order that they become more compliant,” he said.

Begg said the US’s lack of communication to detainees increased their mental distress further.

“[Detainees] don’t have meaningful communication with their families. They don’t know when or if they will ever face any trial or charge,” he said.

“To be in the situation where one can’t walk more than three steps in any direction, because the cell one is in is only eight feet by six feet, is one of the most harrowing experiences one can have.”

Source: Al Jazeera

THURSDAY, APRIL 05, 2007
8:59 MECCA TIME, 5:59 GMT
Playboy Indonesia ‘not pornography’

The case has drawn protests from Islamic groups who say the magazine threatens social morals [Reuters]

The editor-in-chief of Playboy Indonesia has been found innocent of violating indecency laws in the world’s most populous Muslim nation and will not face time behind bars.

Erwin Arnada had faced a maximum punishment of more than two years in prison in a case closely watched by conservative Muslim groups.

Arnada, who had vowed to continue publishing the magazine whatever the court’s  decision, later described the verdict as victory for press freedom.

But lawyers for some Islamic groups have said they will seek to bring another prosecution against the magazine.

Reading his verdict, Efran Basyuning, the presiding judge of the South Jakarta District Court, said pictures of scantily dressed women could not, under criminal laws, “be categorised as pornography.”

Hundreds of police armed with water canon were deployed outside the court in anticipation of any backlash from a crowd of protesters over the verdict.

“We will attack the Playboy office and sweep up copies of the magazine, which will destroy the morals of Indonesian children”
Irwan Asidi
Islamic Defenders Front
Prosecutors had called for Arnada to be jailed in the case seen as pitting press freedom against conservative Islamic values in the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation.

The prosecution said Arnada had upset society and damaged Indonesia’s morals.

But Arnada argued that Playboy Indonesia does not publish photographs of naked women or do anything to break Indonesia’s indecency laws.

“This is a great gift for Playboy Indonesia because up
until today for one year my friends and I worked under
pressure,” Arnada said at a press conference after the verdict was announced.

“Today’s verdict proved press freedom is respected in this country.”

Before the verdict he said the magazine would not be pulled from the shelves even if he ended up behind bars.

Playboy’s debut issue in April last year featured several models on its cover and inside pages, showing cleavage and long legs – but nothing more explicit.

Many other magazines and websites carrying much racier content are widely available in the country.

‘War’

Arnada had faced more than two years
in jail if found guilty [Reuters]
A lawyer representing a coalition of Muslim groups opposed to the magazine said they would refile the complaint not only against Playboy but against other adult magszines.

Earlier a group calling itself the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) warned it would “declare war” against the adult magazine, which is still being published in Indonesia, if the court in Jakarta failed to jail Arnada.

“We will attack the Playboy office and sweep up copies of the magazine, which will destroy the morals of Indonesian children,” Irwan Asidi, one of the Front’s leaders, told the AFP news agency ahead of the court’s ruling.

About 20 FPI members were allowed inside the courtroom itself as a panel of judges began reading the verdict.

“Playboy destroyed the mentality of the Indonesian generation. We have to fight against them. Islam not only protects Muslim followers but also non-Muslim,” FPI member Abdul Khodir said.

Speaking before the verdict, Ina Rachman, Arnada’s lawyer, said she hoped the court would rule objectively despite the protests.

“I hope the judges will take a decision independently and free from third-party influences,” she told AFP.

“We all know that the FPI has threatened all parties, including the judges and myself.”

Last year Playboy moved its Indonesian headquarters to the predominantly Hindu island of Bali after attacks on its offices in the capital, Jakarta.

Source: Agencies

THURSDAY, APRIL 05, 2007
14:46 MECCA TIME, 11:46 GMT
UN warns of Darfur ‘catastrophe’

About 13,000 aid workers are operating in the
Darfur region of Sudan [AFP]

The new United Nations humanitarian chief has warned of the “crying need” for political action to bring peace to Sudan’s Darfur region.

In a report to the UN security council, John Holmes said 2.2 million people had fled their homes in Darfur, and the number of displaced civilians has risen dramatically in Chad and the Central African Republic.

Holmes said it was time for politicians and concerned leaders to stop playing “protracted games with each other, with little or no thought to the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens, whom the international community meanwhile keeps alive”.

The UN emergency relief co-ordinator warned that despite 13,000 aid workers now operating in the region the poor security situation was putting efforts to help the population at risk.
Your Views

“Clearly, Darfur needs help from the rest of the world”
Jack, Houston, USA
Send us your views

“Despite its scale and success in sustaining millions and saving literally hundreds of thousands of lives, the Darfur humanitarian operation is increasingly fragile,” Holmes said after returning from a tour of Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic.

“If things do not get better, or if there were more serious incidents involving humanitarian workers, some organisations could start to withdraw and the operation could start to unravel.

“Then we could face a rapid humanitarian catastrophe … We must do everything in our power to avoid it.”

When Jan Egeland, Holmes’ predecessor, first warned the Security Council of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur three years ago this week, about 230 relief workers were struggling to assist 350,000 people.

Aid workers ‘abused’

Holmes told the Security Council that aid workers had been “physically and verbally abused, offices and residences raided and personal belongings stolen.”

About 2.2 million people have been displaced
by the conflict in Darfur [AFP]
He blamed both government forces and rebels for the violations of international law and widespread human rights abuses.

At least 200,000 people have died since the Darfur conflict erupted in February 2003 but some sources believe that the death toll is much higher.

The conflict broke out when rebels from minority tribes took up arms to demand an equal share of national resources. This prompted a  heavy-handed crackdown by Khartoum and the Janjawid militia.

Holmes said that more than 250,000 people had fled to displaced persons’ camps in the last six months and more than half of the population could be living in them within 18 months.

“Meanwhile, politicisation and militarisation of camps have become a fact of life, creating a future time bomb just waiting to go off,” he warned.

The former British ambassador to France also emphasised the effect the conflict was having on Sudan’s neighbours.

“The spillover effect from Darfur is clear, not least in eastern Chad.”

He also called for better protection of the Central African Republic’s border with Darfur, through the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.

Source: Agencies

Experts wrangle over wording in U.N. climate report
Thu Apr 5, 2007 10:27AM EDT
By Jeff Mason
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Climate experts sparred on Thursday over the wording of a U.N. report spelling out the grim impact of global warming and are struggling to meet a Friday deadline.
Delegates from more than 100 countries convened in Brussels this week to discuss the report and have yet to agree on all its contents, less than 24 hours before its scheduled Friday release, people familiar with the talks said.
It predicts rising temperatures will lead to more hunger in Africa, the melting of Himalayan glaciers, more heatwaves in the United States and damage to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
“There is wrangling happening,” said Hans Verolme, director of the global climate change program at WWF, an environmental group that is an observer to the meeting.
“There are some who are questioning the scientific basis … of some of the summary statements, which is leading the authors to have to go back to the underlying document.”
The U.N. panel’s report is the most authoritative study since 2001 on the regional impact of climate change.
Verolme said the fact world leaders would read the report’s summary had added pressure for consensus on the wording.
“There is discussion whether something is ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’, and my sense is that is because people are aware here that heads of state are paying attention,” he said.
“If the text says this is very likely, the response (from governments) has to be very significant.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draws on work by 2,500 scientists. A previous report released in Paris in February concluded it was more than 90 percent likely that recent warming had a predominantly human cause.
“They know they are under the gun, but it could run late,” one delegate said of the Brussels meeting. “It’s more complex than it was in Paris and they are further behind schedule.”
COSTS, SPECIES EXTINCTION
The IPCC has only once broken up without a deal, at talks in Geneva in 1995. It met successfully in Montreal a few weeks later. “It’s not the end of the world if you have to give it a pause,” said James Bruce, a Canadian who chaired those talks.
Environmental groups said this week governments must act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or risk exacerbating poverty in developing countries and destroying natural wonders worldwide.
The report says rising temperatures will have costs for society even though some countries, such as Canada and Russia in the north, might benefit for a while from higher farm yields.
“Impacts of unmitigated climate change will vary regionally but, aggregated and discounted to the present, they are very likely to impose costs … and these costs would increase over time,” a draft copy says.
The draft says “roughly 20-30 percent of species are likely to be at risk of irreversible extinction” if the global average temperature rises by 1.5-2.5 degrees Celsius (2.7-4.5 degrees Fahrenheit).
Seas could keep rising for centuries and the report emphasizes the link between human activities and climate change.
“At the global scale the anthropogenic (human) component of warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems,” it says.
It says there is “medium confidence” that Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could start melting if temperatures rise more than 1-2 degrees Celsius “causing sea level rise of 4-6 meters over centuries to millennia”.
(Additional reporting by Alister Dolye in Oslo)
U.S. supports “terrorists”, Iranian speaker says
Thu Apr 5, 2007 12:13PM EDT
By Kamran Haider
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – The United States is putting pressure on Iran by supporting anti-Iranian militants operating from the Pakistani border region, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Gholamali Haddadadel, said on Thursday.
But Haddadadel, speaking to reporters after talks with Pakistani leaders, said Pakistan was not involved in helping the militants.
“There is no doubt in our minds that the United States spares no effort to put pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Haddadadel said, speaking through an interpreter.
“The best indication of United States’ support to a particular terrorist group is that one of the leaders of this terrorist group was given the opportunity to speak on VoA after committing the crime,” he said, referring to a Voice of America radio broadcast after an unspecified attack.
The U.S. channel ABC News reported on Tuesday the United States had been secretly advising and encouraging a Pakistani militant group that had carried out a series of guerrilla raids inside Iran.
ABC, citing U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources, said the raids had resulted in the deaths or capture of Iranian soldiers and officials.
The group, called Jundullah and made up of members of the Baluchi ethnic group, who live in both Pakistan and Iran, operated from Pakistan’s Baluchistan province on the border with Iran, ABC said.
The group took responsibility for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on a bus in the Iranian city of Zehedan, ABC said.
“ABSURD AND SINISTER”
ABC cited Pakistani government sources as saying the secret campaign against Iran was on the agenda when U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney met Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.
The Pakistani Foreign Ministry dismissed the report as “tendentious”. It said the suggestion Pakistan was involved in a secret war against Iran was “an absurd and sinister insinuation”.
Haddadadel said Iran had to step up cooperation with Pakistan on the border.
“Some of the militants, the rebel forces are active in our border areas and we should work with Pakistan in order to increase security cooperation,” he said.
“There is no news, no evidence, and we don’t have any reason to believe that the military establishment in Pakistan is also supporting such militants groups,” he said.
Asked if he thought the United States would attack Iran over its nuclear program, he said: “I think it is highly unlikely. We do not see any reason for military action against Iran and we do not do anything to encourage military action.”
He also said he hoped work on a gas pipeline, from Iran, through Pakistan to energy-hungry India, would begin in July. The United States opposes the pipeline.
“The pipeline has political messages that there is security in the region and the three countries – Iran, Pakistan and India – decide on their own without foreign, external influence.”
The Money Chase: Obama Cashes In
POSTED: Wednesday, April 04, 2007
FROM BLOG: Rolling Stone National Affairs Daily – Up to the minute politics and current events, from the editors of Rolling Stone.

The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com.

I guess counting all that cash takes time. Barack Obama’s campaign has finally announced that it raised $25 million in the last quarter, with $23.5 million of that being dedicated primary money. On the face of it, this puts him a hair shy of Hillary Clinton. But it seems likely that he actually has more primary cash than Clinton, who has not disclosed what portion of her haul is earmarked for the general election.
UPDATE: ABC News is reporting that roughly $6 million of Hillary’s $26 million is non-primary, making Obama king of the finance hill on the Democratic side. Interestingly, he had more individual donors (100K+) than Clinton and John Edwards combined.
A roundup:
Hillary Clinton: $26 million
Barack Obama: $25 million
Mitt Romney: $23 million
Rudy Giuliani: $15 million
John Edwards: $14 million
John McCain: $12.5 million
Bill Richardson: $6 million
U.K. intrusion was a test of Iran’s defenses – Iranian official
05/04/2007 17:44 TEHRAN, April 5 (RIA Novosti) – The U.K.’s intrusion into Iran’s territorial waters was an attempt by the West to test the republic’s defense capabilities, a senior aide to Iran’s supreme leader said Thursday.
Iran detained 15 British Navy personnel in the Gulf March 23 for allegedly violating its maritime border with Iraq. Britain has insisted the servicemen were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate, and were returning in dinghies to HMS Cornwall after patrolling oil platforms.
“By trespassing into our country’s territorial waters, the occupation forces in Iraq sought, among other things, to test Iran. But considering Iran’s political and military wisdom, they met with a firm rebuff,” said Ali Akbar Velayati, international affairs advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
He said that Iran, like the Islamic world as a whole, “is not afraid of Western power.”
“Muslims must know that they can stand up to the strongest enemies of Islam,” he said.
The 15 British Navy personnel, released by Iranian authorities Wednesday after almost two weeks in custody, returned to the United Kingdom Thursday.
The freed sailors and marines arrived at Heathrow airport on a British Airways flight at 12:03 p.m. local time (11:03 a.m. GMT). They were then transferred to two military helicopters to fly to the Chivenor military base in Devon, 200 miles southwest of London, for a private meeting with their families.
Iran’s hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced the release of the 15 Royal Navy personnel in a surprise move late Wednesday, following a diplomatic standoff that his country and Britain had been engaged in since the crew’s detention in the Persian Gulf March 23.
Ahmadinejad announced the Britons’ release after just two days of talks, saying it was not the result of a deal, but that they had been pardoned by the Iranian leadership as a gesture of good will.
In return for the release, the British Foreign Ministry said it would soon consider lifting restrictions imposed on Iran following the incident.
The crisis pushed up oil prices and raised fears of a military conflict in the volatile region, as speculation grew of an impending strike by the U.S. on Iran in April.
The U.S. administration has repeatedly accused Tehran of interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs by providing weapons and extremist training to the country’s Shiite factions. It also suspects the Islamic Republic of covertly developing nuclear weapons.
In January U.S. servicemen detained five Iranian officials in Erbil, in Kurdistan, confiscating computers and documents without providing any explanation.
Shortly before the release of the British sailors, IRNA reported that Iranian diplomats would be allowed to meet the five Iranians detained by the U.S.
Another Iranian diplomat, seized separately in February in Baghdad, was released and returned to Iran Tuesday. Iran accused the U.S. of abducting him, a charge the U.S. denied.
No grounds to expect early U.S. strike against Iran – Russian diplomat
05/04/2007 15:31 MOSCOW, April 5 (RIA Novosti) – There are no grounds to expect a U.S. attack on Iran in the next few days, a deputy Russian foreign minister said Thursday.
The last few days have seen reports in Russian and foreign media that the U.S. has scheduled an operation, codenamed Bite, against Iran for 4:00 a.m. local time April 6. The operation to deliver air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities was to have lasted more than 12 hours.
“Our contacts with the U.S. side give no grounds for such expectations,” Alexander Losyukov said.
The U.S. has not excluded a military option in the standoff with Iran over its refusal to abandon its uranium enrichment program. The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran two weeks ago toughening economic sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a military solution to the crisis.
Last week, a Russian security official said that Russian intelligence had information that U.S. Armed Forces had nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran and would be ready to strike in early April.
The U.S. Administration sees Iran as a “rogue state” and is determined to stop the Islamic Republic, diplomatically or otherwise, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Washington now plans to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe allegedly to protect itself from potential missile strikes from Iran or North Korea.
Russia, which is separated from Iran in the south by three tiny South Caucasus nations and shares a sea border with the Islamic Republic, has been actively promoting a diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue.
Kuwaiti media warns of planned U.S. strike against Iran in Apr.
04/04/2007 14:08 ABU DHABI, April 4 (RIA Novosti) – A Kuwaiti newspaper warned Wednesday that the United States is planning a missile strike against Iran some time in April.
In an editorial citing unnamed Washington sources, As-Siyasa said air-to-surface missiles could be used in U.S. strikes against Iran, but that no ground operation would be launched to avoid casualties among U.S. service personnel.
A political statement announcing the strike will be delivered by President George W. Bush later this month, the newspaper said. It will justify the military action against Iran by the need to enhance security, peace and stability in the Gulf region and in the Middle East, and will reemphasize the danger of Tehran’s nuclear program to the United States and its allies.
Iran, blacklisted by Bush as part of what he calls “the axis of evil,” will be accused of interfering in Iraqi domestic affairs along with Syria, As-Siyasa said. Other accusations likely to be leveled at the Islamic Republic will include complicity in fuelling conflicts in Somalia, Yemen, Lebanon and Afghanistan, as well as jeopardizing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, the main passageway for oil tankers carrying Gulf crude to Asian markets.
According to the Kuwaiti newspaper, the U.S. Administration hopes its first military strike against Iran will trigger an anti-government outburst in the Islamic Republic, as there is growing discontent in Iranian society over the policies of “the cruel regime advocating a culture of death.”
Iran ready to defend itself from possible U.S. attack – speaker
05/04/2007 21:33 ISLAMABAD, April 5 (RIA Novosti) – Iran is prepared to defend itself should the United States attack it, the speaker of Iran’s parliament said Thursday.
The last few days have seen reports in Russian and foreign media that the U.S. has scheduled an operation, codenamed Bite, against Iran for 4:00 a.m. local time April 6. The operation, should it materialize, would deliver air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over a 12-hour period.
“The Iranian people are ready and determined to protect their land and to repel any enemy attack,” Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel said at a press conference during his visit to Pakistan.
However, he said it was highly unlikely the U.S. would attack his country, as “the U.S. has no real reason to do so.”
The speaker added that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had assured him that Pakistan would never get involved in any actions aimed at Iran.
The U.S. has not excluded a military option in the standoff with Iran over its refusal to abandon its uranium enrichment program.
The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran two weeks ago toughening economic sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a military solution to the crisis.
The U.S. Administration sees Iran as a “rogue state” and is determined to stop the Islamic Republic, diplomatically or otherwise, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Washington now plans to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe allegedly to protect itself from potential missile strikes from Iran or North Korea.
Iran’s air defense can repel U.S. air strikes – Russian brass
05/04/2007 14:44 MOSCOW, April 5 (RIA Novosti) – Iran has air defense systems capable of repelling possible United States air strikes, a high-ranking Russian military official said Thursday.
A Kuwaiti newspaper warned Wednesday that the United States was planning a missile strike against Iran some time in April. In an editorial citing unnamed Washington sources, As-Siyasa said air-to-surface missiles could be used in U.S. strikes against Iran, but that no ground operation would be launched to avoid casualties among U.S. service personnel.
“In line with my assessment, Iran’s air defense system is strong enough,” Colonel General Yury Solovyov, commander of the Air Defense Forces Special Command (former Moscow Military District Air Defense Command), said. “Currently Iran has our [Russian] air defense missile systems, which are capable of tackling U.S. combat aircraft. Iran also has French and other countries’ [defense] systems.”
Russia, which is separated from Iran in the south by three tiny South Caucasus nations and shares a sea border with the Islamic Republic, has been actively promoting a diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue.
Solovyov also said that Russia had been receiving detailed information on the current developments in the Persian Gulf situation.
Last week, a Russian security official said that Russian intelligence had information that U.S. Armed Forces had nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran and would be ready to strike in early April.
The U.S. has not excluded a military option in the standoff with Iran over its refusal to abandon its uranium enrichment program. The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran two weeks ago toughening economic sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a military solution to the crisis.
The U.S. Administration sees Iran as a “rogue state” and is determined to stop the Islamic Republic, diplomatically or otherwise, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Washington now plans to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe allegedly to protect itself from potential missile strikes from Iran or North Korea.
April 5, 2007
U.S. Is Reviewing Request by Iran to Let Its Envoy Visit 5 Iranians Seized in a Raid in Iraq
By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD, April 4 — American officials are reviewing an informal request from the Iranian government for an envoy to visit five Iranians who were imprisoned after an American raid in northern Iraq in January, an American military spokesman said Wednesday.
The spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, said at a news conference that the request was “being assessed at this time.” He added that the Americans had conducted the raid to go after people suspected of carrying out illegal operations in Iraq. The general did not say when the Americans might approve or reject the request.
He also said that the International Committee of the Red Cross had recently been allowed to visit a group of prisoners that included one of the five Iranians.
General Caldwell’s comments came in response to a reporter’s question concerning a report on Wednesday from the Iranian state news agency that an envoy from the Iranian Embassy in Iraq would meet with the five detainees.
Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, said the five Iranians were a subject of discussion at a regional conference held last month in Baghdad that American and Iranian diplomats attended.
General Caldwell’s comments came as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said Wednesday that his country would free 15 British marines and sailors who had been held for nearly two weeks. The British detainees were seized by the Iranian military in the northern Persian Gulf on March 23 and were accused of having trespassed into Iran’s territorial waters.
General Caldwell did not say whether there was any connection between talks over the five Iranians and negotiations over the 15 British captives.
The five Iranians imprisoned by the Americans were among six people detained in a raid on Jan. 11 in Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdistan region. American attack helicopters and armored vehicles backed up the soldiers who carried out the raid, and 200 Kurdish soldiers surrounded the Americans in a tense standoff before letting them leave with their prisoners. One of the detainees was released that day.
Iranian officials have said that the men are diplomats. Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister and a Kurd, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday that although the men being held were not officially diplomats, they had nevertheless been acting as liaisons between Iraq and Iran.
“It was not a clandestine operation,” he said. “They were known by us. They were under surveillance by regional security. They operated with the approval of the regional government and with the knowledge of the Iraqi government. We were in the process of formalizing that liaison office into a consulate. Then they would have diplomatic immunity.”
The Bush administration has long accused Iran of giving weapons and money to Shiite militias in Iraq, but it has increased its accusations in recent months. On Tuesday, an Iranian diplomat who was kidnapped more than eight weeks ago by men wearing uniforms from the Iraqi security forces was released to the Iranian Embassy. Mr. Zebari said that he had pushed hard to get the captors to free the diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, and that he was still working on the issue of the five Iranians held by the Americans.
Mr. Zebari said the liberation of Mr. Sharafi, the second secretary of the Iranian Embassy here, had nothing to do with the standoff over the 15 British marines and sailors.
In other political wrangling, two members of Parliament who answer to Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric, were fired by Mr. Sadr for meeting with the Americans, a third legislator, Saleh al-Ajili, said Wednesday. American military officials say Mr. Sadr is in Iran, while Mr. Sadr’s supporters say he is still in Iraq.
After the elections for Parliament in late 2005, political blocs filled the seats with members they had selected. Recent legislation has given the blocs the right to replace members, Mr. Ajili said.
He declined to give details of the meetings that the two fired legislators, Salam al-Maliki and Qusay Abdul Wahab, had with the Americans. Mr. Maliki is a former transportation minister. “We have an order not to meet with anyone from the occupation authorities,” Mr. Ajili said.
In Washington, Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the American forces in Iraq, told a television interviewer on Wednesday that there had been some initial signs of progress in the plan to improve security in Baghdad, including a decline in sectarian killings. But he acknowledged that the militant group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia had responded with “sensational attacks” in Tal Afar and Kirkuk. He made his comments on “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”
He also suggested that the Congressional measures setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq might embolden the insurgents. “I’m not sure that hard and fast deadlines are useful in the sense of providing the enemies out here just a time to which they have to hang tough, and then know that we would be going,” he said.
In Iraq, five employees of a power station were shot dead on Wednesday in an ambush west of Kirkuk, police officials said. In the Kut area, a concealed bomb killed two Iraqi soldiers. A former Iraqi Army colonel was shot dead in a restaurant in Falluja, and a civilian was killed by a sniper in Baghdad.
Four Iraqi policemen were killed in an ambush in restive Diyala Province on Tuesday night, a police official said Wednesday. A civilian was killed and seven were wounded in an attack the same day in the town of Khalis. The bodies of four people, including a policeman, were found Wednesday in Baquba, the capital of Diyala. Three Iraqi Army soldiers were killed in the province in a bomb attack on Wednesday, and one civilian was killed. Another civilian was discovered dead on Wednesday.
At least 22 shepherds and their sheep were seized Wednesday west of the city of Karbala by men in police uniforms. Police officials in Karbala denied any involvement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/world/middleeast/05iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=world&pagewanted=print
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2050424,00.html#article_continue
Diplomacy or a deal – how the standoff ended

• Hint of US concession on Iranians held in Iraq
• Syria claims to have played leading role

Julian Borger, Michael Howard in Baghdad, Robert Tait in Tehran
Thursday April 5, 2007
The release of the 15 Britons was a “gift” to the British people to celebrate the birth of the prophet Muhammad and Easter, according to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It also came two hours after an American general revealed the US might allow Iranian diplomats to visit five countrymen arrested in Iraq three months ago.
The timing has fuelled speculation of a deal to free the British sailors and marines seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. In a further coincidence, yesterday’s unexpected announcement came a day after the mysterious release of another Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, kidnapped in Baghdad at the beginning of the year by gunmen in Iraqi government uniforms.
The 13-day crisis was enveloped in a fog of secret diplomacy and informal talks. The Syrians claim to have played a leading role in persuading Iran of the foolishness in detaining the Britons any longer. Iran’s decision may have been the culmination of many reasons, but observers say Tehran must have been convinced it was in its interests to give up its bargaining chips.
The existence of a deal was denied by all involved. George Bush insisted there would be no “quid pro quo”. British officials said they had Iranian assurances a prisoner swap was not on the agenda, and President Ahmadinejad was adamant the release was for “humanitarian reasons”.
Yesterday the Iraqi foreign minister, who appears to have played a critical go-between role, added his voice to the chorus of denial. “The British media are linking it as if it is part of bargain with Iran to release the British sailors and marines. It has no connection whatsoever”, Hoshyar Zebari told The Guardian yesterday.
Mr Zebari said he had asked the US military to grant consular access to the Iranian diplomats (known as the “Irbil five” after the town in which they were arrested) in a bid to “ease the atmosphere” between Iran and the US at the time of last month’s Baghdad security conference.
The US military spokesman, Major General William Caldwell said authorities were considering the request for access.
A source close to the Revolutionary Guards gave a different account. The fate of the Irbil five was not a motive for the capture, he said, but it did become a negotiating point after the event. “Officially there is no swap. But there should not be a double standard. You want access [to your prisoners]. We want access [to ours].”
He provided the first comprehensive Iranian version of events on March 23 when the 15 Britons were captured by Revolutionary Guard sailors on the shallow seas of the northern Gulf. Not only had the British patrol strayed into Iranian waters, he claimed, but it was at least the fourth such incursion in three months.
“They came to our waters before … at least three times,” the Iranian source said. “We gave them notice that you shouldn’t be. We didn’t use aggressive methods. We didn’t shoot [across the British bows]. Both sides know the sensitive atmosphere.”
The source explained that the Britons had been captured by low-ranking Revolutionary Guards, but once arrested, their release required intervention on a higher level. That was delayed by the No Rouz (new year) holidays which only ended on Tuesday. “Junior people got them, but only senior people could let them go, and they can only let them go after an investigation,” he said. During No Rouz, he added, “everyone is in the villages and mobile phones don’t work there.”
The US refusal to exclude the use of military force against Iran to stop its nuclear programme, together with a series of separatist attacks in Iran’s border regions had put the Revolutionary Guard on alert for incursions. “They are on a yellow state of readiness,” the source said. “We don’t believe the British intent is to start a war, but America has said it is on the table.”
The investigation into the incident would have run its course and the Britons would have been released, but the affair was complicated by Tony Blair’s decision to take the matter to the UN security council last Wednesday, he added.
Analysts in Tehran said the British crew provided a convenient tool for the Iranian government at a time it was casting around for a means to strike back against an Anglo-American policy of isolation.
Iran’s leadership had become alarmed about UN sanctions over its nuclear programme as well as the seizure of diplomats and operatives in Iraq. Wary of striking at the US directly, the Iranians saw the sailors as an opportunity to humiliate Britain.
“Iran was seeking the chance to get something out of Britain,” said Mohammad Atrianfar, a commentator with close ties to moderate figures in the Iranian regime. “The issue isn’t important militarily but it has been useful politically.”
The return of Mr Sharafi to Iran on Tuesday and the prospect of access to the Irbil five strengthened the hand of President Ahmadinejad, according to Issa Saharkhiz, another political analyst.
The Britons’ televised “confessions” have served an internal political purpose – convincing a sceptical public that Iran is threatened by a determined enemy.
By IANS
Wednesday April 4, 02:30 PM
Kuwait City, April 4 (Xinhua) The US is planning to attack Iran’s nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.
The speech will provide the ‘evidence’ and the ‘justification’ for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions, said the report.
According to the Times, one of the justifications expected in the speech is Iran’s alleged role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by supporting various militias with money and arms.
The US president’s speech will also point to Iran’s political interference in Iraq, obviously in cooperation with Syria.
The sources were quoted as saying that US will not resort to a ground attack in order to avoid human losses.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070404/43/6e5dl.html

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=176657&Sn=WORL&IssueID=30016
New Iraq ethnic cleansing fear
WASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary Robert Gates last night warned that limiting troops’ activities in Iraq and withdrawing from Baghdad could lead to “ethnic cleansing” in the capital and elsewhere in the country.
“One real possibility is if we abandon some of these areas and withdraw into the countryside or whatever to do these targeted missions that you could have a fairly significant ethnic cleansing inside Baghdad and in Iraq more broadly,” Gates said.
“What we do know is if Baghdad is in flames and the whole city is engulfed in violence, the prospects for a political solution are almost nonexistent,” he said on the Laura Ingraham syndicated radio programme.
Gunmen killed 11 electricity plant workers in northern Iraq after stopping their vehicle and machine-gunning them as they sat inside, Iraqi police and army officials said.
Police also said 22 goat herders from an extended Shi’ite family were kidnapped near the holy city of Karbala, 110km southwest of Baghdad. It was the second mass kidnapping in a week.
Police said gunmen ambushed the vehicle carrying power plant workers in a mainly Sunni area near Hawija, about 70km southwest of the northern city of Kirkuk.
One soldier died and a second was wounded when their patrol came under fire in the southern outskirts of Baghdad, the US military reported.
Iraq said yesterday it is extending the military crackdown in Baghdad to other flashpoint regions.
Iraqi and US officials announced that Operation Fardh Al Qanoon (Imposing Law) has already been underway in the restive northern city of Mosul since Tuesday and will also focus more on the outskirts of Baghdad.
Two Iraqi legislators from the movement of anti-American cleric Moqtada Al Sadr were sacked for meeting US officials, the movement said. A political committee of Sadr’s movement fired former transport minister Salam Al Maliki and parliament member Qusay Abdul Wahab as the movement’s representatives in the legislature for meeting American officials two days ago.

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press WriterWed Apr 4, 9:22 PM ET
Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.
“I don’t care what the administration says on this. You’ve got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country,” said Rep. Frank Wolf (news, bio, voting record), R-Va. “I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah.”
Washington accuses Syria of backing Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups it deems terrorist organizations. The Bush administration also says Syria is contributing to the violence in Iraq by allowing Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory and is destabilizing Lebanon’s government.
Bush sharply criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., for leading a delegation to meet with Syria’s president, Bashar Assad.
The White House, however, stayed relatively quiet about a similar trip just a few days earlier by Wolf and GOP Reps. Robert Aderholt (news, bio, voting record) of Alabama and Joseph Pitts (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania.
Returning on Wednesday, the lawmakers said they made clear to Assad that they support Bush and were not representing the administration. But they said they felt it was important to keep open lines of communication.
“This is an area where we would disagree with the administration,” Aderholt said. “None of us in the Congress work for the president. We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents. … I think there’s room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line.”
A White House spokesman, Alex Conant, said the administration tries to deter lawmakers from both parties from engaging Assad.
“We discourage all visits to Syria because it’s a state sponsor of terror,” he said. “A lot of officials have gone, and it hasn’t changed the Syrians’ behavior.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/republicans_syria&printer=1;_ylt=AspHav.CW4rGVVql4xBQbLWMwfIE
Americans want strong leader, fidelity, drugs less an issue: poll
1 hour, 43 minutes ago
Most Americans want their next president to be strong, decisive and of good moral character, but fewer seem to care if he or she has been unfaithful to their spouse, or even tried drugs.
A Gallup poll released on Thursday showed that while Republicans and Democrats are essentially looking for the same qualities in the next president of the United States, they differ on some important issues.
Some 77 percent of the 1,006 people polled across the country said the next president must be a strong and decisive leader, although only 34 percent said the next incumbent must have experience of government.
But where the two camps divided was on personal qualities. Only 37 percent in total said it was “absolutely essential” that the next US leader has been a faithful spouse — but broken down along party lines the figure was 52 percent among Republicans and only 25 percent among Democrats.
Gallup said this was the “starkest partisan gap” in the poll carried out late last month and “may stem from opposing partisan perspectives on the marital foibles of former president Bill Clinton.”
Clinton’s wife, Hillary, is a leading contender for the Democratic Party nomination for the 2008 presidential elections. She stood by her husband even when his affair with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, was revealed.
As for the thorny issue of drugs, voters showed themselves to be more tolerant with a total of 19 percent saying the next president should be someone who has never tried drugs — 22 percent among Republicans and 17 percent among Democrats.
Around a third of those polled said the next president had to be honest and straightforward, making it the top of the five most desirable personal qualities in the country’s leader.
But Republicans also cited integrity and good moral character, while Democrats preferred that he or she should listen to the people and not lobbyists, and focus on domestic issues rather than foreign policy.
“Democrats have a greater interest than Republicans in wanting a president who will consider public opinion when making decisions,” the poll said.
The 2008 race for the White House looks like being one of the most open in years with a slew of hopefuls on both sides, and campaigning well under way months before the first primaries for the party nominations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070405/pl_afp/usvote2008president_070405173250&printer=1;_ylt=At.Mx78r8TYoo1oM98EWh4qtOrgF

U.S. Lets Red Cross See Seized Iranians
Disclosure Follows Freeing of Diplomat Abducted by Uniformed Men in Baghdad
By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 5, 2007; A12
BAGHDAD, April 4 — The U.S. military has allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit five Iranian officials who were detained in Iraq nearly three months ago on suspicion of plotting against American and Iraqi forces.
A Red Cross delegation that included one Iranian citizen visited the detainees, and a request for a formal consular visit with them is “being assessed at this time” by the U.S. military, said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq.
In a briefing for reporters Wednesday, Caldwell did not say when the visit took place or whether it was connected to the case of the 15 British sailors and marines detained by Iran on March 23; Iran subsequently announced that they would be released.
The Iraqi government has called for the release of the five Iranians, who were captured during a U.S. military raid in January on an office providing consular services in the Kurdish city of Irbil.
A spokeswoman for the ICRC, Dorothea Krimitsas, confirmed that her organization had visited the Iranian officials but declined to provide details. In general, she said, such inspections involve multiple visits, and information about the detainees’ treatment is discussed privately with the “detaining authorities.”
News of the visit came a day after the Iraqi government confirmed that an Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, who was abducted Feb. 4 in downtown Baghdad by people dressed in military uniforms, had been freed. The back-to-back developments raised questions about whether they were connected to the diplomatic crisis involving Britain and Iran. U.S. and Iraqi officials denied that Sharafi’s release was related.
During an international conference held in Baghdad in March, Iranian representatives discussed the issue of the five detainees with Zalmay Khalilzad, then the U.S. ambassador, and “there were promises to solve it in a friendly way,” Ali Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, told reporters Wednesday in Baghdad.
“We don’t want these relations to affect the situation in Iraq,” he said.
The Americans have accused the Iranians of being members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s al-Quds Force, which is said to be active in arming and training militant movements in the Middle East. At the time of their capture, the Iranians were without passports and attempting to flush documents down a toilet, U.S. officials have said.
In a separate development Wednesday, two members of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s bloc in the Iraqi parliament were said to be removed from the powerful political alliance because they held meetings with Americans, according to the head of Sadr’s parliamentary bloc.
Nasar al-Rubaie, a leader of the 30-person alliance of Shiite lawmakers loyal to Sadr, said that the two legislators, Salam al-Maliki and Qusay Abdul Wahab, violated “clear instructions” by meeting with the unspecified Americans.
“If there is any kind of meeting between someone and the occupation, he will be rejected by Moqtada al-Sadr himself,” Rubaie said.
But both Wahab and Maliki, a former transportation minister, emphatically denied that they had met with Americans or that they had been removed from the Sadr bloc. “This is a fabrication and completely untrue,” Wahab said in an interview. “What was said by some of the powerful people in the Sadr trend isn’t accurate and its aim is to split the lines of the Sadr trend through these rumors and accusations.”
Some American officials contend that Sadr’s organization has fractured, following speculation that the cleric retreated to Iran and left his followers without decisive leadership. The mayor of the Baghdad slum of Sadr City, Rahim al-Darraji, was attacked by gunmen last month after meeting with U.S. military officials.
Sami al-Askari, a Shiite member of parliament who works closely with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said that the accusations against the two Sadr officials may be a convenient excuse to purge two members who have been at odds with others in the bloc. But he doubted Sadr was losing control.
“There are always differences between different factions but nevertheless Moqtada Sadr is the leader of this movement,” he said.
Also Wednesday, the U.S. military said that an American soldier had been killed by small-arms fire in the southern outskirts of Baghdad while on a foot patrol Tuesday.
An engineer and four technicians working at the Mulla Abdullah power plant southwest of Kirkuk were killed when their car was struck by a roadside bomb, according to Maj. Abdul Jabbar al-Jubury of the Hawijah police station.
In southern Iraq, gunmen riding in pickup trucks kidnapped 22 shepherds in the Rufaiaa district near Karbala, an Interior Ministry official said. Meanwhile, 19 decapitated bodies arrived for burial in the southern city of Najaf, which is revered by Shiites. Religious officials in Najaf said the men were executed in a village in Diyala province because they were Shiites.
Special correspondent Saad Sarhan in Najaf and Waleed Saffar in Baghdad contributed to this report.
Questions the Navy chiefs must now answer

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Last Updated: 7:41am BST 05/04/2007

Yesterday the Navy breathed a huge sigh of relief. Today the inquiry into the affair will begin, with recriminations likely and many questions to be asked of commanders.

Foremost among those to be questioned will be Commodore Nick Lambert, the flotilla commander ultimately in charge of the 15 sailors who were allowed to venture out of sight of his flagship Cornwall with very little support while just two miles from Iran’s disputed territorial waters.
While Cornwall had too deep a draught to provide line of sight cover for the boarding party, there were many other ships that could have given immediate back-up.
Cdre Lambert has 12 warships under his command in Coalition Task Force 158, including several US Navy patrol boats capable of 35 knots and bristling with machineguns that would have outgunned the Iranians.
It has been suggested he could have ordered any one of these to “overwatch” the boarding party.
advertisement
Questions have also been asked why the Cornwall’s Lynx helicopter was not above the two Pacific tenders during the search of the Indian vessel. They can remain airborne for four hours yet the boarding lasted 80 minutes.
The incident was also along a border that has not been entirely agreed by Iran and Iraq. Part of their 1980 war that cost a million lives was over a disputed boundary that had been agreed only in 1975.
The Navy has argued that Cornwall carried out 66 previous boardings without incident. Military observers argue that this is similar to saying an Army platoon in Basra carried out 66 foot patrols without rear cover and it was unfortunate someone got shot in the back on the 67th.
The Navy has been accused of not having the right “standard operating procedures” in place and becoming complacent after years of boardings in the Gulf. Its intelligence gathering has also come under the spotlight. They must have known tensions were running high after the Americans captured five Iranians in Iraq in January and as the UN gathered to consider sanctions.
Cornwall’s radar operators, too, should have been more alert to a sudden surge by Iranian fast patrol boats. In the past few months, there have been several incursions but the Revolutionary Guards have been chased off by bigger ships.
As a Type 22 frigate designed to chase down Soviet submarines during the Cold War, Cornwall was not the best equipped ship for the task in hand.
The question has been raised in several quarters as to why did the Navy not deploy several patrol vessels it has laid up in Britain.
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HMPZA05XQHOIVQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/05/wiran905.xml

Gonzales Prepares to Fight for His Job in Testimony
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 5, 2007; A01
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has retreated from public view this week in an intensive effort to save his job, spending hours practicing testimony and phoning lawmakers for support in preparation for pivotal appearances in the Senate this month, according to administration officials.
After struggling for weeks to explain the extent of his involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, Gonzales and his aides are viewing the Senate testimony on April 12 and April 17 as seriously as if it were a confirmation proceeding for a Supreme Court or a Cabinet appointment, officials said.
Ed Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman, and Timothy E. Flanigan, who worked for Gonzales at the White House, have met with the attorney general to plot strategy. The department has scheduled three days of rigorous mock testimony sessions next week and Gonzales has placed phone calls to more than a dozen GOP lawmakers seeking support, officials said.
Gonzales is seeking to convince skeptical lawmakers that he can be trusted to command the Justice Department after the prosecutor firings, which he initially described as an “overblown personnel matter.” Subsequent documents and testimony from his former chief of staff have shown that Gonzales was regularly briefed on the process, revelations that have led to calls for his resignation.
Justice officials and outside experts said the effort is further hampered by legal conflicts among Gonzales and his senior aides. Top Democrats have also accused department officials of misleading Congress in previous testimony, leading Justice lawyers to insist on limiting contact between key players to avoid allegations of obstructing a congressional investigation, officials said.
As a result, Gonzales and senior Justice lawyers have so far received little assistance from the White House and cannot consult with some of his closest aides, including Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, officials said.
“We are hampered because some senior officials are not able to discuss the facts as they know them in the same room, for fears of additional accusations of misleading Congress,” said one Justice official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) sent a letter to Gonzales on Tuesday, asking for “appropriate firewalls” between potential witnesses involved in the firings.
“Our question to you is: Who do we talk to at the Department of Justice?” Leahy and Whitehouse wrote. “The office of the Attorney General appears to be hopelessly conflicted.”
Several central players in the prosecutor saga are out of the Justice Department building altogether. They include Gonzales’s former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned last month, and senior counselor Monica M. Goodling, who is on indefinite leave and who yesterday reiterated her refusal to answer questions from Congress. Michael J. Elston, McNulty’s chief of staff, also began a scheduled personal leave this week after submitting to six hours of congressional interviews last Friday, officials said.
“In a sense, this is even more difficult than a confirmation hearing, because you are defending a record that has been assailed publicly and it involves other members of Justice who are also going to be called,” said former senator Daniel R. Coats (R-Ind.), who led confirmation preparations for Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.
“It just compounds the difficulty facing any witness in this situation,” Coats said. “You don’t have the ability to coordinate with other organizations or individuals that are going to be testifying, and there will be a lot of people looking for inconsistencies. It is no small challenge for the attorney general.”
Gonzales is getting little support from Republicans in Congress, according to several GOP aides. Gonzales is scheduled to testify next Thursday before the Senate Appropriations Committee on budget matters, and then on April 17 at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing focused on the prosecutor firings.
Aides said the tenor has been set on the GOP side by Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking Republican on the judiciary panel. Specter has told Gonzales in private that he should consider beginning his testimony with an apology.
In previous confirmation hearings — including those for Gonzales in January 2005 and Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. since then — the White House, the Justice Department and Judiciary Committee Republicans closely coordinated their efforts.
In the case of Roberts, Specter’s chief counsel, Michael O’Neill, attended one of the mock testimony sessions known as “murder boards,” according to a former GOP committee staffer, who requested anonymity to speak freely about internal panel activities. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) was in attendance to watch a similar session with Alito.
Gillespie, now head of the Virginia GOP, and Flanigan, who pulled out of contention in 2005 as Gonzales’s pick for deputy attorney general, did not return telephone calls seeking comment on their recent discussions with him.
After traveling around the country much of last week in an attempt to shore up fractured relations with U.S. attorneys, Gonzales has spent this week sequestered in his fifth-floor office suite, poring over thousands of pages of documents related to his upcoming testimony. He canceled tentative plans for a family vacation this week to focus on the hearings, officials said.
“The attorney general is very focused and is spending extensive time preparing this week to testify before Congress,” spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.
Top Democrats have focused in recent days on escalating their demands for testimony from Goodling, Gonzales’s senior counselor and White House liaison. She has told Congress that she will assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions about the firings.
Leahy and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have questioned whether Goodling is attempting to hide criminal activity by refusing to answer questions.
Goodling’s attorneys, John M. Dowd and Jeffrey King, responded in a letter yesterday that such allegations “are unfortunately reminiscent of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who infamously labeled those who asserted their constitutional right to remain silent before his committee ‘Fifth Amendment Communists.’ “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402614_pf.html

Executive power hot topic at New Hampshire forums
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 4, 2007
http://washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20070404-122704-5881r
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. – Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday defended President Bush’s extensive use of national security tools such as the USA Patriot Act as no worse than other countries, but Sen. Barack Obama said he would use executive orders to roll back some of those powers.
“The Patriot Act does give the government more tools, more power, but it’s not vastly out of line with what other governments have, free governments, democratic governments,” Mr. Giuliani told the Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce while campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination here in New Hampshire.
“All of this takes a little privacy away from somebody. It depends on who you take it away from, and what is at stake,” he said.
But Mr. Obama, Illinois Democrat and one of the top Democrats seeking his party’s presidential nod, said Mr. Bush has “just gone nuts in amassing more and more executive control and skewing the checks and balances.”
Speaking to a town hall in Rochester, he said he will use executive orders to grant terrorism detainees new legal rights, prohibit torture and create more oversight for intelligence gathering such as data mining and the use of national security letters to obtain personal information from companies.
“A lot of the executive orders I’ll be issuing are just reversing some of the executive orders put forward over the last six years,” Mr. Obama said.
The two men were taking questions at separate forums yesterday as they and other candidates, fresh off announcing fundraising totals, spread throughout New Hampshire, which traditionally holds the first-in-the-nation primaries.
Some Democrats appeared unsettled at the large amounts of cash the campaign will require. At his town hall yesterday Mr. Obama, who hasn’t released a tally but has reportedly raised at least $20 million, had to defend himself against one questioner who told him, “I don’t want money to pick my next president, I want to pick my next president.”
Mr. Obama said he’s trying to change the system but for now has to play with the rules as they are.
“What I’ve tried to do is engage the system in a way that keeps me feeling like my integrity is intact I don’t take money, I don’t take money from registered federal lobbyists,” he said.
In his own town hall in Derry, Republican candidate Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, had to explain why he loaned his campaign more than $2 million of his own money, despite earlier saying he would try to avoid that.
He joked he was just taking money from his children’s inheritance, then said he will always keep open the option of using his own money.
“I don’t have the name recognition that some of the other people have at the beginning of this race,” Mr. Romney said.
For his part, Mr. Giuliani fielded a question about his health, and assured his audience he is doing well, and there is no sign of the prostate cancer that caused him to drop out of his 2000 race for a U.S. Senate seat.
The former mayor gained a reputation for tough measures that helped him reduce crime in New York City from the so-called “crime capital” of the country to what he said was the safest big city in the nation. But those measures have left some conservatives worried about what he would do as president with the tools available to him.
Yesterday, Mr. Giuliani said it’s a balancing act. He pointed to the post-September 11 airplane-security rules as an example of an acceptable trade-off.
“It’s worth giving up that inconvenience, isn’t it?” Mr. Giuliani said, adding that if he goes too far, “That’s what we have a Supreme Court for.”
But one woman in the back of the room shook her head and repeatedly said “No” as Mr. Giuliani posed the question.
Afterward the woman, who asked that only her first name, Wendy, be used because of her job, said Mr. Giuliani would be making the same mistakes she said Mr. Bush has made on civil liberties.
“It just seems to me we are giving up some of the things that are important to us,” she said.
She said she is a registered independent who voted for President Reagan but said Republicans have a high bar for her this time, mainly because she disagrees with so much Mr. Bush has done.

Iran well-prepared to deal with any probable military attack: Ambassador
Beirut, April 5, IRNA
Iran-Lebanon-Attack
Iran’s Ambassador to Beirut Mohammad Reza Sheybani said on Thursday that the Islamic Republic of Iran is well-prepared to deal with any probable military attack.

He made the remarks after his meeting with former Lebanese Premier Omar Karami.
Speaking to reporters on Iran’s reaction to probable US attack, he said such a threat is unlikely but the Islamic Republic of Iran is well-prepared to defend national sovereignty.
The current political developments in the region indicated that the US waged psychological warfare to push its goals in the region, he said.
Referring to his meeting with Karami, he said during the talks the two sides reviewed the latest developments in the region, Lebanon and Iran’s achievements at various fields.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is working with Saudi Arabia to help resolve existing crisis in the Lebanon, he said.
Lauding the efforts of the Islamic Republic of Iran in resolving the current crisis in Lebanon, Karami called on Iran to proceed with such efforts.
1430/1416
—> Iran-Lebanon-Attack
http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-22/0704053453195323.htm

CIA hires terrorist group to operate inside Iran
New York, April 4, IRNA
Iran-US-Terrorism
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has hired a Pakistani terrorist group that has carried out a series of deadly terrorist attacks inside Iran, ABC News has reported on Wednesday.

The group, members of the Baluchi tribe, operates from Pakistan’s province of Baluchestan, just across the border from Iran.
ABC cited US government sources it did not identify as saying the US has maintained close ties to its leader, Abdel-Malik Regi, since 2005.
The group, called Jundullah, has carried out raids, resulting in the deaths or kidnapping of Iranian ordinary people as well as soldiers and officials.
The large Iranian community residing in the US protested strongly to Voice of America (VOA)’s live interview with Regi recently in which the terrorist claimed responsibility for the operations.
Regi admitted to have personally executed some of the Iranian captives, the ABC News report said.
Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant, told the program that Regi used to fight with the Taliban, adding “he’s part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist”.
“He is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera.”
The group claimed responsibility for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.
Iranian television last month broadcast confessions by those responsible for the bus attack.
They admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.
The only relationship with the group that US intelligence acknowledges is cooperation in tracking al-Qaeda figures in that part of Pakistan.
ABC cited Pakistani government sources as saying the secret campaign against Iran was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.
Asked about the report, Cheney spokeswoman Megan McGinn responded:
“We don’t discuss conversations between the vice president and foreign leaders.”
1416/1416
http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-20/0704040938172103.htm

Most Guantanamo detainees held inhumanely – Amnesty
London, April 5, IRNA
UK Amnesty-US Guantanamo Prisoners
Amnesty International Thursday expressed renewed alarm at the inhuman conditions in which the overwhelming majority of detainees are held in by the US at its concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The London-based human rights group said that 80 per cent of the detainees being held for more than four years without charge or trial were subjected to solitary confinement.
“The entire process at Guantanamo is a travesty of justice, but we have particular concerns over the widespread use of solitary confinement in harsh conditions at the camp,” Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen said.
Allen warned that some prisoners were “dangerously close to full- blown mental and physical breakdown” and called on the US authorities to “stop pushing people to the edge with extreme isolation techniques.”
The human rights group, which has long called for the closure of the entire camp set up outside US jurisdiction, also called for independent medical experts to be allowed to examine the prisoners.
In its latest report, it estimated that there were approximately 385 men still held at the camp and that after an apparent hardening of US operational detention policy in January, around 300 are now being held in three units with minimal contact with others.
Coming after the recent release of UK resident Bisher al-Rawi, who was held for over four years, Amnesty said that the refusal by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government to help all British residents was “untenable and unacceptable.”
“The UK is duty-bound to assist people resident in the UK, many of whom are refugees and have British nationals as family members,” it said.
2220/345/1416
http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-20/0704052937192733.htm

Russia awaits U.S. explanation on military buildup in Mideast – FM
27/01/2007 15:25 MOSCOW, January 27 (RIA Novosti) – Moscow expects the United States to explain its growing military presence in the Middle East, Russia’s foreign minister said Saturday.
“I have not seen any change in Washington’s rather assertive tone,” Sergei Lavrov said. “It continues, as [the U.S.] continues to build its military presence in the region.”
Lavrov will travel to Washington early next month to attend a ministerial meeting of four international mediators in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
At the Washington meeting, the UN will be represented by the organization’s new secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, while Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany, which currently holds the European Union’s rotating presidency, will represent the 27-nation bloc.
The latest Mideast Quartet ministerial meeting took place on the sidelines of a UN General Assembly session in New York in September 2006.
The participants expressed their support for efforts by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to form a national unity government and urged radical Islamist movement Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and implement the 2003 “roadmap” peace plan, which provides for a two-state solution to the Mideast conflict.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070127/59781061.html

Bush fighting to stay relevant
Fri Apr 6, 2007 8:11AM EDT
By Matt Spetalnick – Analysis
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – With George W. Bush struggling to stay relevant in his final 22 months in the White House, his administration is looking more and more like the incredible shrinking presidency.
He finds himself increasingly hemmed in by public approval ratings stuck in the low 30 percent range, a hostile Democratic majority in Congress and an unpopular war that has eroded his credibility at home and abroad.
“The real danger is that the president becomes politically irrelevant, that he presides instead of leads,” said Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania.
Cracks have also formed in his inner circle, and many fellow Republicans are ever more skeptical of his ability to help them hold onto the presidency in the 2008 election.
At the same time, Bush’s attempt to use the megaphone of his office to shape national debate is increasingly being drowned out by public disenchantment with his Iraq policy and doubts over his leadership, analysts say.
As he settles in for the Easter holiday break at his Texas ranch, he will no doubt be contemplating the rest of his presidency. Many experts are skeptical he can salvage it.
“This is a full-blown lame-duck period in which the president’s stature is diminishing,” Madonna said. “Barring a crisis, Congress and the American people won’t be paying much attention to what he has to say.”
To make matters worse, Bush is finding himself crowded off the political calendar by an increasingly front-loaded presidential primary race, which has turned the spotlight on potential successors faster than in earlier campaigns.
That may help explain why Bush, who has vowed to “sprint” to the end of his second term, is starting to embrace “small ball” policy tactics. Aides once derided this approach, adapted from a baseball strategy of seeking incremental advances, as the hallmark of his Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton.
A telling example is how Bush has devoted large chunks of time in recent months to promoting ethanol as a gasoline alternative, a pet project that has generated little public enthusiasm and which some critics say is too little, too late.
The initiative has been marked by a series of appearances with Bush donning white lab coats to tour ethanol research centers and posing alongside “flex-fuel” vehicles.
FACING POLITICAL REALITY
The political reality, however, is that Bush’s energy plan stands as little chance as the rest of his domestic agenda — health care, Social Security and immigration reform — of getting past newly empowered Democrats angry over Iraq.
Susan MacManus, a political science professor at the University of South Florida, said that while bipartisan cooperation is still possible, “At this stage, Democrats are reluctant to give the president a major policy success.”
They are instead defying his veto threats and pressing ahead with legislation linking Iraq war funding to a troop withdrawal timetable, calling it the will of voters who gave them control of Congress in the November elections. Bush says it would undercut the war effort.
The looming showdown is another reflection of Bush’s decline from approval ratings of 90 percent after the September 11 attacks to near the low point of his presidency today.
Bush denies he is slipping into lame-duck status, and the White House insists he has the ear of the American people.
But mindful of his unpopularity, aides seem more intent than ever that he play to sympathetic audiences. He recently addressed the American Legion and a cattlemen’s group and stopped at a California army base en route to his Texas ranch.
An avid baseball fan, Bush also declined to throw out the first pitch of the Major League season this week. Aides blamed a scheduling conflict. But there were suspicions the White House feared he would be booed.
Adding to a sense of increasing isolation, few of Bush’s own Republicans have joined him in backing his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, against a Democratic outcry over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.
Bush could still try to turn the tables on the Democrats as Clinton did to a Republican-led House of Representatives in 1995 when he outmaneuvered them in a bitter budget fight.
“Bush could get some political mileage if he can cast them as a do-nothing, obstructionist Congress,” MacManus said.
But it was Bush on the defensive at a news conference this week when asked about a New York Times interview with Matthew Dowd, chief strategist of his 2004 campaign, who said he had lost faith in the president and described him as “bubbled in.”
Bush suggested it was Dowd’s emotional reaction to having a son in the armed forces who was “deployable” to Iraq, and he bristled when asked about conservative columnist Robert Novak writing he had become estranged from his party in Congress.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0428942920070406

Historians battle over Okinawa WW2 mass suicides
Fri Apr 6, 2007 6:04AM EDT
By Linda Sieg
TOKYO (Reuters) – Sumie Oshiro was 25 when she and her friends tried to kill themselves to avoid capture by U.S. soldiers at the start of the bloody Battle of Okinawa.
“We were told that if women were taken prisoner we would be raped and that we should not allow ourselves to be captured,” Oshiro said on last month’s anniversary of the March 26, 1945, invasion of the Japanese islet of Zamami.
“Four of us tried to commit suicide with one hand grenade, but it did not go off,” Ryukyu Shimpo, a local Okinawa newspaper, quoted Oshiro as saying at a gathering of now elderly survivors.
The fighting on Zamami, south of the main Okinawan island, was the prelude to three months of carnage that took some 200,000 lives, about half of them Okinawan men, women and children.
Many civilians, often entire families, committed suicide rather than surrender to Americans, by some accounts on the orders of fanatical Japanese soldiers.
“The army ordered them to commit suicide,” said Yoshikazu Miyazato, 58, who plans to publish testimony from survivors on Zamami, where he says suicides accounted for 180 of the 404 civilians — about half of the islet’s population — who died.
The accuracy of such accounts, however, has been questioned by conservative historians who argue the suicides were voluntary.
Late last month, the education ministry ordered publishers of high school textbooks to modify references to Japanese soldiers ordering civilians to kill themselves.
The textbook revisions echo other efforts by conservatives to revise descriptions of Japan’s wartime actions, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s denial that the military or government hauled women away to serve as sex slaves for Japanese soldiers in Asia before and during World War Two.
Abe has sought to dampen overseas outrage over his remarks by repeating his backing for a 1993 apology to the “comfort women”, as they are known in Japan, and offering his own brief apology.
“In every case, Abe’s administration is saying there was no military involvement,” Shoukichi Kina, an opposition lawmaker from Okinawa told Reuters in a phone interview.
“They are distorting history and it is unforgiveable.”
“WORSE THAN DEVILS”
One reason cited for the revisions was a lawsuit by a former Japanese army officer and relatives of another charging the two men were was falsely described in works by publisher Iwanami Shoten as having ordered civilian suicides in Okinawa.
That prompted the publisher and Nobel Prize-winning author Kenzaburo Oe to send a letter of protest to the education ministry, criticizing the fact that only the views of the plaintiffs in the court case had been taken into account.
The Battle of Okinawa, which also took the lives of about 94,000 Japanese soldiers and more than 12,000 Americans, looms large in the collective memory of inhabitants of the island — a separate kingdom until its monarch was exiled to Tokyo in 1879.
The battle, in which up to one-third of Okinawa’s inhabitants died, has been described as a futile sacrifice ordered by Japan’s military leaders to delay a U.S. invasion of the mainland.
Masahide Ota, a former governor of Okinawa who fought as a member of a “Blood and Iron Corps” of students mobilized to defend the island, says soldiers gave civilians two hand grenades — “one to throw at the enemy and one to use on themselves”.
Many historians and survivors blame military propaganda that sought to convince civilians they faced rape and torture if captured by Americans, as well as an education system that taught the virtue of dying for an emperor who was considered a living god.
“They were taught that Americans were fiends, worse than devils, and that if women were caught they would be raped and men would be killed,” Miyazato said. “It was the same as ordering them to commit suicide. They were taught it was better to die.
Ota, a historian as well as a member of parliament, fears the lessons of Japan’s wartime past are in danger of being lost.
“Education has the responsibility to convey history accurately to our children so that our country does not repeat the tragedy of the Pacific war,” he said in a statement.
“Textbooks are one method of fulfilling that mission. I think that is being forgotten.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUST29175620070406

US reveals its efforts to topple Mugabe regime

• State department tells of regime change strategy
• Washington funded opposition activities

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Friday April 6, 2007
The Guardian
The US admitted openly for the first time yesterday that it was actively working to undermine Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe.
Although officially Washington does not support regime change, a US state department report published yesterday acknowledged that it was supporting opposition politicians in the country and others critical of Mr Mugabe.
The state department also admitted sponsoring events aimed at “discrediting” statements made by Mr Mugabe’s government.
The report will be seized on by Mr Mugabe, who has repeatedly claimed that the US and Britain are seeking regime change.
The comments are contained in the state department’s fifth annual Supporting Human Rights and Democracy report. It sets out in detail actions the US government is taking worldwide to promote human rights.
The report has had a troubled history. Three years ago publication had to be hastily delayed when details emerged about US human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.
The US, compared with the UK, was initially slow to criticise Mr Mugabe, but has since adopted an increasingly critical stance, most recently at the Human Rights Council in Geneva last month.
In an unusual piece of candour, the state department report says: “To encourage greater public debate on restoring good governance in [Zimbabwe], the United States sponsored public events that presented economic and social analyses discrediting the government’s excuses for its failed policies.
“To further strengthen pro-democracy elements, the US government continued to support the efforts of the political opposition, the media and civil society to create and defend democratic space and to support persons who criticised the government.”
While the US and British governments still insist their aim in Zimbabwe is not regime change, they have been encouraging the main opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangarai, who was beaten up last month.
The report says that while Zimbabwe is nominally democratic, the government of Mr Mugabe is “now authoritarian”.
At a press conference to launch the document, the assistant secretary of state, Barry Lowenkren, said the US goal was not necessarily regime change but to create a level playing field for all parties. He added that where there was a country with record levels of inflation, denial of basic human rights and other abuses, the US had a duty to speak out so that people in Zimbabwe knew they had support.
Asked whether US efforts to promote human rights worldwide were being undermined by the hundreds of of people being held at Guantánamo, Mr Lowenkren insisted the issue was not raised by non-governmental groups at conferences he attended and participants were more interested in what the US could do to help them in their own countries.
He also denied the report was softer on authoritarian governments allied to the US, such as Belarus, than to Zimbabwe.
Mr Lowenkren said $66m was being spent on promotion of democracy and human rights in Iran, about half of which was devoted to broadcasts from outside the country and the rest spent on support for non-governmental exchanges, cultural exchanges such as the visit by the US wrestling team and a Persian internet service.
The report is critical of Russia, noting the killing of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
It says: “Political pressure on the judiciary, corruption and selectivity in enforcement of the law, continuing media restrictions and self-censorship, and government pressure on opposition political parties eroded the public accountability of government leaders.
“Security forces were involved in additional significant human rights problems.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/article/0,,2051354,00.html

FRIDAY, APRIL 06, 2007
3:09 MECCA TIME, 0:09 GMT

US state backs spaceport plans

The space tourism project is slated to begin
taking its first passengers in 2009 [Reuters]

Residents in the US state of New Mexico backed a sales tax to raise an estimated $49m toward the construction of a commercial spaceport, unofficial results show.

The state’s governor has welcomed the move saying the spaceport vote “means America’s new frontier begins in southern New Mexico”.

Spaceport America will be home to space tourism company Virgin Galactic and could eventually offer tourist trips into orbit and beyond.

Thursday’s vote involved only residents in Dona Ana County, where the spaceport is to be based.

Rick Homans, chairman of the New Mexico Spaceport Authority, said the vote would mean development of the project could now move into high gear.
“Spaceport America is ready for blast off – all systems are go”
Rick Homans, New Mexico Spaceport Authority

“We can now say that Spaceport America is ready for blast off – all systems are go,” he said.
“New Mexico is prepared to launch a whole new era of discovery, exploration and commercial activity in space, on the Moon and beyond. We have nothing but beautiful black sky ahead of us.”
Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor, has backed the project saying he expects the spaceport will prove an economic boon for the state, generating up to $1 bn in revenue and creating 5,000 jobs.
Virgin Galactic, owned by British tycoon Richard Branson, plans to begin offering sub-orbital tourist flights from the spaceport in 2009.
Costly ride

Tickets will start at about $200,000 per person, for which passengers will experience just a few minutes of weightlessness at the edge of space.

The planned $198 million spaceport complex, covering some 70 square kilometres, will be located near the White Sands Missile Range, where the US launched its first rocket after World War II.

A mock-up of the cabin of the Virgin Galactic is currently on display at London’s Science Museum.

The spaceship is the first vehicle specifically designed for space tourism.

Last year another space tourism company, Space Adventures, announced plans to build a commercial spaceport in the United Arab Emirates.

The company said it plans to offer tourists flights into space using vehicles designed and built in Russia.

Source: Agencies

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E787C430-C7A4-4F33-8F36-C2FF7181D578.htm

April 6, 2007
Hussein-Qaeda Link ‘Inappropriate,’ Report Says
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
WASHINGTON, April 5 (Bloomberg) — The Pentagon provided “inappropriate” analysis for its reports of a strong link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, a finding that was cited by the White House as a rationale for invading Iraq, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.
The declassified report said Defense Department officials “undercut” the intelligence community.
It specifically said that analysts reporting to Douglas Feith, who was the under secretary for policy, told Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser at the time, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, that there were “fundamental problems with how the intelligence community is assessing information.”
The 121-page report, which had been summarized at a Congressional hearing in February by the acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, was released Thursday by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
By coincidence, it appeared on the day Vice President Cheney again drew a link between the war and Al Qaeda, telling the radio host Rush Limbaugh that “to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point seems to me simply would play right into the hands of Al Qaeda.”
Mr. Gimble’s report drew a direct connection between a briefing at the White House on Sept. 16, 2002, and public comments Mr. Cheney made in the days leading to the war four years ago. The criticism of the intelligence community is one of several on a slide used in that briefing.
Inclusion of the slide, which was omitted from an earlier briefing with George Tenet, who was director of central intelligence, “clearly did not bolster support for the intelligence community,” Mr. Gimble wrote.
Mr. Levin, in a statement Thursday, said the analysis from Mr. Feith’s office “was not supported by available intelligence and was contrary to the consensus view of the intelligence community,” yet was “used by the administration to support its public arguments in its case for war.”
The slide used by the Pentagon analysts to brief the White House officials states the intelligence agencies assumed “that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate, even when they have common interests,” and there was “consistent underestimation of importance that would be attached by Iraq and Al Qaeda to hiding a relationship.”
The Pentagon, in written comments included in the report, strongly disputed that the White House briefing and the slide citing “Fundamental Problems” undercut the intelligence community.
“The intelligence community was fully aware of the work under review and commented on it several times,” the Pentagon said, adding that Mr. Tenet, at the suggestion of the defense secretary then, Donald H. Rumsfeld, “was personally briefed.”
Four days after that briefing at the White House, Mr. Cheney referred at fund-raiser to a “well-established pattern of cooperation between Iraq and terrorists.”
And on Dec. 2, he warned in a speech that Mr. Hussein’s government “had high-level contact with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.” His language mirrored that on a briefing chart titled “Summary of Known Iraq-Al-Qaeda Contacts — 1990-2002.”
Mr. Gimble noted that Mr. Cheney, in an interview in January 2004, praised a memo compiled by the Pentagon analysts that was cited in the conservative magazine Weekly Standard as “your best source of information” on the purported link.
The analysts’ appraisal of the intelligence community was in contrast to that of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its 2004 report on prewar intelligence. That committee praised the C.I.A.’s approach to assessing a possible link between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda as a “methodical approach for assessing a possible Iraq/Al Qaeda relationship” that was “reasonable and objective,” Mr. Gimble wrote.
Mr. Levin also pointed out, “The report specifically states that ‘the C.I.A. and D.I.A. disavowed any “mature, symbiotic” relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.’ ”
The Pentagon policy offices set up by Mr. Feith have been abolished, and he has left the Pentagon and is writing a book on the war. Mr. Gimble said the establishment of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence should prevent similar inappropriate conduct.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/washington/06qaeda.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1175877386-W17tVNoOZpDzJH9C/NxkBQ&pagewanted=print

April 6, 2007
Editorial
Guantánamo Follies
There has been much speculation about the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear an appeal from a group of Guantánamo Bay inmates until they have exhausted their legal options. Was the court signaling that the appeal had no merit? Were the court’s liberals waiting for a better chance to review President Bush’s unconstitutional detention system for “illegal enemy combatants”?
Whatever the justices’ intentions, we saw one clear message in their decision, and we hope that Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, saw it too. It is past time for Congress to undo the grievous damage done by President Bush’s abuse of the Constitution when he created his system of secret prisons and public internment camps to detain selected foreigners indefinitely without any real legal challenge.
In the months since Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the administration has pushed ahead with the show trials permitted by the law. Each development in that courtroom brings fresh evidence of how urgent it is for the courts to strike down that law and for Congress to rewrite it.
The plea bargain: Last month, after being held at Guantánamo for five years, David Hicks, an Australian citizen, pleaded guilty to a single, relatively minor charge in exchange for his freedom. This deal should infuriate any side of the debate.
Americans who support Mr. Bush’s policy on prisoners accepted its premise: that the people in Guantánamo are so dangerous that letting any out will compromise American security. If an injustice were committed here or there, Americans would just have to grit their teeth. How does that square with allowing Mr. Hicks to go home and quickly go free? Worse, the plea bargain seemed timed to help Prime Minister John Howard, a Bush ally whose inaction on the case was becoming a re-election issue in Australia.
For Americans, like us, who are sickened by the Guantánamo prison, the Hicks bargain was emblematic of its lawless nature. If there was evidence that Mr. Hicks was a terrorist, we have yet to see it. He was declared an illegal combatant by a kangaroo court created to confirm that designation, which had been applied long before. He was denied a lawyer and censored by the court when he tried to pursue abuse charges. Under his plea bargain he gave up his right to sue, repudiated his own accounts of abuse and was even barred from talking to the news media about his experience.
To understand why Mr. Hicks still found that sort of deal attractive, remember that once a person is declared an “illegal enemy combatant,” he faces a lifetime in detention. He might be released by a “combatant status tribunal,” but his chances are very slim, and the process mocks civilized standards of justice. If the prisoner is one of the very few that the Pentagon plans to charge with a crime, he will be brought before a military tribunal. That court may use evidence obtained through hearsay, coercion or even torture. If convicted, there is little likelihood that he will be released after serving his time. If acquitted, he just goes back to being an illegal combatant who can be held for life.
The censored confession: On March 14, Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, accused of the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and other crimes, went before a combatant status tribunal. According to a transcript, Mr. Nashiri said he was tortured. But it is Mr. Bush’s policy that no prisoner may allege torture in public, so this is what appeared in the transcript:
PRESIDENT (of the tribunal): Please describe the methods that were used.
DETAINEE: (CENSORED) What else do I want to say? (CENSORED) There were doing so many things. What else did they did? (CENSORED) After that another method of torture began. (CENSORED) They used to ask me questions and the investigator after that used to laugh. And, I used to answer the answer that I knew. And if I didn’t replay what I heard, he used to (CENSORED).
Officials defended this censorship by arguing that interrogation methods are so secret that they cannot be discussed, even by the prisoner. But they also said that Al Qaeda members are trained to claim torture and that Mr. Nashiri lied. If so, why censor the transcript? His answers can’t help Al Qaeda. Tragically, the most likely answer is to spare United States intelligence agents and their bosses, who could face charges if the Military Commissions Act is ever repealed or rewritten. The law gives a retroactive carte blanche to American interrogators for any abuse they may have committed.
The lawsuit: The case the Supreme Court turned down this week was filed by Guantánamo inmates who contend that their detention was illegal and that the Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional. We agree. Holding people without evidence or charges or trial is barbaric, as is denying them the right to challenge their detention in a real court, a right generally referred to as habeas corpus.
Both violate the Constitution, and the court should strike down the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which limits avenues for appeal. But Congress approved the military commissions, left in place the combatant status review tribunals and suspended habeas corpus. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi have a moral obligation to lead the way to righting these wrongs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06fri1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

April 4, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
The Rich Are More Oblivious Than You and Me
By RICHARD CONNIFF
Old Lyme, Conn.
THE other day at a Los Angeles race track, a comedian named Eddie Griffin took a meeting with a concrete barrier and left a borrowed bright-red $1.5 million Ferrari Enzo looking like bad origami. Just to be clear, this was a different bright-red $1.5 million Ferrari Enzo from the one a Swedish businessman crumpled up and threw away last year on the Pacific Coast Highway. I mention this only because it’s easy to get confused by the vast and highly repetitious category “Rich and Famous People Acting Like Total Idiots.” Mr. Griffin walked away uninjured, and everybody offered wise counsel about how this wasn’t really such a bad day after all.
So what exactly constitutes a bad day in this rarefied little world? Did the casino owner Steve Wynn cross the mark when he put his elbow through a Picasso he was about to sell for $139 million? Did Mel (“I Own Malibu”) Gibson sense bad-day emanations when he started on a bigoted tirade while seated drunk in the back of a sheriff’s car? And if dumb stuff like this comes so easy to these people, how is it that they’re the ones with all the money?
Modern science has the answer, with a little help from the poet Hilaire Belloc.
Let’s begin with what I call the “Cookie Monster Experiment,” devised to test the hypothesis that power makes people stupid and insensitive — or, as the scientists at the University of California at Berkeley put it, “disinhibited.”
Researchers led by the psychologist Dacher Keltner took groups of three ordinary volunteers and randomly put one of them in charge. Each trio had a half-hour to work through a boring social survey. Then a researcher came in and left a plateful of precisely five cookies. Care to guess which volunteer typically grabbed an extra cookie? The volunteer who had randomly been assigned the power role was also more likely to eat it with his mouth open, spew crumbs on partners and get cookie detritus on his face and on the table.
It reminded the researchers of powerful people they had known in real life. One of them, for instance, had attended meetings with a magazine mogul who ate raw onions and slugged vodka from the bottle, but failed to share these amuse-bouches with his guests. Another had been through an oral exam for his doctorate at which one faculty member not only picked his ear wax, but held it up to dandle lovingly in the light.
As stupid behaviors go, none of this is in a class with slamming somebody else’s Ferrari into a concrete wall. But science advances by tiny steps.
The researchers went on to theorize that getting power causes people to focus so keenly on the potential rewards, like money, sex, public acclaim or an extra chocolate-chip cookie — not necessarily in that order, or frankly, any order at all, but preferably all at once — that they become oblivious to the people around them.
Indeed, the people around them may abet this process, since they are often subordinates intent on keeping the boss happy. So for the boss, it starts to look like a world in which the traffic lights are always green (and damn the pedestrians). Professor Keltner and his fellow researchers describe it as an instance of “approach/inhibition theory” in action: As power increases, it fires up the behavioral approach system and shuts down behavioral inhibition.
And thus the Fast Forward Personality is born and put on the path to the concrete barrier.
The corollary is that as the rich and powerful increasingly focus on potential rewards, powerless types notice the likely costs and become more inhibited. I happen to know the feeling because I once had my own Los Angeles Ferrari experience. It was a bright-red F355 Spider (and with a mere $150,000 sticker price, not exactly top shelf), which I rented for a television documentary about rich people. It came with a $10,000 deductible, and the first time I drove it into a Bel-Air estate, the low-slung front end hit the apron of the driveway with a horrible grating sound that caused my soul to shrink. I proceeded up the driveway at five miles an hour, and everyone in sight turned away thinking, “Rental.”
The bottom line: Without power, people tend to play it safe. Given power, even you and I would soon end up living large and acting like idiots. So pity the rich — and protect yourself. This is where Hilaire Belloc comes in.
He once wrote a poem about a Lord Finchley, who “tried to mend the Electric Light/Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!” Belloc wasn’t tiresomely suggesting that the gentry all deserve a first-hand acquaintance with the third rail, as it were, but merely that they would be smart to depend on hired help. In social psychology terms, disinhibited Fast Forward types need ordinary cautious mortals to remind them that the traffic lights do in fact occasionally turn yellow or even, sometimes, red.
So, Eddie Griffin: next time you borrow a pal’s car, borrow his driver, too. The world will be a safer place for the rest of us.
Richard Conniff is the author of “The Natural History of the Rich.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/opinion/04conniff.html?em&ex=1176004800&en=e46dfdcfc0b98389&ei=5087%0A

Cheney asserts Iraq-al Qaeda link
US Vice-President Dick Cheney has repeated his assertion that the al-Qaeda network had links with Iraq before the US-led invasion of 2003.
Mr Cheney told a US radio show: “They were present before we invaded Iraq.”
Hours earlier, a declassified Pentagon report said information obtained from Iraq’s former leader Saddam Hussein had confirmed they had no strong ties.
Its publication followed pressure from Democrats who suggest intelligence was twisted in the run-up to the war.
The belief that Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda were working together was an important element in the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq.
Critics have since suggested the administration “cherry-picked” from available intelligence to bolster that case.
‘Inappropriate’ intelligence
Mr Cheney, in an interview with conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, insisted there had been a link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al-Qaeda terror group.
He said former al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been leading the network’s operations in the country before the 2003 US-led invasion.
“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organised the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” he told the show.
The newly declassified Pentagon report was based on interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two of his aides, as well as documents seized in Iraq.
The Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, had pushed for its full release after it was released in summary form in February.
In a statement on Thursday, he said the document showed why a defence department investigation had concluded that some Pentagon pre-war intelligence work had been “inappropriate”.
The report into former Pentagon policy chief Douglas Feith’s handling of intelligence on Iraq was prepared by the defence department’s top watchdog, Inspector General Thomas Gimble.
Under repeated questioning by Mr Levin in February, Mr Gimble said the conclusions reached in reports by Mr Feith were not fully supported by the available intelligence.
In particular, his conclusion there was a “mature and symbiotic relationship” between Iraq and al-Qaeda could not be justified on the basis of the available intelligence.
In addition, an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and a leader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, never took place.
Mr Feith’s supporters stress that the inspector general found no evidence of illegal or unauthorised activity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6533367.stm
Cursor hackers target WoW players
World of Warcraft players are being targeted by hackers exploiting flaws in how Windows handles animated cursors.
The flaw came to light in late March and lets attackers take over vulnerable PCs via booby-trapped websites.
Warcraft players seem to be one of the targets because accounts for the game are potentially worth significant sums of money.
Microsoft has issued a patch for the flaw early to combat the rising number of attacks.
Player power
Security firms tracking how criminal hackers are exploiting the cursor flaw suspect there are many websites hosting the code that can be used to take over vulnerable PCs.
Some of the sites have been specially created but others have been hacked to be unwitting hosts for the infection.
The potential for the flaw to do harm grew significantly with the discovery of a website that automatically generates all the attack files needed to turn a site into a booby-trap.
A large number of criminally-minded hacking gangs are cashing in on the flaw.
One Chinese group known to be using the animated cursor flaw scored some success in February when it managed to hack a Superbowl website and use it to host code for spyware.
Analysis of that malicious software showed that it lay dormant on a victims machine until they ran World of Warcraft (WoW) at which point it captured login data and sent it to the hacking group.
The group’s enthusiastic use of the cursor flaw suggests it is trying to do the same again.
The online fantasy game now has more than eight million active players around the world.
Research by security firm Symantec suggests that the raw value of a WoW account is now higher than a credit card and its associated verification data.
One card can be sold for up to $6 (£3) suggests Symantec, but a WoW account will be worth at least $10. An account that has several high level characters associated with it could be worth far more as the gold and rare items can be sold for real cash.
In a bid to head off the growing threat from the animated cursor flaw, Microsoft took the unusual step of releasing a patch for the bug on 3 April.
Usually Microsoft issues security patches on the second Tuesday of every month. The patch for the cursor flaw arrived a week early and Microsoft has been preparing it since December when the bug was first reported.
Windows users can get the patch via automatic updates or visit Microsoft to download it manually.
On its security blog, Microsoft said the patch was released early “to help better protect customers from this threat”.
The software giant urged Windows users to download and install the patch.
It said there was a chance that attacks via the vulnerability would increase but had seen little evidence of widespread use yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6526851.stm
Osama Or The Easter Bunny?
Who will be paying us a visit this weekend?
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, April 6, 2007   CENTCOM has reliably informed us that The Easter Bunny’s appearance this year may be upstaged by that of Goldstein himself, the back from the dead Osama Bin Laden.
On 4 April, a “jihadist” website carried the following posting:
“After a long absence by the shaykh of mujahidin, whom we have missed as well as his speeches, some news is being leaked indicating that Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, God protect and preserve him and make him a thorn in the throat of the enemies, will make an appearance. The news indicates that Al-Sahab Media Establishment, which specializes in publishing Al-Qa’ida leaders’ speeches, has recently finished producing a video featuring Bin Ladin’s speech to the entire Islamic nation. “
Furthermore, the poster of this note maintains that the speech includes several messages to the “mujahidin” in Iraq, the Palestinian People on ” the capitulation choice which HAMAS gave in to,” the Riyadh Arab summit, the “fears” of America and its allies of the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate state in Iraq, and the “good tidings of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
But which Osama will it be? The fat nosed Bin Laden, the fuzzy blurry Bin Laden or the regurgitated cobbled together Bin Laden medley?
With a great deal of 9/11 truth activity and significant breakthroughs into the mainstream media over the last month, it would certainly do for those who wish to send Americans back to sleep to remind everyone who they are supposed to point the finger at and what they are supposed to think with regards to the war on terror.
We have previously covered the scores of times Osama Bin Laden has been used as a tool of fear and control as a tried and tested method whenever the going gets tough. Many tapes have been determined to be total fakes by voice analysis or simply re-hashes of old material.
In February Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program and a leading expert on Osama Bin Laden, went on the record to say that he believes the so called “9/11 Confession” tape, released shortly after the attacks, is an outright fake that has been used by US intelligence agencies to deflect attention from “conspiracy theories” about 9/11.
Research led us to discover that the most recent “Al Qaeda” video releases featuring Bin Laden had already featured in a docudrama The Road to Guantanamo. The media tentatively even admitted that it was the government that released the tapes.
In a separate revelation, AP reported that an expert on Islamic extremism deemed the Al Qaeda footage as so out of character for al-Qa’ida it could have been taken by a security agency.
Bin Laden was created by US intelligence , worked with US intelligence in the late 70s and 80s, was used as a patsy by US intelligence before and after 911 and is now being used as a manipulative tool of fear by the criminal elite faction currently in power in the US.
In June 2006, Muckraker Report investigative reporter Ed Haas contacted the FBI to ask why 9/11 was not specifically mentioned on Bin Laden’s wanted page on the FBI website.
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s most wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” he was told Rex Tomb.
In Bin Laden’s first interview after the 9/11 attacks he denied any involvement. This isn’t like a kid caught thieving in a sweet shop – terrorists always claim responsibility for attacks they have perpetrated otherwise why bother killing people to send a political message?
Then came the now thoroughly debunked “Confession Tape”.
The fact that the FBI does not consider the ‘confession tape’ as reliable evidence of involvement in 9/11 was subsequently completely dismissed by the Washington Post and others who still say the tape proves that Al-Qaeda have, “proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings.”
http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/060407Osama_bunny.htm

US to attack Iran by end of April: report
India News | April 5, 2007
The US is planning to attack Iran’s nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.
The speech will provide the ‘evidence’ and the ‘justification’ for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions, said the report.
According to the Times, one of the justifications expected in the speech is Iran’s alleged role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by supporting various militias with money and arms.
The US president’s speech will also point to Iran’s political interference in Iraq, obviously in cooperation with Syria.
The sources were quoted as saying that US will not resort to a ground attack in order to avoid human losses.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_us_attack_by_april_07_end.htm

urope tops US in stock market value
FT.com | April 3, 2007
Tony Tassell
Europe has eclipsed the US in stock market value for the first time since the first world war in another sign of the slipping of the global dominance of American capital markets.
Europe’s 24 stockmarkets, including Russia and emerging Europe, saw their capitalisation rise to $15,720bn (€11,819bn) at the end of last week, according to Thomson Financial data. That exceeded the $15,640bn market value of the US.
The rise of the euro against the dollar, growth of east European markets such as Russia and stock market outperformance spurred by improving profitability have seen Europe close a long-held gap with the US. Ian Harnett at Absolute Strategy Research, who identified the move, said this marked a “seismic shift” in markets.
The last time Europe eclipsed the US in market capitalisation was likely to have been before the first world war, said Mike Staunton, stock-market historian at London Business School. The shift mirrors a trend in the debt world, where European activity has caught up, and in some cases overtaken the US.
European shares have outperformed the US, with their market capitalisation rising 160 per cent since the start of 2003 in dollar terms, said Thomson Financial. That compared with a 70.5 per cent rise for the US stock market. Over that time the euro has risen 26 per cent against the dollar.
Europe trails the US on the indices of market capitalisation compiled by FTSE and MSCI and which are used by fund managers as benchmarks.
However, these have a reduced or no weighting to shares that cannot be freely traded such as holdings of governments or controlling family shareholders. Europe has more companies with such stakes
http://www.infowars.com/articles/economy/europe_tops_us_stock_market_value.htm

Opinion & analysis

Russia: Would-Be Great Power?
19:54    |    06/ 04/ 2007

MOSCOW. (Ian Pryde for RIA Novosti) – Anyone strolling around a half-decent bookshop these days will find that most of the books on current affairs seem to deal with Islam and the war in Iraq – and China.
The storyline is, of course, that China is changing the world as the rising giant and superpower of the twenty-first century. India also warrants the odd volume, but more by virtue of its size and software industry rather than its overall economy, even though it averaged GDP growth of 5.7% per annum between 1979 and 2006 and since implementing liberal reforms in the early 1990s has achieved an average of 6.8% since 1994 – a solid performance, of course, but way below that of China’s.
But go back to the early 1990s and the time after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the bookshelves were full of books on Russia, on its politics and its opportunities for western business.
And even earlier, in the 1970s and 1980s, it was Japan that was set to conquer the world after wiping out one industry after another in the United States and Europe. With the biggest banks in the world, Japan was also buying up property everywhere it could.
Nowadays popular books on Russia are not only rarer than before, but also tend to be rather negative. Racy biographies of Putin and his KGB background, or of multi-billionaire and Chelsea football club owner Roman Abramovich, seem to sell well everywhere.
In Germany, recent books on Russia carry titles such as “Russia Between the Pliers: Putin’s Empire between NATO, China and Islam” and “Putins Demokratur.”
This is odd. Russia is more confident about itself now than it has been for decades, including the early 1990s, when western observers, huge numbers of whom had no expertise on the country whatsoever, assumed that Russia would become a flourishing market economy and democracy.
Many academics, along with the U.S. Congress, were asking themselves for years “What went wrong with Russia?” and “Who lost Russia?” rather than ditching their nonsensical scholastic theories.
Joseph Stiglitz, for instance, a Nobel prize winner in economics, is so bent on discrediting the IMF policies and the Washington Consensus of the early 1990s that in his 2002 book “Globalization and its Discontents,” he utterly fails to mention that the Soviet economy was in dire straits in the 1980s and that production there was already falling long before the IMF and an army of western consultants showed up in Moscow. The rupturing of the economic ties between the republics of the Soviet Union and between the USSR and Eastern Europe were virtually pre-programmed to make an already bad situation much worse.
Few observers in the early 1990s realised that construction is far, far harder, than destruction, and that the collapse of the Soviet Union did not ipso facto mean that the successor states would develop into market democracies. Other options – including muddling through – were never considered.
In other words, the Zeitgeist doesn’t always get it right. The pundits also got it wrong on Japan, which was greatly feared – and often despised – in the United States and Europe until its bubble burst in the early 1990s and the economy went into a recession – largely as a result of the 1985 Plaza Agreement by the then G5 group of leading industrialized countries and subsequently aided and abetted by disastrous policy decisions in the late 1990s. Japan is now emerging from its recession, but the West’s current focus on China – understandable given China’s sheer scale – means it has hardly considered what impact a revitalised Japan could have on the global economy.
Much the same caveat applies to Russia. One of the best biographies of Putin and Russia’s future direction was written by a German academic Wolfgang Seiffert as long ago as 2000. His biography of Putin carries the telling subtitle: “Wiedergeburt einer Weltmacht?” (“Rebirth of a World Power?”)
But commentators, academics and policy makers are still behind the curve in understanding that Russia will play in increasingly active role on the world stage.
Hence the general surprise when President Putin was at pains to point out during the G8 summit in St. Petersburg in July 2006 that Russia was now an energy superpower – something Moscow underlined in its energy wars both before and after the summit.
True, as the new millennium began, a growing awareness of the changes in Russia began to emerge. The much-vaunted BRIC acronym to signify the large, populous countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China and their future importance for the global economy was coined by a Goldman Sachs economist in 2003. The “Global Economics Paper No. 99: Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050,” prepared by The Goldman Sachs Group, is hedged with caveats: “These countries “could become a much larger force in the world economy… if things go right.” But things could just as easily go wrong.
Being conferred a title such as “energy superpower” is of course much better than being self-appointed – the very term itself highlights Russia’s general weakness. Both China and Russia take the paradoxical line of wanting to be recognized as major powers and part of the Western club, but both are still a long way off on a number of important criteria.
Leaving aside politics and the democracy deficit to look at the economy, it is striking that of the few countries that have posed serious economic challenges to the West, only Japan has so far managed to create instantly recognizable world-class brands and globally respected companies.
Like China, Russia has few brands which are internationally famous, and most of its best known companies are in the energy sector. Admittedly, many of its own domestic brands are flourishing, but these seem to be of little interest to the average foreign reader and receive little press coverage. Russian chocolate, for instance, went through a very sticky patch in the 1990s as the big companies such as Nestle, Cadburys and so on moved in, but Russian brands such as Korkunov now hold their own on the supermarket shelves.
The failure of Russia and China to develop these kinds of new companies and take them into the international marketplace in sufficient numbers shows just how difficult it is to get into the premier league of major economies with high per capita incomes. As Lester Thurow pointed out in the early 1990s in “Head-to-Head,” Japan is the only (large) non-western economy to have managed this feat since the nineteenth century.
Russia may indeed by an “energy superpower” and China may indeed be the low cost manufacturer that has held down global inflation and made life cheaper for western consumers. But both countries still have an awfully long way to go.
Most striking of all, however, is the growing energy, communications and security nexus in Eurasia – a shift in power that is very different from that in Pacific Asia – and one which receives hardly any comment in the West.
Ian Pryde is CEO of Eurasia Strategy & Communications, Moscow.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070406/63257840.html

Obesity bane of pupils
By Yin Ping (China Daily)
Updated: 2007-01-30 07:17
SHANGHAI: Many cities across the country face the problem, but nowhere it is as grave as in Shanghai.
The city has 15.1 and 9.2 percent obese boys and girls, 3.71 and 4.19 percentage points higher that the national average.
And obesity is the biggest cause of the school-going children’s deteriorating health and slack motor reflexes and strength. It is affecting their eyesight, too.
A recent survey on school students and health showed that 42.5 percent of Shanghai’s primary school pupils, and 73.9 and 81.1 percent of those in junior-middle and senior-middle schools had poor eyesight, the worst record in the country.
Children in the latest group performed poorly in exercises to evaluate their motor reflexes and skills, measured by strength and endurance, compared to the 2000 batch. The exercises they were asked to perform included push-ups, spot long jumps and 800-meter runs.
To overcome the problem, the city’s education authority will make it mandatory for school’s to have a one-hour physical exercise class each day. So from the next semester, kids will have three physical education (PE) and two activity classes a week.
The children will have to attend group gymnastics classes at least once a week and eye exercises no less than twice a day.
The authority will ensure that PE review is included in the overall assessment of high school graduates from this year. And from next year, the authority said, it will be made an integral part of graduates’ performance in the national college entrance examination.
Primary school kids will be encouraged to sleep at least 10 hours a day and their high school counterparts at least 9 hours to ensure that they get enough sleep.
Shanghai only mirrors the widespread decline in kids’ health across the nation. In many schools, PE classes are cut short or even canceled because they are considered a waste of time. For many teachers and parents, academic records are all that really matter.
Even schools that still have PE classes have replaced traditional exercises such as box jumping and single and parallel bars with “safer” activities.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-01/30/content_796836.htm
US plans more National Guard to Iraq: NBC
(Reuters)
Updated: 2007-04-06 09:59
WASHINGTON – The US Defense Department is preparing to send another 12,000 National Guard combat troops to Iraq, NBC Nightly News reported on Thursday, citing Pentagon sources.

New orders awaiting the signature of Defense Secretary Robert Gates will put 12,000 National Guard troops on alert to prepare to deploy to Iraq, the report said.
Four Guard combat brigades from units in four states would be involved in the involuntary mobilization, NBC said.
The one-year combat deployment would begin early in 2008, the report said.
The Pentagon referred queries about the report to the National Guard, where a spokesman had no immediate comment.
Gates did not mention a possible Guard deployment at news conference on Thursday.
More than four years into the US-led war in Iraq, the US military shows increasing signs of strain.
On Monday, the Pentagon said it would send another 9,000 US troops to Iraq, with about half of them returning to combat ahead of schedule.
Two of the affected Army units, totaling about 4,500 troops, will return to combat short of their promised year at home, reflecting the strain placed on US forces by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Under the Bush administration’s new Iraq policy announced earlier this year, the Pentagon has increased force levels there by about 30,000 troops in an attempt to regain control of security and reduce sectarian violence.
The units announced this week largely replace forces already in Iraq, which number around 145,000.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/06/content_844991.htm

Scientists: Genes determine dogs’ sizes
(AP)
Updated: 2007-04-06 14:16

This undated handout photo provided by the journal Science shows Gibson, a Great Dane, right, and Zoie, a Chihuahua in Grass Valley, California. [AP]

WASHINGTON – From the towering Great Dane to the feisty little Chihuahua, all dogs are brothers under the skin. Now, researchers have uncovered a reason why the animals wearing that skin vary so much in size.
Dogs have the largest variation in body size of any land animal, so researchers led by Elaine A. Ostrander of the National Human Genome Research Institute decided to look into the reasons why.
They found a section of genes that controls small size in dogs and reported their results in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.
Learning how growth is controlled can improve the understanding of cancer and other diseases caused by growth gone awry, Ostrander said in a telephone interview.
And the research adds to the basic study of variations, perhaps improving knowledge of the differences between people, she added.
K. Gordon Lark of the University of Utah, a co-author of the report, pointed out that dogs have 200 to 300 diseases in common with people, including high blood pressure, autoimmune diseases and cancer.
“They also share our environment, so if there is an environmental influence that can trigger disease,” dogs will be going through the same process, he said in a telephone interview.
“So, if we can solve this in dogs, that’s a fantastic jump ahead,” Lark said.
Keith E. Murphy, principal investigator at the Canine Genetics Laboratory of Texas A&M University, said, “What you’ve got here is the first piece of that puzzle.”
“That’s very important and you’re looking at almost a sort of cascade effect, if you will, and we would hope that these findings, maybe you can extend to diseases … maybe even cancer,” said Murphy, who was not part of the research team.
Lark’s Portuguese water dog, Georgie, had died and he was seeking a new one. Hearing he was a geneticist, the breeder urged him to work on dog genes.
So he began the Georgie project, studying the genes of the Portuguese water dog, a breed that comes in a wide range of sizes from 25 pounds to 75 pounds.
Ostrander and colleagues then extended that to a range of large and small breeds and the researchers located a section of DNA that varied between large and small breeds in most cases.
Known as a regulatory sequence, the difference is on dog chromosome 15 next to a previously known gene named IGF1, for insulin-like growth factor 1. The hormone controlled by the IGF1 gene helps mammals ¡ª including people ¡ª grow from birth to adolescence.
In small dog breeds a mutation in the sequence next to the gene kept them from growing larger, the researchers said.
“We know this is only part of the story, but it’s a necessary part of the story,” said Ostrander, who noted there some exceptions, with the small-dog sequence appearing in larger dogs.
Other yet-unidentified genetic factors cause the exceptions, said Kevin Chase of the University of Utah, another co-author.
Overall, 21 researchers studied 3,241 dogs from 143 breeds, ranging from bichon frise, Chihuahua, Maltese, Pomeranian, toy poodle, pug and Pekingese to Saint Bernard, Newfoundland, mastiff, Great Dane, Irish wolfhound and standard poodle.
Dogs are descended from wolves, having been domesticated 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. Selective breeding has produced the many different types of dogs that exist today.
Judging from ancient artwork, small breeds were developed quite early, Lark said.
A study of several hundred modern wolves didn’t find any with the small-dog marker, he said, but it is possible there were small wolves in ancient times.
“If you’re a primitive man you would adopt the small wolf, not the big one,” he said. And for a small wolf, life would have been easier hanging around people looking for scraps than competing with larger wolves in the wild.
And, he added, unlike today when dogs are mainly companions, in the past there was plenty of work for small dogs to do ¡ª they hunted rats and other vermin, did some herding and could be excellent watchdogs.
Jeff Sossaman of the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation said researchers there are “really excited” about the findings.
“The canine model is a perfect model for humans because we share 85 percent of our genetic makeup. So, when we find the gene on the canine side, you can directly collate that with the human,” said Sossaman, who was not part of the research group.
The research was funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute, National Science Foundation, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Judith Chiara Charitable Trust, Mars Inc. and the Nestle Purina Co.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/06/content_845302.htm
Oil Currency Geopolitics: Europe, China, Iran and the United States

September 12, 2005

By William Clark

While most Americans are currently pre-occupied with the disastrous aftermath of hurricane Katrina, and the subsequent rise in domestic gasoline prices, it is possible that by next year at this time oil priced around $65 per barrel may have seemed like quite a bargain.  It appears that next year oil from the second largest OPEC oil producer could be priced on the international markets for €45 – €50 (euros) per barrel.  This event could introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world – global oil and gas trades.

Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources.  Today these intertwined conflicts involve not only control over oil supplies, but also international currencies.  Current events appear to be revolving around the complex nexus of the imminent peak in global oil production, and the erosion of the U.S. dollar as the World’s International Reserve currency.  International fissures between the U.S. and the European Union., Russia, and China became visible during 2002-2003, resulting in the failure of the Bush administration to gain U.N. authorization for the impending invasion of Iraq.

Indeed, current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian “petroeuro” system for oil trade.  Similar to the Iraq war, prospective military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of ‘petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

Understanding these underlying issues of global oil production and oil transaction currency is critical if one wishes to understand recent events in Iraq — and current U.S. antagonism towards Iran.  Although completely censored by the five U.S. media conglomerates, in mid-2003 Iran broke from traditional and began accepting euros as payment for it oil exports from its E.U. and Asian customers.[1]

Once the petrodollar recycling system begins to erode via the emergence of a broad-based petroeuro transaction exchange, the Federal Reserve will no longer be able to effortlessly expand its debt-financing via issuance of Treasury bills, and the dollar’s international demand/liquidity value will begin to fall. This will ultimately force the U.S. to significantly change its current tax, debt, trade, and energy policies, all of which are severely unbalanced.

Saddam Hussein attempted a similar bold step back in 2000, and it remains a quasi-state secret within American society that the major U.S. petroleum conglomerates continued to purchase about 65% of Iraqi’s oil exports from 2001 to early 2003 – but with euros – not dollars.[2]  As I hypothesized in 2002, this was unacceptable, and Saddam’s decision was ultimately met with a devastating reaction from the U.S. government via a “shock and awe” campaign [3]  Upon toppling Iraq, the Bush administration immediately dismantled the Oil-For-Food program and quietly re-converted Iraq’s oil transaction currency back to the U.S. dollar – which had the rather adverse effect of wiping out 13% of Iraq’s oil export profits due to the euro’s higher valuation to the dollar in mid-2003. [4]  While Iraq was given no choice about using U.S. dollars for its oil sales, Iran is about to commit a far greater “offense” than Iraq’s switch to euros.

While the dollar is still the standard currency for trading international oil sales, in 2006 Iran intends to set up an oil exchange (or bourse) that would facilitate global trading of oil between industrialized and developing countries by pricing sales in the euro, or “petroeuro.”[5] The vast majority of the world’s oil is traded on the New York NYMEX (Mercantile Exchange) and the London IPE (International Petroleum Exchange), both of which are operated by an Atlanta-based U.S. conglomerate. These oil exchanges transact oil trades in the dollar. Tehran’s plan to open an oil exchange that utilized the euro for global oil trades represents a significant obstacle towards stated neoconservative goals of U.S. global domination.

Moreover, the euro’s higher valuation relative the dollar also explains why Russia, Venezuela and perhaps even Saudi Arabia have expressed interest in moving towards a petroeuro system for oil transactions.[6][7] Without a doubt, a successful Iranian oil bourse may create a shift away from U.S. dollars and towards euros in the oil market.  The drop in demand for petrodollars would cause the value of the dollar to plummet further, thereby undermining the U.S. position as the global economic leader.

Further evidence of the dollar’s erosion the global financial markets occurred in July 2005 when China announced that it was slightly re-valuing the yuan/RNB currency.  While the Bush administration indicated this was a “step in the right direction,” China’s re-valuation was not nearly as important as its decision to divorce itself from a dollar peg by moving towards a “basket of currencies” – likely to include the yen, euro, and dollar.[8]  Incidentally, the Chinese re-valuation immediately lowered their monthly imported “oil bill” by 2%, given that oil trades are still priced in dollars, but it is unclear how much longer this monopoly will last.

Concerning Iran, the irony is that leaked reports of U.S. plans for intervening either covertly or overtly in Iran – including a potential aerial attack on suspected nuclear facilities – would likely put pressure on the Chinese to abandon their support of the dollar. China is a major exporter to the United States, and its trade surplus with the U.S. means that China has become the world’s second largest holder of U.S. currency reserves (Japan is the largest holder with $800 billion, and China holds over $650 billion in dollar assets).

In October 28, 2004, Iran and China signed a huge oil and gas trade agreement, valued between $70 – $100 billion dollars.[9]   It should also be noted that China currently receives 13% of its oil imports from Iran, and with this deal the Chinese government effectively drew a “line in the sand” around Iran.  Despite desires by U.S. elites to enforce the monopoly petrodollar recycling system, the geopolitical risks of a U.S. aerial attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities – while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades – would surely create a crisis between Washington and Beijing. Given the Bush administration’s complete lack of interest or skill regarding “soft power” diplomacy, it seems unlikely they could use the U.N. Security Counsel to thwart the opening of the Iranian bourse in 2006.
In recent years an interesting conceptual bias has gained prominence in stateside commentary, especially within right-wing ideology, that appears to manifest on two levels.  On the one hand, there’s a singular fixation with the US military element of geopolitical relations, to the relative disregard for the economic dimension. On the other hand, there’s a certain presumption that the U.S. can pursue its geopolitical aims with impunity, while other nations will be restrained by economic considerations.
This segues into the more long-standing assumption that other major powers would be unable to overcome their own rivalries in such manner as to present effective opposition to U.S. interests; assuming that America will be able to play one against the other to our own advantage, in perpetuity. During 2002-2003 this flawed logic failed miserably when the Bush administration was unable to manipulate the members of the EU, Turkey, Mexico, Russia and China over U.S. plans to remove Saddam Hussein by military force.[10]  Tragically, we are still paying the price in blood and treasure for their arrogance.
In reality, given the events in Iraq before, during, and after the war, this belief may prove to be the key false assumption being made by the Bush administration and various neoconservative “strategists.” Based on my analysis of statements by various governments, it is clear the E.U., China, Russia and much of the world view neoconservatives as pursuing destabilizing and dangerous policies.[11]  Advocates of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and other far-right think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) openly call for U.S. “global leadership” based upon an overt U.S. military deployments designed to further solidify our hegemonic position by seizing control of the Middle East’s energy supply, establishing satellite military bases around Russia and the Caspian region, conducting belligerent naval maneuvers off the coast of China, undermining the emergence of a cohesive, powerful E.U. rival, while at the same time ignoring international law and abandoning multiple international treaties.
Yet, from all appearances this neoconservative geostrategy is being recklessly pursued without analysis, or even tacit recognition, of the subsequent unfolding economic and geopolitical consequences.
Perhaps most amazingly is irresponsible stateside commentary regarding China (see Robert Kaplan’s “How We Would Fight China,”[12]), which incredible – completely fails to mention that China is our second largest foreign banker – holding over $650 billion in U.S. Treasury Bills and other dollar-denominated assets.  Between Japan and China, they hold over $1.5 trillion in U.S. paper.  We are borrowing about $1.9 billion a day from strangers (nearly half from China and her neighbors) to fund not only massive tax cuts, but our massive military as well.  So, we have no cards to play with China, not even militarily.
We are borrowing about $1.9   billion a day from strangers (nearly half from China and her neighbors) to fund not only massive tax cuts, but our massive military as well.

The ugly truth of the matter is that if China ever becomes sufficiently perturbed by our current antagonistic naval activities (i.e. Summer Pulse ’04) [13], they could afford to stop buying billions of our debt every month, or if really upset by a US aerial attack on their principle oil export partner (Iran), they could afford to show their displeasure by suddenly unloading perhaps $300 billion of their surplus dollars.  The immediate effect would create a global dollar crisis, if not a dollar crash, likely forcing Russia and OPEC to abandon the dollar for a monopoly “petroeuro” oil pricing and transaction currency.  A punitive, collective switch, would ultimately render the US Navy in a similar state to the once mighty Soviet Fleet – rusting in port due to a collapsed economy.
Clearly, a unilateral military strike on Iran without solid proof of a nuclear weapons program would isolate the U.S. government in the eyes of the world community, and it is conceivable that such an overt action could provoke other industrialized nations to abandon the dollar in droves.  I refer to this in my book as the “rogue nation hypothesis.”
While central bankers throughout the world community would be extremely reluctant to ‘dump the dollar,’ the reasons for any such drastic reaction are likely straightforward from their perspective – the global community is dependent on the oil and gas energy supplies found in the Persian Gulf.  Global oil production is reportedly “flat out,” and is projected to begin slowly declining after 2007.[14]  Therefore, the world community will not tolerate the U.S. government unleashing a proxy military operation against Iran that could make the recent disaster wrought by hurricane Katrina insignificant in comparison.
Hence, any such efforts by the international community that resulted in a dollar currency crisis would be undertaken – not to cripple the U.S. dollar and economy as punishment towards the American people per se – but rather as a desperate attempt to thwart further unilateral warfare and its potentially destructive effects on the critical oil production and shipping infrastructure in the Persian Gulf.  Barring a U.S. attack, it appears imminent that Iran’s euro-denominated oil bourse will open in March, 2006. Logically, the most appropriate U.S. strategy is compromise with the E.U. and OPEC towards a dual-currency system for international oil trades.  Another imperative is an International treaty to allocate oil depletion in the post-Peak Oil period.  The Association for the Study of Oil and Gas Depletion (ASPO) has developed the foremost oil Depletion Protocol, also known as the Uppsala or Rimini Protocol [15].
As outlined in Petrodollar Warfare, my analysis of current U.S. geostrategic, monetary, and energy polices suggests that the 21st century will be much different from the previous century, with one possible exception. The first half of the 20th century was filled with unprecedented levels of violence and warfare on a global scale (15 million killed in WW I, 55 million in WW II). The first two decades of the 21st century present challenges that could also result in the unleashing of another period of catastrophic human suffering and destruction. In the post-nuclear age, this must not be allowed to transpire. In order to avoid such a terrible fate in this new century, American citizens, more than any others, must accept and undertake sacrifices for the betterment of humanity; we must once again begin living within our means relative to both fiscal and energy policies. It is my hope the beginning of the 21st century may be crafted by the international community into a more energy sustainable, economically stable, and less violent period than the opening decades of the previous century. Humanity and morality demand nothing less.
“The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”
– Albert Einstein

Discuss this Page
Footnotes:
[1]           C. Shivkumar, “Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms,” The Hindu Business Line (June 16, 2003).  http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/2003061702380500.htm
[2]           Faisal Islam , “When Will We Buy Oil in Euros?,” [UK] Observer, February 23, 2003
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,900867,00.html

[3]           William Clark, “Revisited – The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth,” January 2003 (updated January 2004) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

[4]           Carol Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, “Iraq returns to the international oil market,” Financial Times, June 5, 2003

Also see: Faisal Islam, “Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro,” [UK] Guardian, February 16, 2003
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896344,00.html

[5]           “Oil bourse closer to reality,” IranMania.com, December 28, 2004.  Also see: “Iran oil bourse wins authorization,” Tehran Times, July 26, 2005

[6]           Coilin Nunan, “Petrodollar or Petroeuro? A New source of global conflict,” Feasta Review 2, 2004, http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm.
Also see: Catherine Belton, “Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros?” Moscow Times, October 10, 2003, http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/10/10/001.html or archived, http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/2003/1010oilpriceeuro.htm

[7]           James McInerney, “Saudi Sees Stronger Euro Role,” Middle East Finance and Economy, AME Info, January 12, 2005, http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/52008.html

[8]           Richard S. Appel, “The Repercussions from the Yuan’s Revaluation,” kitco.com, July 27, 2005
http://www.kitco.com/ind/appel/jul272005.html

[9]           “China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal,” China Daily, October 31, 2004.  Online:  http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm

[10]         Novakeo, “Currency Wars: Euro vs. Dollar,” Etherzone.com, May 12, 2003
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/nova051203.shtml
Also see: “The Strategy Behind Paris-Berlin-Moscow Tie,” Intelligence, 447, February 20, 2003, www.intelligence.com.

[11]         Pat Rabbitte, “Iraq Being Used by the US to Flex Its Political Muscles,” Irish Times, March 31, 2003 http://www.ireland.com/focus/iraq/comment/comment3103b.htm
Also see: “China Lays Into ‘Bush Doctrine,’ ahead of US Poll,” Reuters, October 31, 2004.

[12]         John M. Glionna, “China, US Each Hold Major War Exercises,” Global Policy Forum, July 20, 2004, http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/0721chinaus.htm

[13]         Robert D. Kaplan, “How We Would Fight China,” The Atlantic, June 2005
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200506/kaplan

[14]         “New Oil Projects Cannot Meet World Needs This Decade,” Oil Depletion Analysis Center (ODAC), November 16, 2004
http://www.odac-info.org/bulletin/documents/MegaProjRelease16-11-04.pdf

[15]         Association for the Study of Oil and Gas Depletion (ASPO), International Workshop IV, May 19-20, 2005, Lisbon, Portugal
http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/topics.php

About the Author: William Clark has received two Project Censored awards for his research on oil currency conflict, and has recently published a book, Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar (New Society Publishers, 2005).  He is an Information Security Analyst, and holds a Master of Business Administration and Master of Science in Information and Telecommunication Systems from Johns Hopkins University.  He lives in Maryland.  Website: www.petrodollarwarfare.com

Copyright © 2003-2005 William Clark
Reprinted for Fair Use Only

http://peakoil.com/static/editorial/Oil_Currency_Geopolitics.htm

FRIDAY, APRIL 06, 2007
1:40 MECCA TIME, 22:40 GMT US captured ‘wrong Iranians’

The five Iranians were seized from a nondescript house in Irbil in northern Iraq in January[AFP]

US soldiers who captured five Iranians in the Iraq’s northern city of Irbil three months ago were hoping to seize commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, a senior Kurdish leader has said.

Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish region government, said senior Guards leaders had been visiting Kurdish officials at the time of the January raid.

The five Iranian diplomats who were arrested in the raid on a house in Irbil were all innocent of US charges that they were helping co-ordinate attacks against US and Iraqi forces, Barzani told Dubai-based Al-Arabiyah television in remarks broadcast on Friday.

“It [the house] was not a secret Iranian office,” Barzani said.

“It is impossible for us to accept that an Iranian office in Irbil was doing things against coalition forces or against us. That office was doing its work in a normal way and had they been doing anything hostile we would have known that.”

“They [the Americans] did not come to detain the people [the five Iranians] in that office.”

Barzani suggested that the US forces had instead hoped to captured senior members of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards who were visiting the area at the time.

“There was an Iranian delegation, including Revolutionary Guards commanders, and they came as guests of the president,” Barzani said, refering to Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president who is a Kurd.

“He was in Sulaimaniyah. They came to Sulaimaniyah and then I received a call from the president’s office telling me that they wanted to meet me as well.

“They [the commanders] came here and they came openly. Their meetings with the president and myself were reported on television. The Americans came to detain this delegation, not the people in the office.

“They [Americans] came to the wrong place at the wrong time.”

US accusations

Washington has said the five captured Iranians, who were seized in Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish region, were seized on suspicion that they were providing aid to Shia fighters who are targeting US and Iraqi troops and civilians.

On Wednesday, a US military spokesman said that an delegation from the International Committee of the Red Cross had visited the captive Iranians.

On Friday, the US military issued a further statement clarifying that there were no Iranians in an Red Cross team that had visited the five detained Iranians.

The US has denied that it granted access to the Iranian captives as part of a deal which led to Iran freeing 15 British naval personnel who were seized by Iranian forces last month.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0CE1B90B-DCFE-41FF-9C53-40846A1D5D29.htm

SATURDAY, APRIL 07, 2007
11:13 MECCA TIME, 8:13 GMT

Israel launches deadly raid in Gaza

Large parts of Gaza already  lie in ruins following repeated Israeli raids [AFP]

Israeli forces have killed a Palestinian fighter and wounded two in what is believed to be the fiercest exchange of fire between Israeli forces and Palestinian fighters since a ceasefire agreed in November.

Residents said the helicopters fired at least two missiles at Palestinians near the Jabalya refugee camp early on Saturday.

An Israeli army spokesperson said the helicopters fired at a “group of militants” who had tried to plant an explosive device near the border fence.

Islamic Jihad said its fighters and members of another group had been mounting an operation near the fence when the exchange of fire occurred.

Medics named one of the dead men as Fuad Mauf, 22, an activist of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP).

DFLP fighters said they fired rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at the Israeli forces and detonated bombs they had planted previously near the border fence.

Local residents said Israeli tanks had entered the area, which the army denied.

“The army has found 40 explosives planted in that area since the November ceasefire,” an army spokesman said.

Ayman Mohyeldin, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Gaza, said: “Palestinian sources say… last night the Israeli army entered the eastern part of Gaza and Palestinians tried to prevent the tanks form entering any further. There was an exchange of gunfire and a member of the DFLP was killed by an Israeli attack helicopter.”

“The Israeli army says that was not the case. They say they believed the men were planning an attack and had observed suspicious activity. As a result they say they were compelled to enter to respond to the preparation.”

Peretz allows ‘operations’

Amir Peretz, the Israeli defence minister, authorised the army on Monday to carry out operations against fightersGaza, despite the ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Some Palestinian groups have carried on firing rockets into Israel from Gaza despite the truce, and Peretz said the Jewish state would “not allow the continued strengthening and arming” of fighters in the coastal strip.

A local leader of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades was wounded by Israeli fire on Saturday in the West Bank, residents said.

Zakaria al-Zubeidi, an al-Aqsa commander from the Jenin refugee camp, was shot in the shoulder by Israeli troops, members of the group said.

“He [al-Zubeidi] was taken to a safe place where he was treated. He is okay,” a member of al-Aqsa said.

Ali al-Sumodi, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Jenin, said: “This is the fifth Israeli assassination attempt targeting al-Zubaidi since the beginning of the Israeli army’s campaign to pursue him following the Jenin refugee camp battle in April 2002.

“Al-Zubaidi’s mother, brother and cousin were killed in the 2002 massacre. Israeli forces have demolished his house and detained many of his relatives, including two brothers.

“Israel claims al-Zubaidi’s name is on top of its list of wanted activists for involvement in anti-Israeli activities.”

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Second Gonzales aide resigns over US attorney flap
Fri Apr 6, 2007 7:13PM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – An aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales abruptly resigned on Friday in another twist in the controversy surrounding the Justice Department’s firing of eight U.S. prosecutors.
The aide, Monica Goodling, is the second adviser to Gonzales to depart as criticism mounts in Congress over the department’s handling of the dismissals, which Democrats have said were politically motivated.
Goodling had invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination in refusing to testify before a Senate panel investigating the firings last year of the prosecutors.
She resigned in a brief letter submitted to Gonzales, whose resignation has been demanded by Democrats who charge the U.S. attorney firings were political motivated, an allegation the Bush administration denies.
“We can confirm her resignation,” said an aide to Goodling’s lawyer John Dowd, of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. His office would not release her resignation letter.
In a separate letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said Goodling’s resignation would be effective April 7.
Goodling, 33, has been a counselor to Gonzales and the department’s White House liaison and was involved in the firings. She had been on personal leave from the department for several weeks.
Democrats, who took power in Congress in January, allege the prosecutors were fired in part because Republicans viewed them as not pursuing corruption allegations against Democrats strongly enough. They and some Republicans want Gonzales, who is close to U.S. President George W. Bush, to resign.
It was not immediately clear whether Goodling’s resignation would have an impact the Senate investigation. Gonzales is scheduled to testify on April 17.
Hertling, in his letter, referred the matter to Goodling’s attorney. But he added that “the attorney general and deputy attorney general have already taken steps to ensure that no actual or apparent conflict of interest would arise with respect to Ms. Goodling or related matters.”
A spokeswoman for the Senate Judiciary Committee could not be immediately reached.
Committee member Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who has been leading the effort to get Gonzales to quit, said Goodling had no choice but to resign.
“Attorney General Gonzales’ hold on the department gets more tenuous each day,” Schumer said in a statement.
In March, Kyle Sampson resigned as chief of staff to Gonzales after acknowledging that he did not tell other department officials sooner about his dealings with the White House over the firings.
Gonzales has said that he was not involved in the firings, but Sampson testified in March that Gonzales was wrong.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0626613620070406

US accused of using neutron bombs

Al-Rawi, right, is still on the run

The former commander of Iraq’s Republican Guard has accused the US of using non-conventional weapons in its war against the Middle East country.

Saifeddin Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi told Al Jazeera that US forces used neutron and phosphorus bombs during their assault on Baghdad airport before the April 9 capture of the Iraqi capital.

Al-Rawi is one of the most wanted associates of Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi leader, still on the run.

“The enemy used neutron and phosphorus weapons against Baghdad airport… there were bodies burnt to their bones,” he said.

Al-Rawi is among the 55 most wanted Iraqis
sought by US-led forces[AFP]
The bombs annihilated soldiers but left the buildings and infrastructure at the airport intact, he added.

A neutron bomb is a thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but releases large amounts of lethal radiation that can penetrate armour and is especially destructive to human tissue.

About 2,000 elite Republican Guard troops “fought until they were martyred”, according to al-Rawi.

He said the Iraqi military command was surprised by the speed of the US land offensive, expecting air bombardment to last much longer.

“We had not expected the enemy to launch its land offensive from the very first or second day.

We expected the air raids to last at least a month,” he said.

“The land offensive came at the same time as the air offensive. That was a situation we did not expect,” he told Al Jazeera.

Al-Rawi, who carries a $1m US bounty on his head, was also the jack of clubs on the deck of cards of 55 most wanted Iraqis distributed by the Pentagon before the invasion in 2003.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BA8304F2-89FE-49DC-8FB0-2212FE7889F7.htm
Timeline: Four years of turmoil

Statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square, Baghdad, is pulled down by US marines [EPA]

April 9, 2003: US soldiers enter central Baghdad. Statue of Saddam Hussein is pulled down in Firdos Square. Kurdish fighters and US troops take control of cities of Kirkuk and Mosul in the north.

April 12: Revealed in the form of a deck of cards, the US military unveils a list of the 55 most wanted members of the former Saddam regime.

May 22: UN Security Council supports US-led administration in Iraq and ends economic sanctions.

May 23: US abolishes Baath Party and institutions of former regime.

July 13: US-appointed governing council meets.

July 22: Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay die in gun battle in Mosul.
August 19: Bomb attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad kills 16.
August 21: Saddam’s cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as Chemical Ali, is captured.
August 29: Najaf car bomb kills 125 people, including Shia leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim.
December 14: Saddam Hussein is captured in Tikrit.
February, 2004: More than 100 people killed in Irbil in suicide attacks on offices of main Kurdish factions.
March: Suicide bombers attack Shia festival-goers in Karbala and Baghdad, killing 140 people.

Muqtada al-Sadr prays with followers in Najaf
[Reuters]
April-May: Fighters loyal to Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fight coalition forces.
June 28: Iraq’s US-occupation administration transfers power to the interim Iraqi government in a surprise move two days ahead of the scheduled handover.
August: Fighting in Najaf between US forces and supporters of al-Sadr.
September 21: Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general, delivers a stern rebuke to nations that “shamelessly disregard” international law. The previous week, he branded the US-led war on Iraq as illegal.
October 6: The US Iraq Survey Group announces that 15 months of searching have uncovered no evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
November 16: British-born charity worker Margaret Hassan is killed by her kidnappers.
December 17: Colin Powell and John Snow, US secretaries, sign agreement with interim Iraqi finance minister cancelling Iraq’s $4.1 billion debt to the US.
January 30, 2005: An estimated eight million people vote in elections for a transitional national assembly. The Shia United Iraqi Alliance wins a majority of assembly seats. Kurdish parties come second.
February 28: At least 114 people are killed by a car bomb in Hilla, south of Baghdad.
April 6: Parliament selects Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, as president. Ibrahim Jaafari, a Shia, is named as prime minister.
May: Major increase in car bombings, bomb explosions and shootings, Iraqi ministries put the civilian death toll for May at 672, up from 364 in the previous month.
June 14: Massoud Barzani becomes regional president of Iraqi Kurdistan.
July 19: Study compiled by the non-governmental Iraq Body Count organisation reports nearly 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US-led invasion.
August 28: Draft constitution endorsed by Shia and Kurdish representatives, but not by Sunni negotiators.
August 31: More than 1,000 people die in a stampede in Baghdad during a Shia ceremony.
October 19: Saddam Hussein is put on trial on charges of crimes against humanity.
Voters approve a new constitution, which aims to create an Islamic federal democracy.
December 15: Iraqis vote for the first, full-term government and parliament since the US-led invasion.
January 20, 2006: Shia-led United Iraqi Alliance win December’s parliamentary elections, but fail to gain an absolute majority.
February: A bomb attack on an important Shia shrine in Samarra unleashes a wave of sectarian violence in which hundreds of people die.
April 22: Jalal Talabani, newly re-elected as president, asks Shia compromise candidate Nuri al-Maliki to form a new government. The move ends four months of political deadlock.
May and June: An average of more than 100 civilians per day are killed in violence in Iraq, the UN reports.
June 7: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, is killed in an air strike.
September: A ceremony to transfer operational command from US-led forces to Iraq’s new army is postponed.
November: Saddam Hussein is found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death.
Iraq and Syria restore diplomatic relations after nearly a quarter century.
More than 200 die in car bombings in the mainly Shia area of Sadr City in Baghdad.

Saddam Hussein is executed [AFP]
December 30: Saddam Hussein is executed by hanging.
January, 2007: George Bush, US president, announces a new Iraq strategy with thousands more US troops to be sent to increase security in Baghdad.
Barzan Ibrahim, Saddam Hussein’s half-brother, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, former head of the revolutionary court, are executed by hanging.
UN reports more than 34,000 civilians were killed in violence during 2006, the figure surpasses official Iraqi estimates three times over.
February: A bomb in Baghdad’s Sadriya market kills more than 130 people.
March: Fighters explode three trucks with toxic chlorine gas in Falluja and Ramadi, injuring hundreds of people.
March 20: Taha Yassin Ramadan, former vice-president, is executed.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DA8C4CEF-5374-49F8-92A3-CF0008CD1BEE.htm
US Aiding Al Qaeda Affiliated Group In Iran?
Pakistani Intel sources and Iranian parliament claims CIA aiding anti-Iranian militants
Infowars.net | April 6, 2007
Steve Watson
A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005 according to Pakistani Intelligence and Iranian officials.
The United States is putting pressure on Iran by supporting anti-Iranian militants operating from the Pakistani border region, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Gholamali Haddadadel, said on Thursday, as reported by Reuters news agency.
“There is no doubt in our minds that the United States spares no effort to put pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Haddadadel said.
“The best indication of United States’ support to a particular terrorist group is that one of the leaders of this terrorist group was given the opportunity to speak on VoA after committing the crime,” Haddadadel said without specifying which crime he was referring to.
It is possible Haddadadel was referring to the February 2007 bombing attack on Zaheden , which lies in the southeastern Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchestan, bordering on both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Following this attack, which killed 18 Iranian soldiers, Brigadier General Mohammad Ghafari “renewed Iranian accusations that the Jundullah group was receiving support from British and US forces in neighboring Afghanistan for its campaign of violence in Sistan-Baluchestan,” David Eshel wrote in the March 2007 Defense Update.
Following the arrest of some key members linked with the Jundallah group Ghafari asserted that “A video seized from the rebels confirms their attachment to opposition groups and some countries’ intelligence services such as America and Britain.”
It was then reported that explosive devices and arsenals used in the attack came from the United States .
Haddadadel’s claims are backed up by an ABC News investigative report this week that cites Pakistani intelligence sources.
ABC’s Brian Ross states:
The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.
It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.
U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or “finding” as well as congressional oversight.
Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.
ABC cited Pakistani government sources as saying the secret campaign against Iran was on the agenda when U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney met Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.
One interesting aspect of this is that, according to the Asia Times, the Jundullah group was formerly allegedly headed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the so called al-Qaeda operational commander of the 9/11 attacks.
Wikipedia entry :
Jundullah (Army of God) is a militant Islamic organization that is based in Waziristan, Pakistan and affiliated with Al-Qaeda. It is a part of the Baloch insurgency in Pakistan and in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchistan Province. The goal of the group is to form an independent and united Baluchistan under a hardline Sunni Islamist government similar to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Though Baloch-dominated, the group claims to represent all Sunnis in Iran, regardless of ethnicity. Iran and Pakistan have designated it a terrorist organization and banned it. The militant Sunni group operates inside Iran’s southeastern border. The group poses a threat to the country’s Shi’ite clerical regime, which already faces a crisis with the West over its nuclear ambitions. The Iranian government has accused the United States of supporting the Sunni group as a destabilizing element against Ahmadinejad’s regime. The Jundallah deny any link with the United States.
The group was supposedly an anti-Western terrorist group, which means that if Pakistani and Iranian intel is to be believed, at some point the group has been co-opted by Western intelligence. Is the CIA knowingly aiding an Al Qaeda affiliated group in order to pressure the Iranian regime?
The CIA and the government have a history of using proxy armies, funded by other countries to destabilize foreign governments. Nicaragua in the 1980s is one such example, as is the funding of anti-Castro militants in Cuba.
In 1953 such tactics were successful when the CIA and MI6 removed the democratically elected nationalist cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh from power by working with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate.
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers. Infowars.net is currently rocketing up the web rankings and is rivaling Infowars.com and
Prisonplanet.com in terms of hits. This means guaranteed sales for advertisers. Help support the website and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click here for more info.

This is not the only anti-Iranian terror group that US government has been accused of funding in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government.
Multiple credible individuals including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel have asserted that the government is conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on Iranian Revolution Guard units.
It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, is now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and carrying out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
Just last month after a bombing inside Iran, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.
The British government has hinted that yesterday’s attack in Basra that killed four British soldiers was carried out by militants with ties to the Iranian government. Meanwhile the fifteen British sailors, released yesterday by Iran, have admitted that they were engaged in intelligence gathering on Iranian activity.
The evidence suggests that The US and Britain are fully engaged in a covert war with Iran that has spilled over the border into Iraq, sowing more chaos and endangering the lives of more US and British troops, the vast majority of whom have no knowledge of such activity.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_us_aiding_al_qaeda_affliliated_group_in_iran.htm

US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
William Lowther
London Telegraph
Sunday, February 25, 2007
America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.
In a move that reflects Washington’s growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran’s border regions.
The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.
In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.
Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran’s 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.
Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA’s classified budget but is now “no great secret”, according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.
His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: “The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime.”
Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.
Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as “mercenary elements” in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey’s outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers’ Party.
John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: “The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity.”
Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.
The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.
A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to “unleash” the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.
The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: “A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage.”
At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran’s southern coastal waters.
The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.
While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility.
“It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power,” Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. “All options are still on the table.”
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business.
Additional reporting by Gethin Chamberlain.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/250207funds.htm
Briton ‘could stage another September 11′
London Telegraph | April 6, 2007
Toby Harnden
The United States fears that the next September 11-style attack on America could be launched by Muslims from Britain or Europe who feel “second-class citizens” and alienated by a “colonial legacy”, according to the US Homeland Security chief.
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Michael Chertoff, who arrives in Britain tomorrow for talks with John Reid, the Home Secretary, said the US was determined to build extra defences against so-called “clean skin” terrorists from Europe.
“We need to build layers of protection, and I don’t think we totally want to rely upon the fact that a foreign government is going to know that one of their citizens is suspicious and is going to be coming here,” he said.
Mr Chertoff insisted that the US required additional information, including email addresses and credit card details, to vet European passengers and rejected “the idea that we’re going to bargain with the European Union over who’s going to come into the United States” under the visa waiver scheme.
“We have an absolute right to get this, in the same way that if someone wants to be a guest in my house I have a right to ask them who they are and get identification.”
The July 7 tube and bus bombs nearly two years ago had shown that Britain had a problem with its Muslim immigrant population that America did not share, he argued.
“Our Muslim population is better educated and economically better off than the average American. So, from a standpoint of mobility in society, it’s a successful immigrant population. To some degree, the whole country is a country of immigrants, and therefore there’s no sense that we have insiders or outsiders. In some countries [in Europe], you had an influx of people that came in as a colonial legacy and may have always have felt, to some extent, that they were viewed as second-class citizens, and they’ve tended to impact and be kind of clustered in some areas.”
Mr Chertoff, a former federal prosecutor, said that one of his biggest worries was that “unknown terrorists” – such as most of the 7/7 bombers, who were British citizens with no criminal record or intelligence traces – could use the visa waiver scheme to enter and attack America.
Britain is among 27 countries that participate in the scheme, which allows visitors to enter the US without a visa for up to 90 days. About 18 million people visit America every year under this programme.
Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber” who attempted to blow up a transatlantic flight in 2001, was a British citizen travelling under the visa waiver scheme.
Zacharias Moussaoui, one of the September 11 plotters, was a French citizen who entered America without a visa. Mr Chertoff said that “we can do a good job with the known terrorists, if we have their name, or if we’ve previously arrested them and have their fingerprint on file” but a more potent threat was the terrorist with no known form.
“The fear has always been the so-called ‘clean skin’ – that’s a person whose documents are completely legitimate, are not forged.”
This had led the US to require a significant tightening of the rules for passengers travelling under a visa waiver. Among the new requirements are that all passenger information be transmitted to the US before a plane takes off. Soon, passengers will have to give all 10 fingerprints, rather than just two.
“If someone’s a terrorist, and they’ve left their fingerprints at a training camp, or in a safe house where a bomb was built, and those latent fingerprints are collected, we can then, when someone crosses a border, match their real prints against those latent prints even if we don’t know their name,” he said.
Mr Chertoff rejected the idea that the Iraq war had made the world more dangerous.
“Those that are inclined to be radicalised will find a reason to be radicalised no matter what’s going on in the world.”
America was “unquestionably safer and more secure” than it was on September 11 2001 but there was a danger of complacency because it had not been attacked for more than five years.
“Where you find some softness is in some elements of the media or in some elements of the intellectual class who convince themselves that this is our fault, or that there’s an easier way to avoid the problem if we can just figure what price we have to pay. That is a plea to the sensibility of exhaustion and history has shown that’s a very damaging and very destructive impulse.”
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/briton_could_stage_another_september_11.htm

The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt
Rolling Stone | April 5th Edition
ERIK HEDEGAARD
He was the ultimate keeper of secrets, lurking in the shadows of American history. He toppled banana republics, planned the Bay of Pigs invasion and led the Watergate break-in. Now he would reveal what he’d always kept hidden: who killed JFK
>> Who assassinated JFK? The conversation continues in our politics blog, National Affairs Daily .
O nce, when the old spymaster thought he was dying, his eldest son came to visit him at his home in Miami. The scourges recently had been constant and terrible: lupus, pneumonia, cancers of the jaw and prostate, gangrene, the amputation of his left leg. It was like something was eating him up. Long past were his years of heroic service to the country. In the CIA, he’d helped mastermind the violent removal of a duly elected leftist president in Guatemala and assisted in subterfuges that led to the murder of Che Guevara. But no longer could you see in him the suave, pipe-smoking, cocktail-party-loving clandestine operative whose Cold War exploits he himself had, almost obsessively, turned into novels, one of which, East of Farewell , the New York Times once called “the best sea story” of World War II. Diminished too were the old bad memories, of the Bay of Pigs debacle that derailed his CIA career for good, of the Watergate Hotel fiasco, of his first wife’s death, of thirty-three months in U.S. prisons — of, in fact, a furious lifetime mainly of failure, disappointment and pain. But his firstborn son — he named him St. John; Saint, for short — was by his side now. And he still had a secret or two left to share before it was all over.
They were in the living room, him in his wheelchair, watching Fox News at full volume, because his hearing had failed too. After a while, he had St. John wheel him into his bedroom and hoist him onto his bed. It smelled foul in there; he was incontinent; a few bottles of urine under the bed needed to be emptied; but he was beyond caring. He asked St. John to get him a diet root beer, a pad of paper and a pen.
Saint had come to Miami from Eureka, California, borrowing money to fly because he was broke. Though clean now, he had been a meth addict for twenty years, a meth dealer for ten of those years and a source of frustration and anger to his father for much of his life. There were a couple of days back in 1972, after the Watergate job, when the boy, then eighteen, had risen to the occasion. The two of them, father and son, had wiped fingerprints off a bunch of spy gear, and Saint had helped in other ways, too. But as a man, he had two felony convictions to his name, and they were for drugs. The old spymaster was a convicted felon too, of course. But that was different. He was E. Howard Hunt, a true American patriot, and he had earned his while serving his country. That the country repaid him with almost three years in prison was something he could never understand, if only because the orders that got him in such trouble came right from the top; as he once said, “I had always assumed, working for the CIA for so many years, that anything the White House wanted done was the law of the land.”
Years had gone by when he and St. John hardly spoke. But then St. John came to him wanting to know if he had any information about the assassination of President Kennedy. Despite almost universal skepticism, his father had always maintained that he didn’t. He swore to this during two government investigations. “I didn’t have anything to do with the assassination, didn’t know anything about it,” he said during one of them. “I did my time for Watergate. I shouldn’t have to do additional time and suffer additional losses for something I had nothing to do with.”
But now, in August 2003, propped up in his sickbed, paper on his lap, pen in hand and son sitting next to him, he began to write down the names of men who had indeed participated in a plot to kill the president. He had lied during those two federal investigations. He knew something after all. He told St. John about his own involvement, too. It was explosive stuff, with the potential to reconfigure the JFK-assassination-theory landscape. And then he got better and went on to live for four more years.
T hey sure don’t make White House bad guys the way they used to. Today you’ve got flabby-faced half-men like Karl Rove, with weakling names like “Scooter” Libby, blandly hacking their way through the constraints of the U.S. Constitution, while back then, in addition to Hunt, you had out-and-out thugs like G. Gordon Liddy, his Watergate co-conspirator and Nixon’s dirty-tricks chief, who would hold his own hand over an open flame to prove what a real tough guy he was. It all seems a little nutty now, but in 1972 it was serious business. These guys meant to take the powers of the presidency and run amok. Hunt, an ex-CIA man who loved operating in the shadows and joined Nixon’s Special Investigations Unit (a.k.a. “the Plumbers”) as a $100-a-day consultant in 1971, specialized in political sabotage. Among his first assignments: forging cables linking the Kennedy administration to the assassination of South Vietnam’s president. After that, he began sniffing around Ted Kennedy’s dirty laundry, to see what he could dig up there. Being a former CIA man, he had no problem contemplating the use of firebombs and once thought about slathering LSD on the steering wheel of an unfriendly newspaperman’s car, hoping it would leach into his skin and cause a fatal accident. But of all his various plots and subterfuges, in the end, only one of them mattered: the failed burglary at the Watergate Hotel, in Washington, D.C., in the spring of 1972.
The way it happened, Hunt enlisted some Cuban pals from his old Bay of Pigs days to fly up from Miami and bug the Democratic National Committee headquarters, which was located inside the Watergate. Also on the team were a couple of shady ex-government operators named James McCord and Frank Sturgis. The first attempt ended when the outfit’s lock picker realized he’d brought the wrong tools. The next time, however, with Hunt stationed in a Howard Johnson’s hotel room across the way, communicating with the burglars by walkie-talkie, the team gained entry into the office. Unfortunately, on the way into the building, they’d taped open an exit door to allow their escape, and when a night watchman found it, he called the cops. The burglars were arrested on the spot. One of them had E. Howard’s phone number, at the White House, no less, in his address book. Following this lead, police arrested Hunt and charged him with burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping. Abandoned by his bosses at the White House, he soon began trying to extort money from them to help pay his mounting bills, as well as those of his fellow burglars, the deal being that if the White House paid, all those arrested would plead guilty and maintain silence about the extent of the White House’s involvement.
That December, his wife, Dorothy, carrying $10,000 in $100 bills, was killed in a plane crash, foul play suspected but never proved. Two years later, impeachment imminent, Nixon resigned his presidency. And in 1973, E. Howard Hunt, the man who had unwittingly set all these events in motion, pleaded guilty and ultimately spent thirty-three months in prison. “I cannot escape feeling,” he said at the time, “that the country I have served for my entire life and which directed me to carry out the Watergate entry is punishing me for doing the very things it trained and directed me to do.”

After his release, Hunt moved to Miami, where he remarried, had two more children and spent three decades living a quiet, unexceptional life, steadfastly refusing to talk about Watergate, much less the Kennedy assassination. His connection to the JFK assassination came about almost serendipitously, when in 1974 a researcher stumbled across a photo of three tramps standing in Dallas’ Dealey Plaza. It was taken on November 22nd, 1963, the day of Kennedy’s shooting, and one of the tramps looked pretty much like E. Howard. In early inquiries, official and otherwise, he always denied any involvement. In later years, he’d offer a curt “No comment.” And then, earlier this year, at the age of eighty-eight, he died — though not before writing an autobiography, American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond , published last month. Not surprisingly, those things he wrote down about JFK’s death and gave to his eldest son don’t make an appearance in the book, at least not in any definitive way. E. Howard had apparently decided to take them to the grave. But St. John still has the memo — “It has all this stuff in it,” he says, “the chain of command, names, people, places, dates. He wrote it out to me directly, in his own handwriting, starting with the initials ‘LBJ’ ” — and he’s decided it’s time his father’s last secrets finally see some light, for better or for worse.
O ut in eureka, a few days before his father’s death, St. John is driving through town in a beat-up mottled-brown ‘88 Cutlass Sierra. He is fifty-two. His hair is dark, worn long, and despite his decades as a drug addict, he’s still looking good. He has a Wiccan girlfriend named Mona. He’s also an accomplished and soulful guitar player, leaning heavily toward Eric Clapton; he can often be found playing in local haunts during open-mike nights and is working on putting a band together, perhaps to be called Saint John and the Sinners or, though less likely, the Konspirators. He’s got a good sense of humor and a large sentimental streak. The last time he saw his father, in Miami, was a week ago.
“I sat by his bedside holding his hand for about ten hours the first day,” St. John says somberly. “He hadn’t been out of bed in ten weeks, had pneumonia twenty-seven times in the last sixteen months. He’s such a tough old motherfucker, that guy. But he had all this fluid in his lungs, a death rattle, and I thought, ‘Any minute now, this is it, his last breath, I’m looking at it right here.’ A couple of times my stepmom, Laura, would say, ‘Howard, who is this?’ He’d look at me and her, and he didn’t have a clue. Other times, he would quietly say, ‘St. John.’ He said he loved me and was grateful I was there.”
At the moment, Saint doesn’t have a job; his felonies have gotten in the way. He has to borrow money to put gas in his Cutlass. Beach chairs substitute for furniture in the tiny apartment where, until recently, he lived with an ex-girlfriend, herself a reformed meth addict, and two kids, one hers, one theirs. “I would’ve loved to have lived a normal life,” he says. “I’m happy with who I am. I don’t have any regrets. But all the shit that happened, the whole thing, it really spun me over.”
And not only him but his siblings, too — a brother, David, who has had his own problems with drugs, and two older sisters, Kevan and Lisa, who still hold their father responsible for the tragedy of their mom’s death. Dorothy Hunt was staunchly loyal to her husband and, after his arrest, helped him with his plans to blackmail the White House. On December 8th, 1972, carrying $10,000 in what’s regarded as extorted hush money and, some say, evidence that could have gotten Nixon impeached, she boarded United Airlines Flight 553 from Washington to Chicago. The plane crashed, killing forty-three people onboard, including Dorothy. The official explanation was pilot error, but St. John doesn’t believe it. He thinks that the Nixon White House wanted to both get rid of his mother and send a message to his father. Nonetheless, he says he tries not to place blame.
“She got on that plane willingly and lovingly, because that’s the kind of woman she was,” he says. “They had lots of marital problems, but when it came down to it, she had his back, and she could hang in there with the big dogs. She was really pissed at Nixon, Liddy, all those guys, and she was saying, ‘We’re not going to let them hang you out to dry. We’re going to get them. Those motherfuckers are going to pay.’ So I’ve never held what happened against him. I had bitterness and resentment, but I always knew he did what he had to do given the circumstances.”
And at times, he even seems to think of his dad with pride: “Did you hear that the character that Tom Cruise plays in the Mission: Impossible movies is named after him? Instead of Everette Hunt, they named him Ethan Hunt. I know he’s been portrayed as kind of an inept, third-rate burglar, but burglary wasn’t really his bag. My dad was a really good spy, maybe a great spy.”
But then he starts talking about what it was like growing up the eldest son of Everette Howard Hunt, and a different picture emerges. “He loved the glamorous life, cocktail parties, nightclubbing, flirting, all that,” Saint says. “He was unfaithful to my mom, but she stayed with him. He was a swinger. He thought of himself as a cool dude, suave, sophisticated, intellectual. He was Mr. Smooth. A man of danger. He was perfect for the CIA. He never felt guilt about anything.”
I n the early days of the cold war, the CIA’s mandate was simple: to contain the spread of communism by whatever means necessary; it was tacitly given permission to go about its dirty business unfettered by oversight of any kind. For much of the Cold War, it was answerable to no one. And if you were lucky enough to become one of its agents, you had every right to consider yourself a member of an elite corps, a big swinging all-American dick like no other.
The middle-class son of a Hamburg, New York, attorney, E. Howard Hunt graduated from Brown University in 1940 with a bachelor’s in English, joined the Navy during World War II, served in the North Atlantic on the destroyer Mayo , slipped and fell, took a medical discharge and wound up in China working under “Wild” Bill Donovan in the newly formed Office of Strategic Services. When the OSS was transformed into the CIA, Hunt jumped onboard. He loved action as much as he hated communism, and he soon began operating with a level of arrogance entirely typical of the CIA. He was instrumental, for instance, in planning the 1954 coup in Guatemala that overthrew the left-leaning, democratically elected president, Jacobo Arbenz, and ushered in forty years of military repression, which ultimately cost 200,000 Guatemalans their lives. Years later, when asked about the 200,000 deaths, E. Howard said, “Deaths? What deaths?” Like Saint says, he never felt guilt about anything: “He was a complete self-centered WASP who saw himself as this blue blood from upstate New York. ‘I’m better than anybody because I’m white, Protestant and went to Brown, and since I’m in the CIA, I can do anything I want.’ Jew, nigger, Polack, wop — he used all those racial epithets. He was an elitist. He hated everybody.”
In the early Fifties, his father could often be seen cruising around in a white Cadillac convertible; he loved that car. He also loved his cigars and his wine and his country clubs and being waited on by servants and having his children looked after by nannies. He was full of himself and full of the romantic, swashbuckling, freewheeling importance of his government mission. He had quite an imagination, too. When he wasn’t off saving the world from Reds, he spent much of his time in front of a typewriter, hacking out espionage novels, some eighty in all, with titles such as The Violent Ones (“They killed by day, they loved by night”) and I Came to Kill (“They wanted a tyrant liquidated, and cash could hire him to do it”).
Wherever E. Howard was stationed — he’d pop up Zelig-like in hot spots from Japan to Uruguay to Spain — he and his family lived lavishly and well, all presumably to lend credence to his cover job as a high-ranking embassy official. One estate was as large as a city block, and one dining table as long as a telephone pole, with the parents sitting at distant opposite ends. Sadly, he treated his children the way he and the CIA treated the rest of the world. They were supposed to bend to his will and otherwise be invisible. God forbid during a meal one of them should speak or rattle a dish.
“Whenever I made a sound, he looked at me with those hateful, steely eyes of his, a look of utter contempt and disgust, like he could kill,” St. John says. “He was a mean-spirited person and an extremely cruel father. I was his firstborn son, and I was born with a clubfoot and had to have operations. I suffered from petit-mal seizures. I was dyslexic and developed a stutter. For the superspy not to have a superson was the ultimate disappointment, like, ‘Here’s my idiot son with the clubfoot and glasses. Can we keep him in the closet, Dorothy?’ “
Later, E. Howard moved the family to the last home it would ever occupy as a family, in Potomac, Maryland. It was called Witches Island. It was a rambling affair, with a horse paddock, a chicken coop, the Cold War bonus of a bomb shelter, and a fishing pond across the way. E. Howard wanted Saint to attend a top-flight prep school and one night took him to a dinner at St. Andrew’s School, to try and get his son enrolled. In the middle of the meal, Saint leaned over to his dad and whispered, “Papa, I have to go to the bathroom.” His father glared at him. Pretty soon Saint was banging his knees together under the table. “Sit still,” his father hissed. Saint said, “Papa, I really have to go.”
“I ended up pissing in my pants at the dinner,” Saint says. “Can you imagine how humiliating that was? Unbelievable.” He didn’t get into St. Andrew’s. He ended up settling for a lower-tier boarding school called St. James, near Hagerstown, Maryland. His second year there, in 1970, after being repeatedly molested by a teacher, he broke down and told his mother what was going on. She told his father. And rumor had it that E. Howard came up to St. James with a carload of guns to make the teacher disappear. “He was really, really pissed off,” says Saint. “He wanted to kill.” In any case, at the school, neither the teacher nor St. John was ever seen again.
That same year, his father retired from the CIA after being relegated to the backwaters for his role in the Bay of Pigs. He went to work as a writer for a PR firm. He was bored and missed the hands-on action of the CIA.The following year, however, his lawyer pal Chuck Colson, who was special counsel to Nixon, called him up with an invitation to join the president’s Special Investigations Unit as a kind of dirty-tricks consultant. He signed on. He really thought he was going places.
A round the time of st. john’s Miami visit in 2003 to talk to his ailing father about JFK, certain other people were also trying to get things out of E. Howard, including the actor Kevin Costner, who had played a JFK-assassination-obsessed DA in the Oliver Stone film JFK and had become somewhat obsessed himself. Costner said that he could arrange for E. Howard to make $5 million for telling the truth about what happened in Dallas. Unbeknown to St. John, however, Costner had already met with E. Howard once. That meeting didn’t go very well. When Costner arrived at the house, he didn’t ease into the subject. “So who killed Kennedy?” he blurted out. “I mean, who did shoot JFK, Mr. Hunt?”
E. Howard’s mouth fell open, and he looked at his wife. “What did he say?”
“Howard,” Laura said, “he wants to know who shot JFK.”
And that ended that meeting, with E. Howard grumbling to himself about Costner, “What a numskull.”
But then St. John got involved, and he knew better how to handle the situation. For one thing, he knew that his stepmother wanted to forget about the past. She didn’t want to hear about Watergate or Kennedy. In fact, E. Howard swore to Laura that he knew nothing about JFK’s assassination; it was one of her preconditions for marriage. Consequently, she and her sons often found themselves in conflict with St. John.
“Why can’t you go back to California and leave well enough alone?” they asked him. “How can you do this? How dare you do this? He’s in the last years of his life.”
But Saint’s attitude was, “This has nothing to do with you. This stuff is of historical significance and needs to come out, and if you’re worried that it’ll make him out to be a liar, everybody knows he’s a liar already. Is this going to ruin the Hunt name? The Hunt name is already filled with ruination.”
So when Saint arrived in Miami to talk to his dad, the two men spent a lot of time waiting for Laura to leave the house. Saint painted the living room and built a wheelchair ramp. In the mornings, he cooked breakfast. In the afternoons, he plopped a fishing hat on E. Howard’s head and wheeled him around the neighborhood. They drank coffee together. And watched lots of Fox News. And when Laura finally left, they talked.
Afterward, another meeting was arranged with Costner, this time in Los Angeles, where the actor had fifty assassination-related questions all ready to go. (The actor declined comment for this article.) Though the $5 million figure was still floating around, all Costner wanted to pay E. Howard at this point was $100 a day for his time. There would be no advance. St. John called Costner.
“That’s your offer? A hundred dollars? That’s an insult. You’re a cheapskate.”
“Nobody calls me a cheapskate,” said Costner. “What do you think I’m going to do, just hand over $5 million?”
“No. But the flight alone could kill him. He’s deaf as a brick. He’s pissing in a bag. He’s got one leg. You want him to fly to Los Angeles and for $100 a day? Wow! What are we going to do with all that money?!”
“I can’t talk to you anymore, St. John,” Costner said. And that was the end of that, for good. It looked like what E. Howard had to say would never get out.
O ne evening in Eureka, over a barbecue meal, St. John explains how he first came to suspect that his father might somehow be involved in the Kennedy assassination. “Around 1975, I was in a phone booth in Maryland somewhere, when I saw a poster on a telephone pole about who killed JFK, and it had a picture of the three tramps. I saw that picture and I fucking — like a cartoon character, my jaw dropped, my eyes popped out of my head, and smoke came out of my ears. It looks like my dad. There’s nobody that has all those same facial features. People say it’s not him. He’s said it’s not him. But I’m his son, and I’ve got a gut feeling.”
He chews his sandwich. “And then, like an epiphany, I remember ‘63, and my dad being gone, and my mom telling me that he was on a business trip to Dallas. I’ve tried to convince myself that’s some kind of false memory, that I’m just nuts, that it’s something I heard years later. But, I mean, his alibi for that day is that he was at home with his family. I remember I was in the fifth grade. We were at recess. I was playing on the merry-go-round. We were called in and told to go home, because the president had been killed. And I remember going home. But I don’t remember my dad being there. I have no recollection of him being there. And then he has this whole thing about shopping for Chinese food with my mother that day, so that they could cook a meal together.” His father testified to this, in court, on more than one occasion, saying that he and his wife often cooked meals together.
St. John pauses and leans forward. “Well,” he says, “I can tell you that’s just the biggest load of crap in the fucking world. He was always looking at things like he was writing a novel; everything had to be just so glamorous and so exciting. He couldn’t even be bothered with his children. That’s not glamorous. James Bond doesn’t have children. So my dad in the kitchen? Chopping vegetables with his wife? I’m so sorry, but that would never happen. Ever. That fucker never did jack-squat like that. Ever.”
N ot that it was all bad back then, in Potomac, at Witches Island. E. Howard played the trumpet, and his son was into music too, so sometimes the pair went down to Blues Alley, in Georgetown, to hear jazz. Back home, E. Howard would slap Benny Goodman’s monster swing-jazz song “Sing, Sing, Sing” on the turntable, and the two would listen to it endlessly. And then, sometimes, during the stomping Harry James horn solo, E. Howard would jump to his feet, snapping his fingers like some cool cat, pull back his shirt sleeves, lick his lips and play the air trumpet for all he was worth. It was great stuff, and St. John loved it. “I would sit there in awe,” he says. But the best was yet to come.
It was well past midnight on June 18th, 1972. Saint, eighteen years old, was asleep in his basement bedroom, surrounded by his Beatles and Playboy pinup posters, when he heard someone shouting, “You gotta wake up! You gotta wake up!”
When he opened his eyes, Saint saw his father as he’d never seen him before. E. Howard was dressed in his usual coat and tie, but everything was akimbo. He was a sweaty, disheveled mess. Saint didn’t know what to think or what was going on.
“I don’t need you to ask a lot of questions,” his father said. “I need you to get your clothes on and come upstairs.”
He disappeared into the darkness. Saint changed out of his pajamas. Upstairs, he found his father in the master bedroom, laboring over a big green suitcase jumble-filled with microphones, walkie-talkies, cameras, tripods, cords, wires, lots of weird stuff. His father started giving him instructions. Saint went to the kitchen and returned with Windex, paper towels and some rubber dishwashing gloves. Then, in silence, the two of them began wiping fingerprints off all the junk in the suitcase. After that, they loaded everything into E. Howard’s Pontiac Firebird and drove over to a lock on the C&O Canal. E. Howard heaved the suitcase into the water, and it gurgled out of sight.
They didn’t speak on the way home. St. John still didn’t know what was going on. All he knew was that his dad had needed his help, and he’d given it, successfully.
The next day, dressed in one of his prep-school blazers, he drove to a Riggs Bank in Georgetown and met his father inside the safety-deposit-box cage. His father turned him around, lifted his blazer and shoved about $100,000 in cash down the back of his pants. The boy made it home without picking up a tail. Then his father had him get rid of a typewriter. Saint put the typewriter in a bag, hoofed it across the Witches Island property onto the neighboring spread and tossed it into the pond where he and his brother David used to go fishing.
“Don’t ever tell anybody you’ve done these things,” his father said later. “I could get in trouble. You could get in trouble. I’m sorry to have to put you in this position, but I really am grateful for your help.”
“Of course, Papa,” Saint said.
Everything he had done, he’d done because his father and his gang of pals had botched the break-in at the Watergate Hotel. Soon his mother would be killed in a plane crash, and his father would be sent to jail, and Nixon would resign, and his own life would fracture in unimaginable ways. But right now, standing there with his father and hearing those words of praise, he was the happiest he’d ever been.
Y ears later, when saint started trying to get his father to tell what he knew about JFK, he came to believe the information would be valuable. He both needed money and thought he was owed money, for what he’d been through. Also, like many a conspiracy nut before him, he was more than a little obsessed.
“After seeing that poster of the three tramps,” he says, “I read two dozen books on the JFK assassination, and the more I read, the more I was unsure about what happened. I had all these questions and uncertainties. I mean, I was trying to sort out things that had touched me in a big way.”
Touched him and turned him upside down, especially the death of his mother. He had been particularly close to her. She was part Native American and had sewed him a buckskin shirt that he used to wear like a badge of honor, along with a pair of moccasins. At the same time, Saint feels that he never got to know her. She told him that during World War II, she’d tracked Nazi money for the U.S. Treasury Department, and Saint believes that early in her marriage to his father, she may have been in the CIA herself, “a contract agent, not officially listed.” But he isn’t sure about any of it, really.
“In our family, everything was sort of like a mini-CIA,” he says. “Nothing was ever talked about, so we grew up with all of these walls, walls around my father, walls around my mother, walls around us kids, to protect and insulate us. You grow up not knowing what really happened. Like, who was my mom, for Christ’s sake? Was she a CIA agent? What was her life really like?” The one thing he does know is that when she died, so in large part did the Hunt family.
Once his father went to prison, Saint moved to Wisconsin, where he worked in a potato-processing plant and spent the rest of his time dropping acid. In 1975, he moved to the Oakland, California, area, started snorting coke and for five years drove a bakery truck. He was in a band and hoped to become a rock star, though touring alongside Buddy Guy was about the biggest thing that ever happened. Then he gave up coke and took up meth and a while later started dealing meth. Twenty years flew by. He had wild sexual escapades; he shacked up with two sisters — “nymphs,” he calls them. But mainly his life, like his father’s, was a rolling series of misfortunes. He received insurance money after his mom died, and bought a house; a week later, it burned down in some drug-related fiasco. His brother David followed a similar path; leaving boarding school, he hooked up with Saint, and together they set about snorting and dealing away the years.
Finally, in 2001, on the heels of two drug busts, Saint decided to go straight. With his ex-girlfriend, their daughter and her son, he stayed in a series of shelters, then took them to live in Eureka, several hours north of Oakland. He’s since earned a certificate in hotel management, but jobs don’t last. And the questions and uncertainties about his father continue to circulate in his head.
“In some ways we turned out similarly,” he says. “He was a spy, into secrets and covert activity. I became a drug dealer. What has to be more covert and secret than that? It’s the same mind-set. We were just on opposite sides of the — well, actually, in our case, I guess we weren’t even on opposite sides of the law, were we?” T hat time in miami, with saint by his bed and disease eating away at him and him thinking he’s six months away from death, E. Howard finally put pen to paper and started writing. Saint had been working toward this moment for a long while, and now it was going to happen. He got his father an A&W diet root beer, then sat down in the old man’s wheelchair and waited.
E. Howard scribbled the initials “LBJ,” standing for Kennedy’s ambitious vice president, Lyndon Johnson. Under “LBJ,” connected by a line, he wrote the name Cord Meyer. Meyer was a CIA agent whose wife had an affair with JFK; later she was murdered, a case that’s never been solved. Next his father connected to Meyer’s name the name Bill Harvey, another CIA agent; also connected to Meyer’s name was the name David Morales, yet another CIA man and a well-known, particularly vicious black-op specialist. And then his father connected to Morales’ name, with a line, the framed words “French Gunman Grassy Knoll.”
So there it was, according to E. Howard Hunt. LBJ had Kennedy killed. It had long been speculated upon. But now E. Howard was saying that’s the way it was. And that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only shooter in Dallas. There was also, on the grassy knoll, a French gunman, presumably the Corsican Mafia assassin Lucien Sarti, who has figured prominently in other assassination theories.
“By the time he handed me the paper, I was in a state of shock,” Saint says. “His whole life, to me and everybody else, he’d always professed to not know anything about any of it. But I knew this had to be the truth. If my dad was going to make anything up, he would have made something up about the Mafia, or Castro, or Khrushchev. He didn’t like Johnson. But you don’t falsely implicate your own country, for Christ’s sake. My father is old-school, a dyed-in-the-wool patriot, and that’s the last thing he would do.”
Later that week, E. Howard also gave Saint two sheets of paper that contained a fuller narrative. It starts out with LBJ again, connecting him to Cord Meyer, then goes on: “Cord Meyer discusses a plot with [David Atlee] Phillips who brings in Wm. Harvey and Antonio Veciana. He meets with Oswald in Mexico City. . . . Then Veciana meets w/ Frank Sturgis in Miami and enlists David Morales in anticipation of killing JFK there. But LBJ changes itinerary to Dallas, citing personal reasons.”
David Atlee Phillips, the CIA’s Cuban operations chief in Miami at the time of JFK’s death, knew E. Howard from the Guatemala-coup days. Veciana is a member of the Cuban exile community. Sturgis, like Saint’s father, is supposed to have been one of the three tramps photographed in Dealey Plaza. Sturgis was also one of the Watergate plotters, and he is a man whom E. Howard, under oath, has repeatedly sworn to have not met until Watergate, so to Saint the mention of his name was big news.
In the next few paragraphs, E. Howard goes on to describe the extent of his own involvement. It revolves around a meeting he claims he attended, in 1963, with Morales and Sturgis. It takes place in a Miami hotel room. Here’s what happens:
Morales leaves the room, at which point Sturgis makes reference to a “Big Event” and asks E. Howard, “Are you with us?”
E. Howard asks Sturgis what he’s talking about.
Sturgis says, “Killing JFK.”
E. Howard, “incredulous,” says to Sturgis, “You seem to have everything you need. Why do you need me?” In the handwritten narrative, Sturgis’ response is unclear, though what E. Howard says to Sturgis next isn’t: He says he won’t “get involved in anything involving Bill Harvey, who is an alcoholic psycho.”
After that, the meeting ends. E. Howard goes back to his “normal” life and “like the rest of the country . . . is stunned by JFK’s death and realizes how lucky he is not to have had a direct role.”
After reading what his father had written, St. John was stunned too. His father had not only implicated LBJ, he’d also, with a few swift marks of a pen, put the lie to almost everything he’d sworn to, under oath, about his knowledge of the assassination. Saint had a million more questions. But his father was exhausted and needed to sleep, and then Saint had to leave town without finishing their talk, though a few weeks later he did receive in the mail a tape recording from his dad. E. Howard’s voice on the cassette is weak and grasping, and he sometimes wanders down unrelated pathways. But he essentially remakes the same points he made in his handwritten narrative.
Shortly thereafter, Laura found out what had been going on, and with the help of E. Howard’s attorney put an end to it. St. John and his father were kept apart. When they did see each other, they were never left alone. And they never got a chance to finish what they’d started. Instead, the old man set about writing his autobiography and turned his back on his son. He wrote him a letter in which he said that Saint’s life had been nothing but “meaningless, self-serving instant gratification,” that he had never amounted to anything and never would. He asked for his JFK memos back, and Saint returned them, though not before making copies.
There is no way to confirm Hunt’s allegations — all but one of the co-conspirators he named are long gone. St. John, for his part, believes his father. E. Howard was lucid when he made his confession. He was taking no serious medications, and he and his son were finally on good terms. If anything, St. John believes, his father was holding out on him, the old spy keeping a few secrets in reserve, just in case.
“Actually, there were probably dozens of plots to kill Kennedy, because everybody hated Kennedy but the public,” Saint says. “The question is, which one of them worked? My dad has always said, ‘Thank God one of them worked.’ I think he knows a lot more than he told me. He claimed he backed out of the plot only so he could disclaim actual involvement. In a way, I feel like he only opened another can of worms.” He takes a deep breath. “At a certain point, I’m just going to have to let it go.”
O ut in Eureka, Saint has been reading an advance copy of E. Howard’s autobiography, American Spy . In it, his father looks at LBJ as only one possible person behind the JFK killing, and then only in the most halfhearted, couched-and-cloaked way. He brings up various other possibilities, too, then debunks each of them.
But of all the shadings and omissions in the book, the only one that truly upsets St. John has to do with the happiest moment in his life, that time in 1972, on the night of the Watergate burglary, when he helped his father dispose of the spy gear, then ran money for him and ditched the typewriter.
The way it unfolds in the book, St. John doesn’t do anything for his dad. And it’s E. Howard himself who dumps the typewriter.
“That’s a complete lie,” Saint says, almost shouting. “A total fabrication. I did that. I mean, he never took me aside and thanked me in any kind of deep emotional way. But I’m the one who helped him that night. Me! And he’s robbing me of it. Why?”
Like so many other things, he will never know why, because the next day, on January 23rd, in the morning, in Miami, the old spymaster dies.
Later in the day, Saint started reading a few of the obituaries.
One starts off, “Sleazebag E. Howard Hunt is finally dead.”
“Oh, God,” Saint says and goes looking for how The New York Times handled his father’s death. The obit reads, “Mr. Hunt was intelligent, erudite, suave and loyal to his friends. But the record shows that he mishandled many of the tasks he received from the CIA and the White House. He was ‘totally self-absorbed, totally amoral and a danger to himself and anybody around him. . . .’ “
“Wow,” Saint says. “I don’t know if I can read these things. I mean, that is one brutal obituary.”
But the Times is right, of course. E. Howard was a danger to anybody around him, and any list of those in danger would always have to include, right at the top, his firstborn son, St. John.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/jfk_hunt_last_confessions_rolling_stone.htm
Russia doubts Iran nuclear claim

Lavrov says Moscow will monitor the situation based on “concrete facts” [EPA]

Russia says it has not seen any indication that Iran has made the breakthrough in its nuclear programme that Tehran claims.

The comments made in a statement by the Russian foreign office on Tuesday come a day after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, said his country is now able to enrich uranium on an “industrial scale”.

“We do not know of any recent technological breakthroughs in the Iranian nuclear programme that would change the character of the work in the field of enrichment,” Mikhail Kamynin, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, said in the statement.

Iran’s declaration that it intended to accelerate its development of nuclear technology, in defiance of UN sanctions, was met with concern by the US and UK but Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said it was too early to draw conclusions on Iran’s claims.

Suspension call
“We will follow the situation carefully on the basis of concrete facts and not on declarations that only worsen the situation,” Lavrov told reporters.

The European Union, however, reiterated calls for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

The calmer response from Moscow is not wholly unexpected given that Russia is building Iran’s first nuclear power station at Bushehr and has supplied the Islamic republic with sophisticated military equipment.

Russia is helping Iran build its first
nuclear power station at Bushehr [EPA]

However, Moscow has also supported two sets of UN sanctions aimed at persuading Iran to comply with demands to suspend enrichment of uranium.

Enrichment is the key issue in the standoff between Iran and the West as the process can produce nuclear fuel but in highly extended form can also make the fissile core for an atomic bomb.

Defiance

In a grand ceremony at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant in central Iran on Monday, Ahmadinejad announced that the country was now able to enrich uranium on an industrial scale.

And on Tuesday the administration in Tehran made light of the criticism from the US and the UK.

“The objective of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not just the  installation of 3,000 centrifuges at the Natanz plant but we are  doing everything to install 50,000 centrifuges,” Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the head of the country’s atomic energy programme, was quoted as saying by the state-run IRNA agency.

Meanwhile two UN nuclear inspectors began a trip to the Natanz facility.

The Fars news agency said the IAEA inspectors would stay in Iran for a week. An Iranian official confirmed the inspectors’ arrival and said they were on a routine visit.

The inspectors’ report, likely to emerge after their visit ends, could provide the first independent confirmation of whether Iran’s enrichment is progressing as claimed.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AC51353D-F7BA-4DD4-B873-68E74872ACE3.htm

‘Woman’ bomber hits Iraq police
A suicide bomber reported to be a woman has attacked a police recruiting centre in Iraq, leaving at least 14 dead.
About 20 people were reported to have been wounded in the attack on a large crowd of would-be officers at a centre in Muqdadiya, north-east of Baghdad.
In Baghdad, five civilians were killed by a car bomb near the university.
The US military also announced three soldiers died in a roadside bomb attack in Baghdad on Monday, and another in combat in western Anbar province.
These latest deaths bring the estimates of the number of US military fatalities to about 40 this month.
Tallies vary, but about 3,280 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.
‘No crash’
In Muqdadiya, the figure dressed in the traditional black abaya detonated a bomb within a crowd of people who were seeking recruitment forms to join the police force, local officials said.
Both recruits and passers-by were reported to be among the casualties.
Female suicide bombings are unusual but not unprecedented in Iraq. A major attack in February at a university in Baghdad was carried out by a female bomber.
Meanwhile, the US military has denied earlier reports that a US helicopter had crashed in the centre of the capital.
Iraqi police reported clashes around the scene of the apparent incident, saying the US had sealed the area off.
However, a US military spokesman in Baghdad, Lt Col Christopher Garver, told the BBC that a US helicopter was fired upon but returned safely to its base.
The US has lost more than 50 military helicopters in Iraq since the invasion with the loss of a number of soldiers.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6540293.stm

Assam’s missing women and the sex trade
By Subir Bhaumik
BBC News, Calcutta

The biggest problem in India’s north-eastern state of Assam is separatist militancy. But it faces another, less well known issue. Thousands of its women, old and young, have gone missing over the past 10 years.
A recent police report says 3,184 women and 3,840 female children have gone missing in the state since 1996.
That’s around two females a day on average.
The report was compiled by Assam police and their research branch, the Bureau of Police Research and Development.
The local police are far too busy, according to Assam police intelligence chief Khagen Sarmah, fighting insurgents.
“Our counter-insurgency commitments affects our normal policing duties like checking trafficking.”
“Too many policemen are involved fighting the insurgents rather than following up on other crimes,” Mr Sarmah said.
‘Good looking women’
The Assam police recently rescued some girls working as call-girls around Delhi or used as “sex slaves” by wealthy landlords in states like Punjab and Haryana.
Most of them are from camps of internally displaced people dotting Assam, particularly the Kokrajhar district.
That area is home to nearly a quarter of a million people who were displaced in the late 1990s.
Nearly 800 people died in ethnic fighting in Kokrajhar and adjoining districts between Bodo tribes people and non-Bodo communities over a decade long period from 1994.
The police survey revealed an organised racket of “recruiters” who lured good-looking women with job offers outside the state.
“We arrested some recruiters but could never put an end to the rackets fully,” said police official Anil Phukan.
The modus operandi is simple: good looking women in the displaced peoples camps are offered jobs.
The parents are paid a few thousand rupees in advance, and told the daughters will send back money once they start working.
Once they go away, that rarely happens.
Money matters
Jam Singh Lakra of the Jaipur relief camp near Kokrajhar town says: “At least 20 girls have gone away with the jobs from our camp, not to return again.”
“We did identify a few recruiters and one got beaten up. But somehow the girls kept going away.”
Most families are cagey about the missing girls but some do speak up.
Tuilal Mardi of Tablegaon village says “My parents accepted the offer and sent my sister away.”
“They got a few thousand rupees but she never came back or sent any money.”
Women’s rights activist Paula Banerjee, who works on problems of displaced women says: “Ethnic conflicts all over the world results in massive displacement of women and that gives rise to heavy trafficking – the situation in Assam is no different.”
Local pornography
But not all the missing women of Assam have been taken out of the state.
Some show up in local pornographic films.
Mala Newar in Kokrajhar was known to her teachers as a “decent, well behaved girl” in school.
That was until one of them spied on her husband’s mobile phone last month and found a video clip featuring Mala in the nude having sex with a stranger.
Enquiries in Kokrajhar revealed that Mala and some other local girls were used in a pornographic films racket run by a local leader.
A hotel in the town was used for the filming.
The girls were first lured into the hotel with job offers, then offered soft drinks laced with sedatives.
They were then filmed in the nude and blackmailed into doing sex scenes for the camera.
Not all missing girls in Assam are from displaced peoples camps, though.
Indrani Bora and Ritu Borgohain are smart, educated English-speaking girls from the Assamese capital, Guwahati, who got jobs in a holiday complex in Gurgaon near Delhi seven months ago.
But both say they got slowly got drawn into a call girl racket run by the complex owner.
An officer who led an Assam police team to rescue Indrani and Ritu explains.
“All across hotels and resorts in places like Delhi and Bombay, you will find hundreds of girls from Assam and other north-eastern states working as waitresses or customer executives.
“Some do get drawn into the call-girl trade.”
Hunger driven
The Calcutta Research Group, in its recent study on conflict-induced displacement says that the displaced people in Assam live in acute poverty.
The situation has led the women in particular to desperately seek work elsewhere; even if the offers come from dubious people.
“This is because the government officials running the camps never created viable livelihood options,” says Uddipana Goswami of the Calcutta-based Centre for Studies in Social Sciences (CSSS).
Ms Goswami has worked on the displaced camps in Assam.
“Many displaced women have such exquisite craftsmanship but nobody ever tried to convert that into income alternatives,” she says.
Paula Banerjee says trafficking ignores borders therefore solutions cannot be left to local agencies alone.
“This is not a local or even a national problem.”
“This reflects the global reality, so intervention by international organisations may help check trafficking.”
(Names of the girls have been changed to protect their identity.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6430811.stm

China slams US piracy complaint
China has criticised the US over its decision to file a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization over copyright piracy and counterfeiting.
The US says that China’s failure to enforce copyright laws is costing software, music and book publishers billions of dollars in lost sales.
The US also argues that China makes it hard for legitimate firms to operate.
China “expressed great regret and strong dissatisfaction at the decision”, the state news agency said.
Tighter enforcement
The Xinhua news agency quoted Intellectual Property Office commissioner Tian Lipu as saying that it was “not a sensible move for the US government to file such a complaint” at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
“By doing so, the US has ignored the Chinese government’s immense efforts and great achievements in strengthening intellectual property rights protection and tightening enforcement of its copyright laws,” the commissioner added.
Excessively high legal thresholds for launching criminal prosecutions offer a safe harbor for pirates and counterfeiters
US Trade Representative

On Monday, the US trade representative Susan Schwab said that piracy and counterfeiting levels in China remained unacceptably high.
The US said that despite China’s promises to crackdown on fake software, DVDs, luxury goods, car parts and shoes, many of the goods were still widely available throughout the country.
China is one of the world’s largest producers of counterfeit products, ranging from designer clothes, to pirated films and music, to luggage.
Many of the goods find their way into Europe and are knowingly bought as fakes by shoppers at markets and from street vendors. Firms claim that the poor quality copies dent their brand and divert profits and potenital clients.
‘Criminal sanction’
The US has been threatening a WTO complaint against China since 2005.
It said on Tuesday that the two cases had been submitted to the WTO.
One case claims that Beijing’s poor enforcement of copyright and trademark protections violates WTO rules. The other contends that illegal barriers to hamper sales of US films, music and books.
“Excessively high legal thresholds for launching criminal prosecutions offer a safe harbor for pirates and counterfeiters,” the US said.
“Pirates and counterfeiters who structure their operations to fit below those thresholds face no possibility of criminal sanction.”
A 60-day consultation period follows for negotiators to try to resolve the disagreements. Should this fail, then a WTO panel would rule on the case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6540205.stm
U.S. military develops Robocop armour for soldiers
MATTHEW HICKLEY
UK Daily Mail
Tuesday April 10, 2007
We may have seen it all before in science-fiction films. But the bionic warrior is in fact a vision of real-life warfare in the 21st century. U.S. defence chiefs hope to have their troops kitted out in the outlandish combat gear as soon as 2020.
Included in the Pentagon’s Future Warrior Concept are a powerful exoskeleton, a self-camouflaging outer layer that adapts to changing environments and a helmet which translates a soldier’s voice into any foreign language.

The future soldier will also benefit from ‘intelligent’ armour, which remains light and flexible until it senses an approaching bullet, then tenses to become bulletproof.
Perhaps worryingly, several of the planned enhancements seem to owe more than a little to Hollywood blockbusters such as Robocop, Aliens and Predator.
But officials are quick to point out that many of these systems are already working in prototype form, or are refinements of proven technologies.
Some of the blueprints will be unworkable without eagerly awaited advances in nanotechnology, but researchers remain confident. And perhaps with good reason.
The sheer scale of U.S. military research spending and the pace of recent advances in aircraft stealth technology and guided precision bombs are staggering.
Project specialist Jean-Louis DeGay, a former captain in 75th Ranger Regiment, said: “We’re already trialling equipment and technologies that did not exist a few years ago.
“The air force has just debuted its new stun gun and five years after the concept of an exoskeleton was first discussed, we have fully functioning prototypes.”
He told Soldier magazine: “Five years ago, nobody thought we’d have a portable hydrogen fuel cell, but we’ve got them now.
“They’re functioning, and we’re just trying to make them smaller. And if I’m honest, nothing speeds up the development of technology like war.”
If the U.S. military’s vision of the future is even half-right, Britain’s armed forces will have their work cut out trying to keep up.
Even comparatively understated attempts to improve our troops’ battlefield technology, such as the Bowman digital battlefield radio system, have been blighted by years of delays and embarrassing technical blunders.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/100407Robocop.htm

The Federal Reserve Monopoly Over Money
Ron Paul
Prisonplanet
Tuesday April 10, 2007
Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee. The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better “regulate” things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues’ questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke’s job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.
Certainly it’s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good? Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being? Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?
Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.
The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch – Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference – that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.
The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.
The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic – or so they believe.
Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/100407Monopoly.htm

Wolfowitz To Attend 2007 Istanbul Bilderberg Meeting
Turkish journalist refers to ultra-elitist confab as “covert world government”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, April 10, 2007

In an interview with a Turkish journalist, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz brags of his upcoming attendance of the 2007 Bilderberg Group meeting in Istanbul Turkey, while the journalist who is also set to be an an attendee refers to the elitist confab as a “covert world government.”
Bilderberg is an annual conference of the global elite, the location of which changes every year. Power brokers from industry, oil, politics, banking, business, academia, royalty and the media get together to secretly discuss the course of the world with no independent oversight or press coverage whatsoever, save leaked details obtained by muck-raking lone journalists like veteran Jim Tucker.
Bilderberg claims it does not set policy and yet whatever is discussed usually pans out in the real world within 12 months.
The BBC uncovered documents form a former Bilderberg member dating back to the early 50’s betraying the fact that the European Union and the single Euro currency were both brainchild’s of the Bilderberg Group.
At the 2005 Bilderberg meeting in Munich Germany, leaked talking points obtained from the speeches given at the conference indicated that Bilderberg expected oil prices to surge over the next 12 months, which is exactly what happened.
Bilderberg has a proven history of acting in a kingmaker capacity. Both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair attended before becoming President and Prime Minister and the mainstream media reported that Bilderberg selected John Edwards as Kerry’s running mate in 2004. Hillary Clinton was rumored to have attended last year’s conference.
The Turkish news website Referans features an article written by Cengiz Çandar, who recently interviewed Wolfowitz in Washington about Turkey’s relationship with the World Bank.
During the interview, according to a translation carried at Bilderberg.org, Wolfowitz spoke of his anticipation at potentially attending Bilderberg’s next get-together in Istanbul, which runs from 31st of May to June 3rd.
Wolfowitz describes Bilderberg as a “a valuable opportunity to meet many people and make acquaintances.”

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist media – Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3’s, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more – all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
—————————————————————————————————————
Çandar, relishing his own invitation to attend, states, “For years, conspiracy theorists claimed that the Bilderberg was covert world government. This year I will be there myself. I shall see what covert world government is all about,” to which Wolfowitz mockingly responds, “That is still being claimed, there are many web sites making similar claims.”
Çandar refers to Wolfowitz as having “Been in the administration of the Bilderberg and attended these meetings many times already.”
The main theme of this year’s conference, overlapping with Bilderberg’s sister organization the Trilateral Commission, is likely to be an agreement on behalf of the power brokers to fan the hysteria of man-made global warming in order to push a standardized carbon tax.
Shortly before last year’s Bilderberg Group meeting in Ottawa Canada, Alex Jones and his film crew were detained overnight by Canadian immigration officials and interrogated simply for trying to fly into the country to provide media coverage of an event that is uniformly ignored by major establishment newspapers because their own editors are in attendance and sworn to secrecy.
Jones was told by the immigration officials that they were tipped off by Bilderberg security and ordered to detain the radio host and his crew. Laptops were searched as Alex and crew were shouted at, harassed, and threatened with jail or deportation.
In addition, three Canadian citizens who visited the Brookestreet Hotel in Ottawa where Bilderberg met were kidnapped off the street by militarized police with guns, detained without charge and suffered the ordeal of a marathon interrogation session and psychological torture – including threats to “cut off the arms” of one of the victims.
This is how the Bilderberg Group treats anyone that tries to peaceably protest or simply cover their activities, so forgive us for scoffing when claims that they are a benign talking shop for publicity shy old men are regurgitated year upon year by the lapdog press that dare even mention their name, while demonizing the rest of us as conspiracy theorists for even suggesting that a secret conference of 200+ world power brokers, including Congressmen and members of Parliament, without oversight, is worthy of some serious scrutiny.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/100407bilderbergmeeting.htm

April 11, 2007
U.S. General in Iraq Sees Wider Use of Iran Arms
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
BAGHDAD, April 11 — Iranian-made weapons continue to be used in Iraq and are now making their way to a majority Sunni neighborhood as well as Shiite militia members, an American military spokesman said today.
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said that Iran continues to train Iraqis on the use of the roadside bombs, known as EFPs, or explosively formed penetrators.
But he was careful not to say that the Iranian government was providing the weapons in Iraq, saying the weapons are being provided by Iranian intelligence surrogates.
EFPs hurl a molten, fist-sized lump of molten copper capable of piercing armored vehicles.
“We know that they are being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country, and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to assemble them and how to employ them,” Gen. Caldwell said, according to The Associated Press. “We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees’ debriefs.”
In January, American officials said at least 170 American soldiers had been killed by EFPs.
“We also know that training still is being conducted in Iran for insurgent elements from Iraq. We know that as recent as last week from debriefing personnel,” Gen. Caldwell said, according to the A.P.
“They do receive training on how to assemble and employ EFPs,” Gen. Caldwell said, adding that fighters also were trained in how to carry out complex attacks that used explosives followed by assaults with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-iraq.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

April 10, 2007
Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes
By NICHOLAS WADE
When it comes to the matter of desire, evolution leaves little to chance. Human sexual behavior is not a free-form performance, biologists are finding, but is guided at every turn by genetic programs.
Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women’s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children. The deal is sealed with other neural programs that induce a burst of romantic love, followed by long-term attachment.
So much fuss, so intricate a dance, all to achieve success on the simple scale that is all evolution cares about, that of raisingthe greatest number of children to adulthood. Desire may seem the core of human sexual behavior, but it is just the central act in a long drama whose script is written quite substantially in the genes.
In the womb, the body of a developing fetus is female by default and becomes male if the male-determining gene known as SRY is present. This dominant gene, the Y chromosome’s proudest and almost only possession, sidetracks the reproductive tissue from its ovarian fate and switches it into becoming testes. Hormones from the testes, chiefly testosterone, mold the body into male form.
In puberty, the reproductive systems are primed for action by the brain. Amazing electrical machine that it may be, the brain can also behave like a humble gland. In the hypothalamus, at the central base of the brain, lie a cluster of about 2,000 neurons that ignite puberty when they start to secrete pulses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone, which sets off a cascade of other hormones.
The trigger that stirs these neurons is still unknown, but probably the brain monitors internal signals as to whether the body is ready to reproduce and external cues as to whether circumstances are propitious for yielding to desire.
Several advances in the last decade have underlined the bizarre fact that the brain is a full-fledged sexual organ, in that the two sexes have profoundly different versions of it. This is the handiwork of testosterone, which masculinizes the brain as thoroughly as it does the rest of the body.
It is a misconception that the differences between men’s and women’s brains are small or erratic or found only in a few extreme cases, Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California, Irvine, wrote last year in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Widespread regions of the cortex, the brain’s outer layer that performs much of its higher-level processing, are thicker in women. The hippocampus, where initial memories are formed, occupies a larger fraction of the female brain.
Techniques for imaging the brain have begun to show that men and women use their brains in different ways even when doing the same thing. In the case of the amygdala, a pair of organs that helps prioritize memories according to their emotional strength, women use the left amygdala for this purpose but men tend to use the right.
It is no surprise that the male and female versions of the human brain operate in distinct patterns, despite the heavy influence of culture. The male brain is sexually oriented toward women as an object of desire. The most direct evidence comes from a handful of cases, some of them circumcision accidents, in which boy babies have lost their penises and been reared as female. Despite every social inducement to the opposite, they grow up desiring women as partners, not men.
“If you can’t make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, how strong could any psychosocial effect be?” said J. Michael Bailey, an expert on sexual orientation at Northwestern University.
Presumably the masculinization of the brain shapes some neural circuit that makes women desirable. If so, this circuitry is wired differently in gay men. In experiments in which subjects are shown photographs of desirable men or women, straight men are aroused by women, gay men by men.
Such experiments do not show the same clear divide with women. Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, “Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate — they get aroused by both male and female images,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.”
Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them.
Similar differences between the sexes are seen by Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist at Michigan State University. “Most males are quite stubborn in their ideas about which sex they want to pursue, while women seem more flexible,” he said.
Sexual orientation, at least for men, seems to be settled before birth. “I think most of the scientists working on these questions are convinced that the antecedents of sexual orientation in males are happening early in life, probably before birth,” Dr. Breedlove said, “whereas for females, some are probably born to become gay, but clearly some get there quite late in life.”
Sexual behavior includes a lot more than sex. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, argues that three primary brain systems have evolved to direct reproductive behavior. One is the sex drive that motivates people to seek partners. A second is a program for romantic attraction that makes people fixate on specific partners. Third is a mechanism for long-term attachment that induces people to stay together long enough to complete their parental duties.
Romantic love, which in its intense early stage “can last 12-18 months,” is a universal human phenomenon, Dr. Fisher wrote last year in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, and is likely to be a built-in feature of the brain. Brain imaging studies show that a particular area of the brain, one associated with the reward system, is activated when subjects contemplate a photo of their lover.
The best evidence for a long-term attachment process in mammals comes from studies of voles, a small mouselike rodent. A hormone called vasopressin, which is active in the brain, leads some voles to stay pair-bonded for life. People possess the same hormone, suggesting a similar mechanism could be at work in humans, though this has yet to be proved.
Researchers have devoted considerable effort to understanding homosexuality in men and women, both for its intrinsic interest and for the light it could shed on the more usual channels of desire. Studies of twins show that homosexuality, especially among men, is quite heritable, meaning there is a genetic component to it. But since gay men have about one-fifth as many children as straight men, any gene favoring homosexuality should quickly disappear from the population.
Such genes could be retained if gay men were unusually effective protectors of their nephews and nieces, helping genes just like theirs get into future generations. But gay men make no better uncles than straight men, according to a study by Dr. Bailey. So that leaves the possibility that being gay is a byproduct of a gene that persists because it enhances fertility in other family members. Some studies have found that gay men have more relatives than straight men, particularly on their mother’s side.
But Dr. Bailey believes the effect, if real, would be more clear-cut. “Male homosexuality is evolutionarily maladaptive,” he said, noting that the phrase means only that genes favoring homosexuality cannot be favored by evolution if fewer such genes reach the next generation.
A somewhat more straightforward clue to the origin of homosexuality is the fraternal birth order effect. Two Canadian researchers, Ray Blanchard and Anthony F. Bogaert, have shown that having older brothers substantially increases the chances that a man will be gay. Older sisters don’t count, nor does it matter whether the brothers are in the house when the boy is reared.
The finding suggests that male homosexuality in these cases is caused by some event in the womb, such as “a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies,” Dr. Bogaert wrote last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antimale antibodies could perhaps interfere with the usual masculinization of the brain that occurs before birth, though no such antibodies have yet been detected.
The fraternal birth order effect is quite substantial. Some 15 percent of gay men can attribute their homosexuality to it, based on the assumption that 1 percent to 4 percent of men are gay, and each additional older brother increases the odds of same-sex attraction by 33 percent.
The effect supports the idea that the levels of circulating testosterone before birth are critical in determining sexual orientation. But testosterone in the fetus cannot be measured, and as adults, gay and straight men have the same levels of the hormone, giving no clue to prenatal exposure. So the hypothesis, though plausible, has not been proved.
A significant recent advance in understanding the basis of sexuality and desire has been the discovery that genes may have a direct effect on the sexual differentiation of the brain. Researchers had long assumed that steroid hormones like testosterone and estrogen did all the heavy lifting of shaping the male and female brains. But Arthur Arnold of the University of California, Los Angeles, has found that male and female neurons behave somewhat differently when kept in laboratory glassware. And last year Eric Vilain, also of U.C.L.A., made the surprising finding that the SRY gene is active in certain cells of the brain, at least in mice. Its brain role is quite different from its testosterone-related activities, and women’s neurons presumably perform that role by other means.
It so happens that an unusually large number of brain-related genes are situated on the X chromosome. The sudden emergence of the X and Y chromosomes in brain function has caught the attention of evolutionary biologists. Since men have only one X chromosome, natural selection can speedily promote any advantageous mutation that arises in one of the X’s genes. So if those picky women should be looking for smartness in prospective male partners, that might explain why so many brain-related genes ended up on the X.
“It’s popular among male academics to say that females preferred smarter guys,” Dr. Arnold said. “Such genes will be quickly selected in males because new beneficial mutations will be quickly apparent.”
Several profound consequences follow from the fact that men have only one copy of the many X-related brain genes and women two. One is that many neurological diseases are more common in men because women are unlikely to suffer mutations in both copies of a gene.
Another is that men, as a group, “will have more variable brain phenotypes,” Dr. Arnold writes, because women’s second copy of every gene dampens the effects of mutations that arise in the other.
Greater male variance means that although average IQ is identical in men and women, there are fewer average men and more at both extremes. Women’s care in selecting mates, combined with the fast selection made possible by men’s lack of backup copies of X-related genes, may have driven the divergence between male and female brains. The same factors could explain, some researchers believe, why the human brain has tripled in volume over just the last 2.5 million years.
Who can doubt it? It is indeed desire that makes the world go round.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html?em&ex=1176436800&en=931923a564fed9e9&ei=5087%0A

Iran offers ‘proof’ of CIA torture

Jalal Sharafi said that US agents had drilled
holes in his foot

Iranian state television has shown officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross examining an Iranian diplomat who has accused the CIA of torturing him while he was detained in Iraq.

Jalal Sharafi was shown in a hospital bed being examined by Peter Stocker from the ICRC and the Iraqi ambassador in footage broadcast on Wednesday.

During the examination, the voice of a doctor could be heard describing how Sharafi – formerly the second-most senior official in Iran’s embassy in Baghdad – had been beaten with a cable during his detention.

After his visit to the diplomat, Stocker told The Associated Press that he saw wounds on Sharafi’s body that “were several weeks old”, but said he did not know how the injuries occurred.

“I cannot say who did it and where it happened,” the ICRC official said. “I can only say that it happened during his detention.”

Stocker was accompanied to the hospital by Majid Sheikh, the Iraqi ambassador to Iran.

Diplomat accuses US

Earlier in the week, Sharafi’s Iranian doctors had reported that holes had been drilled into his foot, but the TV images were not clear enough to indicate whether the small, red marks on his foot were indeed holes.

Doctors also reported earlier that he had suffered a broken nose, serious injuries to his back, bleeding in his digestive system, and damage to his ears.

None of these injuries has been independently verified, nor were they discernible from the TV footage.

Footage released by Iranian TV showed Jalal Sharafi in hospital being examined by doctors

A spokeswoman for the ICRC in Tehran, Katayoun Hosseinnejad, confirmed the visit to Sharafi had taken place and said it had been initiated by the Iranians.

Sharafi was released from Iraq last week and later said that the CIA had questioned him about Iran’s relations with Iraq and its assistance to various Iraqi groups.

US officials have repeatedly said that Iran provides money and weapons to Shia militias in Iraq. Iran has denied this.

On Wednesday the US military put more weapons on display in Baghdad  that it said were made in Iran.

An army spokesmen said that Iran had trained Iraqi insurgents in the use of roadside bombs as recently as last month.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4561153B-1B4D-4661-B3F4-A9294191C9C3.htm

Israel balks at Hamas prisoner list

Marwan Barghouti is said to be one
of the 1,400 names on the list [AP]

Israeli ministers have expressed “disappointment and reservation” over a list of prisoners Hamas wants freed in exchange for a captured Israeli soldier, the prime minister’s office says.

Hamas, which leads the Palestinian government, had submitted 1,400 names it wants in exchange for Corporal Gilad Shalit, held by Gaza fighters for 10 months.

The statement from Ehud Olmert’s office said he had convened a meeting of senior officials and intelligence commanders to discuss the list on Tuesday.

Israeli political sources described the list as “highly problematic” and unacceptable because many on the list had “blood on their hands”.

Israel said it would continue its contacts on the matter with Egypt, through whom Hamas handed the names of the prisoners to Israel.

False hopes

It said that while there had been “some progress in negotiations, they are far from being completed”.

“The various reports that have appeared in this context must be treated with due caution in order not to create false hopes,” it added.

Israeli political sources said plans to convene a special ministerial committee to look into whether to loosen criteria for releasing prisoners in an exchange deal had been postponed.

Ghazi Hamad, an aide to Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister and a Hamas leader, said: “If Israel continues to insist on its own criteria, it will be responsible for the failure to reach a deal.”

Barghouthi on list

Wasfi Kabha, a Hamas cabinet minister, told Reuters on Monday that there were about 1,400 names on the list, including Marwan Barghouthi, a Fatah leader serving five consecutive life terms and widely seen as a possible successor to Mahmoud Abbas, the president.

Your Views

“A peace deal is certainly possible, but only in a situation where both sides actually want it”

Gary, London, UK
Send us your views

Also on the list is Ahmed Saadat, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, suspected of ordering and planning the 2001 assassination of an Israeli cabinet minister, but held for other unspecified offences.

Freeing fighters and especially the leaders from Israeli jails is a highly emotive issue for Palestinians, as well as for Israelis who have lost relatives in attacks.

Meir Indor, the director of the Israeli Terror Victims’ Association Al-Magor, said: “We know for sure that a prime minister who will sign to release terrorists right now will bring chaos immediately.”

But an exchange deal after months of deadlock could spur progress in talks between Olmert and Abbas on Sunday.

An Abbas aide said the Palestinian president would discuss “the Arab peace initiative and prospects for reviving the peace process”.

But Olmert has said that Abbas’s power-sharing partnership with Hamas and the continued captivity of Shalit meant that no real progress towards Palestinian statehood could be made in their meetings.

The leaders agreed to hold fortnightly meetings at the urging of the US.

Shalit was seized and two colleagues killed in June by fighters from Hamas and two other armed groups who tunnelled into Israel from Gaza.

In violence on Tuesday, an Israeli hitchhiker was seriously wounded by Palestinian attackers as he waited at a junction in the northern part of the West Bank, an Israeli military spokeswoman said.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F97ED1CC-AC5E-41DC-87C7-11C01D82A936.htm

April 12, 2007
Bombing Hits Parliament in Baghdad
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:20 a.m. ET
BAGHDAD (AP) — A bomb exploded in the Iraqi parliament’s cafeteria in a stunning assault in the heart of the heavily fortified, U.S.-protected Green Zone Thursday, killing at least two lawmakers and wounding 10 other people.
The blast in the parliament building came hours after a suicide truck bomb blew up a major bridge in Baghdad, collapsing the steel structure and sending cars tumbling into the Tigris River, police and witnesses said. At least 10 people were killed.
The bomb in parliament went off in a cafeteria while several lawmakers were eating lunch, media reports said. In addition to the two dead, state television said at least 10 people were wounded.
After the blast, security guards sealed the building and no one — including lawmakers — was allowed to enter or leave.
A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said no Americans were hurt in the blast.
The bombing came amid the two-month-old security crackdown in Baghdad, which has sought to restore stability in the capital so that the government of Iraq can take key political steps by June 30 or face a withdrawal of American support.
One of the dead lawmakers was Mohammed Awad, a member of the Sunni National Dialogue Front, said Saleh al-Mutlaq, the leader of the party, which holds 11 seats in Iraq’s legislature. A female Sunni lawmaker from the same list was wounded, he said.
A security official at the building said a second lawmaker, a Shiite member, also was killed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
But Mukhlis al-Zamili of the Shiite Fadhila party said the second dead lawmaker was a Kurd, adding that six of those wounded were members of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s bloc.
Al-Zamili also said he believed a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest was behind the attack.
Another member of the National Dialogue Front, Mohammed al-Dayni, also suggested a suicide bomber was behind it.
”I am standing now at the site of the explosion and looking at the severed legs of the person who carried out the operation. If this tells us anything, it tells us that security is lax,” al-Dayni told Iraq’s Sharqiya television.
Earlier in the day, security officials used dogs to check people entering the building in a rare precaution — apparently concerned that an attack might take place.
The brazen bombing was the clearest evidence yet that militants can penetrate even the most secure locations. Masses of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers are on the streets in the ninth week of a security crackdown in the capital and security measures inside the Green Zone have been significantly hardened.
The U.S. military reported April 1 that two suicide vests were found in the heavily fortified region that also houses the U.S. Embassy and offices of the Iraqi government. A militant rocket attack last month killed two Americans, a soldier and a contractor. A few days earlier, a rocket landed within 100 yards of a building where U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was holding a news conference. No one was hurt.
Khalaf al-Ilyan, one of the three leaders of the Iraqi Accordance Front, which holds 44 seats, said the attack was ”aimed at everyone — all parties — our parliament in general being a symbol and a representative of all segments of Iraqi society.”
Al-Ilyan, who is in Jordan recovering from knee surgery, said the blast also ”underlines the failure of the government’s security plan.”
”The plan is 100 percent a failure. It’s a complete flop. The explosion means that instability and lack of security has reached the Green Zone, which the government boasts is heavily fortified,” he said.
U.S. Embassy spokesman Lou Fintor said its officials were ”investigating the nature and source of the explosion. No embassy employees or U.S. citizens were affected.”
Hadi al-Amiri, head of the parliament’s security and defense committee, said the explosion shook the building just after legislators ended their main meeting, and broke into smaller committees.
”A few brothers (fellow lawmakers) happened to be in the cafeteria at the time of the explosion,” al-Amiri told Al-Arabiya television. ”But had they been able to place this bomb inside the meeting hall, it would have been a catastrophe.”
Al-Amiri added Iraqi forces are in charge of security in the building, and that explosives could have been smuggled in amid restaurant supplies.
A television camera and videotape belonging to a Western TV crew was confiscated by security guards moments after the attack.
Attacks in the Green Zone are rare.
The worst known attack inside the enclave occurred Oct. 14, 2004, when insurgents detonated explosives at a market and a popular cafe, killing six people. That was the first bombing in the sprawling region.
On Nov. 25, 2004, a mortar attack inside the zone killed four employees of a British security firm and wounded at least 12.
On Jan. 29, 2005, insurgents hit the U.S. Embassy compound with a rocket, killing two Americans — a civilian and a Navy sailor — on the eve of landmark elections. Four other Americans were wounded.
In addition to killing 10 people, Thursday’s bombing of the al-Sarafiya bridge wounded 26, hospital officials said, and police were trying to rescue as many as 20 people whose cars plummeted off the span.
Waves lapped against twisted girders as patrol boats searched for survivors and U.S. helicopters flew overhead. Scuba divers donned flippers and waded in from the riverbanks.
Farhan al-Sudani, a 34-year-old Shiite businessman who lives near the bridge, said the blast woke him at dawn.
”A huge explosion shook our house and I thought it would demolish our house. Me and my wife jumped immediately from our bed, grabbed our three kids and took them outside,” he said.
The al-Sarafiya bridge connected two northern Baghdad neighborhoods — Waziriyah, a mostly Sunni enclave, and Utafiyah, a Shiite area.
Police blamed the attack on a suicide truck bomber, but AP Television News video showed the bridge broken in two places — perhaps the result of two blasts.
Cement pilings that support the steel structure were left crumbling. At the base of one lay a charred vehicle engine, believed to be that of the truck bomb.
”We were astonished more when we saw the extent of damage,” said Ahmed Abdul-Karim, 45, who also lives near the bridge. ”I was standing in my garden and I saw the smoke and flying debris.”
The al-Sarafiya bridge is believed to be at least 75 years old, built by the British in the early part of the 20th century.
”It is one of Baghdad’s monuments. This is really damaging for Iraq. We are losing a lot of our history every day,” Abdul-Karim said.
The al-Sarafiya bridge has a duplicate in Fallujah that was built later and made infamous in March 2004 when angry mobs hung the charred bodies of U.S. contractors from its girders.
”This bridge is linked to Baghdad’s modern history — it is one of our famous monuments,” said Haider Ghazala, a 52-year-old Iraqi architect.
”Attacking this bridge affects the morale of Iraqis and especially Baghdad residents who feel proud of this bridge. They (insurgents) want to demolish everything that connects the people with this land,” he said.
Before the al-Sarafiya bridge was destroyed, nine spans across the Tigris linked western and eastern Baghdad.
The river now serves as a de facto dividing line between the mostly Shiite east and the largely Sunni west of the city, a reality of more than a year of sectarian fighting that has forced Sunnis to flee neighborhoods where they were a minority and likewise for Shiites.
Baghdad’s neighborhoods had been very mixed before the war but hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced since then as militants from both Muslim sects have sought to cleanse their neighborhoods of rivals.
There have been unconfirmed reports for months that Sunni insurgents and al-Qaida in Iraq were planning a campaign to blow up the city’s bridges. U.S. military headquarters near the Baghdad airport and the Green Zone, site of the U.S. Embassy and Iraqi parliament and government, are both on the west side of the river.
Also Thursday, the U.S. military said its troops killed two suspected insurgents and captured 17 in raids across the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

April 12, 2007
Civilian Claims on U.S. Suggest the Toll of War
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
In February 2006, nervous American soldiers in Tikrit killed an Iraqi fisherman on the Tigris River after he leaned over to switch off his engine. A year earlier, a civilian filling his car and an Iraqi Army officer directing traffic were shot by American soldiers in a passing convoy in Balad, for no apparent reason.
The incidents are among many thousands of claims submitted to the Army by Iraqi and Afghan civilians seeking payment for noncombat killings, injuries or property damage American forces inflicted on them or their relatives.
The claims provide a rare window into the daily chaos and violence faced by civilians and troops in the two war zones. Recently, the Army disclosed roughly 500 claims to the American Civil Liberties Union in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. They are the first to be made public.
They represent only a small fraction of the claims filed. In all, the military has paid more than $32 million to Iraqi and Afghan civilians for noncombat-related killings, injuries and property damage, an Army spokeswoman said. That figure does not include condolence payments made at a unit commander’s discretion.
The paperwork, examined by The New York Times, provides unusually detailed accounts of how bystanders to the conflicts have become targets of American forces grappling to identify who is friend, who is foe.
In the case of the fisherman in Tikrit, he and his companion desperately tried to appear unthreatening to an American helicopter overhead.
“They held up the fish in the air and shouted ‘Fish! Fish!’ to show they meant no harm,” said the Army report attached to the claim filed by the fisherman’s family. The Army refused to compensate for the killing, ruling that it was “combat activity,” but approved $3,500 for his boat, net and cellphone, which drifted away and were stolen.
In the killings at the gas station in Balad, documents show that the Army determined that the neither of the dead Iraqis had done anything hostile or criminal, and approved $5,000 to the civilian’s brother but nothing for the Iraqi officer.
In another incident, in 2005, an American soldier in a dangerous Sunni Arab area south of Baghdad killed a boy after mistaking his book bag for a bomb satchel. The Army paid the boy’s uncle $500.
The Foreign Claims Act, which governs such compensation, does not deal with combat-related cases. For those cases, including the boy’s, the Army may offer a condolence payment as a gesture of regret with no admission of fault, of usually no higher than $2,500 per person killed.
The total number of claims filed, or paid, is unclear, although extensive data has been provided in reports to Congress. There is no way to know immediately whether disciplinary action or prosecution has resulted from the cases.
Soldiers hand out instruction cards after mistakes are made, so Iraqis know where to file claims. “The Army does not target civilians,” said Maj. Anne D. Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman. “Sadly, however, the enemy’s tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan unnecessarily endanger innocent civilians.”
There are no specific guidelines to tell Army field officers judging the claims how to evaluate the cash value of a life taken, Major Edgecomb said. She said officers “consider the contributions the deceased made to those left behind and offer an award based on the facts, local tribal customs, and local law.”
In Haditha, one of the most notorious incidents involving American troops in Iraq, the Marines paid residents $38,000 after troops killed two dozen people in November 2005.
The relatively small number of claims divulged by the Army show patterns of misunderstanding at checkpoints and around American military convoys that often result in inadvertent killings. In one incident, in Feb. 18, 2006, a taxi approached a checkpoint east of Baquba that was not properly marked with signs to slow down, one Army claim evaluation said. Soldiers fired on the taxi, killing a woman and severely wounding her daughter and son. The Army approved an unusually large condolence payment of $7,500.
In September 2005, soldiers killed a man and his sister by firing 200 rounds into their car as it approached a checkpoint, apparently too quickly, near Mussayib. The Army lieutenant colonel who handled the claim awarded relatives a $10,000 compensation payment, finding that the soldiers had overstepped the rules of engagement.
“There are some very tragic losses of civilian life, including losses of whole families,” said Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.’s executive director, in an interview. He said the claims showed “enormous confusion on all sides, both from the civilian population on how to interact with the armed services and also among the soldiers themselves.”
Of the 500 cases released, 204, or about 40 percent, were apparently rejected because the injury, death or property damage was deemed to have been “directly or indirectly” related to combat. Of the claims approved for payment, at least 87 were not combat-related, and 77 were condolence payments for incidents the Army judged to be combat-related.
About 10 percent of the claims were rejected because the Army could not find a “significant activity” report confirming an incident.
A summary of the cases is online at www.aclu.org/civiliancasualties.
In Iraq, rules for evaluating claims have changed. Before President Bush declared major combat operations over, in May 2003, commanders considered most checkpoint shootings to be combat-related. Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the former commander of day-to-day operations in Iraq, stiffened rules at checkpoints. In late 2003, as more Iraqis were accidentally injured or killed, the Army began offering condolence payments. It has not always worked as planned, said Sarah Holewinski, the executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, a nonprofit group in Washington.
“Sometimes families would get paid and sometimes their neighbors wouldn’t,” she said. “It caused a lot of resentments among the Iraqis, which is ironic because it was a program specifically meant to foster good will.”
The Army usually assigns a captain, major or lieutenant colonel to accept claims in Iraq and Afghanistan and decide on payment.
But in and near combat zones in Iraq, a claim’s merit is quickly judged by an officer juggling dozens of new claims each week, said Jon E. Tracy, a former Army captain and lawyer who adjudicated Iraqi civilian claims in the Baghdad area from May 2003 through July 2004.
“I know plenty of lawyers who did not pay any condolences payments at all,” said Mr. Tracy, who is now a legal consultant for the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict. “There was no reason for it. It was clearly not combat, and the victim was clearly innocent, all the facts are there, witness statements, but they wouldn’t pay them.”
Half of the claims he adjudicated were property damage claims from collisions with military vehicles, he said. Most fraudulent claims were property claims; few were for wrongful killings. “You just had to read people,” he said.
About a quarter of claims were for personal injury or deaths. In his year judging claims, Mr. Tracy said he paid 52 condolence payments, most for deaths. “I had three to four times more,” Mr. Tracy said, “I just didn’t have enough money.”
Andrew W. Lehren contributed reporting from New York, and Edward Wong from Baghdad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/world/middleeast/12abuse.html?hp

Scores dead in Pakistan clashes

Soldiers in Parachinar have been given shoot-on-sight orders to stop the sectarian clashes [EPA]

Sunni and Shia Muslims have exchanged gunfire in northwestern Pakistan villages, where the government has said that a week of sectarian violence has left at least 49 people dead and others 115 wounded.

However, other reports on Thursday suggested the fighting has inflicted a much higher death toll than government’s official figures suggest.

Ahmad Barakat, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Pakistan, said: “Independent security sources said that at least 100 people were killed and more than 250 others injured since the violence first erupted on Friday.”

Shoot on sight

Soldiers patrolling the streets of Parachinar, the main town in the Kurram region near the border with Afghanistan, have given orders to shoot-on-sight in an attempt to control the violence.
The latest violence began a week ago when unidentified people began shooting at Shias near their mosque in the town, following days of growing tension over a rally organized by Sunnis to celebrate the birthday of Prophet Muhammad.
Barakat said: “The sectarian violence was sparked on Friday after Shia Muslims attacked a Sunni convoy when Sunnis were celebrating al-Mawlid al-Nabawi [the birthday of Prophet Muhammad].

“The next day, the Sunnis responded by attacking a Shia convoy that resulted in erupting the fighting.”

Tribal elders and clerics from the two sects have been trying to negotiate a ceasefire between the heavily armed rival groups.

Governement criticised

The government, which has come under criticism for failing to curb the clashes, is moving security forces to areas where fighting is still under way.

Mujahid Hussain, a Shia Muslim from Parachinar, claimed that Sunni fighters from neighbouring North Waziristan had arrived in the region after Friday’s clashes to support their opponents.

Hussain said: “Our people saw the bodies of several Sunni militants, and they were from North Waziristan.”

Shias make up 20 per cent of Pakistan’s 160 million population but are in the majority in Parachinar.

More than 4,000 people have been killed as a result of sectarian violence in the country since the late 1980s.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F684FF7D-804C-40E7-B2AE-6D8CBF5D0C03.htm

Where the Money Is
By Al Kamen
Wednesday, March 28, 2007; A13
There’s some disgruntlement amongst the grossly overpaid World Bank crowd as the time approaches for calculating annual salary increases for 2007. Seems they’re finding out that Shaha Riza, who’s been romantically linked to bank President Paul Wolfowitz, has done exceptionally well in terms of salary in the last 18 months — and she doesn’t even work there.
Riza, a British citizen who was born in Tunisia and raised in Saudi Arabia, worked as a communications adviser in the bank’s Middle East and North Africa department before she was detailed to work in Karen Hughes’s public diplomacy shop at the State Department in September 2005 — while remaining on the bank’s payroll.
She left six months after Wolfowitz took over at the bank.
Just before leaving, she was promoted to a managerial-level job, which we’re told is somewhat rare. Bank records obtained by the Government Accountability Project indicate that, before Riza’s promotion, she was earning $132,660.
Under bank rules — remember, she is still on its payroll even at State — the highest raise she should have gotten in her new job would be about $20,000, according to GAP’s calculation. Instead, she got a $47,340 raise, which put her salary at $180,000.
This fiscal year, while still at State, Riza got a raise of $13,500, bringing her up to $193,590, which is $7,000 more than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice makes. Since she is at State and not the bank, the bank’s staff rules should have allowed only about half that, GAP said. Even if she’d been at the bank and gotten the highest performance rating compared with other bank employees, she could not have gotten that big a raise, GAP said.
So we asked Wolfowitz spokesman Kevin Kellems who’s responsible for these whopping raises.
“All arrangements concerning Shaha Riza were made at the direction of the bank’s board of directors,” Kellems said.
Well, maybe the directors felt guilty because they made her leave the building after Wolfowitz took over?
Thanks, I’ve Already Met Your Boss
Speaking of the bank, Marwan Muasher, a former foreign minister, deputy prime minister and chief of staff to King Abdullah of Jordan, last week settled in to his new job there as senior vice president for external affairs.
Muasher, acting through a real estate agent, also bought a lovely home in Northwest Washington. (Quick Loop Quiz! So now, a top employee of a key Iraq war architect is living in the home he just bought from . . .? Ah, you guessed it. Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, of course.)
Speaking of the Bushes
The Brothers Bush are having a rocky time these days dealing with the college crowd. Brother Jeb, former governor of Florida, just found out the University of Florida had decided he will not be receiving an honorary degree.
Then Brother W, the current president of the United States, sparked a fuss when he accepted an invitation to speak May 11 at ceremonies at Saint Vincent College, a Benedictine liberal arts school in the Pennsylvania congressional district of an ardent opponent of the Iraq war, Rep. John P. Murtha (D). Turns out Murtha, commencement speaker in 1983, is the second cousin of former Saint Vincent president John F. Murtha, who headed the school from 1985 to 1995. Jim Towey, who ran the Bush White House office of faith-based initiatives, is now the college’s president.
Towey anticipated the uproar in his announcement Monday of Bush’s visit, saying it has sparked a “lively and welcome discussion.” But “let me stress that our invitation to President Bush, like past invitations to other speakers for Saint Vincent commencements and other events on campus, is not an endorsement of his policies or politics.” He noted that past invitees, in addition to Murtha, have included former House speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill and William F. Buckley Jr.
He’s meeting with the senior class tonight, and there will be an “open mike” town hall meeting on April 17 for all 1,600 students to opine.
Meanwhile, the faculty voted 41 to 30 to uphold the invitation. An online petition is circulating that’s gathered 140 or so names — including one Ron MacDonald, who is not a student — telling Bush that “linking the school to your administration would irreparably tarnish Saint Vincent.”
Dead, but Still Dangerous
The Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control — which tries to grab the ill-gotten gains of drug dealers, terrorists, dictators and such — has a “watch list” of “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.”
The list has nearly 3,500 names of people and organizations we should be on the lookout for, including one Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti, who was arrested in December 2003 and executed last Dec. 30. His sociopath sons, Uday and Qusay, killed in July 2003, along with just about everyone from Tikrit, are on the list.
The Post asked Treasury why we should still watch out for the late Saddam.
“Individuals are not pulled off the list because they can still have assets in their name after death,” a spokeswoman explained. (Oddly enough, Cuba’s Fidel Castro is not on the list, although lots of Cuban operations are.) So next time you happen to see Saddam driving a Brink’s truck on the Beltway, get help!
Now, About That Pardon . . .
Former vice president Al Gore recently testified on the Hill about global warming, a subject about which he is well versed. Now Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) would like former president Bill Clinton to be at the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing tomorrow on “the Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power.”
“Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office,” Smith said in a press release. The fugitive financier’s wife donated $450,000 to the Clinton library. “I can think of no better person to address this issue.”
Yesterday afternoon, however, Clinton’s office called Smith’s to say that Clinton won’t make it because he will not be in Washington that day. A pity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032701953_2.html

Bush Administration “Accidentally” Loses Potentially Incriminating E-mails
/media/news/20950/1.jpg

Could these people be any more transparent? Does anyone buy this garbage anymore?
Of the 1,000 White House officials with political duties, 22 — including Karl Rove, the chief political strategist — have Republican National Committee accounts that are supposed to be used only for campaign-related work. But recent revelations that some officials have used those accounts for Bush administration business, including discussions of a plan to dismiss United States attorneys, has prompted a Congressional investigation.

On Wednesday, Scott Stanzel, deputy White House press secretary, said the administration had recently begun its own inquiry, and had concluded that its policy governing political e-mail accounts was unclear, that the White House was not aggressive enough in monitoring political e-mail and that some people who had the accounts did not follow the policy closely enough.

As a result, Mr. Stanzel said, “some official e-mails have potentially been lost.” He said Mr. Bush had told the White House counsel’s office “to do everything practical to retrieve potentially lost messages.”
Yes. I’m sure they’ll really bust their asses to get back those e-mails that could further point to their own wrongdoing. For reals!

While the Bushies are swearing up and down that if any communications were lost they wouldn’t be of any value to the percolating Congressional investigation into the politically motivated firings of eight US Attorneys, they can’t escape the evidence that shows them using their RNC e-mails inappropriately.
The flap grows out of the investigation into the dismissals of the prosecutors. E-mail messages provided to Congress in that inquiry showed that Scott Jennings, a deputy political director for Mr. Bush, used his national committee address, ending in gwb43.com, to discuss them with aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, including D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned amid the ensuing uproar.

In January, an assistant to Mr. Jennings used a gwb43.com account to circulate a document discussing Democrats who are being singled out for defeat in 2008. “Please do not e-mail this out or let people see it,” the e-mail read, adding, “It is a close hold, and we’re not supposed to be e-mailing it around.”

Other messages have brought scrutiny as well, including exchanges between Susan Ralston, a former assistant to Mr. Rove, and Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist convicted of corruption charges.
I know what you’re thinking. “So? They got some e-mails mixed up. Big fucking deal, right?” Sure. They just mixed up a few e-mails and “oops” some got lost. That may be true, but even if no e-mails regarding the firing scandal were lost, their actions are nevertheless potentially illegal.
At issue is how the White House complies with two seemingly competing laws. One is the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which requires the administration to ensure that its decisions and deliberations are “adequately documented” and that records flowing out of those decisions are preserved.

The other is the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal officials from engaging in political business on government time.
Administration officials argue that they should be excused from these requirements because they are the first presidency in the age of instant communications. Of course, this is bullshit as plenty of people every day have no problem keeping business and personal e-mails separated into different accounts. Hell, I do it and I’m the most disorganized person you’ve ever met. No, what’s really going on here is that this administration is using this “our bad” excuse as a way to shirk their responsibilities, circumvent applicable regulations and avoid accountability. But what else is new?

I acknowledge that this story is not the worst you’ve heard about Bush and his cronies. It’s certainly not lying to the country to go to war, criminally mismanaging a domestic natural disaster recovery effort or ignoring intelligence that suggested an attack on America was imminent. Those things were really bad. However, this is just another in a long, unbroken string of sad stories about an Executive Branch drunk on power and consumed by irresponsibility and incompetence.

Stay tuned for next week, when we do it all over again.
web address: http://suicidegirls.com/news/politics/20950/

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1107&Itemid=135

Green Zone Down: Bomb Hits Parliament As Bush Moves to Make Baghdad a Prison

Written by Chris Floyd
Thursday, 12 April 2007

The Bush-McCain “surge” is working so well that now the very heart of the American-installed, American-protected Iraqi government has been struck by a bomb, killing at least two legislators, as the Washington Post, AP and the Guardian report.

The Green Zone blast came just hours after another bombing crippled one of Baghdad’s main bridges, killing several people and further choking off movement within the city. But then, that too is part of the Bush-McCain surge plan, whose ultimate goal is to turn Baghdad into a “community prison,” restricting the free movement of Iraqis in their own capital. As Robert Fisk reports in a major story in the Independent (entirely overlooked by the American corporate media):

Faced with an ever-more ruthless insurgency in Baghdad – despite President George Bush’s “surge” in troops – US forces in the city are now planning a massive and highly controversial counter-insurgency operation that will seal off vast areas of the city, enclosing whole neighbourhoods with barricades and allowing only Iraqis with newly issued ID cards to enter. The campaign of “gated communities” – whose genesis was in the Vietnam War – will involve up to 30 of the city’s 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.

But the imprisonment of Iraqis within Baghdad — a practice that has been carried out on a smaller scale elsewhere, including the wrapping of whole towns in barbed wire — is not the only goal of the Bush-McCain plan, Fisk notes:

But the campaign has far wider military ambitions than the pacification of Baghdad. It now appears that the US military intends to place as many as five mechanised brigades – comprising about 40,000 men – south and east of Baghdad, at least three of them positioned between the capital and the Iranian border. This would present Iran with a powerful – and potentially aggressive – American military force close to its border in the event of a US or Israeli military strike against its nuclear facilities later this year.

The draconian plan to “enclose” vast quadrants of the ancient city goes far beyond the stated policies of the Bush-McCain surge, Fisk reports:

So far, the Baghdad campaign has involved only the creation of a few US positions within several civilian areas of the city but the new project will involve joint American and Iraqi “support bases” in nine of the 30 districts to be “gated” off. From these bases – in fortified buildings – US-Iraqi forces will supposedly clear militias from civilian streets which will then be walled off and the occupants issued with ID cards. Only the occupants will be allowed into these “gated communities” and there will be continuous patrolling by US-Iraqi forces. There are likely to be pass systems, “visitor” registration and restrictions on movement outside the “gated communities”. Civilians may find themselves inside a “controlled population” prison.

In theory, US forces can then concentrate on providing physical reconstruction in what the military like to call a “secure environment”. But insurgents are not foreigners, despite the presence of al-Qa’ida in Iraq. They come from the same population centres that will be “gated” and will, if undiscovered, hold ID cards themselves; they will be “enclosed” with everyone else.

A former US officer in Vietnam who has a deep knowledge of General Petraeus’s plans is sceptical of the possible results. “The first loyalty of any Sunni who is in the Iraqi army is to the insurgency,” he said. “Any Shia’s first loyalty is to the head of his political party and its militia. Any Kurd in the Iraqi army, his first loyalty is to either Barzani or Talabani. There is no independent Iraqi army. These people really have no choice. They are trying to save their families from starvation and reprisal. At one time they may have believed in a unified Iraq. At one time they may have been secular. But the violence and brutality that started with the American invasion has burnt those liberal ideas out of people … Every American who is embedded in an Iraqi unit is in constant mortal danger.”

The plan’s failure will be profound, another senior officer told Fisk:

“Once the additional troops are in place the insurrectionists will cut the lines of communication from Kuwait to the greatest extent they are able,” he told The Independent. “They will do the same inside Baghdad, forcing more use of helicopters. The helicopters will be vulnerable coming into the patrol bases, and the enemy will destroy as many as they can. The second part of their plan will be to attempt to destroy one of the patrol bases. They will begin that process by utilising their people inside the ‘gated communities’ to help them enter. They will choose bases where the Iraqi troops either will not fight or will actually support them.

“The American reaction will be to use massive firepower, which will destroy the neighbourhood that is being ‘protected’.”

But of course, in this, as in every other aspect of the Bush war crime in Iraq, “failure” is a highly relative term. If the stated aim of the Bush-McCain surge were genuine — providing security to the Iraqi people in order to speed reconstruction efforts and aid the nurturing of a non-sectarian democracy — then yes, it is howlingly obvious that the plan to turn Baghdad into a gigantic, open-air concentration camp is doomed to fail. It will simply radicalize more Iraqis, kill more civilians and spike the body count of American soldiers to new heights. But as we have stated here for more than five years — even before the inevitable invasion was launched — nothing that the Bush-led action does in Iraq has anything to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people, or of American soldiers for that matters. They are simply careening around from pillar to post, trying to ride the wild beast of war they have unleashed toward their ultimate goal: strategic and economic domination of the world’s oil heartlands, and the never-ending expansion of an authoritarian militarist-corporatist state in America.

Their main difficulty comes from trying to accomplish this task without stirring up the rubes back home too much. That’s why they have not — yet — adopted the most extreme measures advocated by their cowardly cheerleaders in the armchair warrior brigade, the “more rubble, less trouble” gang so ably exposed recently by Glenn Greenwald. (*I know I’ve already mentioned Glenn Reynolds’ genocidal phrase earlier today, but it bears repeating how openly savage and murderous these wretched bootlickers really are.*) Most Americans don’t like to think of themselves as genocidal maniacs (instapunditniks excluded, of course); they like to see their country as the “shining city on the hill,” a literally holy land incapable of any evil action whatsoever. Thus every plot and ploy in Bush’s thorough-going rapine in Iraq must be portrayed as an act of altruism and idealism, false rhetoric, outright lies and the incessant, obsessive manipulation and/or repression of images and information. The Bushists must constantly calibrate what the political market will bear, and so they do operate within some constraints.

Unfortunately, the last few years have shown that the American political market — the electorate, the citizenry — will bear a great deal without really lashing out against the criminals in power. Torture, murder, rape, the destruction of whole cities, the ongoing aerial bombardment of civilian centers, the death of more than 600,000 innocent civilians — none of this has provoked throne-shaking outrage in the American people. The fact that the mild rebuke they delivered in the November 2006 elections has not only been openly scorned and rejected by Bush but largely ignored by the supposedly empowered Democratic opposition (with its “non-binding resolutions” and demands that Iraqis meet the all-important “benchmark” of an oil law that gives the nation’s resources to Western corporations) has not produced any large-scale reaction. Of course, there is some hope to be found in the growing numbers of municipalities and state legislatures calling for an end to the war and/or the impeachment of the gangsters who led us into it. But the fact that Bush has been able to launch a major escalation of the war — raising troop levels and press-ganging soldiers into even-longer tours of duty — after losing the election is yet another indication of how much scope for evil that Bush retains, despite his plummeting popularity.

And so, while he cannot reduce Baghdad to Glenn Reynolds’ longed-for rubble — at least not yet — he can push forward with this new tightening of the screws on his captive colony. When this inevitably fails in its ostensible mission, they will lurch on to something else, another scheme to keep the rubes off-balance for a few months longer, then repeat the cycle again and again. Why? Because the whole point of Bush’s strategy is to prolong the American military presence in Iraq. This is why American soldiers were sent there — to stay there. And they will stay there — no matter how many bombs go off in the Green Zone, no matter how much horrific blowback is generated by the Bush-McCain surge — until the American people make the political costs too high for any politician to bear. And this includes the Democrats, whose vaunted “anti-war” plans so far have all called for retaining some kind of military presence in Iraq, and the handover of the nation’s oil to the West. As the man said, the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.
Wolfowitz faces call to resign

Paul Wolfowitz, president of the World Bank, gave Shaha Riza a $200,000 package [AP]

Staff at the World Bank have demanded the resignation of Paul Wolfowitz, the bank’s president, after he admitted authorising large pay rises for his Libyan-born partner that took her salary to $200,000.

He faces a fight for his political life after the bank’s directors denied his claims the pay rises had been cleared by its ethics committee.

The World Bank’s staff association said on Friday that Wolfowitz, the ex-US deputy defence secretary, had “destroyed” the trust of employees and should quit.

“He must act honourably and resign,” the de facto union said in a letter to the World Bank’s 10,000 staff.

The bank’s 24 executive directors said the ethics committee had not been involved in the decision to award Shaha Riza rises that gave her a salary greater than that of Condoleeza Rice, the secretary of state.

They adjourned a meeting on Wolfowitz’s future, saying they would move quickly to reach a decision.

‘An object of scorn’

The Financial Times newspaper also called for Wolfowitz to go in an editorial on Friday.

“If the president stays (the World Bank) risks becoming an object not of respect, but of scorn, and its campaign in favor of good governance not a believable struggle, but blatant hypocrisy,” it said.

The controversy has become a deep embarrassment for Wolfowitz as he battles to overcome skepticism about a campaign that he is waging against corruption in the 185-member World Bank’s multi-billion-dollar lending.

He is also under fire from long for his management style, following a series of clashes with the board and hostility towards his appointment of US Republican party allies to jobs in his inner circle.

The nomination two years ago of Wolfowitz, a “neoconservative” hawk, by George Bush, the US president, was widely seen as controversial given his position as a main architect of the Iraq war.

Pay rises ‘a mistake’

Wolfowitz apologised on Thursday for the authorising the rises for Riza, describing the move as a “mistake.”

“I made a mistake for which I am sorry”, he told a press conference in Washington.

Wolfowitz refused to say if he might have to resign as the World Bank’s board of governors discuss the row.

Wolfowitz personally ordered the hefty pay rises for Riza, according to a Financial Times report published on Thursday.

It cited two people who had seen a memo from Wolfowitz to the head of human resources spelling out the terms of the package.

‘Real regret’

Wolfowitz said: “This was not in any way to protect personal interests. My real regret was that I didn’t more forcefully keep myself out it.

“I take full responsibility for the details of the agreement,” he said, after saying that he had followed advice given by the bank’s ethics committee on the employment of Riza.

Colin Bradford, research professor in economics and international relations at the Brookings Institution, told Al Jazeera: “The fact is that there’s evidence that he directly intervened in the matter and made some decision or recommendations that amount to decisions on his case on how to handle it.

“It takes absolutely no brains whatsoever that it is utterly and totally inconsistent with the message of anti-corruption and good governance, which the Bank is trying to promote.”

‘Personal dilemma’

Riza was transferred from the World Bank’s communications office to the US state department in line with bank regulations to avoid a conflict of interest after Wolfowitz’s appointment in mid-2005.

While still on the World Bank payroll, she was rapidly promoted and given large salary increases.

Wolfowitz acknowledged that the situation surrounding Riza “had the potential to harm this institution” and said that given his romantic involvement with her, he faced a “painful personal dilemma when I was new to the institution”.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2CD51CA0-66ED-4341-B6A0-DAB46F787D46.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20031222.htm

Selective Memory and a Dishonest Doctrine

Noam Chomsky

The Toronto Star, December 21, 2003

All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal.

An indictment of Saddam’s atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991.

At the time, Washington and its allies held the “strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country’s stability than did those who have suffered his repression,” reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.

Last December, Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam’s crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam.

With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw’s report and Washington’s reaction overlooked that support.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally – a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: “Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that’s all over, so let’s not waste anymore time on this boring, stale stuff.”

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes.

For example, the Bush administration’s original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush’s speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim.

Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as “the most idealistic war in modern times” – fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region. Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, “the Bush administration’s idealist in chief,” whom he described as a genuine intellectual who “bleeds for (the Arab world’s) oppression and dreams of liberating it.”

Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz’s career – like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century’s worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of course.

So, yes, Wolfowitz’s heart bleeds for the victims of oppression – and if the record shows the opposite, it’s just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about.

One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz’s love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population’s near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington.

Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C.

The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz’s “Determination and Findings” on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population.

Wolfowitz’s alleged grounds are “security interests,” which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss – along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to “compete” with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.

What’s revealing and important to the future is that Washington’s display of contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about its yearning for democracy. To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic even in a totalitarian state.

Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered.

The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of the world, they discussed how to set up what they called Arab facades – weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British effectively ruled.

Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world’s greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country’s fate in the hands of Western corporations.

Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent – and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence.

An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson’s observation on the world situation of his day: “We believe no more in Bonaparte’s fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain’s fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations.”

Iraqi leaders say bombing will unite them
Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:17AM EDT
By Mussab Al-Khairalla and Yara Bayoumy
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Leaders from across Iraq’s sectarian divide pleaded for unity at a special session of parliament on Friday, gathering under high security to condemn a suicide bombing that tore through the building the day before.
A senior government source said authorities had intelligence that militants were planning an attack on parliament before Thursday’s bombing, which killed a member of parliament and wounded two dozen other people in the building’s restaurant.
An al Qaeda-backed group, the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq, claimed responsibility in a Web statement for the worst breach of security in Baghdad’s most secure area — the Green Zone that also houses government offices and embassies.
Three workers in the cafe had been detained, a top lawmaker from the ruling Shi’ite Alliance bloc said. The Interior Ministry said it would not give details of the investigation.
“We had prior intelligence that there would be an attack on the parliament,” the government source told Reuters, without giving specific details of when the information had been received or what the nature of the threat was.
Security was heavy on Friday as parliament met. Vehicles and their drivers were thoroughly searched and mobile checkpoints set up. Police raided houses inside the sprawling compound.
The bombing came two months into a crackdown in Baghdad that U.S. officials hope will give the government breathing space to pull Iraq back from the brink of civil war between majority Shi’ites and once dominant minority Sunni Arabs.
Scores of lawmakers turned up for the session, including some of those wounded in the attack. Their feet crunched on broken glass littered through the building as they walked to the chamber. One female MP wore a neck brace.
“Whether we are in or out of the government and the political process, we have to find a solution to national reconciliation,” Shi’ite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who survived an assassination attempt in February, told parliament.
Previous calls for unity by Iraq’s leaders have mostly fallen on deaf ears as sectarian violence has spiraled.
“This is undeniably a difficult blow, but it should unify us to confront the evil of terrorism and it proves that terrorism is indiscriminate — Sunnis, Shi’ites, Kurds and Arabs were maimed in this attack,” Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, a Kurd, told Reuters, a message he repeated in parliament.
“THEY ARE A GANG”
Parliament Speaker Mahmoud Mashhadani, a Sunni, opened the special session by asking MPs to read verses of the Koran to mourn the death of Mohammed Awdh, a member of the National Front for Iraqi Dialogue, a small Sunni party.
“We are all in one ship. If this ship sinks we all drown … We are a people and they are a gang. Have you ever heard of a gang that has conquered a people in history?” he said.
Iraqi officials are investigating how the suicide bomber managed to slip past checkpoints and blow himself up while parliamentarians were eating lunch.
Hasan al-Senaid, a senior lawmaker from the Shi’ite Alliance, said the three cafeteria workers had been detained for questioning but had not been charged. Some parliamentary guards were also being investigated but none were being held.
The senior government source said initial evidence showed a member of a Sunni lawmaker’s security team might have played a role in the attack.
The U.S. military had initially said eight people were killed and more than 20 wounded in Thursday’s blast. On Friday they revised the toll down to one killed and two dozen wounded, in line with figures from Iraqi officials.
The explosives used in Thursday’s attack would have had to pass through an outer checkpoint manned by U.S. and Iraqi troops and inner checkpoints guarded by security contractors and foreign troops in the U.S.-led coalition.
Washington and some Iraqi politicians dismissed suggestions the attack signaled a failure of the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in the capital.
(Additional reporting by Ahmed Rasheed, Dean Yates and Sami Aboudi in Dubai)
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSPAR34073020070413?&src=041307_1110_TOPSTORY_united_by_bombing

Watched Cops Boil
By Ann Schneider
From the April 5, 2007 issue | Posted in Columns | Email this article
Despite efforts to mask its spying activity, the city has not just been videotaping demonstrators, but has also placed infiltrators in groups around the world in advance of the 2004 Republican National Convention, leaked documents show.
Meanwhile, in federal court, the city continues to defy the letter and the spirit of a landmark 1970s class action suit that imposed modest limits on its ability to monitor, influence or disrupt political activists.
Handschu v. Special Services Division was filed in 1971 after the acquittals of the Panther 21 revealed that the NYPD was engaged in dirty tricks similar to the FBI’s counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO) and had amassed more than one million files on New Yorkers. In 1980, a federal decree prohibited police spying on First Amendment activities without a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime was about to occur. The 1980 settlement restricted police surveillance activities, created a “paper trail” to authorize investigations, and prohibited the dissemination of the information gathered.
Arguing that such limits are “unworkable in a time of terrorism,” the city sought to modify the consent decree in 2002. Language removed included the injunction against spying activity and semi-civilian control over when a political investigation could be launched, in effect removing the decree’s enforceability.
In 2003, it came to light that the NYPD had been compiling a Demonstration Debriefing Form every time a protester was arrested, cataloguing “organization name,” “position” and “prior demonstration history.” U.S. District Court Judge Charles Haight Jr. was not pleased, saying, “These recent events reveal an NYPD in some need of discipline.” Commissioners Ray Kelly and David Cohen claimed that they were unaware the form was being used and that they immediately destroyed that database.
As a result of the revelations, Judge Haight made the police incorporate written guidelines on investigations of First Amendment activity into the NYPD’s patrol guide.
The city next tried to unilaterally legalize videotape surveillance of demonstrations by issuing Rule 47 in September 2004. The indefatigable Handschu lawyers returned to court to enjoin the rule, pointing to three peaceful and permitted rallies that were videotaped by the police, including one by Coalition for the Homeless.
The City argued that videotaping was legal as long as the purpose wasn’t solely to investigate political activity.  On Feb. 15, 2007, Judge Haight ruled that the NYPD may only videotape for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Calling the homeless demonstration “quintessential political activity,” he said police videotaping of it was an “egregious” violation of the guidelines and “any future use by the NYPD of video and photographic equipment during the course of an investigation involving political activity without compliance with the guidelines’ protocol could form the basis for a contempt proceeding.”
The city has asked the judge to “vacate, amend, alter and/or reconsider” his Feb. 15 order. A public hearing on the city’s motion will be held April 11, 2 p.m. at 500 Pearl Street in Judge Haight’s courtroom.
The People’s Lawyer is a project of the New York City chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, 113 University Place, 8th floor, (212) 269-6018.
http://www.indypendent.org/?p=1017

Lebanese Economy in the Doldrums
Friday is usually a quieter day in Beirut. Today was shockingly quiet.

Lebanese are now resigned to the fact that the political impasse is not going to go away any time soon. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah vociferously proclaimed that the opposition is ready to freeze parliament and the government for another two years.

Lebanon’s main tourist attraction, Beirut’s downtown, has been sucked of life. The tents occupying the main squares in the downtown are sparsely populated. The massive television screens and speakers have been removed. Given the political standstill, the point of the protest has been lost. The occupation now appears to simply be an act of opposition vengeance against the govenment.

Lebanon has been quiet since January. We’ll see how long this “stability” continues.

Oddly enough, Lebanese ports are booming. The number of freighters coming and going has increased tremendously (no statistics available). According to a friend at UNDP, Lebanon has become a major point of transit. This is allegedly because of recent legal changes.

Charles Malik
http://lebop.blogspot.com/

April 15, 2007
Eye on Iran, Rivals Pursuing Nuclear Power
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER
Two years ago, the leaders of Saudi Arabia told international atomic regulators that they could foresee no need for the kingdom to develop nuclear power. Today, they are scrambling to hire atomic contractors, buy nuclear hardware and build support for a regional system of reactors.
So, too, Turkey is preparing for its first atomic plant. And Egypt has announced plans to build one on its Mediterranean coast. In all, roughly a dozen states in the region have recently turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for help in starting their own nuclear programs. While interest in nuclear energy is rising globally, it is unusually strong in the Middle East.
“The rules have changed,” King Abdullah II of Jordan recently told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “Everybody’s going for nuclear programs.”
The Middle East states say they only want atomic power. Some probably do. But United States government and private analysts say they believe that the rush of activity is also intended to counter the threat of a nuclear Iran.
By nature, the underlying technologies of nuclear power can make electricity or, with more effort, warheads, as nations have demonstrated over the decades by turning ostensibly civilian programs into sources of bomb fuel. Iran’s uneasy neighbors, analysts say, may be positioning themselves to do the same.
“One danger of Iran going nuclear has always been that it might provoke others,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an arms analysis group in London. “So when you see the development of nuclear power elsewhere in the region, it’s a cause for some concern.”
Some analysts ask why Arab states in the Persian Gulf, which hold nearly half the world’s oil reserves, would want to shoulder the high costs and obligations of a temperamental form of energy. They reply that they must invest in the future, for the day when the flow of oil dries up.
But with Shiite Iran increasingly ascendant in the region, Sunni countries have alluded to other motives. Officials from 21 governments in and around the Middle East warned at a meeting of Arab leaders in March that Iran’s drive for atomic technology could result in the beginning of “a grave and destructive nuclear arms race in the region.”
In Washington, officials are seizing on such developments to build their case for stepping up pressure on Iran. President Bush has talked privately to experts on the Middle East about his fears of a “Sunni bomb,” and his concerns that countries in the Middle East may turn to the only nuclear-armed Sunni state, Pakistan, for help.
Even so, that concern is tempered by caution. In an interview on Thursday, a senior administration official said that the recent announcements were “clearly part of an effort to send a signal to Iran that two can play this game.” And, he added, “among the non-Iranian programs I’ve heard about in the region, I have not heard talk of reprocessing or enrichment, which is what would worry us the most.”
The Middle East has seen hints of a regional nuclear-arms race before. After Israel obtained its first weapon four decades ago, several countries took steps down the nuclear road. But many analysts say it is Iran’s atomic intransigence that has now prodded the Sunni powers into getting serious about hedging their bets and, like Iran, financing them with $65-a-barrel oil.
“Now’s the time to worry,” said Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East expert at the Nixon Center, a Washington policy institute. “The Iranians have to worry, too. The idea that they’ll emerge as the regional hegemon is silly. There will be a very serious counterreaction, certainly in conventional military buildups but also in examining the nuclear option.”
No Arab country now has a power reactor, whose spent fuel can be mined for plutonium, one of the two favored materials — along with uranium — for making the cores of atom bombs. Some Arab states do, however, engage in civilian atomic research.
Analysts caution that a chain reaction of nuclear emulation is not foreordained. States in the Middle East appear to be waiting to see which way Tehran’s nuclear standoff with the United Nations Security Council goes before committing themselves wholeheartedly to costly programs of atomic development.
Even if Middle Eastern nations do obtain nuclear power, political alliances and arms-control agreements could still make individual states hesitate before crossing the line to obtain warheads. Many may eventually decide that the costs and risks outweigh the benefits — as South Korea, Taiwan, South Africa and Libya did after investing heavily in arms programs.
But many diplomats and analysts say that the Sunni Arab governments are so anxious about Iran’s nuclear progress that they would even, grudgingly, support a United States military strike against Iran.
“If push comes to shove, if the choice is between an Iranian nuclear bomb and a U.S. military strike, then the Arab gulf states have no choice but to quietly support the U.S.,” said Christian Koch, director of international studies at the Gulf Research Center, a private group in Dubai.
Decades ago, it was Israel’s drive for nuclear arms that brought about the region’s first atomic jitters. Even some Israeli leaders found themselves “preaching caution because of the reaction,” said Avner Cohen, a senior fellow at the University of Maryland and the author of “Israel and the Bomb.”
Egypt responded first. In 1960, after the disclosure of Israel’s work on a nuclear reactor, Cairo threatened to acquire atomic arms and sought its own reactor. Years of technical and political hurdles ultimately ended that plan.
Iraq came next. But in June 1981, Israeli fighter jets bombed its reactor just days before engineers planned to install the radioactive core. The bombing ignited a global debate over how close Iraq had come to nuclear arms. It also prompted Iran, then fighting a war with Iraq, to embark on a covert response.
Alireza Assar, a nuclear adviser to Iran’s Ministry of Defense who later defected, said he attended a secret meeting in 1987 at which the commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said Iran had to do whatever was necessary to achieve victory. “We need to have all the technical requirements in our possession,” Dr. Assar recalled the commander as saying, even the means to “build a nuclear bomb.”
In all, Iran toiled in secret for 18 years before its nuclear efforts were disclosed in 2003. Intelligence agencies and nuclear experts now estimate that the Iranians are 2 to 10 years away from having the means to make a uranium-based bomb. It says its uranium enrichment work is entirely peaceful and meant only to fuel reactors.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s concerns grew when inspectors found evidence of still-unexplained ties between Iran’s ostensibly peaceful program and its military, including work on high explosives, missiles and warheads. That combination, the inspectors said in early 2006, suggested a “military nuclear dimension.”
Before such disclosures, few if any states in the Middle East attended the atomic agency’s meetings on nuclear power development. Now, roughly a dozen are doing so and drawing up atomic plans.
The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn.
“They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,” said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its headquarters in Vienna. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs.
Saudi Arabia, since reversing itself on reactors, has become a whirlwind of atomic interest. It recently invited President Vladimir V. Putin to become the first Russian head of state to visit the desert kingdom. He did so in February, offering a range of nuclear aid.
Diplomats and analysts say Saudi Arabia leads the drive for nuclear power within the Gulf Cooperation Council, based in Riyadh. In addition to the Saudis, the council includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — Washington’s closest Arab allies. Its member states hug the western shores of the Persian Gulf and control about 45 percent of the world’s oil reserves.
Late last year, the council announced that it would embark on a nuclear energy program. Its officials have said they want to get it under way by 2009.
“We will develop it openly,” Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said of the council’s effort. “We want no bombs. All we want is a whole Middle East that is free from weapons of mass destruction,” an Arab reference to both Israel’s and Iran’s nuclear programs.
In February, the council and the I.A.E.A. struck a deal to work together on a nuclear power plan for the Arab gulf states. Abdul Rahman ibn Hamad al-Attiya, the council’s secretary general, told reporters in March that the agency would provide technical expertise and that the council would hire a consulting firm to speed its nuclear deliberations.
Already, Saudi officials are traveling regularly to Vienna, and I.A.E.A. officials to Riyadh, the Saudi capital. “It’s a natural right,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the atomic agency’s director general, said recently of the council’s energy plan, estimating that carrying it out might take up to 15 years.
Every gulf state except Iraq has declared an interest in nuclear power. By comparison, 15 percent of South American nations and 20 percent of African ones have done so.
One factor in that exceptional level of interest is that the Persian Gulf states have the means. Typically, a large commercial reactor costs up to $4 billion. The six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council are estimated to be investing in nonnuclear projects valued at more than $1 trillion.
Another factor is Iran. Its shores at some points are visible across the waters of the gulf — called the Arabian Gulf by Arabs and the Persian Gulf by Iranians.
The council wants “its own regional initiative to counter the possible threat from an aggressive neighbor armed with nuclear weapons,” said Nicole Stracke, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center. Its members, she added, “felt they could no longer lag behind Iran.”
A similar technology push is under way in Turkey, where long-simmering plans for nuclear power have caught fire. Last year, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for three plants. “We want to benefit from nuclear energy as soon as possible,” he said. Turkey plans to put its first reactor near the Black Sea port of Sinop, and to start construction this year.
Egypt, too, is moving forward. Last year, it announced plans for a reactor at El-Dabaa, about 60 miles west of Alexandria. “We do not start from a vacuum,” President Hosni Mubarak told the governing National Democracy Party’s annual conference. His remark was understated given Cairo’s decades of atomic research.
Robert Joseph, a former under secretary of state for arms control and international security who is now Mr. Bush’s envoy on nuclear nonproliferation, visited Egypt earlier this year. According to officials briefed on the conversations, officials from the Ministry of Electricity indicated that if Egypt was confident that it could have a reliable supply of reactor fuel, it would have little desire to invest in the costly process of manufacturing its own nuclear fuel — the enterprise that experts fear could let Iran build a bomb.
Other officials, especially those responsible for Egypt’s security, focused more on the possibility of further proliferation in the region if Iran succeeded in its effort to achieve a nuclear weapons capability.
“I don’t know how much of it is real,” Mr. Joseph said of a potential arms race. “But it is becoming urgent for us to shape the future expansion of nuclear energy in a way that reduces the risks of proliferation, while meeting our energy and environmental goals.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/world/middleeast/15sunnis.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

April 15, 2007
Lenders Sought Edge Against U.S. in Student Loans
By JONATHAN D. GLATER and KAREN W. ARENSON
In a fierce contest to control the student loan market, the nation’s banks and lenders have for years waged a successful campaign to limit a federal program that was intended to make borrowing less costly by having the government provide loans directly to students.
The companies have offered money to universities to pull out of the federal direct loan program, which was championed by the Clinton administration. They went to court to keep the direct program from becoming more competitive. And they benefited from oversight so lax that the Education Department’s assistant inspector general in 2003 called for tightened regulation of lender dealings with universities.
At Indiana University in 2004, for example, Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student lender, offered $3 million that the university could use for “opportunity loans” to some students if it left the direct loan program. Indiana left the direct loan program but said the $3 million was not the reason; Sallie Mae currently administers their loan program.
Bank of America, which won the University of Virginia’s student loan business, said in its 2002 proposal that certain possible incentives had “the potential to violate” federal law. The bank, which said such a discussion was normal in the bidding process, suggested that it discuss the issues with university officials “during the oral presentation phase of the process.”
All of this has helped give private lenders clear dominance of the $69 billion federal student loan industry. The lenders, who defend these practices, say they are winning business primarily because they offer lower interest rates than the government and often lower fees.
Advocates of the direct loan program say that it has been held back from offering more competitive rates and benefits, and that a very small percentage of students can take advantage of the private rivals’ advertised rates and incentives. They argue that private lenders cost the government vast amounts of money because they are subsidized and guaranteed against default.
President Bush’s budget reports that in 2006 for every $100 lent by private lenders, the cost to the government of subsidies, defaults and other items was $13.81, while the same amount lent through the direct loan program cost the government $3.85. The battle for dominance in the loan market has escalated as tuitions have soared and students have borrowed more. This is the context for many of the payments to universities and financial aid officials that have come to light as a result of recent investigations into student loan practices.
“What has happened is unbridled competition meets lack of oversight,” said Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president at the American Council on Education.
Part of what is generating the competition is that the government runs two loan programs — and universities usually choose to participate in one or the other.
Until the 1990s, the primary program was the federal guaranteed loan program under which private lenders like Citibank, Sallie Mae or Bank of America made the loans to students. They were given a helping hand from the government, which paid subsidies to the lenders and guaranteed them against default.
Bill Clinton campaigned for president on the notion of expanding the federal government’s role as student loan guarantor into a more central position as the direct lender. The idea was that this would prove cheaper and simpler for students and be less costly for taxpayers because borrowers would pay interest to the federal government instead of to the lenders.
The program went into effect in 1994. The Democrats expected it to become dominant. But unwilling to be muscled aside, private lenders began offering schools and students a variety of benefits like scholarship money and lower interest rates and fees.
Tom Joyce, a spokesman for Sallie Mae, said, “The private sector program has better prices, better product selection, better service and better technology.”
For a few years after direct lending went into effect, it grew quickly. But as student loan volume has risen, climbing above $85 billion in 2005-6 from just over $30 billion 10 years earlier, the government’s share as a direct lender has declined, and now amounts to less than a quarter of the total.
“When direct lending was created, the initial assumption was that the bank-based program would be quickly overwhelmed by the government program,” Mr. Hartle said. No one counted on the strength of the reaction from the lending industry, he and others said.
The Education Department fought back. Richard W. Riley, then the secretary of education, tried to make the direct lending program more competitive in 1999 and 2000 by reducing origination fees and interest rates. The private lenders sued, saying Mr. Riley had no authority to do this because these rates were set by Congress under the loan legislation. (Last year, lawmakers set the interest rate on new Stafford loans, one of the most popular federally guaranteed loans, at 6.8 percent; many private lenders offer to reduce that rate for borrowers who make payments on time or meet other goals.)
In response to the lawsuit, the Education Department argued that the public and private loan programs had the power to offer the same terms and conditions, and added that better loan terms would make loans more affordable and thus reduce defaults, benefiting taxpayers.
With the Bush administration more sympathetic to the private market, the lenders withdrew the lawsuit last year, and the direct loan program has offered some of the incentives used by its private rivals.
Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, said both federal loan programs were “a vital source of funds for student aid.” Ms. McLane said that “through these two programs we have improved students’ and families’ choices by increasing competition, upgrading customer service and lowering costs.”
The Bush administration took virtually no action as lenders offered special pools of money if universities would leave the direct loan program. Lenders, by law, are barred from offering inducements to gain loan applications. But what is an inducement is not entirely clear.
A review by the Education Department’s office of the inspector general in 2003 — prompted by an accusation that Sallie Mae was offering illegal inducements — found that the department had brought only one public action, a case involving Sallie Mae and a college of podiatric medicine in 1995, which an administrative law judge later struck down.
The assistant inspector general, Cathy H. Lewis, who conducted the examination, also noted that the Education Department had not given any updated opinions about what kind of inducements were barred since 1995, even though the competition for loan business had escalated sharply since then. Ms. Lewis expressed concern about “bargaining practices between schools and lenders.” She referred to both the guaranteed loan program and private loans, which like any consumer loan lack government backing. Students increasingly rely on private loans because of limits on borrowing through the federal program.
She wrote that the practices “should be addressed through statutory and regulatory changes or further department guidance.”
Ms. McLane said in an e-mail message that the department had offered no guidance to lenders because it believed it had “no authority over the private loan instruments and market and therefore no guidance could be provided.”
She said the department had begun examining whether there should be new regulations in December.
Republicans in Congress have issued a continuing stream of criticisms about the direct lending program and tried to restrict it in a variety of ways.
Just last year, they voted to give lawmakers the power to cut the budget of the Education Department office that oversees the student loan program — a looming if indirect threat to direct lending. They also made it more difficult for many borrowers with multiple loans to combine them into a single, larger direct loan, effectively making it harder for students to refinance their debts.
“The federal government should be in the business of student loans as the lender of last resort when private lenders can’t offer competitive opportunities,” said Senator Michael B. Enzi, a Wyoming Republican who is the former chairman of the Education Committee.
In the absence of any crackdown on inducements, banks and other lenders showered universities with incentives to leave the direct lending program.
Sallie Mae, for example, offered Pace University in New York City $4 million in loans for students who would not have otherwise qualified if it left the direct loan program, the university said. Pace turned the offer down, a spokesman said. But it did eventually leave the program.
Colleges in the direct lending program were increasingly concerned about its future in the face of growing Republican opposition.
Yvonne Hubbard, director of Student Financial Services at the University of Virginia, said that was one factor that prompted the school to leave the program, along with the better deals being offered by the private lenders.
The university invited lender proposals in 2002 and chose Bank of America for a five-year term. It was in this process that the bank warned that some services under discussion had “the potential to violate” regulations against inducements.
Ms. Hubbard said she had no memory of what that language might have referred to, and a Bank of America spokesman, Joe Miller, said that it was not unusual to use this language in responding to a request to bid for a contract.
Bank of America is the only lender the University of Virginia recommends. The bank handles about 95 percent of the federal student loans at the university. Under the agreement, students who take out subsidized loans through the bank pay no origination or guarantor fees.
Ms. Hubbard said that the university tried to make clear to families that they were free to borrow from anyone but that it also offered this advice: “Take the terms we have negotiated with Bank of America and use this as your baseline, and try get your vendor to at least match it. It’s a good deal.”
Along with the partisan battle over the lending programs has come a fierce argument over their relative costs to taxpayers. Lenders vehemently argue that the direct loan program is in fact more expensive.
With Democrats now in control of Congress, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, with some bipartisan support, are pushing legislation intended to bolster the direct loan program.
Many Republicans are determined to defend private lenders. “I don’t want a few problems to be the excuse for the Democrats to put the federal government in charge of all student lending in the United States,” said Representative Ric Keller of Florida, the ranking Republican on the higher education subcommittee.
April 15, 2007
Marines’ Actions in Afghanistan Called Excessive
By CARLOTTA GALL
KABUL, Afghanistan, April 14 — American marines reacted to a bomb ambush with excessive force in eastern Afghanistan last month, hitting groups of bystanders and vehicles with machine-gun fire in a series of attacks that covered 10 miles of highway and left 12 civilians dead, including an infant and three elderly men, according to a report published by an Afghan human rights commission on Saturday.
Families of the victims described in interviews this week the painful toll of the attacks, which took place on March 4 in Nangarhar Province. One victim, a 16-year-old newly married girl, was cut down while she was carrying a bundle of grass to her family’s farmhouse, according to her family and the report. A 75-year-old man walking to his shop was hit by so many bullets that his son said he did not recognize the body when he came to the scene.
In its report, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission condemned the suicide bomb attack that started the episode, striking a Marine Special Operations unit convoy and slightly wounding one American. And the report said there might also have been small arms fire directed at the convoy immediately after the blast. But it said the response was disproportionate, especially given the obviously nonmilitary nature of the marines’ targets long after the ambush.
“In failing to distinguish between civilians and legitimate military targets, the U.S. Marine Corps Special Forces employed indiscriminate force,” the report said. “Their actions thus constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian standards.”
In the weeks immediately after the episode, the United States military began an investigation, and it is now exploring possible criminal charges, senior military officials said. The marines involved in the episode are being kept in Afghanistan, but the rest of their 120-man company has been pulled out of the country.
[The Washington Post reported late Saturday that a preliminary United States investigation had found that the people who were killed and injured were civilians, and that there was no evidence that the marines involved had come under small arms fire after the bombing.
[The preliminary findings were reported by Army Maj. Gen. Francis H. Kearney III, the commander of Special Operations troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, who ordered a formal investigation in March, The Post reported.]
An American spokesman in Afghanistan, Lt. Col. David A. Accetta, said Saturday that the military was in the final stages of approving condolence payments for families of the wounded and dead in the shootings.
The events have had the highest profile of a number of potential human rights violations by both sides, many by the Taliban and its allies, in the fighting in Afghanistan that were documented by the Afghan commission, which was established after the Taliban’s ouster and is partly financed by Congress. The commission’s report comes amid resurgent Taliban violence and coalition reprisals that are costing an increasing number of civilian lives and that have brought harsh criticism of international forces in the country.
The deputy director of the human rights commission, Nader Nadery, warned that attacks like the highway shooting had greatly contributed to outrage in Afghanistan, contradicting efforts by coalition forces to win people’s support away from the Taliban. “This is not an isolated case” he said. “People are realizing more that they are a victim of the conflict from both sides, from the Taliban and from the international operations.”
He added, “What we identified throughout all our investigation is a high level of frustration among the public and among the civilians.”
A spokesman for the United States Central Command said the Afghan commission’s report had been forwarded to Adm. William J. Fallon, the senior American officer in the region, for review.
In Washington, the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees American Special Operations forces said Saturday that he was concerned by the information gathered so far, but that he had received assurances that a thorough military investigation was under way.
“It is a very serious matter, and the evidence is troubling,” said the chairman, Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington.
In a telephone interview from his home in Tacoma, Wash., Mr. Smith added: “There should be a full and complete investigation, and the military is doing that. That is the purpose of the report done by the Special Operations component of the Central Command.”
Anger and frustration over the shooting was evident in Spinpul, where the attack happened, and in the whole province of Nangarhar. Still mourning, the families of the victims said this week that they had demanded from President Hamid Karzai and the American generals they had met that those responsible be punished. Some of them said the soldiers should be tried under Islamic law and face the death penalty if found guilty of the killings.
“They committed a great cruelty; they should be punished,” said Gharghashta, 65, whose daughter-in-law was killed at the door of their farmhouse compound, several hundred yards from the road and the scene of the blast. The American troops were firing from the road and raked the river bed where workers were digging a ditch and the surrounding fields with gunfire, he and other witnesses said.
“She was cutting grass in the field and she was carrying the bundle of grass on her head back into the house for the animals,” said his eldest son, Abdel Muhammad, 25.
“There was a big blast and then I heard firing. I started walking toward my house,” he said. “When I reached the house, my sister called and said my sister-in-law had been killed,” he said. The young woman, Yadwaro, 16, was shot in the back and fell dead across the threshold, he said. Her husband, Tera Gul, 18, sat listening silently to his brother and then got up and walked away.
The suicide bomb attack happened 500 yards along the road from the bridge that gives the village its name, White Bridge, on the main highway 25 miles east of Jalalabad. A man driving a minibus in the opposite direction to the Marine unit exploded his vehicle as he passed the convoy of five or six Humvees, according to the commission’s report, which was drawn from interviews with witnesses, police officers, community leaders and hospital officials. One marine was lightly wounded by shrapnel from the blast, it said.
The convoy may then have come under small arms fire from one vehicle on the same side of the road as the bomber, Mr. Nadery said. In the days after the episode, the United States military said the convoy had come under a “complex ambush from several directions,” but the human rights panel questioned this.
“If such an attack did indeed occur, as it is claimed by the U.S. military, it was almost certainly very limited in scope and restricted to the immediate site” of the suicide bombing, it said in its report.
The report’s description continued: Two Humvees then moved forward 500 yards to the bridge and opened fire with roof-mounted machine-guns on a car that had stopped on a side road, some yards from the highway. The gunners then swung their weapons around and began firing on the nearby river bed and fields. They killed six people instantly and wounded at least another.
The car’s driver, a veteran mujahedeen fighter who goes by the name of Lewanai, 45, was wounded but survived the shooting by diving out of his door and scrambling behind a mound of earth. But the big guns shredded his car and the three people inside: his father, Hajji Zarpadshah, 80; his uncle, Hajji Shin Makhe, 75; and his nephew, Farid Gul, 16.
“It was an illegal action,” he said. “I know the army rules, and when I heard the blast I stopped my car, I was thinking in case they shoot me,” he said in an interview at his home nearby. “They opened fire and were shooting for 10 minutes.”
The car, now parked at a nearby gas station, is torn by gashes from the bullets over its hood, side and roof and the seats are shredded from the gunfire, the ceiling is smattered with debris and bits of blood and bone. Mr. Nadery said that the vehicle had been hit by 250 bullets.
“Their insides were all coming out,” said Noor Islam, 22, who saw the dead men in the car after the attack. “We were very upset. Two of them were old men with white beards, and one was young,” he said. “They had no weapons.”
Near the car was Shin Gul, 70, who was waiting for a ride to the nearby bazaar of Markoh where the family had a shop selling flour. He was cut down on the spot and his body so torn apart that his son, Muhammad Ayub, 35, said he could not recognize him at first. “I saw a notebook in his pocket and then I knew it was him,” he said.
Nearby a 30-year-old shepherd named Farid was shot. He died two weeks later in the hospital.
Mr. Ayub said he was with a group of workers digging a ditch in the river bed when they came under fire from the Humvees at the bridge. They all survived by taking cover in the ditch, but the bullets went over their heads. Those were the shots that killed the newlywed girl, Yadwaro, about 100 yards beyond.
As the Humvees pulled away across the bridge they opened fire on a gas station and other vehicles, killing four people in a minibus, including a 1-year-old, the report said.
In that attack and later ones along the 10-mile stretch of road from Spinpul, six people were killed and 25 were wounded.
The report covered other civilian killings in recent weeks, including extensive human-rights violations by Taliban fighters and their allies that involved beheadings and the mutilation of victims.
In other cases involving coalition troops in Afghanistan, the report detailed an airstrike in Kapisa Province in March that killed a family of nine people, including two pregnant women and four children younger than 5.
The report also criticized continuing house raids by American forces, including one on the house of one of the human rights commission’s staff members, who the report said was hooded and handcuffed to a detonator and told not to move in case it exploded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/world/asia/15afghan.html?hp
MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2007
11:20 MECCA TIME, 8:20 GMT Sadr bloc quits Iraqi government

Al-Sadr’s political movement has six ministers in
the Shia-led coalition government [File AFP]

The political movement led by Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr has pulled out of the Iraqi government to protest against the continuing US presence in the country.

Nassar al-Rubaie, head of the bloc, said on Monday: “Al-Sadr’s ministers will withdraw immediately and give the six cabinet seats to the government.”

Al-Rubaie was reading out a statement on behalf of al-Sadr.

“We found it necessary to issue an order to the ministers of the Sadrist bloc to withdraw immediately from the Iraqi government,” al-Rubaie told a news conference.

The move is unlikely to bring down the government of Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, but it could create tensions in his fractious government of national unity.

‘No need for timetable’

The Sadrists have said they would remain in parliament.

Your Views

“The chances of success [in Iraq] are essentially zero because the Iraqi people have no voice”
Non Sequitur, Cadiz, Spain
Send us your views

Al-Maliki has said he sees no need to set a timetable for an American troop withdrawal because his government was working to build up Iraq’s security forces as quickly as possible so the US-led forces could leave.

Last week, tens of thousands of Iraqis answered a call by al-Sadr to rally in Najaf to protest against the presence of about 140,000 US-led troops in Iraq.

The Sadrists ended a two-month boycott of parliament in January after pulling out in protest over the timetable issue and a meeting between al-Maliki and George Bush, the US president.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/281E4222-26FC-426D-BAC0-7279D406C62F.htm

Chavez defies US with energy summit

Chavez: Ethanol will increase world hunger [EPA]

Venezuela will seek to use oil wealth to consolidate regional support for anti-US politics as it hosts an energy summit of South American leaders.

The meeting on the Caribbean island of Margarita on Monday comes as a rift over ethanol fuel has emerged – with Brazil working with the US to promote its use.

Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, wants the 12-nation conference to focus on regional integration as a counterweight to the US.

“Gradually, the US empire will end up a paper tiger and we, the peoples of Latin America, will become true tigers of steel,” Chavez said on the eve of the summit.

At the two-day meeting, Chavez will promote a project to build a 8,000km natural gas pipeline linking the Opec nation’s gas reserves to countries such as Brazil and Argentina.

Chavez still wants to show unity with Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, taking him on a tour early on Monday of a petrochemical plant and then holding discussions on ethanol, which Chavez says will increase world hunger.

Aides to Lula say it is his “obsession” despite being labeled “genocidal” by Fidel Castro, the Cuban leader and Chavez’s political mentor.

Consumption problems

“This planet is in danger, the human race is in danger”
Hugo Chavez,
Venezuelan president
Venezuela
, the fifth-largest exporter of oil to the US, has urged Latin America to pass over ethanol and rely on its oil reserves and co-operate in developing ways to reduce energy consumption.

Power outages have traditionally blighted Margarita island, and particularly its main city Porlamar.

But with Cuban help, the government has installed millions of power-saving light bulbs in recent months that Chavez – who often speaks in apocalyptic terms about the environment – said can serve as an inspiration at the summit.

“This planet is in danger, the human race is in danger,” he said after railing about high US energy demand. “Let’s do what we have to do to save mankind.”

Iran-Export-Venezuela
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Monday warned the US that if it attacks Iran, the cornerstones of its empire all over the world will collapse.

He made the statement at a live radio and television program titled `Hello, Mr. President’ on Sunday after attending the inaugural ceremony of four dairy and plastic production plants commissioned in Venezuela with Iran’s cooperation.
Chavez said that the Americans had better forget about their plans, given that such an attack will be a grave wrong-doing and will have disastrous consequences for the US.
Underlining that the US officials should make distinction between use of nuclear energy by Iran for peaceful purposes and production of atomic bomb, he said that the Americans should not impose their rules and will on the world.
Turning to annihilation of the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US during World War II, he said that bombardment of these two cities by nuclear bombs left hundreds of thousands of casualties.
He pointed to the US as the only world country which has developed atomic bombs and used it against nations.
Chavez once more defended the progress of Iran’s nuclear programs for peaceful purposes and called on the US administration to respect the Iranians’ right to access nuclear energy.
“The US threats and charges against Iran is part of the pressure policy being applied ever since the victory of the Islamic Revolution.
“The US launched Iran-Iraq war, made plots against Iran and strengthened terrorists. But Iranians had the potential to thwart all these threats and conspiracies. This is why the US continues its threats,” he added.
The Venezuelan president called on the US government to respect the Iranian nation and other nations as well as respect their independence and international rights.
The live radio and television program marking the inauguration of a dairy plant, which was commissioned in Venezuelan Zulia province, with cooperation of Iran, was attended by Bolivian President Juan Evo Morales and Iranian Ambassador to Venezuela Abdollah Zifan.
http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-20/0704169223182805.htm

The Big Apple’s Big Brother: An NYPD Timeline
By Chris Anderson
From the April 5, 2007 issue | Posted in Local | Email this article
1955: The NYPD’s Bureau of Special Services (“BoSS” or “the Red Squad”) is formed. This secret division is tasked with spying on domestic political dissidents – especially, by the 1960s, the Black Panthers and the Young Lords.
1969: The first police cameras are installed near City Hall.
1971: The 1971 “Handschu lawsuit” exposes the level of citywide political surveillance.
1980: NYPD signs the Handschu Consent Decree, resulting in the prohibition of the NYPD from investigating any individual or group without specific information of criminal intent. Under the settlement, the NYPD agrees to release contents of its secret files on more than 250,000 New Yorkers.
1993 – 1996: Despite the formal prohibition of political spying and infiltration, New York continues to install technologically sophisticated devices, especially security cameras, in order to deter crime. In the four years, the Department of Transportation installs red-light surveillance cameras; legislation mandates the creation of cameras at ATM machines; and various tourism-heavy areas of the city are flooded with cameras.
1998: The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) notes that there are 2,397 surveillance cameras in Manhattan alone.
2002: The city files to modify the Handschu Consent Decree in the aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. A compromise is reached in which the police agree to abide by constitutional standards that protect free speech.
2002: Unconfirmed reports allege that the NYPD has infiltrated various antiglobalization organizations, including the NYC Independent Media Center, in the run up to World Economic Forum meetings in New York.
2003: Antiwar protesters arrested at events throughout the winter of 2002 are forced to answer NYPD questions concerning their political beliefs. The infamous “demonstration debriefing forms” are later discontinued and destroyed, according to the police.
2004: In the run-up to the Republican National Convention, the NYPD’s “RNC Intelligence Squad” engages in massive preconvention surveillance of political groups in NYC and around the world.
2007: A judge rules that the NYPD has violated the relaxed Handschu Consent Decree through its videotaping of public demonstrations. The city responds by attempting to further modify Handschu – and perhaps eliminate it entirely.
http://www.indypendent.org/?p=1019
our Hired Guns in an Armored Truck, Bullets Flying, and a Pickup and a Taxi Brought to a Halt. Who Did the Shooting and Why?
Washington Post | April 15, 2007
Steve Fainaru
On the afternoon of July 8, 2006, four private security guards rolled out of Baghdad’s Green Zone in an armored SUV. The team leader, Jacob C. Washbourne, rode in the front passenger seat. He seemed in a good mood. His vacation started the next day.
“I want to kill somebody today,” Washbourne said, according to the three other men in the vehicle, who later recalled it as an offhand remark. Before the day was over, however, the guards had been involved in three shooting incidents. In one, Washbourne allegedly fired into the windshield of a taxi for amusement, according to interviews and statements from the three other guards.
Washbourne, a 29-year-old former Marine, denied the allegations. “They’re all unfounded, unbased, and they simply did not happen,” he said during an interview near his home in Broken Arrow, Okla.
The full story of what happened on Baghdad’s airport road that day may never be known. But a Washington Post investigation of the incidents provides a rare look inside the world of private security contractors, the hired guns who fight a parallel and largely hidden war in Iraq. The contractors face the same dangers as the military, but many come to the war for big money, and they operate outside most of the laws that govern American forces.
The U.S. military has brought charges against dozens of soldiers and Marines in Iraq, including 64 servicemen linked to murders. Not a single case has been brought against a security contractor, and confusion is widespread among contractors and the military over what laws, if any, apply to their conduct. The Pentagon estimates that at least 20,000 security contractors work in Iraq, the size of an additional division.
Private contractors were granted immunity from the Iraqi legal process in 2004 by L. Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation government. More recently, the military and Congress have moved to establish guidelines for prosecuting contractors under U.S. law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but so far the issue remains unresolved.
The only known inquiry into the July 8 incidents was conducted by Triple Canopy, a 3 1/2 -year-old company founded by retired Special Forces officers and based in Herndon. Triple Canopy employed the four guards. After the one-week probe, the company concluded that three questionable shooting incidents had occurred that day and fired Washbourne and two other employees, Shane B. Schmidt and Charles L. Sheppard III.
Lee A. Van Arsdale, Triple Canopy’s chief executive officer, said the three men failed to report the shootings immediately, a violation of company policy and local Defense Department requirements for reporting incidents. He said Triple Canopy was unable to determine the circumstances behind the shootings, especially since no deaths or injuries were recorded by U.S. or Iraqi authorities.
“You have to assume that, if someone engages, he is following the rules and that he did feel a threat,” Van Arsdale said, adding that conflicting accounts, delays in reporting the incidents and lack of evidence made it impossible to determine exactly what provoked the shootings. Triple Canopy officials said they have lobbied for more regulation of contractors since 2004 to better define how incidents such as the July 8 shootings are reported and investigated.
Many details about the shootings are in dispute. This account is based on company after-action reports and other documents, court filings, and interviews with current and former Triple Canopy employees, including all four men riding in the armored Chevrolet Suburban that day.
Schmidt and Sheppard said they were horrified by what they described as a shooting rampage by Washbourne and waited two days to come forward because they feared for their jobs and their lives. The two have sued Triple Canopy in Fairfax County Circuit Court, arguing that the company fired them for reporting a crime.
But another man in the vehicle, Fijian army veteran Isireli Naucukidi, said Sheppard, who was driving, cut off the taxi on Washbourne’s orders, giving him a better shot. Naucukidi said the three American guards laughed as they sped away, the fate of the Iraqi taxi driver unknown. Schmidt told Washbourne, “Nice shot,” according to Naucukidi.
Naucukidi also said that Schmidt was responsible for an earlier shooting incident that afternoon involving a white civilian truck, and that he believed Schmidt and Sheppard had blamed Washbourne to cover up their own potential culpability. Schmidt denied responsibility for that shooting but acknowledged in an interview he had fired a warning shot into the grille of a car on a separate airport run that morning and had failed to report it.
Naucukidi left Triple Canopy on his own shortly after the incidents occurred. Company officials said he was not fired because, unlike the three other guards, he had reported the shootings immediately. During an interview on the Fijian island of Ovalau, where he farms, Naucukidi said he decided not to return to Triple Canopy because “I couldn’t stand what was happening. It seemed like every day they were covering something” up.
The presence of heavily armed guards on the battlefield has long been a wild card in the Iraq war. Insurgents frequently attack them. Iraqi civilians have expressed fear of their sometimes heavy-handed tactics, which have included running vehicles off the road and firing indiscriminately to ward off attacks.
Current and former Triple Canopy employees said they policed themselves in Iraq under an informal system they frequently referred to as “big boy rules.”
“We never knew if we fell under military law, American law, Iraqi law, or whatever,” Sheppard said. “We were always told, from the very beginning, if for some reason something happened and the Iraqis were trying to prosecute us, they would put you in the back of a car and sneak you out of the country in the middle of the night.”
Naucukidi said the American contractors had their own motto: “What happens here today, stays here today.”
June 2: Hilla
Washbourne sported a shaved head, a goatee and a mosaic of tattoos and piercings on his muscular, 6-foot-3-inch frame. He led one of two teams on Triple Canopy’s “Milwaukee” project, a contract to protect executives of KBR Inc., a Halliburton subsidiary, on Iraq’s dangerous roads. He earned $600 a day commanding a small unit of guards armed with M-4 rifles and 9mm pistols, the same caliber weapons used by U.S. troops.
The men referred to each other by their radio call signs. Washbourne was “JW,” his initials. Sheppard, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was “Shrek,” for his resemblance to the cartoon monster. Schmidt, a former Marine sniper, was “Happy,” an ironic reference to his surly demeanor. Naucukidi was “Isi,” an abbreviation of his first name.
Schmidt and Sheppard earned $500 a day. Naucukidi earned $70 a day for the same work.
One of the largest security firms in Iraq, Triple Canopy was known for its elite, disciplined guards, including many Special Operations veterans from all branches of service. The company provides security at some checkpoints inside Baghdad’s Green Zone. But Triple Canopy officials said the company is not responsible for protecting the Iraqi parliament building, where a bomb Thursday killed at least one person and wounded at least 20.
On the Milwaukee project, Washbourne came to symbolize a lack of discipline that was a departure from the company’s approach, according to several current and former employees.
Unlike the U.S. military, which prohibits drinking, Triple Canopy employees ran their own bar, called the Gem, inside the Green Zone. Washbourne sometimes drank so heavily his subordinates had to roust him for his own operations briefings, four current and former employees said. Washbourne said he drank, but seldom to excess.
An incident a month before the shootings underscored doubts among his colleagues about Washbourne’s leadership, several of them said. On June 2, Washbourne was leading a convoy to a State Department compound in Hilla, about 60 miles south of Baghdad. The Suburban in which he was a passenger jumped a curb at a high rate of speed, shattering the axles and halting the exposed SUV in the middle of the highway.
A blue civilian truck suddenly flew around a blind curve and headed toward the convoy, according to Washbourne and Naucukidi, who was riding with him that day. Washbourne fired more than a dozen rounds into the oncoming truck with his M-4, wounding the driver. He later said he felt threatened. Washbourne then insisted on torching his damaged SUV with incendiary grenades instead of having it towed.
Washbourne said he was following standard operating procedure, which calls for a vehicle to be destroyed once it is disabled to prevent it from falling into the hands of insurgents.
Naucukidi said Washbourne ordered the guards to tell investigators that the convoy had been attacked by insurgents, even though many of them believed it had merely been involved in a traffic accident. Washbourne insisted that a small explosion precipitated the incident and that the SUV had been run off the road by another vehicle.
When the team returned to Baghdad, Naucukidi said, it was met by Ryan D. Thomason, a close friend of Washbourne’s who was serving as acting project manager.
“What happens here today, stays here today,” Thomason said, according to Naucukidi. “Good job, boys.”
Thomason instructed the team not to discuss the incident for security reasons, said his attorney, Michael E. Schwartz. Triple Canopy recently opened a separate investigation into the incident after new information about it surfaced during litigation over the July 8 shootings.
July 8: Baghdad Airport
The July 8 afternoon run was to be Washbourne’s last before he returned to Oklahoma. The team was to travel to Baghdad International Airport to pick up a client, then return to the Green Zone.
Washbourne, as team leader, led a pre-mission briefing in the parking lot. As the briefing concluded, according to Naucukidi, Washbourne cocked his M-4 and said, “I want to kill somebody today.”
Naucukidi said he asked why. He recalled that Washbourne replied: “Because I’m going on vacation tomorrow. That’s a long time, buddy.”
In an incident report that he later submitted to Triple Canopy, Sheppard wrote that Washbourne also informed him that he was “going to kill someone today.” In an interview, Schmidt said he heard a similar remark. Washbourne denied making any comment about his hope or intention to kill that day.
Naucukidi said he didn’t take the comment seriously, because Washbourne frequently made similar jokes. “He did this really every mission: ‘Okay, let’s go shoot somebody,’ ” Naucukidi said.
Washbourne sat in the front passenger seat of the “follow” vehicle — the third Suburban in a three-truck convoy, which included a lead vehicle, filled with guards, and what they called the “limo,” a Suburban used to ferry the client. Sheppard drove. Schmidt and Naucukidi sat behind them facing backward to protect against a rear attack.
The four men agree on what happened next. The convoy arrived at Checkpoint 1, just outside the airport, and set up a blocking position to allow the lead vehicle and the “limo” to proceed through the checkpoint. The contractors noticed a small white pickup truck moving up slowly behind them from a distance of about 200 yards.
At this point, the stories diverge.
Naucukidi said Sheppard moved the Suburban to give Schmidt a better view. Naucukidi said that he and Schmidt tried to warn the white truck to stop but that it was still moving forward when Schmidt fired three times with his M-4. He said the truck stopped immediately but was still too far away for the men to see where the bullets hit.
Naucukidi also said the truck was too far away and was moving too slowly to pose a threat.
Schmidt and Sheppard waited two days before coming forward, then gave nearly identical accounts of what happened. Both said that it was Washbourne who shot at the white truck and that he fired intentionally into the windshield. “His intention was to kill,” said Schmidt, who claimed he saw a “splash” of glass from the bullets striking the windshield.
Schmidt and Sheppard said Washbourne warned them not to mention the incident, quoting him as saying, “That didn’t happen, understand?”
Washbourne said he only recalled firing two warning shots at a much larger white truck in an incident during a different run that morning. Naucukidi said he believes Washbourne is confusing that shooting with yet another incident that had occurred at the same location a few days earlier.
“There was no comments about ‘That didn’t happen, you understand,’ or anything,” Washbourne said.
“I am not a clever or witty man; I don’t say things like that,” he said. “And I’m not a morbid or sadistic” person.
July 8: Route Irish
The convoy continued through the checkpoint to pick up the KBR executive at the airport. It then left the airport and began the return trip.
Sheppard wrote that he observed “an Ambulance and a lot of activity” where the shooting had taken place. He and Schmidt said Washbourne threatened them again not to say anything.
Washbourne denied making any threats and said no ambulance was parked near the checkpoint. Naucukidi also said he did not see an ambulance.
The convoy continued down the airport road, called Route Irish by the military and contractors, toward the Green Zone. It reached speeds of 80 miles per hour.
Schmidt, Sheppard and Naucukidi agree that the convoy then came upon a taxi.
According to the accounts of Schmidt and Sheppard, Washbourne remarked, “I’ve never shot anyone with my pistol before.” As the Suburban passed on the left, Washbourne pushed open the armored door, leaned out with his handgun and fired “7 or 8 rounds” into the taxi’s windshield, both wrote in their statements.
Schmidt wrote: “From my position as we passed I could see the taxi had been hit in the windshield, due to the Spidering of the glass and the pace we were travelling, I could not tell if the driver had been hit, He did pull the car off the road in an erratic manner.”
Sheppard said Washbourne was “laughing” as he fired.
Washbourne called their accounts “an absolute, total fabrication.” He said the Suburban’s high rate of speed and the wind resistance would have made the shooting “physically impossible.”
“There’s not an ounce of truth in it. It did not happen,” Washbourne said angrily. “And as far as the statement goes where I said, ‘I’ve never shot anyone with my pistol,’ that is a lie. It was never one time said.”
Naucukidi said that Washbourne fired at the taxi with his M-4 and that he ordered Sheppard to cut off the taxi beforehand. Naucukidi said Sheppard followed the order and used the Suburban to slow down the taxi and give Washbourne a better position to shoot from.
“When we were slightly ahead, JW just opened his door and started shooting the taxi from where we were sitting,” Naucukidi said in an interview.
Naucukidi described the taxi driver as a 60- to 70-year-old man. He said he saw one hole in the taxi’s windshield but could not tell if the driver had been hit. He said the taxi abruptly stopped.
“From my point of view, this old man, he was so innocent, because he was ahead of us with a normal speed,” Naucukidi said. “He couldn’t have any danger for us.”
Sheppard sped away to catch up to the rest of the convoy, according to Naucukidi, who added that the three Americans were laughing and that Schmidt reached over, tapped Washbourne on the shoulder and told him, “Nice shot.”
“They felt that it was so funny,” Naucukidi said.
Schmidt denied that he complimented Washbourne. “No, I don’t get a thrill out of killing innocent people,” he said. “That was a moment of shame.”
Divergent Reports
When the convoy returned to the Green Zone, members of the team scattered.
Naucukidi said he immediately told his supervisor, Jona Masirewa, who served as a liaison between the Fijian contractors and the Americans, about the incidents. He said Masirewa instructed him to write up a report to use in case an investigation occurred.
Naucukidi wrote the one-page report on his laptop. It contained brief summaries of the two afternoon shootings.
Of the first incident, near the airport checkpoint, Naucukidi wrote that the white truck was approaching slowly and was 200 meters away when Schmidt opened fire: “Happy shot three (3) rounds from his M4 rifle, and the white bongo truck stopped.”
In the second incident, Naucukidi wrote, the Suburban “over took one white taxi with an Iraq