MAMDOUH Habib could lose any money paid to him for selling the story of his detention, with the Federal Government signalling it would use laws designed to seize money from criminals to scrutinise his future media payments. Habib is expected to be besieged by media outlets willing to buy his story when he returns to Australia from Guantanamo Bay within two weeks, with some agents already touting six-figure sums on behalf of TV networks and publishers. However, Attorney General Philip Ruddock said he had asked lawyers to advise him on whether the new Proceeds of Crime legislation could be used to stop Habib profiting from his ordeal - despite returning home a free man. "There is potential for the legislation to cover this," Mr Ruddock said. "If he is paid for his story on his treatment in Guantanamo Bay, the Government will examine closely the implications."If obligations do arise, the Government will seek to enforce the legislation."
At issue is a clause in the legislation that allows for a person's assets to be confiscated if he is deemed to have committed an indictable offence in a foreign jurisdiction. One of the more likely bidders, the Nine Network's 60 Minutes program, yesterday confirmed it was keen to air the former Sydney cleaner's story, but said its own legal advice echoed that given to the Government. Executive producer John Westacott said Habib's ordeal since his capture in October 2001 was "important to the national history". "This is a story that reflects the political views of the country and it should be treated in that regard," he said.
A "60 Minutes" story supporting terrorists, who'd a thunkit?
Habib will shortly be released from Guantanamo Bay after the US military announced earlier this month it does not intend to charge him, despite having detained him for almost three years. Mr Ruddock earlier said the release came despite "the strong view of the US" that Mr Habib had prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks and had trained with al-Qaeda. Habib's lawyer, Stephen Hopper, confirmed that media outlets had made approaches, but said no deal had yet been made. "The legislation is fairly clear and we will be taking detailed instructions from Mr Habib," he said. "He is going to tell us what he knows. "We are going to wait until we speak to him before we know where he stands in relation to any laws.
Posted by: tipper ||
01/25/2005 2:33:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
In "Al Qaeda's New Front," airing Tuesday, January 25, at 9 P.M. on PBS (check local listings) FRONTLINE, in association with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and The New York Times, investigates the alarming threat radical Salafist jihadists pose to Western Europe and its allies - including the United States.
"It might come as a surprise to many Americans," says correspondent Lowell Bergman, "But the most pressing threat to the United States is not the suspected Al Qaeda cells at home, but rather the cells operating overseas, especially in Western Europe."
Home to an estimated 18 million Muslims, Western Europe has become the new and deadly battleground in the war on terror. That's because disenfranchised Muslims inspired by local radical imams and jihadist Web sitesãare taking up the cause of jihad. And Al Qaeda, once just a loose organization on the continent, has morphed into a powerful ideological movement.
"The threat is before us, not behind us," France's top antiterror judge, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, tells FRONTLINE. "And we are quite concerned....I think that the terrorist threat today is more globalized, more scattered, and more powerful...than it was before September 11."
What's driving the terrorism threat? Many experts in counterterrorism say it's the belief that violence is justified in order to free the Muslim world from corrupt governments and the influence of the United States and Europe. And because it's difficult for jihadists to launch an attack on U.S. cities and institutions, their focus has turned to local targets in Western Europe.
FRONTLINE follows Rabei Osman El Sayed Ahmed, an Egyptian charged with 191 murders in connection with the Madrid attack. Rabei, also known as "Mohammed the Egyptian," is an example of this new generation of jihadi operatives who apparently operate independently of the old Al Qaeda network set up by Osama bin Laden. He is an example of the next generation of Islamist terrorist that Europe must now contend with.
#1
This appears to be more liberal bull shit. The underlying message is that because the US invaded Iraq, and the terrorists from Europe joined the fight, that the US is held responsible for these now trained terrorists to return to Europe to do their Jeehad at home.
Typical blame America dribble.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/25/2005 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
One Senate Democrat called Condoleezza Rice a liar Tuesday and others said she was an apologist for Bush administration failures in Iraq, but she remained on track for confirmation as secretary of state.
Rice, who has been President Bushââ¬s White House national security adviser for four years, was one of the loudest voices urging war, Democrats said. She repeatedly deceived members of Congress and Americans at large about justifications for the war, said Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
"I donââ¬t like impugning anyoneââ¬s integrity, but I really donââ¬t like being lied to," Dayton said. "Repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally."
Rice is expected to win confirmation on Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., predicted that Rice would have "an overwhelming majority" of votes.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., cautioned against "inflammatory rhetoric that is designed merely to create partisan advantage or to settle partisan scores."
...
"There was no reason to go to war in Iraq when we did, the way we did and for the false reasons we were given," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
Rice is not directly responsible for intelligence failures prior to the Iraq war that overestimated Saddamââ¬s nuclear capability, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "But she is responsible for her own distortions and exaggerations of the intelligence which was provided to her," Levin said.
"Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to scare the American people," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said.
The Senate set aside most of the day Tuesday to debate the Rice nomination after Democrats revolted against a plan to confirm Rice last week, on the same day that Bush took his oath for a second term.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/25/2005 5:05:40 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/25/2005 17:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
On one side, we've got Mark "Buck-buck-braaawk" Dayton, a drunk driver, and the Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan (W. Va. District #2).
On the other side, we've got Condi the Warrior Princess.
How did Karl Rove arrange this? The man's a genius!
Posted by: Mike ||
01/25/2005 17:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Dummycrats are way over the top on this one. I will work to exterminate the Mark Dayon rodent. Kinda funny though, that Dayton was sniveling about sending the troops to Iraq. Here he was the one Senator who cut-and-ran from his Senate office when an alert was sounded.
#4
Bullshit. Pure, utter bullshit. This is the kind of crap that led to my vow that I will never, NEVER vote for another Democrat so long as I live. Not for President, not for Congresscritter, not for governor, or State Rep., or county commissioner, or mayor, or even Dog Catcher.
And until 2 years ago, I'd been a Democrat all my life. NEVER AGAIN!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/25/2005 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Dr. Rice never struck me as a person who gives a rat's ass about names, so fire away, DemocRATS.
#6
I agree with Mike. Next month I want to see the grilling by the Grand Kleagle, Town Drunk, and Village Idiot of Judge Pricilla Owens. That makes for great TV! Are they going to hurl things at the Hispanic fellow now? God I hope so! FYI, I can't wait to catch the Daily Show, you know it's going to be good!
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/25/2005 18:39 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hi, Sen. Dayton! Glad to see that you've come back to town after scurrying off at the first sign of trouble. Do you have plans after the 2006 election? Maybe you and Tom Daschle can get together on a Lexus dealership in South Dakota or something.
Best Wishes for a Happy Retirement in '07,
The Coalition that helped Defeat former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle
This is precisely the thought that crossed my mind after just observing more of this petty bloviating on the part of Boxer and the rest of her despicable cohorts on the local evening news. And in the future, should the opportunity arise to be paid back for this, I hope they get repaid completely, PLUS INTEREST.
This petty insulting and tantrum-throwing is absolutely disgusting.
EFB Condoleezza Rice is no longer on a fast track to Senate confirmation as secretary of state, but the slowdown appears to be temporary as Democratic foes of the war in Iraq line up to have their say. Like real temporary Nine hours have been set aside Tuesday for bitching, whining and howling debate, divided equally between Idiots Democrats and Republicans. On Wednesday, a brief series of statements is expected - and then the vote to put her in charge of U.S. diplomacy. "We are talking about the safety and security of this country, so I very much and very quickly want to move with Secretary Rice," Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said. He said he was extremely pissed off disappointed by the delay and was confident the Senate would confirm her on Wednesday. Two Democratic opponents of the war, Sens. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Barbara Boxer of California, have booked an hour each to speak, with eight other Democrats due to weigh in with briefer speeches. My God, an hour of Byrd and Boxer ranting? Better keep sharp objects away today. Does the Senate have one of those stage hooks used to yank people off the stage?
Last week, White House chief of staff Andrew Card said the Democrats' decision to have a day or more of debate on the nomination amounted to "petty politics." That pretty much sums it up.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denied Republicans' suggestions that Democrats were playing politics with Rice's nomination. He also promised a visit from Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!
At first I was against this, but I am betting that after two hours of Byrd/Boxer late night comedy and John Stuart will have enough material for the rest of the season. Also will expose the Democrats for what they truly are: petty whining sore losers. I will be looking for two things today: Will Frist keep the Dems on the time table they are allotted and the final vote tally. The final vote will be a key to who can be dealt with (up for election in 2006) and who is a partisan hack. Over at DU they are all giddy that maybe Rice will get torpedoed today by Byrd/Boxer. The fact that an ex-Klansman is holding up the nomination of a Black Female is lost on them.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge ||
01/25/2005 11:16:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Who says he's an EX- Klansman?
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/25/2005 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
DB, good point.
(1)If the point of this is to bitch about the war, why don't Byrd/Boxer go the straightforward route and introduce a resolution requiring the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?
(2) I had heard about Boxer, but it wasn't until I saw her asking Condi questions that I understood just how stupid Boxer is. I've seen shrubbery with a higher IQ.
Posted by: Matt ||
01/25/2005 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan for a period of time in the early 1940s. In a 1946 letter, he wrote, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." However, when running for Congress in 1952, he announced, "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan."
Talk about a flip flopper - I was for the clan before I was against it.
All above from the nationmaster.com online Encyclopedia
#4
Here's a good quick summary of Robert Byrd and the Klan:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030801.asp
Excerpt: "The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight 'with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.'"
Posted by: Tom ||
01/25/2005 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Condoleezza Rice is the worst National Security Advisor ever and rather than fire her, she is being promoted to cover up her failures. She will be a good Secretary of State but she should have been held responsible for the biggest national security failure in the US.
Like I posted - she will make a VERY good Secretary of State but she was put in a job that she had no idea what she was supposed to be doing. She thought that her job was to be a cheerleader for the president. Terrorism was something that before 9/11, I believe, she took very lightly.
#9
..but she should have been held responsible for the biggest national security failure in the US.
Tony Lake wasn't held responsible for the first WTC, so what makes this any different? Just because more people died and two buildings were brought down?
#10
Denver, did it ever occur to you that the planning and set-up for 9/11 was well underway before Bush even took office? Do you recall the first World Trade Center bombing and the other similar attacks during the Clinton anministration? Why should Rice have been held responsible?
Posted by: Tom ||
01/25/2005 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Pros and Cons on that statement Denver.
It was a failure of the entire National Security System. From every president, senator, congress-man, or woman, FBI and CIA director, Advisor, and so on and so on ... since terrorism was first analyzed after the 1972 Olympics. Our entire government let the American people down. To pin 9/11 on her shoulders is ridiculous.
#12
Terrorism was something that before 9/11, I believe, she took very lightly.
Before 9/11/2001, everybody took terrorism lightly. The difference is, the person occupying the White House at that time actually did something of substance in response.
#13
Re #8, I quit reading Slate last year when I realized that it was sounding more and more like a Sunday magazine for the New York Times.
Posted by: Tom ||
01/25/2005 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#14
From the 9/11 commision findings:
In his book, testimony, and several TV interviews, Clarke has argued that the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium because intelligence reports of an impending terrorist attack were discussed at several meetings of Cabinet secretaries. Knowing they'd have to come back and tell the president what they were doing to prevent an attack, these officials went back to their departments and "shook the trees" for information. When Bush came to power, Rice retained Clarke and his counterterrorism crew, but she demoted their standing; terrorism was now discussed (and, even then, rarely) at meetings of deputy secretaries, who lacked the same clout and didn't feel the same pressure.
Rice's central point this morning, especially in her opening statement, was that nobody could have stopped the 9/11 attacks. The problem, she argued, was cultural (a democratic aversion to domestic intelligence gathering) and structural (the bureaucratic schisms between the FBI and the CIA, among others). But this is the analysis of a political scientist, not a policymaker. Culture and bureaucracies form the backdrop against which officials perceive threats, devise options, and make choices. It is good that Rice, a political scientist by training, recognized that this backdrop can place blinders and constraints on decision-makers. But her job as a high-ranking decision-maker is to strip away the blinders and maneuver around the constraints. This is especially so given that she is the one decision-maker who is supposed to coordinate the views of the various agencies and present them as a coherent picture to the president of the United States. Her testimony today provides disturbing evidence that she failed at this taskâfailed even to understand that it was part of her job description.
#15
Pretty words Denver, and like I said, I can see some of your views. But the problems ran much deeper and for much longer. She made some mistakes
no doubt. Maybe if Clinton would have taken out Osama when he had a chance it could have been stopped. To many if's and's and butts.
Hard lesson to learn.
#16
"Clarke has argued that the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium" Pure BULLSHIT! There was NO border patrol alert and NO directions from "Shit for Brains" Clarke. And the only "shaking" going on was in Billy Bob's pants. Denver please reread the comiision report and Dr. Rice's OPEN testimony and you will conclude two things: One Clarke is the BIGGEST asshole ever appointed and that Clinton/Albright/Gore/Clarke/Clark were ALL asleep and oblivous to the Islamists therat.
#18
the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium because intelligence reports of an impending terrorist attack were discussed at several meetings of Cabinet secretaries.
The next time something really good happens because it was discussed in a meeting will be the first. Face it, LAX was a lucky shot based on an agent's intuition. She did a great job... but do you think she ever saw so much as a TPS report from a Cabinet Secretary?
#19
Clarke is a self aggrandizer and liar. He personally took credit in the apprehension of the terrorist on the Washington border when in fact it was the border guard herself who should have been credited. She has stated that there were no warnings or alerts issued beforehand, contrary to Clarke's sworn testimony.
Clarke also placed blame on others (FBI) for letting the Bin Laden family members fly away when other aircraft were grounded during his 911 testimony. Then, with the cameras off during Senate testimony three months later, he admitted being the one who had in fact authorized the Bin Laden flight.
But what really iced it for Clarke was on the morning of the Rice testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Clarke was interviewed by one of the MSM morning shows at the location of his choice. Interestingly, he selected a location within viewing range of Ground Zero.
Why this guy has not been put in cuffs is a mystery to me. Why people give him any credence is even more puzzling.
Rice kept him on because she knew the country needed continuity during the transition from Clinton to Bush administrations.
#20
Re #19 (Denver): Clarke has argued that the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium because intelligence reports of an impending terrorist attack were discussed
I have never believed that story about the border guard perceiving that the driver seemed nervous as he drove through the border control. I have always thought that our government knew about the plans and the operation and was waiting for him when he approached the border. There we had a legal right to search his car, and we did and we found the evidence we were looking for. The yarn we tell about the alert border guard is a cover for some other intelligence means and methods.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/25/2005 21:55 Comments ||
Top||
#21
riiigghhttt MS.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/25/2005 22:13 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Your right mike. Clarke had been tipped off by the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus......
President George Bush at the Alfalfa Dinner Saturday night.
Bush also said, "Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice is here. People often ask me what Condi is like. Well, she is creative; she is tough -- think Martha Stewart with access to nuclear codes."
Posted by: Steve ||
01/25/2005 9:36:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wonderful! And later in the article:
The crowd was also thick with Bushes.
"Because of the inauguration, we have a lot of Bushes here tonight," the president said. "George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Barbara Bush, Jeb Bush, George Prescott Bush, Marvin P. Bush, Laura Bush, William H.T. Bush, Doro Bush Koch and John Ellis Bush Jr.
"Or, as we are known within the family: 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, and Marvin."
Posted by: ed ||
01/25/2005 12:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Keep your freedom and democracy to yourself
President Bush: Keep your freedom and democracy to yourself
The international community does not want George W. Bushâs Freedom and Democracy neither does it want its Hearts and Minds won over by Shock and Awe tactics, thank you very much. If George Bush was elected President of the United States of America, why does he address himself to the rest of the world?
Letâs face it, if there was an election in the international community, George W. Bush might get elected as a member of a freak show, or perhaps a kitchen hand, handing out plastic turkeys in tents but for the leadership of a country? Perhaps, in a handful of countries like Albania, for instance, which might think first about the bank account rather than any notion of political leadership but in the international community as a whole, the NO vote would be far in excess of 80%, as is patently evident in numerous opinion polls.
If President Bush is an example to go by, we do not want his freedom and democracy. We do not want a model of freedom and democracy which sees the President of a country slink into his office in an armoured car which resembles a tank, guarded by 13.000 bodyguards plus countless other security personnel, creeping along a route lined by thousands of protesters.
We do not want his freedom and democracy which saw him slip out the back door of Number 10 Downing Street on his visit to London, the first such escape route used by any international leader any time in history, and during whose visit for the first time ever a statue of the President of the United States of America was toppled, to the cheers of thousands of lookers-on. Jimmy carter got out of his car and walked to the White House. Why canât Bush? The answer is simple: people do not like his Freedom and Democracy.
We do not want his freedom and democracy which is so popular that even in London, the capital city of the country and government closest to Washington, his state visit was restricted to three streets and a hurried trip to Tony Blairâs constituency in a heavily guarded motorcade.
We do not want his freedom and democracy, which saw the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, a country invaded upon a pretext which did not exist. We do not want a freedom and democracy based upon barefaced lies.
We do not want a freedom and democracy based on the US model, where the electoral system can be rigged so easily, in this, one of the few countries which still has the death penalty. We do not want a freedom and democracy based on Washingtonâs flawed model, controlled by a clique of corporate elitists who gravitate around the White House, making a mockery of their people and a mockery of democracy and which practise a policy of freedom of the press which makes the Gestapo look like fairy godmothers.
The international community is made up of hundreds of sovereign nations with models of government which reflect in some cases thousands of years of history and culture, which is to be respected, not obliterated in a wave of blind arrogance fuelled by the greed of Washingtonâs invisible masters.
The international community does not want, nor does it need, the model imposed by a country barely 200 years old, with serious human rights problems, whose history is associated with ethnic cleansing of its native population, whose history is based upon the illegal deportation of races, a country whose military forces even today practise torture and which has concentration camps in more than one continent where the terms of the Geneva Convention are broken.
George Bush can keep his freedom and democracy to himself and to his own country. Nobody asked for his opinion abroad and nobody is interested in his opinion abroad. Each and every movement of the US regime outside its territory will be seen as belligerence, interference, and arrogance and is bound to produce an exponential reaction of hatred in the four corners of the Earth.
The very notion that George Bush can make a speech to begin his second and last term as president of the USA, referring to the international community, gives rise to the notion that he has a self-opinionated and inflated sense of his own importance.
Who asked for his opinion outside the USA and basically, who gives a two penny damn about what he believes in? It is his problem and that of the people he claims elected him. As for the restauguration "party", neither do a substantial proportion of American citizens., take a look at Iraq to see how very successful his foreign policy can be. Two years on, his forces are on the defensive, have lost control of the situation and there are now more Resistance Fighters than US troops.
Washingtonâs Freedom and Democracy, anyone? No thanks. Let George Bush sort his own problems out and leave the rest of the world alone. Nobody called him and nobody wants him and judging by his in
[]
Posted by: forest hell burn the bush ||
01/25/2005 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wow.
Sounds like coming off a crack high is really very painful and disconcerting.
#4
FHBTB: We do not want a model of freedom and democracy which sees the President of a country slink into his office in an armoured car which resembles a tank, guarded by 13.000 bodyguards plus countless other security personnel, creeping along a route lined by thousands of protesters.
That's what freedom is all about. First, the technical inaccuracy - the armored limo doesn't resemble a tank (which fires a 120mm tank round and has over a foot of armor). The tank weigh 70 tons; the car weighs about 2.5 tons. Comparing a tank to the presidential limo is like comparing a lion to a pussycat.
Second the fact that he needs to be surrounded by bodyguards comes from the fact that Americans are free. Saddam could stroll around in the street without much protection because many who might have opposed him had long been killed - and those who tried to kill him would have their entire families tortured to death. Hitler equally did not require much protection - his secret police efficiently killed off any threats to his security, even if they simply thought that he was a bad person. The fact that FHBTB is able to write these articles while staying alive is proof that we live in a free country.
#5
"As we wandered through the Rantburg Community Playground & Rifle Range, trying to pick up the signal from Boris' tracking collar, we caught sight of the biggest troll yet! Crikey! It's a Portugese Red-Striped Troll, sometimes called Bancroft-Hinchey's Troll, a huge one, verbose as they come. They're dangerous when cornered, but seein' as I'm with the other Steves in the Army of Steve, I'm not worried. 'C'mon mate . . . he's a beaut, ain't he!"
Posted by: Mike ||
01/25/2005 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The international community is made up of..
Screw you and your "international community". If y'all can't put principle before economic gain, fine, then we'll do the dirty work. Just go to the corner, sit down, and shut the hell up.
#7
Dammit, he snuck out of his cage when I wasn't looking. He posted this drivel as a article earlier, when I read it in the Holding Tank, I flushed it. Oh, well, time to break out the mop and disifectent.
Posted by: Steve ||
01/25/2005 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#8
It is not Bush's fault. While visiting Israel (henceforth the Illegal Zionist Entity = IZE) several years ago he had a transmitter/controller instaled in his head, and since then all his actions are dictated by the IZE controllers.
#9
Yupp! The "International Community", now there's a group of folks who really got there st together! Just look at the global problem-solving machine whirr like a finely tuned foreign car! No need for any American ideas!
Posted by: Janos Hunyadi ||
01/25/2005 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
EFL: The Pentagon says the political uproar over the disclosure of a secret military intelligence group is overblown and based on misinformation about the group's makeup and mission. Stephen A. Cambone, the Pentagon's top intelligence official, rushed to Capitol Hill on Monday after some members of Congress reacted strongly to a Washington Post report that revealed the existence of the group, which is managed by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency.
Senator Diane Feinstein and others appeared puzzled by the disclosure that the Pentagon had created a new battlefield intelligence group — "strategic support teams," in Pentagon parlance — to perform clandestine missions that had been largely the province of the CIA. Some suggested Rumsfeld had skirted congressional oversight to expand his domain. Pentagon officials told reporters, however, that the arrangement had been worked out in close coordination with the CIA and that appropriate congressional committees had been fully informed. A senior military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said CIA director Porter Goss told him Monday that he had "no issue or questions or concerns" about the Pentagon arrangement. Another defense official said lawmakers may not recognize the news media's descriptions of the intelligence group because its name was changed after they were briefed on it last year. Now called strategic support teams, they were previously known as humint augmentation teams, the official said, speaking only on condition that he not be further identified. (Humint refers to human intelligence, or information provided by spies.)
In an additional point of clarification, the senior military official said the intelligence teams are not to be used for covert actions, which are unacknowledged by the government and which require a legal "finding" by the president. Rather, they are for clandestine actions, which are meant to be secret but are subject to acknowledgment by the government if publicly disclosed. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, a Virginia Republican, and the panel's top Democrat, Carl Levin of Michigan, met for more than an hour with Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. Later, Warner said he was satisfied by the briefing and would ensure that other committee members were briefed fully as well.
The teams — each with about 10 mostly civilian linguists, case officers, interrogators and debriefers — are designed to provide the military's conventional and special operations forces with more sustainable battlefield intelligence to support combat and other activities. The defense officials said this is not a new mission for military intelligence; rather, they said, it is being structured in a new way so that it can be provided to battlefield commanders in a more standardized manner. It previously had been done in a more ad hoc way, they said.
Posted by: Steve ||
01/25/2005 12:46:07 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Permit me to better state this headline:
Washington Post Plays Up Black Opns for Self Interest and Political Bias Motives.
Isn't Marine Times now run by Gannet? Gannet of USA Today fame.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/25/2005 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Just what we need "santitized" war making dipped in heavy bureacracy.
As for DiFi, "appearing puzzled" is her nature state.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/25/2005 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I hate to disclose military secrets, because they made me sign those disclosure agreements, but we have had "strategic support teams" or something like them for as long as we have had a military. This is not news, but an overblown story. For some reason the LLL gets squirmy when they think of Rumsfield having Intelligence assets or spies working for him. People they were there long before he showed up, if only under a different name. They are not going to show up on som LLL doorstep anytime soon, unless the rules have changed. Come to think of it, wouldn't it be funny to fake a Black Helicopter/Secret Soldier ops onto some LLL doorstep? Can you imagine the stain Hersch would make if he saw black-clad troops landing on his front lawn?
As part of an intensified effort to capture terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, the State Department is considering doubling the bounty on his head to $50 million, State Department officials said Monday.
Legislation passed in November by Congress as part of the appropriations bill allowed the State Department to double the current $25 million reward for information leading to bin Laden's capture, under the Rewards for Justice Program.
The program seeks to prevent acts of terrorism against the United States. It pays rewards for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of terrorists attempting to commit or committing acts against U.S. interests.
Bin Laden is still thought to be hiding somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, but intelligence officials in both countries say there has been no sign of him for the past 20 months, according to Time magazine.
In 2003, the Bush administration paid a $30 million reward -- $15 million each for Uday and Qusay Hussein -- to the informant who provided the tip that led U.S. troops to the home in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul where Uday and Qusay were hiding. They died there in a firefight with American forces.
Last July, the State Department raised the bounty for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the accused terrorist mastermind in Iraq, from $10 million to $25 million.
On Monday, the al-Zarqawi group al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for a suicide car bomb in Baghdad, Iraq, at a checkpoint near the headquarters of interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's party, according to an Internet statement. (Full story)
Officials said the State Department is reviewing whether to double the reward for bin Laden to $50 million, with the final decision to be made by incoming Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
This month, the Rewards for Justice Program also launched an advertising campaign in Pakistan to publicize the existing reward for bin Laden.
Print ads in Urdu and Pashto languages have begun to run in Pakistani newspapers featuring photos and reward amounts for bin Laden, Taliban leader Mullah Omar and other Taliban and al Qaeda leaders.
The print ads will be followed by a broadcast ad blitz in cities and border areas where U.S. officials believe bin Laden is hiding.
"The people there are largely illiterate," said Rep. Mark Kirk, who wrote the legislation that would allow the doubling of the reward. "So we're going to back up this campaign with a radio campaign that is the primary way people find out about the world."
Kirk, an Illinois Republican, returned last week from a visit to Pakistan.
Officials said the scripts for the radio ads are being finalized, and that the ads should be running within 10 days to two weeks. A television ad campaign is also in development, the officials said.
Posted by: (-Cobra-) ||
01/25/2005 1:24:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can an average member of the society this man travels and hides in, understand what $50 million dollars is, let alone $30 Million? Unbelievable may be the operative word. We need someone with some cultural awareness to peg the number.
Posted by: Don ||
01/25/2005 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
From ratty caves on the Afgan- Paki border to a luxery hotel suite on the French Riviera - these are the lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
#3
Me, I think we ought to make the reward a buck 97 and make sure that all of islamoland hears it over and over again.
That ought to be great for their islamic manhood and let them know exactly what we think of them.
Posted by: Michael ||
01/25/2005 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I guarantee the members of the ISI understand what that $ value means...
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/25/2005 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Is it possible to set up a private fund for people to donate money to this, like they did for tsunami aid? I don't know if there are legal considerations with citizens putting a bounty on someone's head if the gov't already has, but I'd like to think we could do a little better than 50 million.
Malaysia, responding to orders a call by Saudi Arabia, has agreed to organise a summit meeting of Muslim leaders that would seek to heal rifts in the Islamic world, local media reported on Tuesday. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, chairman of the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), told Malaysian reporters accompanying him on a visit to Paris that he would despatch his foreign minister to Riyadh to discuss the plan. Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz on Friday urged Malaysia to organise a summit "so that we can overcome, with our faith in God ... the state of dismemberment and fragmentation" among Muslims.
"Dismemberment" and "fragmentation", those words always pop into my mind when I think about a Islamic Summit. Those, and "JDAM".
The leaders' conference should be preceded by meetings among "Council of Boskone the (Islamic) nation's thinkers and scholars ... to outline visions of the nation's future and thus assist the gathering of the leaders, which I hope will be held here, in this pure land," he said. The leaders would "search for common ground and strengthen the bonds" among Muslims, the Saudi prince said. Malaysia's Abdullah, who was in Paris for a conference on biodiversity, told reporters that the preliminary meeting would be held soon to identify the scope and topics for discussion at the summit. "We do not want the summit to be without focus and engage in discussions aimlessly without any fruitful conclusion. We want to see implementation of resolutions adopted," he said. Asked whether the summit was being called following US President George W. Bush's refusal to rule out the possibility of an attack on Iran, Abdullah said: "Let us talk about our concerns first. Otherwise, we will be confused. If we are weak, others will threaten us." Abdullah said the summit would touch on political issues and Islamic ideology among other matters, the official Bernama news agency reported.
Posted by: Steve ||
01/25/2005 11:20:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
âWe do not want the summit to be without focus and engage in discussions aimlessly without any fruitful conclusion."
Oh, so you want to try something new. My, that's not very Islamic of you.
#2
I wonder how much money the Saudis paid for their request to be granted? Its great PR for them and makes them seem responsible and mature at least to other islamic nations anyway. I wonder if the Shia will be invited. You know that when Soddies talk about their religion they always mean just the sunnis.
As usual, islamics strive to imitate the West but the talk always rings hollow in the end. We all know what peace talks mean in the islamic world ie its just another way to gain advantage over your opponents at some future date. Make nice to the other parties until you are in a strong enough position to defeat them.
#3
"If we are weak, others will threaten us.â Abdullah said "
So you want to be strong to dominate the world, no? Weak, is the state you deserve to be in.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra today admitted that strict action against southern insurgents was being put on hold until after the 6 February general election, saying that arresting the militants prior to the election would make the government look as if it were acting out of spite. The prime minister, who this morning convened a meeting on the southern insurgency which brought together the heads of the Southern Border Provinces Peace Building Command and the Royal Thai Army, police and intelligence chiefs, said that he had ordered stricter action on the southern security situation. Speaking of the need for continuing arrests, he said that failure to take quick action could see lower-ranking militants attempt further violence as a way of wresting power from their commanders. But while insisting that the government was monitoring the 90 insurgents on its blacklist, he said that more arrests at the present time would be inappropriate. Any concerted crackdown prior to the general election on 6 February would make the government appear to be acting simply out of political spite, he said. However, he confirmed that one of the 90 blacklisted insurgents was arrested last night on charges of shooting a local teacher.
Posted by: Seafarious ||
01/25/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
From what I've read the Thais are bad-asses when it comes to suppressing terror. If so, and if they're as resolute against the islamofascists as they are against other insurgents, then we should think about stepping up our cooperation with them in hopes of eventually adding another pillar to our emerging alliance with the Responsible Asian Democratic Powers: Japan, Australia, India.
MALAYSIA, which chairs the world's biggest grouping of Muslim countries, has warned that the United States will stand alone in the world if it attacks Iran.
The world community, including allies of the United States, was opposed to any such action by the superpower, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said on his return from a trip to Paris late yesterday.
"Europe does not agree, the United States' close ally Britain does not agree, and I believe no one else will agree," Abdullah, who chairs the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, said.
"The Islamic world will definitely not agree to an attack on Iran," he said.
"Talks should instead be held and made a priority, rather than military action."
US President George W. Bush - who once lumped Iran in an "axis of evil" with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea - said last week he could not rule out using force if Tehran failed to rein in its nuclear plans.
Iran, which denies wishing to acquire a nuclear bomb, in November announced the suspension of its nuclear enrichment programme following protracted talks with Britain, France and Germany.
In mid-December, the three countries again took up talks with Tehran to try to conclude a long-term deal whereby the Iranians would definitively give up any ambitions of producing a nuclear weapon.
#1
Well, I have feeling that Soddies and other Gulf states will be uttering condemnations, but privately the would place big order on candies as they would run out in no time.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/25/2005 22:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
MALAYSIA, which chairs the worldâs biggest grouping of Muslim countries, has warned that the United States will stand alone in the world if it attacks Iran.
That sure simplifies setting up the old command net, doesn't it?
#8
Because The UN is good. I love the UN. The UN should be in charge of all governmental power world wide. Then there would be no wars and everyone would be nice. The UN is better than God. I love Kofi too.
Just make the UN in charge of everything. That would be super cool and make me happy.
#9
I agree with the thoughts of Zhang Fei (#6); The US need not have to invade per se in order to accomplish it's primary objectives of neutralizing the nuclear threat. I would recommend to the president: No boots on the ground (other than CIA, special forces, and or mercenaries)! Hit the 300+ targets, both known and suspected in a first stage wave; wait for reaction and prepare for the second demoralizing hit. Take them back atleast 22 years!
A confidential summary of talks between key European powers and Iran made available to The Associated Press on Tuesday shows there has been no progress in getting Iran to scrap nuclear enrichment - even though Tehran acknowledged it does not need nuclear energy. ... "Iran recognizes explicitly that its fuel cycle program cannot be justified on economic grounds," the document says. Diplomats [...] said the atmosphere between the two sides had improved during the second round held in Geneva on Jan. 17. But they agreed that no progress was being made on the Europeans' insistence that Iran's present temporary suspension of its enrichment programs be turned into a commitment to permanently mothball all such activities...
Backgrounder:
Concerns about Iran grew after revelations in mid-2002 of two secret nuclear facilities - a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water production plant near Arak. That led to a subsequent IAEA investigation of what turned out to be nearly two decades of covert nuclear activities, including suspicious "dual use" experiments that can be linked to weapons programs.
#1
Whatever it takes, Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/25/2005 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Damn it, how did this information get out. Here we were enjoying the Iranian theocracy's dance of seven veils and this article has to surface. Iran has convinced us that they are only going to use nukes for energy consumption, that they have every right to have their own nukes, and that the real problem is the joos nuke and how about the Eqyptians?
#3
And so we might be approaching a crisis in which Europe will impose economic sanctions on Iran.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/25/2005 21:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"The two positions cannot coexist," said one of the diplomats, from a West European nation. "If the impasse cannot be resolved, then there will be no solution," clearing the path for Iran to resume work on activities that will allow it to enrich uranium, he said.
Another diplomat agreed there was no progress on the core issue but expressed hope that common ground could be found in future rounds.
Yea, Petro there IS a solution and I got their FINAL ROUND right here.
Posted by: Duke Nukem ||
01/25/2005 22:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Oooooh, it's official now. Thanks AP, if it wasn't for you guys, we would n-e-v-e-r have known....
#6
And so we might be approaching a crisis in which Europe will impose economic sanctions on Iran
the MS fairy tale continues. The Euros would gladly allow the Iranians nukes were they to committ to long term commercial trade contracts. Whores and traitors to the western world.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/25/2005 22:17 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mike: And so we might be approaching a crisis in which Europe will impose economic sanctions on Iran.
You've forgotten sarc tags.
Noooo, you don't mean that you were serious!?
In that care I want to be on the planet you are on. Dream on.
Debka. Sometimes they'fre awful, sometimes right on. One thing you'fve got to keep in mind is that Debka is apparently a channel for Israeli intelligence to release information (or disinformation).
That same week, DEBKA-Net-Weekly 189 revealed that Russian experts from the Raduga OKB engineering group in Dubna near Moscow had just completed the installation of two advanced radar systems around the Bushehr nuclear reactor on the Persian Gulf. These improved mobile 36D6 systems, Western codenamed Tin Shield, were custom-made to upgrade the air defense radar protecting Iran's key nuclear facilities from American or Israeli aerial, missile or cruise missile attack... However, the fat hit the fire when the Russians were discovered to be building the same system at Iran's uranium enrichment plants for military purposes in Isfahan in central Iran. It was taken to mean that Moscow has undertaken to secure all of Iran's nuclear industry from top to bottom ?Efrom the installation of sophisticated equipment to military planning and operational cooperation - against American or Israeli attack. They go on to list some of the supposed capabilities of the system, and speculate that the Russkies might sell the same radar to Syria, and that the recent hub-bub over the SA-18s might be cover for that.
Posted by: Pete Stanley ||
01/25/2005 1:37:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No real surprises here. Just about every European power sold weapons to the natives during the era of European imperialism. Did not prevent the natives from being conquered, even though many native sovereigns hired European officers to train and command native units armed with these weapons.
#3
hmmm - any of those oh so effective "GPS Jammers" also sold?
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/25/2005 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This time around, let's hope that Russia expert Condi Rice will have the foresight to approach Putin and ask, What's your price?
Russia's military export sector is desperate for cash. If we can wean them off of middle eastern basket-case clients-- who don't provide Russia any real clout in the region, only cash-- with a few billion $$, then it's money well spent.
#6
The only way to counter threats like this, is for the US to tell Russia we could supply the Chechen resistence also; and the US knows this. We have both trump cards and 'Aces In The Hole' on this one!
#7
smn: The only way to counter threats like this, is for the US to tell Russia we could supply the Chechen resistence also; and the US knows this. We have both trump cards and 'Aces In The Hole' on this one!
The Russians will know it's a bluff. Having Muslims carve a nuclear-armed Islamic empire out of Russian soil isn't on the list of American priorities.
#9
Frank: We referred to the GPS Jammers as "HARM beacons." I still understand the thinking that says "Here's a valuable target. Let's put a transmitter on top of it."
#11
Russkies can give and we or the Israelis will take away. Fire 1...
Posted by: Senator Barbara Boxer ||
01/25/2005 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'm sure it's quite easy to reconfigure a Tomahawk warhead to home in on a particular radar signature. Once within a given range, changing the 'signature' does no good - the missile has locked in on the coordinates, requires no further guidance. Done correctly (usually using three missiles, one with HE, another with WP, and a third GP), the antenna is taken out, the area is sprayed with 36,000 half-inch ball bearings at 3200fpm (does nasty things to control vans, generator vans, and human bodies that get in the way), and set afire. The alternative is a tac nuke to take out both the radar and the site it's trying to protect.
The thing to consider is the possibility of combining scramjet technology with other missile technology to attack installations like this. The missile will impact before the radar can identify it. I wonder just how advanced scramjet technology REALLY is...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
01/25/2005 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Bah.... I thought that the lesson of the first gulf war is that ex-soviet weapons (indeed, any weapons other than those built by americans (with certain exceptions)) were worthless. Good for keeping your populace under your iron boot, but not very combat effective. Money spent on them would be better spent on swiss bank accounts for when you have to flee suddenly.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
01/25/2005 18:01 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Thanks Pappy and OP. So in other words, we want the Russians to increase their sales of such things to Iran, so our troops can play a bit longer with their toys, yes? Oh, and does this also apply (given Mark E's comment) to European weapons sales to Red China?
LIBERATED JERUSALEM — The chief of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency said yesterday arch-foe Iran was on the brink of enriching uranium, a process key to building a nuclear bomb. "The assessment is that by the end of 2005 the Iranians will reach the point of no-return from the technological perspective of creating a uranium-enrichment capability," Mossad head Meir Dagan told parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee.
Iran, which says its nuclear programme is for energy needs only, agreed in November to suspend uranium enrichment under a European Union-brokered deal. Israel and the US suspect Iran of buying time while it covertly seeks the bomb. "The Iranians are striving to secure from the Europeans an agreement that would allow them to continue enriching uranium, even on an intensified level, under supervision and with guarantees," Dagan said. "The moment that you have the technology for enrichment, you are home free," he said, adding that from that point it would take Iran around two years to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear power, Israel has hinted it could hit Iran militarily to stop it getting the bomb. An Israeli air strike on the Iraqi reactor at Osiraq in 1981 dealt a severe blow to Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme.
Iran — and any Israeli pre-emption — are core concerns for US President George W. Bush in his second term in office. "If, in fact, the Israelis become convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," US Vice-President Dick Cheney said last week.
But Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres sounded a note of caution, saying the Jewish state should defer to its US ally. "The Iranian issue is an international issue," Peres told Army Radio yesterday. "The party that will decide is the US and not us."
"After you!"
"No, after you!"
"Oh no, I insist, after you!"
"I know! Let's go together!"
"Capital idea! Capital!"
Peres predicted Washington would exhaust diplomatic options for getting Iran to come clean on its nuclear programme, noting that unlike Saddam-era Iraq, the Islamic republic had dispersed its reactors, making a military strike difficult. "We must recognise our limitations," Peres said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/25/2005 12:20:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
i hope mr. oslo perez has recognized his limitations--nice posture of weakness shimon--dreamer
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
01/25/2005 2:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
As I said day before yesterday on the missile-defense thread, I strongly suspect that some of Israel's Arrow interceptors have nuclear warheads. This is the best way to be sure that an oncoming ballistic missile is killed dead rather than just damaged or knocked off course.
This raises a sticky political problem: Any ballistic missile coming from Iran must be assumed to have a nuclear warhead. It may not have, but it will too late by the time this is definitely determined, most likely by a rising mushroom cloud.
Hence the nuclear Arrow would have to be launched without definite knowledge that the target was also a nuke, which would be "first-use" and therefore condemned by the global moonbat-appeasement community. The PM would have about 60 seconds to decide, and he would have to get it right.
Personally, I would give the "go" signal and tell the "international community" to get stuffed.
#3
" Peres told Army Radio yesterday. âThe party that will decide is the US and not us.â
I know Iran is our problem also but come on .....
This is literaly in Isreals backyard.
I expect a little stronger stance than this from Peres. Isreal is playing a trump card right now.
It has worked in Iraq, now they are hoping the Mullahs are next. Isreal knows the U.S. does not want them in any " large " conflict anywhere in the Region in fear of a major escalation of the conflict. Isreal is watching with a careful eye hoping American blood will eliminate their enemys.
#4
AC - If faced with that decision, then it seems prudent for Israel to go ahead and launch their own counter strike nuclear missiles at Iran. Why leave them sitting on the ground if Iran is firing nukes themselves (and like you pointed out, you pretty much have to assume that they are).
Israel needs to make it know to Iran, and the rest of the barbarians around them, that if anybody launches a missile at Israel, then Israel will assume that's its a nuke and will let fly.
Leaves the decision on whether or not to get nuked entirely up to the Iranians and anybody else looking for trouble.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
01/25/2005 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
AC the old Nike Hercules systems employed both conventional and nuke warheads for air defense. The intent was to blow down of mass bomber formations. The US had no problem with employing the setup in case its security was threatened in the late 50s through the 70s. Just hope the Israelis have EMP hardened their defense grid beyond the first shot.
Posted by: Don ||
01/25/2005 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
#6
AC---from my reading, IIRC, the USSR made an antimissile defence using nuclear tipped missiles. Kinda made up for the lack of advanced technology that a true missile interceptor would need, witness our system now.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/25/2005 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
It's Shimon Peres from the Labour Party, guys. He doesn't speak for the government of Israel, and may well not even be privy to the decision making. Note Dick Cheney's comment -- if Israel is deferring to America's decision, that has already been made, and made public.
TEHRAN: Iran may allow UN inspectors to re-enter a military base where Washington says tests linked to a covert atomic weapons programme could have taken place, said a senior Iranian official on Monday. Earlier this month, after a prolonged delay, Iran allowed a team from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to acquire environmental samples from the Parchin military base southeast of Tehran. However, IAEA inspectors did not obtain complete access to their desired site and would like to return to take additional samples, say diplomats in Vienna. Asked whether the inspectors would be allowed back into Parchin, Hossein Mousavian, one of Iran's chief nuclear negotiators, said: "I cannot rule that out."
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We'll let you know when it is sanitized enough ready for inspection.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/25/2005 0:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
You can tell when our intelligence is out-of-date or just plain wrong when they decide to let us in to look around.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
01/25/2005 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
Russian President Vladimir Putin has promised Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that he will not sign a contract to sell SA-18 surface-to-air missiles to Syria, according to an Israeli daily. The reported promise, said to have been made in a phone call by Putin on Thursday, came on the day that Syrian President Bashar al-Asad begins a four-day official visit to Russia.
The Haaretz newspaper said Sharon had explained to the Russian leader that the weapons, also called Igla missiles, risked falling into the hands of Hizb Allah, which is opposed to Israeli occupation. Hizb Allah was successful in driving Israeli forces out of occupied southern Lebanon in May 2000. Sharon's office had said on Thursday that the Putin-Sharon phone call centred on the situation in the Middle East, the unilateral Israeli plan of disengagement from the Gaza Strip, relations with Syria and Hizb Allah and their implications, and the recent election of Mahmud Abbas as Palestinian president.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
this is bullshit--they are still going to sell the alawites vehicle mounted "iglas"--i'm so sure israel feel secure
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
01/25/2005 2:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Just a few days ago the Russians were saying
What arms deal ? There is no arms deal. today they are saying We will not go thru with the deal.
What will they be saying tommorow ?
Congrads Mr. Asad, your really gonna like this new SA-18.
#3
The only way to counter threats like this, is for the US to tell Russia we could supply the Chechen resistence also; and the US knows this. We have both trump cards and 'Aces In The Hole' on this one!
#4
But also apply a carrot, for Russia's desperate arms export and nuclear sectors, in the form of cash. Increase spending on the Nunn-Lugar antiproliferation program with Russia as well. Putin's Russia is not Iran. They can still make rational calculations, even though Putin's recent record's been abysmal.
Authorities will arrest prominent politician Ahmad Chalabi after the current Islamic religious holiday for allegedly defaming the Defense Ministry, the defense minister said Friday. Legal proceedings against Chalabi are to begin after the Eid al-Adha holiday ends Sunday, Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan said. Shaalan's statement followed allegations by Chalabi that the defense minister shifted $500 million from the ministry. That has led to charges and countercharges by the two Shiite politicians, who are running for parliament on separate tickets in the Jan. 30 national elections. "We will arrest him and turn him over to the Interpol," Shaalan told Al-Jazeera television. "We will arrest him based on facts. He wanted to tarnish the image of the Defense Ministry. ... He wanted to tarnish the reputation of the defense minister because he is frank and clear. One of those who want to commit crimes against the Iraqi people is Ahmad Chalabi."
Chalabi could not be reached for comment. Last year, a judge issued a warrant for Chalabi's arrest for allegedly counterfeiting money but the charges were dropped. Al-Jazeera quoted Shaalan as saying Chalabi would be turned over to Interpol because of his 1992 conviction in absentia by a Jordanian court for embezzling funds from a Jordanian bank, which collapsed in 1989. Chalabi, who founded the bank, has denied any wrongdoing and says the charges were fabricated because of his opposition to ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. I guess they're still working out how this running for office thing works. Actually, its kinda cute!
The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) on Tuesday submitted an adjournment motion with the National Assembly Secretariat demanding a debate on recent statements by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that Pakistan was providing the US information about the activities of nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. "In her statement she also said that US could control Pakistan's nuclear programme," in case the government of General Pervez Musharraf were replaced by one headed by extremists, the motion said.
The motion said that General (r) Jehangir Karamat, former chief of army staff and now Pakistan's ambassador to the US, had admitted that Pakistan had given the US all the required information about Khan. "And in response to this, the US authorities asked for more information and that was also provided," it said. The motion said that Pakistanis wanted to know how the US would be able to "control" Pakistan's nuclear programme. It demanded that the government unveil all the steps taken by the US to keep Khan restricted. The motion was submitted with the signatures of 14 members of the National Assembly of the MMA.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 9:08:44 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
For a while now I've assumed that we have control of Pakistan's nuke capabilities. This seems to back up my claim a little.
Beginning today, big-name anchormen will report live from Baghdad and beyond — a full six days before the elections, scheduled for Sunday. "We want to tell the story of democracy in action," said John Stack, vice president of news gathering for the Fox News Channel.
The list:
Fox:Shepard Smith, four correspondents in Baghdad and Tikrit. CBS:Dan Rather (to "patrol" with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit) ABC:Peter Jennings, Iraqi reporters in 37 towns, a joint project with Time magazine and BBC CNN: anchorman Anderson Cooper, Christiane Amanpour, Nic Robertson, Jane Arraf, coverage from polling sites in Iraq, locations in Syria, Jordan, and Dearborn, MI — an urban stronghold of Iraqi-Americans NBC: Brian Williams, other details to be announced later
and locally The Iraqi Media Network (IMN) — which includes 24-hour Al Iraqiya TV and a radio station — has been upgraded to broadcast in Baghdad and 30 other locations. Thanks to new printing equipment, the network's nationally distributed newspaper Al Sabah is now printing 350,000 daily copies — up from 60,000 last year. The project was funded "solely by the Iraqi government," said Howard Lance of Harris Corp., a Florida-based media production consultant that received a $22 million contract to upgrade IMN facilities.
#4
But don't blame the Marines if Rather gets killed.
In fact, we should tell the insurgents that the American people would rise up in revolt against Bush if the Anchors whom they idolize were harmed in any way.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/25/2005 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I hope the marines use Dan Rather to 'leak' bad intel to the terrorists.
And yes, I think Dan would 'leak' intel to the terrorists in order to get americans killed and get a good 'story'.
#6
Certainly no one believes that the Marines would do anything but their complete and utter most to insure the safety such as Dan Rather . . . although, I am reminded of a joke about Dan, Hillary and a Marine being taken prisoner . . . maybe they could use him for sniper bait?
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
01/25/2005 21:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Really, they are all going in search of a bloodbath. Ghouls...
Immigration-control activists announced a bill to crack down on benefits available to illegal aliens in Arkansas, the first in what is expected to be a wave of initiatives and bills following the success of a similar proposition in Arizona in November's election.
Arkansas state Sen. Jim Holt yesterday said he will sponsor a bill in the legislature this year to deny benefits and inhibit the ability of illegal immigrants to register and vote. And state resident Joe McCutchen promised to lead a grass-roots effort to support the bill.
Mr. McCutchen said he thinks it's up to citizens to take action on illegal immigration. "If our republic's to be saved, we'd better," he said. "It's obvious the president has no intention to secure the borders, and I think this is by design. I think they're dedicated to destroying the sovereignty and heritage and culture of this nation for their own purpose, whatever that may be." Mr. McCutchen's group, Protect Arkansas Now, is following the lead of Kathy McKee, the woman who described herself as a Quaker Sunday School teacher and led Protect Arizona Now, the group that put Proposition 200 on last year's ballot.
Proposition 200 forces those registering to vote to prove their citizenship, those showing up to vote to provide identification, and denies some state benefits to illegal aliens. It passed with 56 percent of the vote, despite opposition from the majority of the state's congressional delegation, many state officials and a host of immigrant advocacy groups.
Ms. McKee recently announced that Protect Arizona Now has become Protect America Now, and will try to foster similar initiatives or state statutes throughout the nation. "Hopefully, others can learn from our success and not try to re-invent the wheel," she said.
Ms. McKee said her goal is to avoid becoming like some of the national lobbying groups on immigration. "Over the past decade, entirely too much money has gone away from local efforts -- going instead to Washington groups with huge overheads -- for there to be meaningful success combating illegal immigration," she said. "Goodness knows, Protect Arizona Now's Prop. 200 has been one of the two to three significant successes with this issue the past two decades; while I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a single major success that has come from the Beltway fund-raisers."
In the midst of the Arizona effort, her group clashed with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national lobby, over which group should be leading the petition drive. The two groups since have disagreed over the scope of the ban on benefits.
Virginia Deane Abernathy, chairwoman of the National Advisory Board of Protect America Now, said there are efforts in states other than Arkansas. She would not say where else the group may be active, but Colorado is considered a prime opportunity. She said 23 states allow citizen initiatives, including Arkansas, but the group decided to go ahead with a bill rather than an initiative in Arkansas because it takes less money and grass-roots manpower, she said.
California pioneered a crackdown on benefits to illegal aliens with the passage of Proposition 187 in 1994. But federal courts ruled it unconstitutional, and state officials did not appeal the decision.
Both the new national and Arkansas efforts are bound to run into opposition from immigrant and civil rights groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), which sued to try to stop the Arizona initiative. MALDEF lost in federal district court and now is appealing to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to block the benefits provisions. It also has asked the Justice Department not to approve the voter identification measures, arguing that the provisions are discriminatory, since Hispanics and other minorities are less likely to have the required identification.
Araceli Soledad Perez, a staff attorney at MALDEF, had not seen the Arkansas bill but said the same objections hold true for any state statute or initiative. "Immigration is exclusively the province of the federal government, and that's been our position all along, and that's been the crux of our appeal in the 9th Circuit," she said.
Miss Perez said the move to go state by state is not the right approach. "I think what voters and states need to do is, if they think there are immigration problems and they want immigration reform, they need to lobby their congressmen for nationwide immigration reform," she said. "States are not the channel to change immigration law."
But Mr. McCutchen said President Bush has failed citizens. "I've heard him say 'secure the Iraqi borders,' but in four years I've never heard the man say one time 'secure the U.S. borders' " Mr. McCutchen said. Mr. McCutchen said his freedom of information requests to Arkansas state officials to try to determine the costs of illegal immigration have been turned down, with state officials saying they do not have the data.
#1
I hold the darkest suspicions about this taking place in Arkansas. First of all, for many years, Arkansas struggled to do anything it could to keep their (African-American) poor, poor, so they would have very cheap labor for their rice plantations. Many of these laws still exist. Second, almost every illegal immigrant in the State is employed by one corporation, Tyson Foods, so many that hispanics are the majority in one rural county. Tyson, for its part, had a widely distributed executive memo a few years ago, a "price list" of the bribes to be paid to every State employee from the governor down. So pardon me if I am distrustful of their claim that illegals are draining their State coffers. I think they would pass a law making them officially slaves if they thought they could get away with it.
#2
I see your point 'Moose, but your concerns are something that needs to be monitored. That said, it is important that people obey the law. President Bush should be pushing this, but he is not and I am angry and disappointed about it. Back to the old adage,
When the People Lead, the Leaders will Follow
The politicians and the LLL judges have sold their souls, so it is up to the people to save our republic.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/25/2005 23:50 Comments ||
Top||
I wonder where they got the idea for some of this????
A friend of CQ forwarded an e-mail from a family member serving in Iraq and working on the elections slated for Sunday. In his e-mail, he alerted his friends and family to these instructions on the Arabic forum "Lion's Den" frequented by terrorists and their sympathizers, giving instructions on how to disrupt polling on January 30. None of the following is terribly surprising, but it shows how sophisticated and detailed their plans have become.
"Mudad Iluj" instructed the Iraqi dead-enders last January 1 on specific tasks to wreak havoc:...
**SNIP**
This missive makes clear that the bombings are just a prelude, a softening of the opposition, in advance of the main attempt to dismantle the elections. In the next two or three days, we need to watch for the following:
1. Sudden withdrawals of large numbers of candidates from the elections just before the ballots go out to the polling stations
2. Ballots stolen before and after the election in large quantities
3. Mainstream media stories showing stolen ballots
4. Of course, all-day attacks on polling stations.
We're just five days away from Election Day, and from this message, it looks as if we can expect these operations to begin as early as tomorrow or Thurday. Forewarned, however, is forearmed.
WITH American military casualties climbing, the US Army is preparing to send 18 remote-controlled robotic warriors to fight in Iraq in March or April. Made by a small Massachusetts company, the SWORDS, short for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, will be the first armed robotic vehicles to see combat, years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp. Military officials like to compare the roughly metre-high robots favourably to human soldiers: They don't need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle.
But officials are quick to point out that these are not the autonomous killer robots of science fiction. A SWORDS robot shoots only when its human operator presses a button after identifying a target on video shot by the robot's cameras. "The only difference is that his weapon is not at his shoulder, it's up to half a mile a way," Foster-Miller Inc general manager of Talon robots Bob Quinn said. As one marine fresh out of boot camp said after seeing the robot: "This is my invisibility cloak."
Mr Quinn said it was a "bootstrap development process" to convert a Talon robot, which has been in military service since 2000, from its main mission — defusing roadside bombs in Iraq — into the gunslinging SWORDS. It was a joint development process between the army and Foster-Miller. Working with soldiers and engineers at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, it took just six months and only about $US2 million ($2.6 million) in development money to outfit a Talon with weapons, according to Mr Quinn and Picatinny technology manager Anthony Sebasto. The Talon had already proven itself to be pretty rugged. One was blown from the roof of a Humvee and into a nearby river by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Soldiers simply opened its shrapnel-pocked control unit and drove the robot out of the river, Mr Quinn said.
Its developers say its tracks, like those on a tank, can overcome rock piles and barbed wire, though it needs a ride to travel faster than 7km/h. Running on lithium ion batteries, it can operate for one to four hours at a time, depending on the mission. Operators work the robot using a control unit which has two joysticks, a handful of buttons and a video screen. Mr Quinn says that may eventually be replaced by a "Game Boy" type of controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles. The army has been testing it over the past year at Picatinny and the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland to ensure it won't malfunction and can stand up to radio jammers and other countermeasures.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
01/25/2005 3:12:58 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Mike ||
01/25/2005 16:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The reason that it only took a few months to put the weapon payload onto the TALON is because my company already had that system (the one in the middle...the other two demo only). With the M-240 on the SWORDS, it is one bad piece of kit. Now you understand my handle.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
01/25/2005 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Works on a standard tripod or on top of vehicles too. We even have units in housings for permanent fafcility security. Easy to operate and super accurate. I love my job.
Posted by: Johnny 5 ||
01/25/2005 17:00 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"WITH American military casualties climbing...."
Whenever I read things like this, I find it rather difficult to keep myself reading further. Does the number of casualties ever go down? Lazy writers and obvious spin.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
01/25/2005 17:39 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Does the number of casualties ever go down?
Well, if there's a necromancer involved. But not in the real world.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
01/25/2005 17:46 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Remote kontrolled veapons vere a German specialty in my day!
Thanks for what you're doing -- putting a bit of the fear of God into our adversaries. Please pass on our best regards and deepest gratitude to your buddies.
#18
TA: They are rather quiet since they are electric. RC: They deal with steps pretty well from what I've seen. Cingold, much appreciated. I know that I would not want to see one of these coming down an alley my way.
The violent Islamic Hamas is prepared to suspend attacks if Israel stops targeting militants and agrees to release thousands of Palestinian prisoners, the top Hamas leader told Ariel SharonColin PowellKofi Annan The Associated Press on Tuesday. The apparent softening [?] of Hamas' position raised hopes that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas would be allowed to live soon reach a formal cease-fire with militant groups that would pave the way for a new round of peace talks with Israel. Speaking to The Associated Press by cellular phone from an undisclosed location, Mashaal said success of the truce effort depends on Israel.
"Cos us Hamas gunnies, we can't control ourselfs. The jinns just take OVER, know what I mean?"
"This is a moment of test," Mashaal said. "It puts the responsibility on the international community and the United States to force Israel to recognize the Palestinian rights. If the Zionist enemy abides by certain conditions, such as releasing all prisoners and detainees and halting all acts of killing, assassination and aggression against our people inside and outside (the Palestinian territories), the general national position of all Palestinian factions has become that they are ready to positively deal with the idea of a temporary truce," Mashaal said.
"At least until we get our best hard boyz back from jug and properly armed," The Associated Press forgot to report.
Abbas has been in contact with militant groups in recent days to try to win broad agreement to a cease-fire. But Mashaal warned Hamas would respond to any Israeli attacks.
"Especially if you helizap me. Don't even think about it."
Lower-level Hamas leaders have talked in recent days of accepting a temporary truce, but Tuesday was the first time Mashaal had publicly given his approval. A senior Hamas leader in the West Bank has said the group has agreed to suspend mostsomea few attacks for 30 days to test Israel's response.
#3
although Hamas is putting impossible terms on their truce this is still a public relations disaster and lose of face for them because their recruiters and leaders had promised over and over and over again never to call a truce
#4
I am going to give credit where credit is due. I think the deployment of the police along the Gaza border is the single most significant step towards peace since the Egypt peace treaty. I think Hamas is will find it difficult not only to recruit but also to cross the border (most of them come from Gaza). Call me cautiously optimistic. Hamas see that peace is coming and they have a choice to join, start a civil war, or just be left out of the power base with the Paleos.
#9
Hamas is a gang, nothing more. They are not going to stop attacking Israel or being tough guys to other Paleos because to do so negates the purpose of their existance. What, they disband and become regular old criminals? Not likely. Nothing will happen until the PA and the IDF put these guys into a squeeze they can never get out of.
I'm so suprised. Iraq's always been such a gentle land, with no tradition of police brutality...
Mohammed Khalaf al-Jumaily, a judge in west Baghdad's major crimes court, says he regularly sees suspects hauled before his bench who have been clearly badly beaten. "Sometimes they cannot even stand up," he said. "I often order them to be sent to hospital to treat their broken bones." However, he says, the suspects will not admit to having been tortured, for fear that the police will take them back to the cells and do worse. "They never complain to us, and if they do not complain then I can do nothing to help them."
Presumably, he'd be helping them after they were taken back to the cells and thoroughly re-thumped...
The Iraqi police's use of torture against criminal and insurgent suspects is an open secret in Baghdad's criminal justice system.
But don't tell nobody, okay?
In a report issued on Tuesday, the US-based Human Rights Watch accused Iraqi security forces of committing systematic torture against detainees.
Such things never took place under Saddam Hussein...
However, many police and others involved in the system think that torture is justified, given that the rule of law has virtually collapsed, and guerrillas and criminal gangs are often better armed than the police. "I can't condemn the officers who practise torture," said Alaa Hamed, a guard in the major crimes court. "Crime is very widespread, and the criminals are very professional."
... and what justice does get meted out is very unofficial...
Baghdad's policemen regularly complain that they do not have the equipment to fight criminal gangs, and that they are afraid to make arrests for fear that the suspect's families will target them for retribution. Court officials say that most victims appear to have been picked up during massive sweeps of high crime districts or insurgent strongholds, and the torture appears to be a way of deterring any retribution.
I guess it's hard to take Dire Revenge on the coppers when both your arms are broken.I suppose you could ask Cousin Mahmoud to do it, but he's waiting for kneecap replacement...
One judge who refused to disclose his name said he tried to let off lightly insurgents who had targeted Americans — they needed to be coached to prevent them from boasting about their exploits. However, if the suspect had targeted a policeman or other Iraqi official, he would not be brought to trial but beaten, thrown in a cell, and forgotten.
It's an old Iraqi tradition...
Some of the abuses appear to have sectarian roots. During the Shia rebellions in the poor Baghdad suburb of Sadr City, many residents complained of abuses by the capital's largely Sunni police force. Residents of Sunni areas also often complain of ill-treatment at the hands of Shia recruits to the National Guard. Sometimes security forces have even been observed to come to blows over the issue. Last summer, an FT correspondent witnessed about two dozen National Guardsmen, mostly recent recruits, brawl with a roughly equal number of police, mostly veterans of the Saddam Hussein era, in an attempt to stop them from beating up a taxi driver who had insulted an officer. The police managed to retain control of the taxi driver, whom they took back to the station, slapped around and then let go.
I don't think anyone's particularly surprised by this, not even HRW. The roots of the current crop of police are in the same soil that sprouted Saddam. Things weren't sweetness and light before him, either. The important thing, at this point, is that it's not policy. Hypocrisy has its uses, and one of them is dealing with a real problem — a surfeit of thugs — using methods that you publicly disapprove of. As time goes by and things get better, the thumpings can dwindle away to next to nothing as the coppers take on the aspect of Officer Friendly. At the moment they're at war, literally, with the Bad Guyz of all stripes.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 1:03:23 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh man do I feel sorry for those poor terrorists
I don't think anyone's particularly surprised by this, not even HRW.
This is just too funny. When U.S. personnel engage in something that can only be called "torture" by really stretching the definition, HRW and their ilk squeal loud and long. When something much, much closer to torture is engaged in by non-Americans, the reaction is rather underwhelming.
#3
This is just too funny. When U.S. personnel engage in something that can only be called "torture" by really stretching the definition, HRW and their ilk squeal loud and long. When something much, much closer to torture is engaged in by non-Americans, the reaction is rather underwhelming.
The lefts all over this. At another site I visit, its "evil Allawi, another Saddam, this is just like Viet Nam, yadda, yadda"
#7
Re #2 (Bomb-a-rama): When U.S. personnel engage in something that can only be called "torture" by really stretching the definition, HRW and their ilk squeal loud and long. When something much, much closer to torture is engaged in by non-Americans, the reaction is rather underwhelming.
The posted article says that "Human Rights Watch accused Iraqi security forces of committing systematic torture against detainees."
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/25/2005 22:01 Comments ||
Top||
A computer that learns to play a 'scissors, paper, stone' by observing and mimicking human players could lead to machines that automatically learn how to spot an intruder or perform vital maintenance work, say UK researchers.
CogVis, developed by scientists at the University of Leeds in Yorkshire, UK, teaches itself how to play the children's game by searching for patterns in video and audio of human players and then building its own "hypotheses" about the game's rules.
In contrast to older artificial intelligence (AI) programs that mimic human behaviour using hard-coded rules, CogVis takes a more human approach, learning through observation and mimicry, the researchers say.
The older approach is fraught with problems, as computers struggle when faced with situations that fall outside the remit of these rules and when new rules are introduced.
Participate and learn
"A system that can observe events in an unknown scenario, learn and participate just as a child would is almost the Holy Grail of AI," says Derek Magee from the University of Leeds. "We may not have solved this challenge quite yet, but we think we've made a small dent."
The system was demonstrated at an event sponsored by the British Computer Society in Cambridge, UK, in December 2004. It went on to win the society's Prize for Progress Towards Machine Intelligence.
CogVis observed human volunteers playing a version of the game using cards marked with a pair of scissors, a piece of paper, or a stone. They were also told to announce when they had won or when the game was a draw. After watching for several rounds, CogVis was able to call the outcome of each game correctly.
Inductive logic
Chris Needham, another member of the CogVis team, says the system's visual processor analyses the action by separating periods of movement and inactivity and then extracting features based on colour and texture. Combining this with audio input, the system develops hypotheses about the game's rules using an approach known as inductive logic programming.
"It was very impressive," says Max Bramer, a researcher at Portsmouth University, UK, and chair of the British Computer Society's AI group. He told New Scientist that CogVis could have many future applications. "You can think of lots of times when you'd like to be able to point a camera at something and have a computer interpret things for itself."
He suggests that machine's could one day use this technique to learn how to spot an intruder on video footage or how to control a robot for important maintenance work. "It's a very good start, and almost mysterious in the way it works," Bramer adds.
Stephen Muggleton, an AI expert at Imperial College London, UK, says CogVis combines several strands of AI research, from vision analysis to logic programming. "The result is an explicit plan-oriented theory, learned directly from visual and auditory perception," he told New Scientist.
But Muggleton says a key challenge will be to push the system to learn more difficult things. "It would be interesting to see if this approach will scale up to more complex games such as noughts-and-crosses or even beginner-level draughts," he adds.
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
01/25/2005 11:28:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't see a problem, Dave.
Posted by: Hal ||
01/25/2005 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm very leery of AI.
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
01/25/2005 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
The debate on Iraq is taking a new turn. The Iraqi elections scheduled for Jan. 30, only recently viewed as a culmination, are described as inaugurating a civil war. The timing and the voting arrangements have become controversial. All this is a way of foreshadowing a demand for an exit strategy, by which many critics mean some sort of explicit time limit on the U.S. effort. We reject this counsel. The implications of the term "exit strategy" must be clearly understood; there can be no fudging of consequences. The essential prerequisite for an acceptable exit strategy is a sustainable outcome, not an arbitrary time limit. For the outcome in Iraq will shape the next decade of American foreign policy. A debacle would usher in a series of convulsions in the region as radicals and fundamentalists moved for dominance, with the wind seemingly at their backs. Wherever there are significant Muslim populations, radical elements would be emboldened. As the rest of the world related to this reality, its sense of direction would be impaired by the demonstration of American confusion in Iraq. A precipitate American withdrawal would be almost certain to cause a civil war that would dwarf Yugoslavia's, and it would be compounded as neighbors escalated their current involvement into full-scale intervention.
Posted by: Senator Barbara Boxer ||
01/25/2005 10:01:38 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I want the exit strategy for Germany, first troops in 1945. First in, first out.
#2
"Exit strategy" is generally a useless/dangerous concept, except as applied to very minor military interventions, or to most humanitarian assistance operations.
#3
Watch for NPR and Gail Collins of the NYT to distort Kissinger's advice as she did in the runup to the war. Kissinger said explicitly, with a few caveats, in a WaPo editorial that he supported the war, and the next day NPR, Collins and Howell Raines spun his caveats as "Leading Republicans Oppose Iraq War."
#4
Let's see - Kissinger was responsible for the disastrous withdrawal from Vietnam and Shultz was responsible for the other disastrous withdrawal from Lebanon. Vietnam and Lebanon made Uncle Sam's name synonymous with weakness, failure and defeat. And now they presume to lecture us about another disastrous withdrawal? I guess they would be qualified - they appear to know a thing or two about disastrous withdrawals.
#5
Actually, ZF, I think everyone's well aware of Kissinger and Schultz's disastrous record, which is why IMO these two are trying to atone for their failures by contributing something sane and reasonable to the debate. Specifically by administering a pre-emptive bitch-slap to Scowcroft, Zbiggy, Baker and their pseudo-realpolitiker groupies in Congress, the NYT and WaPo.
#6
The proper exit strategy in war is always victory.
Posted by: Gen. Karl Phillip Gottlieb von Clausewitz ||
01/25/2005 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Let's see - Kissinger was responsible for the disastrous withdrawal from Vietnam...
ZF, didn't the failure of Congress to fund Vietnamisation of the war also have something to do with it? Not being ornery, just not sure he was wholly responsible.
#8
Direct hit, Pappy, it was Congressional whimpery that resulted in our pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. Killng untold numbers of our friends and allies in South Vietnam in the process.
Some things about Congressional Dummycrats never change, just ask me. -- Calif BB
Posted by: Senator Barbara Boxer ||
01/25/2005 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Actually there *is* an "exit strategy", but it is a strange one. Compare it to the "exit strategy" of the US Army leaving Germany at the end of WWII. They didn't but they did. Iraq is no longer the issue for the US military, any more than Germany was at the end of WWII. In Germany, not all, but many of the rifles turned east, to the new enemy. In Iraq, it will be the same situation, except the remaining rifles will be pointed towards Syria, Iran, Central Asia, or Northern Africa, wherever necessary. The new "Iraq Regional Commander" is a regional command (3 star), equal to CENTCOM in stature, but separate from the "Iraq National Commander" (2 star), who will report to him. Divisions will be semi-permanently garrisoned in Iraq with a Status of Forces agreement, much like they are in Germany. So all told, the "exit strategy" is a rotation policy.
#10
There is no exit strategy, nor should there be. Setting a timetable for withdrawal would be a recipe for disaster for Iraq. It would also defeat perhaps the main purpose of the war, which was to establish a base to fight from in the heart of the Middle East. Unless something awful happens, there will be Americans in Iraq for the rest of the century.
Posted by: Van Helsing ||
01/25/2005 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Exit strategy? Exit strategy? First victory, then we'll see.
You are slightly too pessimistic. I suspect the "winds of liberty" will blow stong throughout the Middle East. That should allow us to reduce our time in Iraq to 25 years or so, NOT a century.
January 25, 2005: The U.S. Army Special Forces has been meeting its recruiting goals, bringing in 1,628 new men last year. The Special Forces recruits from troops already in the army, and has found that the growing number of combat experienced soldiers has made recruiting easier. Since the 1980s, most potential recruits did not have any combat experience. While many troops were exposed to combat during the 1991 Gulf War, that one lasted only four days. Iraq and Afghanistan are giving many more troops a lot more time under fire, and convinced a lot of them that they really do want to take it up a notch, and join the Special Forces. This provides better prepared, both in terms of skills and expectations, recruits for the 2-3 years of intense training required to become a Special Forces operator. The Special Forces are highly selective, and members are highly trained. Having seen this in action themselves, many combat soldiers are inspired to see if they can reach that level of professionalism. The troops also realize that the Special Forces have a lower casualty rate than regular combat units. This has been a hallmark of elite combat units for centuries. Serving in the Special Forces also means faster promotions, and more money.
Special Forces recruiters have taken advantage of this trend by visiting units that have just returned from duty in a combat zone. With the experience of combat fresh in their minds, the troops can more realistically consider the Special Forces recruiters pitch. Many troops have encountered, or even worked with Special Forces in combat zones, and that has proved to be a major help for the recruiters. For the Special Forces, getting combat veterans is a big plus. These recruits are more easily trained, and get up to speed, with veteran Special Forces operators, more quickly.
Posted by: Steve ||
01/25/2005 11:19:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Article: The troops also realize that the Special Forces have a lower casualty rate than regular combat units.
This is one of the reasons the Army has a stormy relationship with the Special Forces. Commanders don't like having their best men poached. Every combat unit relies on its best people to lead the way. Having these men lured away decreases the effectiveness of the combat units.
#2
But without having the best men poached away, the SF goes downhill. You have to be a vampire that sucks its own blood . . . unit commanders simply have to concentrate on making their soldiers the best and congratulate those that get chosen to go on up the chain into the SF community.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
01/25/2005 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This problem isn't unique to the military. Any large organization that trains its cadres internally will face the "train the best, keep the rest" syndrome. Internal competition for prized positions is normal and healthy, as is turnover of 5-10% in any given year for any competitive private sector organization.
#4
This needs updating. SOCOM is no longer limited to recruiting solely from the active duty ranks. They discovered that there are a lot of talented individuals out there who want to do such things, but are turned off by a regular military lifestyle. Please also note that with a 2-3 year prep time, a lot of new blood is going to be coming on line soon, radically enlarging the forces.
#5
Moose, a lot of those 'freelancers' are ex-military types and go into that work BECAUSE they like working with and on the fringe of the Military. If I were a 11B I would transfer over to Special Ops simply because of the better training and duty. They don't do much security or convoy details and that is where most of the casualties are coming from. Plus there is a ceratin amount of satisfaction of going on the offensive and not standing around being a target.
Hamas is ready to accept a temporary truce with Israel provided the Israelis halt their targeted killings and release Palestinian prisoners, Hamas leader in Beirut Khaled Mashaal said in remarks published Tuesday. In an interview with the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat, Mashaal said that recent meetings between Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian factions had produced "positive results." The talks had focused on their halting attacks on Israel to pave the way for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to resume. "There is a talk about pacification," Mashaal said, referring to a truce. "But it is a conditional pacification whereby the (Israeli) occupation must abide by specific conditions. The most important of which is the cessation of all kinds of aggression, invasion, assassination, killings and the release of all Palestinian prisoners."
"If the (Israeli) enemy abides by these conditions, we, in Hamas, and other resistance forces in general, are ready to deal positively with the issue of pacification or temporary truce," Mashaal told the London-based newspaper, which did not say when and where the interview was conducted.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 10:26:38 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hamas is ready to accept a temporary truce with Israel provided the Israelis halt their targeted killings and release Palestinian prisoners,..
Uhh, NO.
"If the (Israeli) enemy abides by these conditions,..
This is all that needs to be said. Keep on killing those Hamas members, guys.
'BA'AD!" This is what one is likely to hear whenever talking to Iraqis these days. It's short for the phrase ba'ad al-intikhabat — "after the elections."
Weddings are being postponed until after Election Day, as are business contracts, poetry recitals, play openings, the start of the soccer season and, of course, the rebuilding of towns and villages wrecked by months of insurgency. Also on hold are big projects financed by the $18 billion U.S. aid package and the $6 billion-plus pledged by Europe, Japan and the Arab states.
Never have so many people pinned so much hope on a single day of voting.
Jan. 30 is to give Iraq its first freely elected Parliament, plus provincial and regional councils. It will not only set the course for 25 million Iraqis but could also determine a new balance of power in the Middle East and the United States' status as a "superpower" capable of reshaping the regional status quo.
The interim government's determination to hold the election is matched by the equally firm insurgent/terrorist resolve to disrupt the voting. In parts of Baghdad and several towns in the so-called Sunni Triangle, northwest of the capital, a slogan has appeared on some walls: Min Al-Sanduq il Al-sanduq! — "From the ballot box into the coffin."
The 160,000 or so U.S. and Coalition troops represent a small force in a country the size of France with some 18,000 villages and almost 300 towns and cities. Over a year of effort to create a new Iraqi army and police has not produced the desired results. On paper, the interim government employs almost 200,000 soldiers and policemen. But Iraqi officials admit in private that no more than three battalions are reliable.
Yet despite almost daily terrorist attacks, most Iraqis appear determined that the election should take place. Almost 75 percent of those eligible have registered to vote.
Campaigning is most intense in the Shiite and Kurdish areas — where the insurgents, despite a number of spectacular attacks, have failed to make an impression. Meetings are held in mosques, schools, village halls and the homes of the candidates where would-be voters are often treated to free meals. In parts of southern Iraq, big tribal tents double as town halls for the election.
Much of the debate takes place through talk on the 50 or so privately owned radio stations, especially in and around Baghdad, and in the columns of the 200 or so newspapers and magazines that have sprung up since liberation.
"We know that there are criminals determined to blow us up," says Abdul-Hussein Hindawi, head of the independent Electoral Commission. "But we cannot allow fear to shape our future. Iraqis know that they must take risks to build a free society."
Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the primus inter pares of the Shiite clergy, has issued a fatwa (edict), urging everyone to vote. "Taking part in the elections and building a democratic system are religious duties," he asserts. Sistani has endorsed a candidate list in the race but insists that the clergy must not seek a direct role in the government.
The election, based on proportional representation, treats Iraq as a single constituency. This may lead to a hung Parliament in which the three Shiite lists would represent the largest bloc but be unable to form a majority without some Kurdish and Sunni support.
Most participants have already approved a draft constitution designed to turn Iraq into a democratic, pluralist and federal state. They have also agreed that at least 25 percent of the seats should go to women. But there are divisions over other issues, including the role of the state in the economy, the sharing of oil revenues and water resources, the future of the city of Kirkuk (claimed by both Arabs and Kurds) and the relationship between secular legislation and Islamic Shariah (theological law.)
Those issues intensely interest a majority of Iraqis, hence the current view that the turnout will be even larger than the insurgents fear. "I am hungry to vote," says Ghazban Fayyad, owner of a bookstall in downtown Baghdad. "All I hope is that I am not blown up before I cast my ballot."
Iraq today is the scene of several inter-related conflicts, each of which could kill hopes of stabilization let alone democratization. Some Sunnis oppose any election because it could end their dream of regaining the dominance they had in government since the British turned Iraq into a state in 1921. Kurds, meanwhile, are determined to secure as much autonomy as possible — which both Shiite and Sunni Arabs see as a threat to central government authority.
A third conflict pits the U.S-led coalition against Iran and Syria. Those nations fear that, were America to succeed in Iraq, they could be the next targets for regime change. So they are doing all they can to ensure that the election does not produce a pro-American majority.
The best-case scenario runs along these lines: The election produces a Parliament that chooses a new government of national unity. Enjoying popular legitimacy, this government deprives the insurgency of its claim of fighting against foreign occupation. The U.S. and Coalition allies are then able to scale down their military presence while accelerating the recruitment, training and deployment of Iraqi armed forces and police — allowing Coalition forces to withdraw by 2007.
Also in this scenario, Iraq would mobilize its immense manpower and natural resources to rebuild its economy. The International Monetary Fund reported last November that even now the Iraqi economy is performing better than any other in the Arab Middle East, and could become the region's engine of growth over the next decade.
The worst-case scenario is equally stark: Widespread violence could disrupt the election, while mass Sunni boycott casts doubt on the results. The insurgents could extend their attacks to Shiite areas, provoking Shiite counterattacks. This could lead to a de facto partition of the country or intermittent ethnic war of the kind Lebanon experienced in the 1970s and 1980s — followed by an American retreat from the quagmire, a Kurdish breakaway, clashes with Turkey and Iran . . .
I think the best-case scenario is more likely. Nevertheless, let's wait with the Iraqis, for "ba'ad" — after the election.
Posted by: tipper ||
01/25/2005 10:12:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Take that, all you soft racists who believe the little brown people prefer not to have to think for themselves! We look to be batting .1000 with this democracy thingy -- first Afghanistan, then the U.S., now Iraq. I can't wait to see what happens next. :-)
#2
Things like this make me proud to be a citizen of the nation that helped put these people on this path. Now we just need to put the smackdown on those thugs . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
01/25/2005 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
But Iraqi officials admit in private that no more than three battalions are reliable.
Evidently the number has tripled since November, I recall only the 36th Commando (Kurdish mainly) was considered reliable.
#4
The International Monetary Fund reported last November that even now the Iraqi economy is performing better than any other in the Arab Middle East, and could become the regionâs engine of growth over the next decade.
Note for editors: Someone, Paul Moloney I think, posted this article yesterday. But I can't find it, anywhere. He said RTWT, and I agree, it's an important article.
The inquiry noted that following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War, 250,000 Palestinians emigrated from Kuwait to Jordan. This phenomenon was called "those who returned from Kuwait." The inquiry stated: "According to calculations by Jordanian experts and researchers, some 160,000 of these displaced persons came only to Al-Zarqaa. The experts noticed a connection between their return and the flourishing of the Salafi Jihad trend in Jordan, particularly in Al-Zarqaa."
I still regard Mylroie's theory as the best concerning the origins of Ramzi Yousef. However, I have a slight refinement: Basit was not an innocent victim of the Iraqi occupation. A Kuwaiti minister has been quoted as saying that he was a collaborator. Perhaps Basit was did indeed help the Iraqis (as did many other Palestinian residents, which is why they were expelled), but Basit was killed in some damnfool looting incident or something during the occupation. And an old pro assumed Basit's identity. I think that would better reconcile the Kuwaiti minister's quote.
However, I'm quite aware that this debate will likely never be fully settled. Mylroie might be wrong: Basit is Basit. (Keep scrolling up.) All the more reason to pay close attention to this article, then.
Posted by: Pete Stanley ||
01/25/2005 2:19:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
from yesterday's page... "But I'm still missing a puzzle piece. Why, if Saddam supported them, and they supported Saddam, did he expell them after the Gulf War."
Methinks the answer is in the meaning of support. He supported the palestinians becuase there is no surer, and cheaper, and easier, way to make any middle-east diplomacy more difficult for the US. He didn't give two shits about the palestinians as people - only as a wedge to divide the middle east and arabia. (so palestinians making a living in kuwait doesn't help him much.) i think this is true for almost all the power players over there.
"Saddam being a pragmatist had no purpose for the Palestinians any longer."
re: my above statement... yes and no (if we're talking about the same time-frame).
he did still send out money to facilitate 'martyrdom'. He was a pragmatist alright. It seems to me that at the time when the odds of an American invasion were greatest, the intifada was in full gear.
#2
I agree Rawsnacks that Saddam did in fact contribute to the Palestinian Intifada. Any swipes at Israel fit in with Arab loathing of Israel. Saddam's pragmatism reach it's end when he no longer wished to offer humanitarian support for the Paleo's. The price of 10k-25k was a samll price to pay for devastating suicide bombings. But, like his arab brethren in Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia there is no love for Palestinians themselves, just the destructive purpose they serve with regards to Israel.
#3
re: the link by Pete Stanely above (Basit is Basit) -
this makes no sense to me at all:
commissioned former CIA director Jim Woolsey to fly to England to retrieve fingerprints of WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef, in order to show that Yousef was a "false double" inserted by Iraqi intelligence. The FBI objected to this wild-goose chase, but Wolfowitz insisted. As it turned out, the fingerprints disproved Mylroie's theoryâthey matched those of the Ramzi Yousef sitting in a U.S. federal prison
Should the bold above not read Abdul Basit? And that hardly answers the question of where is Basit, Basit's family and whether or not people who knew Basit from England think that the fake info on him in the Kuwaiti Ministry matches his real description. Afterall, at this current time, it would have been very easy to doctor more files and switch more fingerprints. Just saying "the fingerprints match Yousef's does nothing to dispute Mylorie's claim that we should speak to people who knew Basit and compare what he really looked like to the possibly doctored information in Kuwait.
Just more media lies and distortions - as we have come to expect. And the fact that the reporter didn't even know to write "Basit" instead of "Yousef" shows he was an clueless idiot, at best.
#4
Secondly thanks for helping me to better understand.
That Sadaam used the Paleo fundies in his midst and screwed them in the end reinforces your point.
This article is freaking unbelievable. You can only be left with the impression that someone inside the FBI was complict in Saddam's plans.
I don't have much time - so if anyone is interested I'll try to expand my thoughts later.
But look at the overall picture here. You have Nosair AN KNOWN IRAQI AGENT!! convicted in 1991 with local fundi's turning up for the parade. Somebody somewhere in the FBI chooses Salem, an FBI informant with ties to Egyptian intelligence to be the provocateur. Ok...fine. That Salem would connect with Salemeh, whose uncle is a well known PLO terrorist who "became number two in the 'Western Sector', a PLO terrorist unit under Iraq influence" and living in Baghdad isn't all that surprising either - ok....still fine.
And it's highly plausible that if the bozo Salemeh called his uncle in multiple phone conversations that Sadaam could pick up on the phone conversations and see a golden opportunity for revenge plans already being contemplated by Saddam.
But how is it, if Salem is a provocateur for the FBI that the FBI fails to notice these phone conversations as well. I mean, it's not like that don't know that Nosair is an Iraqi agent. It's not like they don't know that Salameh's uncle is a well know PLO terrorist under Sadaam's influence in Baghdad. How on earth could it be that the FBI would not have also noted these same phone conversations!!!!
But look at the freaking time line here:
Around the beginning of 1992, the FBI sets up Salem as a plant and Salameh is "soon" recruited by him. Almost immediately after he calls his PLO terrorist uncle, under Sadaam's control in Baghdad, on June 21st Yasin, (also a paleo fundi) shows up and moves in with his brother Musab (also a paleo fundi) WHO JUST SO HAPPENS TO LIVE IN THE SAME BUILDING AS SALAMEH. Oh really - isn't that just a bit too convenient? I'd like to know, and Mylorie doesn't tell us, WHEN did MUSAB, bother of Yasin, move next door to Salameh.
YET IT IS PRECISELY AT THIS POINT - WHEN IT SUDDENLY SHOULD HAVE COME TO THE FBI'S ATTENTION THAT SALAMEH WAS CONVERSING WITH HIS TERRORIST UNCLE IN BAGHDAD AND YASIN MOVES INTO HIS BROTHER'S APT CONVENIENTLY SHARED BY SALAMEH THAT THE FBI LOSES TRACK OF HIM!! LESS THAN A MONTH BEFORE YOUSEF SHOWS UP!!!!
I'm sorry.
We are told that it is because Salem, the plant, refuses to file the necessary paperwork or cooperate that the FBI loses track. But it is RIGHT AT THIS POINT THAT THE FBI LOSES TRACK. Let's remember that Salem has ties with Egyptian Intelligence, thus a potential double agent and somewhat suspect- witness by dropping him that even the FBI seems to agree. But please note it is IMMEDIATELY AFTER Salameh's phone converstations WHICH SHOULD have been noted by our own FBI as well AND AT EXACTLY THE SAME POINT IN TIME THAT SADDAM BECOMES INTERESTED, that the FBI backs off. Coincidence - yeah right.
IN Sept 1, 1992, barely a month later, Yousef arrives in JFK and they work on their plans unnoticed by the FBI.
I'm sorry. I think someone needs to be looking at WHO, exactly who, a name-attached-who decided to drop this case at this point. They are solely responsible for the first attack on the WTC. And who picked Salem as the provocateur?
Also, I think it very interesting that Yousef waited until AFTER the election to start making his bomb. So he waits until AFTER the election to start making phone calls to make a bomb - activities that MOST CERTAINLY should have caught the FBI's attention - especially since he was living with a known terrorist wannabe - yet miraculously the FBI does not notice. Could it be that he waited until after the election so that whoever was providing top cover for these incredible oversights would not be removed in political shifting?
Hey - many things can be coincidences but there are just too many oversights here to be plausible. Unfreakingreal.
#5
I suppose it could be that Salem - once granted his position as a provocateur, expanded his opportunities to become a double agent against the US. But it seems that if the US FBI dropped him if? this became apparent - that they would have paid MORE attention to Salameh, not less.
#6
OK, a couple of misconceptions here. Let's start with mine: sorry for double-posting the article! I honestly couldn't find it.
Second, the Palestinian residents of Kuwiat. They were generally supportive of Saddam's invasion in August 1990. After Kuwait was liberated, then the Kuwaiti government expelled them en masse, because of their behavior. I found it interesting that an outright majority fled to Al-Zarqaa, the very spot where Zarqawi came from, and that so many of these families are apparently sending their young men to fight for the Iraqi Baath even now. Yet another link, which I speculated on in a comment here.
>>Should the bold above not read Abdul Basit?<<
Well, for the sake of clarity, yeah, it probably should read that. But I knew what he meant. And you're right that there would have been ample time for fingerprint-switching, if they had only official records to go by. Even if the Iraqis hadn't been careful with their spycraft initially, the Mylroie article appeared in late 1995, and no-one (apparently) checked the fingerprints till early 2001.
>>And the fact that the reporter didn't even know to write "Basit" instead of "Yousef" shows he was an clueless idiot, at best.<<
The guy I linked to isn't a reporter, but a blogger doing this on his own time. And I don't believe him to be an idiot, not in the least. The Hatfill Project is one of the best analysis-blogs I've seen on the war, on par with The Belmont Club or Alphabet City, or the editors here. I disagree with him on this issue, and a few others. But he's no fool.
>>Hey - many things can be coincidences but there are just too many oversights here to be plausible. Unfreakingreal.<<
It's good, and healthy, to be extremely suspicious of coincidences in this area. But in this case I think it's been adequately explained. There was some explanation in The Cell but a very detailed explanation of the FBI's blunders in 1000 Years for Revenge. Basically (I'm going by memory here) the FBI put an ex-cop in charge of the investigation, whose name was Carson Dunbar. He'd been a high muckety-muck in the NJ State Police before joining the FBI. He took a law enforcement mindset to the whole thing, not a counter-intelligence mindset. And this basically sunk the case, because he insisted Salem wear a wire and possibly even testify in open court. Salem (rightly, in my opinion) refused to do these things. When Salem started resisting these things, Dunbar started to get upset about Salem's intelligence ties, and rumors started that Agent Nancy Floyd (who was basically running Salem as her agent) wasn't being "objective." And so Floyd was ordered to sever contact with Salem, despite her misgivings and Salems.
Salem actually said at their last meeting, with bitterness, "don't call me when the bombs go off." But then when a bomb did go off, they of course activated him. Salem was integral to stopping the Day of Terror plot, whereby the blind Sheikh's cell would bomb the UN and several tunnels around NYC. So I don't think there was a mole in the FBI or DoJ or anything - just dumbassness.
>>Also, I think it very interesting that Yousef waited until AFTER the election to start making his bomb.<<
That's a good observation, one I hadn't considered. Perhaps Yousef was waiting for maximum disruption that would come at the top of the DoJ. Perhaps Yousef got explicit orders to test the new president's reaction.
Posted by: Pete Stanley ||
01/25/2005 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Pete, thanks for responding. First - let me apologize to the blogger noted. I thought it was from a reporter - and so I bow down humbly and acknowledge that it's far easier for a blogger - thoughts flying off fingers - to make minor mistakes such as that. God help me if that were a sin.
It's the first time I've read this report - despite it being much referred to, and it's just shocking, to say the least. I should read more about what's been already written before I say more.
But..can't help myself...
It's easy to believe that at the time, the enforcement mindset would have prevailed and the explanation given is plausible.
It seems likely, from what you say about Salem, that he was not complicit in wanting the bombs to ever explode.
If Salem was on the "level", I'm left wondering, who found whom? Did Salem find Salameh? Or did Salameh find Salem. If it were the latter and Musab moved in after June of 1992 - it gives me more pause. But NYC is probably not all that big in terms of paleo fundies of a terrorist mindset. Regardless...it's all meaningless musing on my part.
And you know...I'm sorry...but Salameh, a player in a sting operation, started making phone calls to his uncle who was a well known terrorist - at time and consistency that can only leave me to wonder: how is it possible that no one in the FBI took note??
On June 10 - he's recruited into the plot. June 21 Abdul Yasin moves into his building. And in "early July" they "lost track of the Nosair-Salameh conspiracy". All after long phone calls from Salameh to his famous uncle took place. Phone calls that it's staggering to think were not noted by the FBI.
I guess I just have to wonder, was it Dumbbo's, I mean Dunbar's idea to make demands that clearly Salem would refuse - or did it come from someone above?
But I digress, you were talking about Paleos being expelled from Kuwait- and how they came to Al Zarqaa - the very place where Zarqawi came from - which is a whole nother (is that a word) subject indeed. That's very intriguing...and I'd love to read more about those connections :-)
#8
which is a whole nother (is that a word) subject Its not a word, but it is a common Americanism. To which you are certainly entitled, after all that analysis. Whew!
#9
And Hatfill project leaves me even more confused....so here's another thing I don't understand. From Mylroie's paper, we are told that "Ramzi Yousef arrived at JFK with an Iraqi passport without a visa" and stayed with Musab Yasin. I guess we are to assume, though she doesn't precisely say, that he used the name Ramzi Yousef. Elsewhere in the article she says he was known among the Fundo's as Rashid, the Iraqi.
Now...here's an interesting random thought. Nov 9, 1992, just after the green light was given for the plot - he reports his Abdul Basit passport stolen. He makes calls to people later found to be along the way of his escape routes. On Dec 31, 1992, New Year's Eve, a night sure to be understaffed, he goes to the Pakistani consulate in NY with old documents to request a new passport - which they give to him.
January, they build the bomb and Feb 23 the rent the truck - the bomb explodes at noon the 26th - the anniversary of the war.
"That evening, Salameh drove Yousef and Ismail to JFK airport; Yousef escaped to Pakistan on the falsified docs and Ismail flew home to Jordan. But Salemeh looks to have been deliberately left behind by Yousef, not provided any money needed for the ticket. Salameh had a ticket to Amsterdam on Royal Jordanian flight 262 which continues onto Amman, dated for March 5th, but it was an infant ticket that had cost him only $65. While Salameh had been able to use this ticket to get himself a Dutch visa, he could not actually travel on it."
Now, Mylroie doesn't tell us when they bought these tickets. Was it that day? No does she tell us when Salameh used the infant ticket to get his visa. At some point after the bomb explodes Salameh realizes he is desperate for money - thus he realized his ticket was no good. He has no money to upgrade it and desperate - Salameh returns to get the refund on the rental van 4 times before being picked up on the 4th.
Later we are told that Abdul Rahman was picked up because of the phone number used on the rental van..calm, cool and collected, he manages to fly out on the very flight that Salameh was supposed to catch on March 5th.
Now...don't you wonder about this? Why was Salameh so desperate for money - if his ticket was dated for the 5th? He must have found out ahead of time, that it was an infant ticket, no?
This is just a random brainstorm thought, but on the eve of the bombing, obviously everyone thought they had a flight out of the country with no problems. We are told that Yousef left Salameh behind with no money - to take the blame. But what if Yousef was screwed as well? Did he perhaps worry that just in case something went wrong that he had an alternate passport - one in his old name - using his old documents to procure it. A failsafe?
What if after the the bomb went off, Yousef suddenly discovers that he too has been cut off - no money to purchase tickets (or some other reason that Yousef is forced to buy himself a ticket under his own name, using his failsafe passport).
#10
tw and pete...sorry for a-nother long post, but thinking on Pete's comment and rereading the Basit is basit post - it was one of those thought bubbles I had to burst to get out of my head :-)
#11
Now...don't you wonder about this? Why was Salameh so desperate for money - if his ticket was dated for the 5th? He must have found out ahead of time, that it was an infant ticket, no?
As I understand it, Salameh was left with only enough cash for the infant ticket, so he bought it. He needed cash to upgrade it to an adult ticket, so tried to report the van stolen.
As for Salameh calling his uncle -- I don't think his uncle's identity was known BEFORE the bombing, but only after.
There was some speculation that Salem was an Egyptian agent, in the US to keep an eye on the blind sheik and to set him up if possible. That's one of the reasons the higher-ups at the FBI were suspicious of him; they didn't want to get used in a foreign intelligence operation.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
01/25/2005 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#12
ok...but before I give it a rest, I want to make one more point - just from the reading of this.
Maybe I missed it, but one thing that is vague and seems to be intentionally so in this article - is what name Yousef used when he came into the country. She says, "Ramzi Yousef arrived at JFK with an Iraqi passport without a visa" and stayed with Musab Yasin"
But they never actually tell us that the name Ramzi Yousef is on that passport. Later she says he was known as "Rashid the Iraqi" by his collegues in NY - and later she says that, "it should be clear to the world that the bomber's real name is not Ramzi Yousef nor Abdul Basit. Afterall, why would someone intending to blow up NY's tallest tower go to such trouble to get a passport in his own name? Yousef was a man of many passports".
Is she talking about using Basit here, or Yousef, or both? It clearly NOT clear.
We are never, ever told that he used the name "Yousef" to enter the country or that he used that name while here - it's all just general talking about Yousef - never confirmation that's the name he used prior to the bombing or on the visa that he used to get into the country. Look carefully and you will see that I am right.
In fact she says, "The first concrete knowledge we have of Ramzi Yousef/Abdul Basit comes in 1991 when he showed up in the Phillipines". Again intentionally vague - what name was he using then? We don't know and she doesn't say.
Re: the justice dept she says, "Moreover, it has decided to try the bomber as Ramsi Yousef - even though no one, including yousef by now, maintains that is his real name."
Don't know what it means - but just pointing it out for others to see. Now maybe it's all just implied and clear if you know more about this case - but in this document - he's referred to as Yousef - but it's not clear that's the name he was using.
Edited for length
Last spring, Bangla Bhai, whose followers probably number around 10,000, decided to try an Islamist revolution in several provinces of Bangladesh that border on India. His name means ''Bangladeshi brother.'' (At one point he said his real name was Azizur Rahman and more recently claimed it was Siddiqul Islam.) He has said that he acquired this nom de guerre while waging jihad in Afghanistan and that he was now going to bring about the Talibanization of his part of Bangladesh. Men were to grow beards, women to wear burkas. This was all rather new to the area, which was religiously diverse. But Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh, as Bangla Bhai's group is called (the name means Awakened Muslim Masses of Bangladesh), was determined and violent and seemed to have enough lightly armed adherents to make its rule stick. Because he swore his main enemy was a somewhat derelict but still dangerous group of leftist marauders known as the Purbo Banglar Communist Party, Bangla Bhai gained the support of the local police -- until the central government, worried that Bangla Bhai's band might be getting out of control, ordered his arrest in late May.
The Bangladeshi government's arrest warrant doesn't seem to have made much difference, although for now Bangla Bhai refrains from public appearances. The government is far away in Dhaka, and is in any case divided on precisely this question of how much Islam and politics should mix. Meanwhile, Bangla Bhai and the type of religious violence he practices are filling the power vacuum.
In Bangladesh, ''Islam is becoming the legitimizing political discourse,'' according to C. Christine Fair, a South Asia specialist at the United States Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan, federally financed policy group in Washington. ''Once you don that religious mantle, who can criticize you? We see this in Pakistan as well, where very few people are brave enough to take the Islamists on. Now this is happening in Bangladesh.'' The region, Fair added, has become a haven where jihadis can move easily and have access to a friendly infrastructure that allows them to regroup and train.
This was not supposed to be the fate of Bangladesh, which fought its way to independence 34 years ago. While its population of 141 million is 83 percent Muslim, the nation was founded on the principle of secularism, which in Bangladesh essentially means religious tolerance. After the guiding figure of independence, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was assassinated in 1975, military leaders, seeking legitimacy, allowed a return of Islam to politics. With the return of fair elections in 1991, power became precariously divided among four parties: the right-leaning Bangladesh National Party (B.N.P.), the mildly leftist Awami League, the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami and the conservative Jatiya. The two leading parties are led by women: the B.N.P. by the current prime minister, Khaleda Zia, widow of the party's murdered founder; the Awami League by Zia's predecessor as prime minister, Sheikh Hasina Wazed, herself the daughter of the assassinated founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Zia and Sheikh Hasina, as she is known, have a legendary antipathy toward each other. Each of their parties regularly accuses the other of illegal acts.
The political breach between those two parties is being filled primarily by Jamaat-e-Islami, which agitated against independence in 1971 and remains close to Pakistan. The group was banned after independence for its role in the war but has slowly worked its way back to political legitimacy. The party itself has not changed much -- it was always socially conservative and unafraid of violence. The political context, however, has changed enough to give it greater power. Since 2001, Jamaat-e-Islami has been a crucial part of a governing coalition dominated by the B.N.P. The two parties have ties dating to the late 1970's, but it is only since 2001 that a politically aggressive form of Islam has found, for the first time since independence, a strong place at the top of Bangladeshi politics. It's a sad story the way that the collaborators of the JI, who fought alongside the Pakistani Army against their own people in the name of Islamic solidarity, have been able to return to power, lead by the same men who killed thousands of Hindus and independence supporters.
By the early 1990's Islamist groups began appearing, mainly at the periphery of the jihad centered on Afghanistan. The most important of these has been the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (Huji), which has been associated with Fazlul Rahman, who signed Osama bin Laden's famous declaration in 1998 endorsing international, coordinated jihad -- the document that introduced Al Qaeda to the larger world. But Bangla Bhai's group and others have since emerged and are making their bids for power.
Six years ago, Huji chose its first prominent target: Shamsur Rahman, who is Bangladesh's leading poet. Rahman has lived under police protection since Jan. 18, 1999, when three young men appeared at his house and asked for a poem. Immediately one of the men ran upstairs and tried to chop Rahman's neck with an ax. ''He tried to cut my head off, but my wife took me in her arms and my daughter-in-law too,'' Rahman recounted. The two women fended off the blows until the neighbors, hearing their screams, rushed into the house and caught the attackers. The attack led to the arrest of 44 members of Huji. Two men, a Pakistani and a South African, claimed they had been sent to Bangladesh by Osama bin Laden with more than $300,000, which they distributed among 421 madrassas, or private religious schools. According to Gowher Rizvi, director of the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard and a lecturer in public policy, bin Laden's reputed donation is ''a pittance'' compared with the millions that Saudi charities have contributed to many of Bangladesh's estimated 64,000 madrassas, most of which serve only a single village or two.
Communists are just one target of Islamic militants in Bangladesh. Most attacks have been carried out against either members of religious minorities -- Hindus, Christians and Buddhists -- or moderate Muslims considered out of step with the doctrines espoused at the militant madrassas. International groups like Human Rights Watch cannot gather information freely enough to be certain of the scope of the problem. Yet anecdotal evidence is abundant. In Bangladesh, as part of the militant Islamists' agenda, religious minorities are coming under a new wave of attacks. One of the most vulnerable communities is that of the Ahmadiyya, a sect of some 100,000 Muslims who believe that Muhammad was not the last prophet. In Pakistan, the Ahmadiyya have been declared infidels and many have been killed. In Bangladesh, religious hardliners have burned mosques and books and pressured the government to declare the sect non-Muslim. Last year, the government agreed to ban Ahmadiyya literature; earlier this month, however, Bangladesh's high court stayed the ban pending further consideration by the court.
The Ahmadiyya are hardly the only group at risk. ''For the Hindus, the last couple of years have been disastrous,'' says Ali Dayan Hasan of Human Rights Watch. ''There are substantial elements within the society and government itself that are advancing the idea that Hindus need to be expelled.'' On the ground, attacks against Hindus include beatings and rapes.
In this environment, Bangladesh's radical leaders have ratcheted up their ambitions. Responding to the American invasion of Afghanistan, supporters of the Islamic Oikya Jote (I.O.J.), the most radical party in the governing coalition and a junior partner to the Jamaat-e-Islami, chanted in the streets of Chittagong and Dhaka, ''Amra sobai hobo Taliban, Bangla hobe Afghanistan,'' which roughly translates to ''We will be the Taliban, and Bangladesh will be Afghanistan.'' The I.O.J. is considered a legitimate voice within Bangladeshi politics. The I.O.J.'s chairman, Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini, who has served as a member of Parliament for the past three years, says he believes that secular law has failed Bangladesh and that it's time to implement Sharia, the legal code of Islam. Amini is the author of books in Arabic, Bangla and Urdu. (He learned Urdu while completing graduate work in a madrassa in Karachi, Pakistan.) I did some searching and was completely unsurprised to find that the Karachi madrassa he attended was Binori town, formerly run by Mufti Shamzai, and the source of the leadership level of the Deobandi Jihadist movements.
The mufti has been named in Indian intelligence documents as a member of the central committee of Huji (itself linked to Al Qaeda), an association he would, of course, deny. He is also rumored to have close friends among the Afghan Taliban, which he denies, while adding that it's better not to discuss the Afghan Taliban, as they are so frequently misunderstood. Outside his office, the sound of boys' voices reciting the Koran rises and falls. Fifteen hundred students study at the madrassa, and the mufti's party, the I.O.J., sponsors madrassas all over the nation; how many, he claimed not to know. Financing, the mufti said, comes mostly from Bangladesh itself, but some money also arrives from friends throughout the Arab world. Of all his political influence, the mufti is most proud of his fatwas, which, he said, give him a means to speak out against those who violate Islam. ''Whoever speaks against Islam, I issue a fatwa against them to the government,'' he said. ''But the government says nothing.'' He shook his head, frustrated. That's next on his agenda: to pressure the government to recognize his religious injunctions. ''It's possible,'' he said, ''now more than ever.'' It appears the IOJ serves as a branch of Pakistan's JUI-F, just as Bangladesh's JI answers to Pakistan's JI. The former being Deobandis, the latter being more akin to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
01/25/2005 3:54:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration plans to announce Tuesday it will request about $80 billion more for this year's costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, congressional aides said Monday. The request would push the total provided so far for those wars and for U.S. efforts against terrorism elsewhere in the world to more than $280 billion since the first money was provided shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, airliner attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Money well spent.
That would be nearly half the $613 billion the United States spent for World War I or the $623 billion it expended for the Vietnam War, when the costs of those conflicts are translated into 2005 dollars.
White House officials refused to comment on the war spending package, which will be presented as the United States confronts a new string of violence in Iraq as that country's Jan. 30 elections approach. The forthcoming request underscored how the war spending has clearly exceeded initial White House estimates. Early on, then-presidential economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey placed Iraq costs of $100 billion to $200 billion, only to see his comments derided by administration colleagues.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Monday it was Congress' ``highest responsibility'' to provide the money that American troops need. But in a written statement, she said Democrats would ask questions about Bush's policies there. ``What are the goals in Iraq, and how much more money will it cost to achieve them? Why hasn't the president and the Pentagon provided members of Congress a full accounting of previous expenditures?,'' Pelosi added.
Liberty, as much as it takes, and look under your desk blotter.
She also said she wanted to know why Iraqi troops aren't playing a larger role in security there.
The package will not formally be sent to Congress until after President Bush introduces his 2006 budget on Feb. 7, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonmity. They said White House budget chief Joshua Bolten or other administration officials would describe the spending request publicly Tuesday.
Until now, the White House had not been expected to reveal details of the war package until after the budget's release. The decision to do so earlier comes after congressional officials argued to the administration that withholding the war costs from Bush's budget would open the budget to criticism that it was an unrealistic document, one aide said. Last year, the spending plan omitted war expenditures and received just that critique. Adding additional pressure, the Congressional Budget Office planned to release a semi-annual report on the budget Tuesday that was expected to include a projection of war costs. Last September, the nonpartisan budget office projected the 10-year costs of the wars at $1.4 trillion at current levels of operations, and $1 trillion if the wars were gradually phased down.
Aides said about three-fourths of the $80 billion was expected to be for the Army, which is bearing the brunt of the fighting in Iraq. It also was expected to include money for building a U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which has been estimated to cost $1.5 billion.
One aide said the request will also include funds to help the new Afghan government combat drug-trafficking. It might also have money to help two new leaders the U.S. hopes will be allies, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko. The aides said the package Bush eventually submits to Congress will also include money to help Indian Ocean countries hit by the devastating December tsunami.
Not including the latest package, lawmakers have so far provided the Defense Department with $203 billion for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorists, according to the Congressional Research Service. That includes $121 billion for the war in Iraq, $53 billion for Afghanistan and $29 billion for improved security and anti-terror efforts in the United States and abroad. In addition, Congress has provided nearly $21 billion for rebuilding Iraq and almost $4 billion for Afghan reconstruction. Large portions of that money has not been spent, especially in Iraq, where an armed insurgency and bureaucratic delays have slowed many projects.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/25/2005 12:01:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Article: That would be nearly half the $613 billion the United States spent for World War I or the $623 billion it expended for the Vietnam War, when the costs of those conflicts are translated into 2005 dollars.
AP is lying with statistics. US expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan are about $100b a year, or about 0.6% of GDP, a relative nit compared with past conflicts, including Vietnam. WWI expenditures* were about 4% of GDP in the first year, and about 18% of GDP in the second year, as befitted a major conflict with some of the biggest powers in Europe - Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire. The huge expense of that war was one reason why it was called the Great War, and a reason why the Central Powers agreed to an unfavorable armistice - they could no longer sustain it. It was also why Wilson became hugely unpopular for agreeing to jump in - many Americans felt it was an unnecessary war, which killed 100,000 Americans in just two years. Note that AP never mentions this.
* Note the following stats: In WWI the initial defense outlay in 1917 of $26 billion occurred while real GNP fell $0.7 billion -- a 1% decline. In 1918 expenditures rose $93 billion accompanied by a $6.3 billion increase in GNP.
As usual, AP lies with statistics. The appropriate measure isn't the dollar amounts, it's the percentage of GDP.
#2
Note that AP is also lying about the inflation adjusted amounts - 93+26 = $119B. The inflation factor, which I feel understates inflation, is .068 for 1917 and .08 for 1918. This brings WWI expenditures to $1.54T in 2004 dollars for an average expenditure of $750B a year, dwarfing War on Terror expenditures in inflation-adjusted terms, never mind percentage of industrial output terms.
#3
Why are percentages of GDP more meaningful? Because they provide a better picture of the strain on ordinary Americans of war expenditures. In the second year of WWI, $1800 out of every $10000 earned by each American was being spent on the war. In the second year of the Iraqi campaign, $60 out of every $10000 earned is being spent on the war. That's a huge difference.
#4
What ZF said. Plus, the tax burden in the WWI era fell far more heavily on working class families than it does now. So adjust the WWI figure even higher relative to today's per-taxpaying household figure.
One note: every time I read similar misleading claims in articles, I keep in mind that the journo school yutz who wrote it is probably functionally innumerate.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
01/25/2005 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The appropriate measure isn't the dollar amounts, it's the percentage of GDP.
Ah, but it's not possible to influence the regular Schmoe's thinking unless it's framed in nice, simple terms.
#7
Not quiet good enough BAR, should be more like:
"That's enough money to supply every elementary school teacher with a $50,000 a year raise with enough money left over to buy every 3rd child a free Harvard education plus allow all people now age 42-62 to retire immediately at triple their current salary."
Former US Attorney General and leftist fool Ramsey Clark says his decision to join Saddam Hussein's defence team springs from his conviction that the United States has already destroyed any hope of legitimacy, fairness or even decency by its treatment and isolation of the former President and its creation of the Iraqi Special Tribunal to try him.
His victims, however, remain dead, so they had no comment.
In an article published by the Los Angeles Times on Monday Clark, who also tried hard to save Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's life but failed, points out that international law requires that every criminal court be competent, independent and impartial. The Iraqi Special Tribunal lacks all of these essential qualities. It was illegitimate in its conception - the creation of an illegal occupying power that demonised Saddam Hussein and destroyed the government it now intends to condemn by law.
Whereas Sammy's gummint was legit -- after all, 100% of the people voted for it.
According to Clark, "The intention of the United States to convict the former leader in an unfair trial was made starkly clear by the appointment of (Ahmed) Chalabi's nephew to organise and lead the court. He had just returned to Iraq to open a law office with a former law partner of Defence Undersecretary Douglas J Feith, who had urged the US overthrow of the Iraqi government and was a principal architect of US postwar planning. "The concept, personnel, funding and functions of the court were chosen and are still controlled by the United States, dependent on its will and partial to its wishes. Reform is impossible. Proceedings before the Iraqi Special Tribunal would corrupt justice both in fact and in appearance and create more hatred and rage in Iraq against the American occupation.
Other than in the hearts of the Kurds and Shi'a who will ululate and toss candy into the streets the day Sammy swings.
"Only another court - one that is actually competent, independent and impartial - can lawfully sit in judgment."
Clark, whom some in this country view as a nitwitfricking lunatic maverick, argues that is Saddam's trial and that of other Iraqi officials, affirmative measures must be taken to prevent prejudice from affecting the conduct of the case and the final judgment of the court. While conceding that this would be a major challenge, he adds that "nothing less is acceptable to him and his socialist tools." He writes that any court that considers criminal charges against Saddam must have the power and the mandate to consider charges against leaders and military personnel of the US, Britain and the other nations that participated in the aggression against Iraq, if equal justice under law is to have meaning.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Come on, think about it. He has cornered the market. Can you think of any other time where if a Lawyer loses (which Nancy boy here usually does) that he still wins. He doesn't care about Saddam. It's FREE money and at the same time this media whore gets to scream. "Look at me! I'm a moonbat Socialist! Woo Hoo" Sad but true.
#3
Sammy's got to be feeling confident here. His star attorney is out grandstanding at every public event he can stick his nose in. Clark uses every opportunity to panhandle for money to fund his seditious activities against the US. It has been years since he actually had a meaningfull win and now his big input to Sammy's defense is "Only another court - one that is actually competent, independent and impartial - can lawfully sit in judgmentâ a change of venue? Probably to the Hague where Sammy can wait for decades before trial. Somehow I do not think the Iraqi Special Tribune, now that Clark has just deeply insulted them, will give this more than just a polite review and then hang him.
#6
Uhh, when's the last time this guy tried a case? Not talking about trying cases, I mean, but actually examining witnesses in a courtroom?
Posted by: Matt ||
01/25/2005 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
..that the United States has already destroyed any hope of legitimacy, fairness or even decency by its treatment and isolation of the former President..
Really, who gives a damn about Hussein besides idiots like Clark? Where was Clark's concern during Hussein's rule when the mass graves found so far in Iraq were being filled up?
In order to be the rightful recipient of fairness and decency, it would be a good idea to demonstrate an ability to be capable of both, and Saddam Hussein doesn't fit that bill.
#8
Its very un-Christian of me, but Ramsey Clark is on my mental list of people that need to hurry up and die in order to make the world a better place.
#10
Its very un-Christian of me, but Ramsey Clark is on my mental list of people that need to hurry up and die in order to make the world a better place.
#11
Its very un-Christian of me, but Ramsey Clark is on my mental list of people that need to hurry up and die in order to make the world a better place.
The radical Islamist groups said on Monday they had narrowed their differences with Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas over his calls for a ceasefire while insisting Israel would have to pay a price for peace. Abbas, who has been in Gaza since January 18 in a bid to persuade factions such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad to lay down their weapons, expressed confidence in a television interview Sunday that an agreement could be reached soon. Both groups echoed his optimism on Monday as a key mediator in their talks said that an unofficial "cooling down" period was already in place. "We have reached, in principal, agreement on important issues and the differences are very narrow," Mushir al-Masri, a spokesman for the radical Islamist group, told AFP. "Everyone on the Palestinian side is determined to have a collective position," he added.
Abbas, elected president of the Palestinian Authority on January 9, is understood to be trying to tempt the factions into a change of strategy by dangling the carrot of participation in the political process. While both Hamas and Jihad boycotted the presidential contest they have agreed to take part in July's legislative elections and in municipal polls which are due to take place in Gaza later this week.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
These Islamic killers are LYING AGAIN. They always do.
If Israel releases ANY PRISONERS, then all of the politicians who aree to that need to be shot by the relatives of the next Israeli citizen to die from any terrorist action. That would make them face the reality of the bloodthirsty Demons presently gorging in Palestine (and their Islamofascist co-horts in Iraq).
An Iraqi lawyer in Saddam Hussein's defence team has gone into hiding after receiving several death threats, the chief attorney for the deposed Iraqi leader said yesterday. Khalil al-Duleimi, one of 25 lead attorneys representing Saddam, told other lawyers in the defence team that the threats began after he met the ousted dictator in December. Ziad al-Khasawneh, Saddam's chief defence attorney, said his colleague had received phone calls warning that "suicide cells had been formed specifically to liquidate him so that he would set an example to all other attorneys who have volunteered to defend President Saddam".
Bravo sierra. Suicide bombers don't call ahead; they just detonate. Not to mention it's Sammy's Baathist buddies who have been doing all the exploding lately.
"He feared for his and his family's lives; therefore, he has since gone into hiding," Mr al-Khasawneh said.
Any theories on what the real story is? Other than Sammy's legal team is trying to build a case that he can't be tried safely anywhere but Paris?
#1
I'm sure the locals are not pleased with those who choose to defend the indefensible. It needn't be, and likely isn't, the "insurgents" threatening him, but rather the next door neighbors, who'd rather he just quit.
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, NWFP governor, on Monday urged tribal elders from South Waziristan tribal zone to unite and fight against foreign militants. Mr Shah said this while addressing a 50-member jirga of the Sulemankhel tribe at Governor's House. The governor also announced a special Rs 100 million development package for the area and said the package would be part of next year's annual development programme. "Development priorities will be determined by the tribe itself," he said and urged the elders to constitute a committee for this purpose. Malik Baz Muhammad Khan, an elder, told Mr Shah that the Sulemankhel tribe had "confidence in the leadership" of President General Pervez Musharraf and assured the governor that his tribe would support the ongoing military operation against militants. The NWFP governor agreed to the demand of the jirga to give representation to the Sulemankhels in the agency council on the basis of current population and approved one additional seat for the tribe.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The Foreign Office has denied a British press report that Pakistan blames Iran for fuelling a growing insurgency in Balochistan. The Sunday Telegraph cites senior government officials as saying that Iran is encouraging "intruders" from within its own Baloch community to cross the 550-mile border with the Pakistani province and give support to the rebels. "All this violence is a part of a greater conspiracy," a senior Pakistani government official was quoted as saying. "These militants would not be challenging the government so openly without the backup of a foreign hand."
Foreign Office spokesman Masood Khan said the report had "no credibility". He said Pakistan was investigating the disturbances in Balochistan, but did not point a finger at another country. "Pakistan and Iran can talk to each other directly," he said, adding they did not have to speak through the media. He said there was no misunderstanding or misperception between the two countries and they were able to develop effective coordination to police the border areas. According to the Sunday Telegraph report, a Pakistani intelligence agency set up a unit in Quetta last year to monitor suspected Iranian activity in Balochistan. Officials told the paper that in addition to directly supporting the insurgency, Tehran's state-controlled radio had launched a "propaganda campaign" against Islamabad. "Radio Tehran broadcasts between 90 and 100 minutes of programmes every day which carry propaganda against the Pakistan government," a former interior minister was quoted as saying. He added that Iran was suspected of providing financial, logistical and moral backing for the insurgency.
Earlier this month, rebel tribesmen disrupted gas production in a series of rocket and mortar attacks, which killed eight people. "However, Islamabad is delaying a formal complaint to Tehran in the hope that private diplomatic channels may prove more effective," the report says. Ansari writes that Pakistani officials believe that Tehran has stepped up its activity in Balochistan because of its anger at the construction of a vast deep-water port at Gwadar, close to the border, which it fears could be used by Washington as a base for monitoring and infiltrating Iran.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Pakhtoon leader Mahmood Khan Achakzai has called a strike on February 12 to condemn an alleged military operation in Sui and the establishment of cantonments in Balochistan. "We are opposed outright to the military operation in Sui," Achakzai said at a public gathering here on Monday. The government denies a military operation is underway in Balochistan.
Achakzai, a leader of the Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement and chairman of the Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party, urged the government to give the Baloch control over the natural resources in their province, otherwise their could be more violence. "It is a 50-year dream of Punjab to crush the Baloch tribes and use their gas and mineral resources," he said. He said the Pakhtoon people were also ignored in Pakistan. He called for a separate province where Pakhtoons could practise their own culture and have control of their own resources. Party leaders Mustafa Khan Tareen, Maulvi Nazir Akhund, Abdur Rauf Lala, Fazl Qadir Shirani, Sardar Raza Muhammad Burraich, Usman Kakar, Kahar Khan, Dr Hamid Khan Achakzai and others also spoke at the rally.
... and said about the same thing.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
A man has been killed and 11 others have been injured in clashes between Muslim and Christian residents of the Shadbagh area for the past two days. Yousaf Masih alias Billa and his sons, Pitras Masih and Marcus Masih, allegedly harassed women on their way to a funeral of Essa Nagri (a Christian dominated area) resident Haseeb Khan's sister-in-law on Sunday. Later, Haseeb and his relatives asked Billa whether he was involved in the incident and got into a fight with him. Billa and his sons shot Haseeb dead and tried escaping but police managed to arrest them. A case was registered against Billa on the complaint of Haseeb's brother, Abdul Waheed. Haseeb's body was sent for autopsy before his sister-in-law's funeral.
The issue was revived when Billa's friend, Kalo Masih, and two accomplices got angry at Billa's arrest and shot at 12-year-old Suleman and Zainab. Suleman is in serious condition. Muslims and Christians came out in force and threw stones and exchanged gunfire with each other. Senior police officials reached the scene and settled the matter. Usman, Baber, Imran and Tanveer were among the 11 people injured by stones and were taken to Mayo Hospital. Lahore Superintendent of Police Dr Usman told Daily Times that the matter got out of control during the stone throwing, but things settled down once police got to the scene. He said Kalo Masih and his accomplices were arrested while the injured were being treated. The SP also said Christian councillors of the area were helping resolve the matter and they (the councillors) had said that the Christians started the fight. He said police was deputed in the area and around Churches to avoid other such incidents.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Baloch leaders will not hold negotiations with Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain or any other figure appointed by the centre, in a situation where thousands of security personnel, with heavy tanks and artillery, were positioned at Nawab Akbar Bugti's hometown of Dera Bugti, Mr Bugti's son-in-law Agha Shahid Bugti said on Monday.
Mr Shahid Bugti, who is secretary general of Akbar Bugti's Jamhoori Watan Party, alleged at a press conference at the Press Club here that the rape of the woman doctor of the Sui hospital recently had been a planned act intended to sabotage the negotiations between Baloch leaders and the government's parliamentary committee. The said the Baloch people would not abandon their rights, as he put it. But he denied they were fighting to secure the royalty for Sui gas, of which, he said, the federal government started paying 12.5% to Balochistan as a result of protests by the people of the province. He added that royalty was a constitutional matter and was not paid to individuals.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
MAMDOUH Habib could lose any money paid to him for selling the story of his detention, with the Federal Government signalling it would use laws designed to seize money from criminals to scrutinise his future media payments. Habib is expected to be besieged by media outlets willing to buy his story when he returns to Australia from Guantanamo Bay within two weeks, with some agents already touting six-figure sums on behalf of TV networks and publishers. However, Attorney General Philip Ruddock said he had asked lawyers to advise him on whether the new Proceeds of Crime legislation could be used to stop Habib profiting from his ordeal - despite returning home a free man. "There is potential for the legislation to cover this," Mr Ruddock said. "If he is paid for his story on his treatment in Guantanamo Bay, the Government will examine closely the implications."If obligations do arise, the Government will seek to enforce the legislation."
Nine hours have been set aside Tuesday for 
The Pentagon says the political uproar over the disclosure of a secret military intelligence group is overblown and based on misinformation about the group's makeup and mission. Stephen A. Cambone, the Pentagon's top intelligence official, rushed to Capitol Hill on Monday after some members of Congress reacted strongly to a Washington Post report that revealed the existence of the group, which is managed by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency.
Malaysia, responding to 
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra today admitted that strict action against southern insurgents was being put on hold until after the 6 February general election, saying that arresting the militants prior to the election would make the government look as if it were acting out of spite. The prime minister, who this morning convened a meeting on the southern insurgency which brought together the heads of the Southern Border Provinces Peace Building Command and the Royal Thai Army, police and intelligence chiefs, said that he had ordered stricter action on the southern security situation. Speaking of the need for continuing arrests, he said that failure to take quick action could see lower-ranking militants attempt further violence as a way of wresting power from their commanders. But while insisting that the government was monitoring the 90 insurgents on its blacklist, he said that more arrests at the present time would be inappropriate. Any concerted crackdown prior to the general election on 6 February would make the government appear to be acting simply out of political spite, he said. However, he confirmed that one of the 90 blacklisted insurgents was arrested last night on charges of shooting a local teacher.
TEHRAN: Iran may allow UN inspectors to re-enter a military base where Washington says tests linked to a covert atomic weapons programme could have taken place, said a senior Iranian official on Monday. Earlier this month, after a prolonged delay, Iran allowed a team from the UN's 
Russian President Vladimir Putin has promised Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that he will not sign a contract to sell SA-18 surface-to-air missiles to Syria, according to an Israeli daily. The reported promise, said to have been made in a phone call by Putin on Thursday, came on the day that Syrian President Bashar al-Asad begins a four-day official visit to Russia. 
Authorities will arrest prominent politician Ahmad Chalabi after the current Islamic religious holiday for allegedly defaming the Defense Ministry, the defense minister said Friday. Legal proceedings against Chalabi are to begin after the Eid al-Adha holiday ends Sunday, Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan said. Shaalan's statement followed allegations by Chalabi that the defense minister shifted $500 million from the ministry. That has led to charges and countercharges by the two Shiite politicians, who are running for parliament on separate tickets in the Jan. 30 national elections. "We will arrest him and turn him over to the Interpol," Shaalan told Al-Jazeera television. "We will arrest him based on facts. He wanted to tarnish the image of the Defense Ministry. ... He wanted to tarnish the reputation of the defense minister because he is frank and clear. One of those who want to commit crimes against the Iraqi people is Ahmad Chalabi."
The 
WITH American military casualties climbing, the US Army is preparing to send 18 remote-controlled robotic warriors to fight in Iraq in March or April. Made by a small Massachusetts company, the SWORDS, short for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, will be the first armed robotic vehicles to see combat, years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp. Military officials like to compare the roughly metre-high robots favourably to human soldiers: They don't need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle. 
The violent Islamic Hamas is prepared to suspend attacks if Israel stops targeting militants and agrees to release thousands of Palestinian prisoners, the top Hamas leader told 
The debate on Iraq is taking a new turn. The Iraqi elections scheduled for Jan. 30, only recently viewed as a culmination, are described as inaugurating a civil war. The timing and the voting arrangements have become controversial. All this is a way of foreshadowing a demand for an exit strategy, by which many critics mean some sort of explicit time limit on the U.S. effort. We reject this counsel. The implications of the term "exit strategy" must be clearly understood; there can be no fudging of consequences. The essential prerequisite for an acceptable exit strategy is a sustainable outcome, not an arbitrary time limit. For the outcome in Iraq will shape the next decade of American foreign policy. A debacle would usher in a series of convulsions in the region as radicals and fundamentalists moved for dominance, with the wind seemingly at their backs. Wherever there are significant Muslim populations, radical elements would be emboldened. As the rest of the world related to this reality, its sense of direction would be impaired by the demonstration of American confusion in Iraq. A precipitate American withdrawal would be almost certain to cause a civil war that would dwarf Yugoslavia's, and it would be compounded as neighbors escalated their current involvement into full-scale intervention.
Former US Attorney General 
The radical Islamist groups said on Monday they had narrowed their differences with Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas over his calls for a ceasefire while insisting Israel would have to pay a price for peace. Abbas, who has been in Gaza since January 18 in a bid to persuade factions such as 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, NWFP governor, on Monday urged tribal elders from South Waziristan tribal zone to unite and fight against foreign militants. Mr Shah said this while addressing a 50-member jirga of the 
The Foreign Office has denied a British press report that Pakistan blames Iran for fuelling a growing insurgency in Balochistan. The Sunday Telegraph cites senior government officials as saying that Iran is encouraging "intruders" from within its own Baloch community to cross the 550-mile border with the Pakistani province and give support to the rebels. "All this violence is a part of a greater conspiracy," a senior Pakistani government official was quoted as saying. "These militants would not be challenging the government so openly without the backup of a foreign hand."
Pakhtoon leader 
A man has been killed and 11 others have been injured in clashes between Muslim and Christian residents of the Shadbagh area for the past two days. Yousaf Masih alias Billa and his sons, Pitras Masih and Marcus Masih, allegedly harassed women on their way to a funeral of Essa Nagri (a Christian dominated area) resident Haseeb Khan's sister-in-law on Sunday. Later, Haseeb and his relatives asked Billa whether he was involved in the incident and got into a fight with him. Billa and his sons shot Haseeb dead and tried escaping but police managed to arrest them. A case was registered against Billa on the complaint of Haseeb's brother, Abdul Waheed. Haseeb's body was sent for autopsy before his sister-in-law's funeral.
Baloch leaders will not hold negotiations with 
