Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Stop torturing the english language

STOP RUMSFELD.

RMSFELD AND PACE....Via Tim Dunlop, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reports on a recent exchange between Donald Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The subject was torture:

When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.

But Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said.

Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."

But Pace meant what he said. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.

Don't bomb us bubble boy

DON'T BOMB US....In the ever expanding blogosphere, the latest entry is a blog from several Al Jazeera staffers titled, appropriately, "Don't Bomb Us." Here are five things they would like you to know:

1.Al Jazeera was the first Arab station to ever broadcast interviews with Israeli officials.
2.Al Jazeera has never broadcast a beheading.
3.George W. Bush has recieved approximately 500 hours of airtime, while Bin Laden has received about 5 hours of airtime.
4.Over 50 million people across the world watch Al Jazeera.
5.The Al Jazeera websites are http://www.aljazeera.net (Arabic) and http://english.aljazeera.net (English). AlJazeera.com, AlJazeerah.info and all other variations have nothing to do with us.

The Dictator's club

We've joined the dictators'

THE Federal Opposition said today Australia had joined the ranks of tyrannical states such as North Korea, Syria, and Cuba by strengthening its free speech laws.
Labor leader Kim Beazley said the Howard Government seemed "hell bent" on enforcing the sedition aspects of its new anti-terror laws.

The Government says the laws are to enable authorities to tackle extremists who urge violence against Australians and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock again defended the sedition plans, saying they would not act as curbs on free speech. (Full story)

Under the sedition measure in the Anti-Terrorism Bill, anyone convicted of urging a group to use force or violence against another group could be jailed for up to seven years.

"I do not know why the Government insists that we should lower ourselves to the standard of North Korea, Syria and Cuba," Mr Beazley said.

"I don't think that's necessary but they seem to be hell bent on this." Former Midnight Oil frontman and Labor MP Peter Garrett said the sedition laws meant the Government was now "at war" with Australia's satirical cartoonists and writers.

Media organisations, a government-led Senate committee, civil libertarians and other lobbyists had all called on the Government to drop the sedition provisions in the bill, concerned that future governments might use the laws to silence anti-government commentary in the media.

Some amendments were made to the laws last night and the laws are now expected to be in force in a matter of days.

A key Government MP who lobbied for changes to the laws, Senator George Brandis, said today the changes included an "absolute defence to protect freedom of political speech and freedom of reportage and commentary".

Mr Garrett said Labor doubted the cartoons would be sufficient and that "cartoonists and creative artists, writers and others shouldn't be relying on defences in anti-terror legislation for them to carry out their work." Labor, however, will attempt to separate the sedition elements of the anti-terror laws in Parliament.

"The sedition laws are about protecting politicians. The detention laws are about protecting Australians," Mr Beazley said.

"I'm all for protecting Australians, I'm not for protecting politicians, and we're talking about politicians' reputations, not their lives."

Mr Garrett said: "The defences that we think will be proposed will not be sufficient, and in any event cartoonists and creative artists, writers and others shouldn't be relying on defences in anti-terror legislation for them to carry out their work."

Small scale Nuclear energy looking better

Now that we find no recent efforts by the old Saddam Hussein regime to obtain uranium in Niger and no centrifuge tubes it can be seen that the scale of certain nuclear works is hard to hide - especially in a world where optic fibre snakes out several miles every minute covering more and more of the world while more satellites are also launched to help cover the planet.
Back in the early seventies we said ' Uranium creates a police state'. Today we live in a ' Brinworld' whether we like it or not and yet that paradoxically makes the nuclear option look better. A huge STASI style police state is unnecessary where an informed, intelligent population looks out for each other.
I still see alternative energy such as tidal, solar, wind, geo and other as being more attractive yet also smaller and safer nuclear energy alternatives that would formerly need a massive police state to protect them could also be competitive if we are honest. This should become even clearer as more and more large authoritarian government's fall over and never get back up.

Rumsters brain fart

Last weekend, while other Americans were watching football and eating leftover turkey, the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ended the Iraqi insurgency.

It was easy, really. He said that the insurgents would, henceforth, no longer be called insurgents.

"Over the weekend, I thought to myself, 'You know, that gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit'," Mr Rumsfeld said of his ban on the I-word at a Pentagon briefing on Tuesday.

"It was an epiphany. These people aren't trying to promote something other than disorder, and to take over that country and turn it into a caliphate … This is a group of people who don't merit the word insurgency."

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, standing at Mr Rumsfeld's side, evidently did not get the message. Describing combat in Iraq, he paused and said: "I have to use the word insurgent because I can't think of a better word right now."

"'Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government' - how's that?" Mr Rumsfeld said. "What the secretary said," General Pace continued, to laughter.

But Mr Rumsfeld's new description did not stick with the general. He used the word again while discussing explosive devices. Mr Rumsfeld recoiled in mock horror. "Sorry, sir," General Pace said. "I'm not trainable today."

It was not the first time the world had refused to follow Mr Rumsfeld's lead. When he tried to change the "war on terror" to the "global struggle against violent extremism", President George Bush put an end to that idea.

This time it is the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, still new to the job, who isn't marching to Mr Rumsfeld's orders.

Asked by a reporter about torture by Iraqi authorities, Mr Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval. But General Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every US service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," he said.

The Washington Post

WHAT'S IN A WORD

The definition of "insurgency", according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
1. The quality or circumstance of being rebellious. 2. An instance of rebellion; an insurgence

The brain damaged bubble booby Bush went to war and relied on advice from the serial liar and criminal conspirator, Dick Cheney and this loony tune Field Marshall Von Rumsfeld.
Together they were known as ' The Gestapo' and ' The Commissar's'.'
It will take a global insurgency to knock out this gang. The worst pack of criminal murderers since the Third Reich.

Lord Haw Haw in his cups

Lord Hitchens of Baghdad may be a recovering Imperialist in the tradition of Rudyard Kipling. The main difference being Kipling could write. The Lord Haw Haw for the criminal Bush terror regime now claims to be interested in consistancy in arguing point's of view...'...It was said even then that the attack would fail, because (remember?) if you killed Osama Bin Laden, then a thousand more would rise up to take his place. This line soon mutated into, "No war on Iraq: It's a distraction from the hunt for Bin Laden." What a good thing it is that the Bush administration didn't exaggerate by much, because if it had, millions of people would now be saying that they couldn't think of any reason of their own why the Taliban should have been removed...'

At least that's what it SOUNDs like. Hitchens last few efforts for SLATE have been increasing incoherent ( Tired and emotional? )
Still - I take from the above that Hitchens has a new found interest in lucid, linear and coherent argument on serious matters.

Perhaps then Christopher can explain , and it should be easy from his priviliged ' insider' if not ' inbedded' status, the (bureaucratic or otherwise) reasons for invading SW Asia?

It started out as WMD's didn't it?

So what is it now?

Making the world safe for open bars in all Arab places? Regime change? Finding the broom of the wicked witch? Someone as wise and informed as Christopher should find this question a snap but it puzzles me...and it seems to puzzle more and more.
Everyday the reality based community grows while the friends of Lord Haw Haw hunker in the bunker.
At least he has plenty of aneasthetic's on hand from the sound of it.
Were Hitchens a real journalist...one who actually READ what he freely stole from Sy Hersh he might be running around with his hair on fire warning us about the new dangers to Iraq's neighbor's and projected massive increases in secret bombing runs.
Instead he is swilling down the free SLATE fire water like there is no tomorrow. Then again there was no yesterday for this hopeless drunk so I guess that makes sense.
The president may even be living vicariously through Hitchens...that is if he isn't sneaking a snifter or three himself ...with a pretzel chaser.
The Exxon Valdez ran aground with a drunken sot as captain didn't it?
That would sure explain a lot.
Chris's favourite cocktail?
I hear it's a ' Long Island tea' with a splash of light sweet crude...and it's called a ' Turd Blossom' I believe.

Hitchens could be SLATE's Iraq

The sunk cost fallacy has to be considered with epic quagmires such as the American's in SE Asia, the Americans and Brits in SW Asia... and Christopher Hitchens raiding the drinks cabinet down at Slate ...again.
The bloviating buffoon and Lord Haw Haw of endless war sounds like a true believer in throwing good money after bad.
Take Ali Baba Ahmed.
Please!
However it must be allowed...he could be a recovering believer.
Some of us out in the reality based emperical community did not object too much to ' Plan Afghanistan'. After all that could be construed as a liberation for the vast majority...at least for a time. ( RAWA now claims things are just as bad as ever they were and certainly the supply of narcotics has dramatically picked up - not that there's anything wrong with that )
If it had only all stopped there with just another 3000 odd innocents lives snuffed out as collateral damage.
Unfortunately like some crack addict's or alcoholic's it was impossible for Hitchens new warmongering friends to stop at one.
The criminal enemies of peace might have been stopped had the (military-entertainment complex) media done what it is supposed to do. Obviously it is as dysfunctional as the so called ' intelligence' services.
And so we see clearly now the greatest bunch of outright criminals since the third Reich...and their Lord Haw Haw, Hitchens.
The ultimate example of the sunk cost fallacy Christopher Hitchens.
Hitchens ripped off real journalists to create a mini ( sub Chalabi/ Che ) level myth about himself as the anti-Kissinger.
This begs the question - who's Kissinger now?
At least Mother Teresa never came out for illegal aggressive war (in the trad sense.)
It's passing strange that the ' left' warmongers who claim to be so sensitive to the oppression of women under Islam have helped create this trainwreck where the main beneficiaries are fanatics who beat women journalists to death and hang gays.
It was predicted... and they could have found out that it was predictable. That is if they were not a) stupid, or b) corrupt or c) hopeless drunks. ( or some combination of those three... in Hitchens case ' All of the above' )
In my cynical moments I sometimes think that the Axis of evil should stay in Afghanistan. This is where old empires go to die... and the Afghans are fighters!
They gave it to the British up the Khyber pass and beat the Reds black and blue.

Yes SLATE - you do appeal to my darth side sometimes.
Then I think of the depraved, nihilistic and fascisticly misanthropic policy of creating a free fire zone there ...so we won't have to fight them fair and square here.
And you have to think of the 100 thousand and climbing innocent casualties of the illegal aggressive invasion of SW Asia.
Ya Basta. Enough.
Enough warmongering lies and lies to cover up yet more lies.
Enough criminal conspiracy aided and abetted by a corrupt media.
Enough of this fascist history repeating as farce.
Hitchens to the Hague. Hang Hitchens. ( after a fair trial naturally )

Operation Bushit storm

WASHINGTON -- As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. . The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents, and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

While the articles are basically truthful, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles -- with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism" -- since the effort began this year.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.

The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are vowing to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech to a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption. It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled "The Role of Press in a Democratic Society."

Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of Saddam Hussein. The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said.

The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility both in foreign nations and with the American public.

"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media.

The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has moved to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs -- the dissemination of truthful information to the media -- and psychological and information operations, which use propaganda and sometimes misleading information to advance the objectives of a military campaign.

The Bush administration has come under criticism for distributing video and news stories in the United States without identifying the federal government as their source and for paying American journalists to promote administration policies, practices the Government Accountability Office has labeled "covert propaganda."

According to military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq, much of the effort is directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters (MNC-I) commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are critical of the effort and are not authorized to speak publicly about it.

A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln Group spokesman also declined comment.

As part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the past year, one of the military officials said that the task force also has purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and is using the outlets to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.

The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under U.S. control, saying that naming the organizations would put their employees at risk of insurgent attacks.

U.S. law forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or planting propaganda with American media outlets. Yet several officials said that given the globalization of media driven by the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, the Pentagon's efforts are carried out with the knowledge that coverage in the foreign press inevitably "bleeds" into the Western media and influences coverage in U.S. news outlets.

"There is no longer any way to separate foreign media from domestic media. Those neat lines don't exist anymore," said one private contractor who does information operations work for the Pentagon.

Daniel Kuehl, an information operations expert at National Defense University, said that he does not believe that planting stories in Iraqi media is wrong. But he questioned whether the practice would help turn the Iraqi public against the insurgency.

"I don't think that there's anything evil or morally wrong with it," he said. "I just question whether it's effective."

One senior military official who spent this year in Iraq said it was the strong pro-U.S. message in some news stories in Baghdad that first made him suspect that the U.S. military was planting stories in the Iraqi media.

"Stuff would show up in the Iraqi press and I would ask: 'Where the hell did that come from?' It was clearly not something that indigenous Iraqi press would have conceived of on their own," the official said.

Iraqi newspaper editors reacted with a mixture of shock and shrugs when told they were targets of a U.S. military psychological operation.

Some of the newspapers, such as Mutamar, a Baghdad-based daily run by associates of Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, ran the articles as news stories, indistinguishable from other news reports. Before the war, Chalabi was the Iraqi exile favored by senior Pentagon officials to lead post-Hussein Iraq.

Others, such as the independent Mada daily, ran them as "advertorials" and distinguished them from editorial content with disclaimers. Yet the disclaimers did not mention any connection to the U.S. military.

One Aug. 6 piece, published prominently on Mutamar's second page, ran as a news story with the headline "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism." Documents obtained by The Times indicated that the newspaper was paid approximately $50 to run the story, though the editor of the paper said he runs such articles for free.

Nearly $1,500 was paid to the independent Addastour newspaper to run a Aug. 2 article entitled "More Money Goes to Iraq's Development," the records indicated. The newspaper's editor, Bassem Sheikhly, said he had "no idea" where the piece came from but wrote "media services" on top of the article to distinguish it from other editorial content.

The U.S. military-written articles come in to Mutamar, the newspaper run by Chalabi's associates, via the Internet and are often unsigned, said Luay Baldawi, the paper's editor-in-chief.

"We publish anything," he said. "The paper's policy is to publish everything, especially if it praises causes we believe in. We are pro-American. Everything that supports America we will publish."

Yet other employees of the newspaper were far less supportive of their paper's connection with the U.S. military. "This is not right," said Faleh Hassan, an editor at Mutamar. "It reflects the tragic condition of journalists in Iraq. Journalism is in Iraq is in very bad shape."

Ultimately, Baldawi admitted that he, too, was disturbed by the origin of the articles and vowed to be "more careful about stuff we get by email."

Iraqi newspapers are often shoestring operations barely breaking even while paying writers and editors little more than $200 a month.

After he learned of the source of three paid advertorials that ran in Mada in July, the paper's managing editor, Abdul-Zahra Zaki, was outraged, immediately summoning a manager of the advertising department to his office.

"I'm very sad," he said. "We have to investigate."

The Iraqis who delivered the articles also reaped modest profits from the arrangements, according to sources and records.

Employees at Mada said that a low-key man arrived at the newspaper's offices in downtown Baghdad on July 30 with a large wad of U.S. dollars. He told the editors that he wanted to publish an article entitled "Terrorists Attack Sunni Volunteers" in the respected newspaper.

He paid cash and left no calling card, employees said. He did not want a receipt. The name he gave employees was the same as that of a Lincoln Group worker in the records obtained by the Los Angeles Times. Although editors at Mada said he paid $900 to place the article, records show the man told Lincoln Group that he gave more than $1,200 to the paper.

Mada is widely considered the most cerebral and professional of Iraqi newspapers, publishing investigative reports as well as poetry.

Zaki said that if his cash-strapped paper knew the these stories had been from the U.S. government, he would have "charged much, much more" to publish them.

According to several sources, the process for placing the stories begins when soldiers write "storyboards" of events in Iraq, such as a joint U.S.-Iraqi raid on a suspected insurgent hide-out, or a suicide bomb that killed Iraqi civilians.

The storyboards, several of which were obtained by The Times, read more like press releases than news stories, and often contain anonymous quotes from U.S. military officials. It is unclear whether the anonymous quotes are authentic.

"Absolute truth was not an essential element of these stories," said the senior military official who spent this year in Iraq.

One of the storyboards, dated Nov. 12, describes a U.S. and Iraqi offensive in Karabilah and Husaybah, towns in western Iraq.

"Both cities are stopping points for foreign fighters entering Iraq to wage their unjust war," the storyboard reads.

It continues with a quote from an anonymous U.S. military official: " 'Iraqi army soldiers and U.S. forces have begun clear-and-hold operations in the city of Karabilah near Husaybah town, close to the Syrian border,' said a military official once operations began."

Another storyboards, written on the same date, describes the capture of a insurgent bomb-maker in Baghdad."As the people and the (Iraqi Security Forces) working together, Iraq will finally drive terrorism out of Iraq for good," it concludes.

It was unclear whether those two storyboards have made their way into Iraqi newspapers.

A debate over the Pentagon's handling of information has raged since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

In 2002, the Pentagon was forced to shut down its Office of Strategic Influence, which had been created the previous year, after reports surfaced that it intended to plant false news stories in the international media.

For much of 2005, a Defense Department working group has been trying to forge a policy about the proper role of information operations in wartime. Pentagon officials say the group has yet to resolve the often-contentious debate in the building about the boundaries between military public affairs and information operations.

Lincoln Group, formerly known as Iraqex, is one of several companies hired by the U.S. military to carry out "strategic communications" in countries where large numbers of U.S. troops are based.

The company's website states that Lincoln Group relies "on our experience, quality people, flexibility, and a low profile to get the job done."

"The bottom line to our success often comes down to the fact that we live and work inside these communities. Our staff members are experts on the communities they work in and are able to immerse themselves in them unobtrusively."

Some of Lincoln Group's work in Iraq is very public, such as an animated public service campaign on Iraqi television that spotlights the innocent Iraqis killed by roadside bombs planted by insurgents.

Besides its contract with the military in Iraq, Lincoln Group earlier this year won a major contract with U.S. Special Operations Command, based in Tampa, to develop a strategic communications campaign in concert with special operations troops stationed around the globe. The contract is worth up to $100 million over five years, although U.S. military officials said they doubted the Pentagon would spend the full amount of the contract.

Mazzetti reported from Washington and Daragahi from Baghdad.

Pelosi comes across

Whatever Bubble boy blubbers about has little interest for the reality based community. That community that today, welcomes, house leader Pelosi into it's ever increasing ranks. This significant move further isolates 'opposition' warmonger's such as Hilary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. There is also ever increasing pressure on large slabs of the military-entertainment complex, the so-called MSM, to join and share in reality community politics. This pressure comes from two fronts; one being ignored and the other not getting paid.
It's beyond doubt now that what was described about a hundred years ago as ' new superpower'; public opinion, has aquired a incredible force multiplier in the internet in general and blogs in particular. It's not to hard to see a total collapse in state power in the medium term with all power flowing to free floating networks. The outcomes for world peace, environmental repair and equitable distribution according to need could only improve from such intercommunal anarchy.
While the net itself is not strictly anarchic it is growing faster every second and anarchic grids and meshnets can now be easily overlain on the basic node architecture.
The future keeps happening and it is up to us to stop team Bush cold, fix global warming and fair trade. The best way to do that imho is to take out the upper echelons of the state; the biggest state first. The birth of our power should not go unoticed because we have a limited window of opportunity to fix the war , climate and trade problem's without more massive loss of life.

CIA Follies

One of the 22 CIA agents wanted in Italy over the kidnapping of Egyptian imam Abu Omar from a street in Milan in February 2003 has claimed in his defence that the Italian authorities were well aware of the operation. The lawyer for Robert Seldon Lady, who headed the CIA's Milan station from 2000 to January 2004, made the claim while challenging the warrant issued for his arrest by Italian prosecutors in June this year, saying his actions had "explicit, or at least implicit authorisation from the Italian government."

However, Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reports that "the CIA has lost the first legal round" in its fight to legitimise its practice of 'extraordinary renditions', which involves the capturing and deporting of foreign terror suspects without any trial to countries where they could be tortured.

Milan judge Enrico Manzi rejected the first line of defence used by Lady's lawyer, with a verdict establishing that no diplomatic immunity or state secret can authorise "the capture of suspects outside of every judiciary control" by either Italian or foreign secret services. Manzi therefore declared the rendition "an act of force" which "violates the sovereignty of Italy" and cannot be justified.

Omar was already under surveillance by Italian police when he was kidnapped, suspected of having links with terrorist groups and recruiting young people to be used as martyrs in Iraq. Milan investigating magistrates say he was first taken to the Aviano American air base in northern Italy and transferred to a military base at Ramstein in Germany, from where he was then flown to Egypt in a private plane hired by the CIA. Since then he has been held at the high security Tora prison, where, he told a friend when he was briefly released, he was tortured to the point of being left partially paralysed.

Pressure has been growing for an explanation into dozens of CIA flights through Europe thought to have picked up and delivered terror suspects to prisons in countries where they may subsequently have been tortured. An investigation has been opened in Germany into the use of the Ramstein base in the Abu Omar rendition.

Italian investigators found a photograph of Abu Omar on Lady's computer, taken on the street he was seized from 33 days before he disappeared. His wife had deleted all the files on his computer, but on rebuilding the hard drive, police are reported to have found evidence that he had run searches for the shortest route from the Milan street where Omar was kidnapped to Aviano. A list of the luxurious hotels in Milan the agents accused of being involved in the kidnapping stayed in was also found in the rubbish bin in his garage.

Evidence has also been uncovered that Lady was in Cairo during the two weeks when Omar is said to have suffered the most violent interrogation. Investigators tracked down two airplane tickets showing that he flew to Cairo from Zurich on 24 February 2003, and returned to Italy on 7 March.

In her first appeal, Lady's lawyer Daria Pesce, claimed he was innocent or "only following orders" and was occupying the role of consul at the time, giving him "diplomatic immunity" which also covered him for "special missions". However, this argument was rejected by the judge, who decreed that immunity does not cover "serious crimes like kidnapping". State secrets, he argued, protect "the security of Italian democracy" and not "actions carried out by foreign operatives".

The Italian government and intelligence service SISMI have always denied knowledge of the operation to capture Abu Omar. However, Lady's lawyer stated twice in his defence that "Lady, in his consular role as intelligence supervisor, undoubtedly enjoyed the authorisation of the US government in agreement with the political authorities of the Italian state" and this "Italian approval" was "indispensible" for a "special mission sent by the United States".

Italy's La Repubblica newspaper speculated on Wednesday that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi could soon find himself forced to make a difficult choice: "Turn the whole affair into a state secret, thereby admitting that Palazzo Chigi [the Prime Minister's office] knew, or alternatively, hand over to the Milan prosecutor's office the names of those who authorised or kept quiet about the kidnapping of Abu Omar."

While the Bush administration has publicly defended the extraordinary rendition practice, it has always denied complicity in any torture the suspect may later have suffered in the country he was sent to.
In the UK Allegations that the CIA has been using the UK as a stopping point for flights on their way to secret jails have raised a complex legal debate.

It is not in dispute that the infliction of torture - for whatever purpose - is unlawful under the UN Torture Convention of 1984, to which Britain, in common with 140 states, is a party.

The law was used as recently as last summer to underpin the prosecution of an Afghan warlord arrested in London. Article 4 of the UN Convention makes complicity in torture an offence.

In principle, then, if it can be established that the government knowingly allowed CIA " torture flights" to land in Britain or use British airspace, there must be a case to bring before the UK courts.

Professor Philippe Sands, an authority on human rights and the law, says: "I would go further and argue that international law imposes a positive obligation on the government to investigate these allegations of torture."

But lawyer Khawar Qureshi points out that the UK courts "through long established case law have refrained from adjudicating on acts of the executive which are rooted in policy and national interest consideration".


A string of British airports have allegedly been used

If Liberty goes ahead with a judicial review application, its chances of success will be in the balance.

It is becoming evident that the US administration is also anxious to find an answer to the moral and legal problems raised by the process of so-called " extraordinary rendition" - where captives are interrogated in third countries.

One reported suggestion, from Vice-president Dick Cheney, is that the CIA should be authorised to do the questioning itself in circumstances where the suspects are not US citizens and they are being held as part of counterterrorism operations abroad.

Unresolved issue

The proposal, made to senior Republican senator John McCain, who is sponsoring a law which would ban inhumane treatment and oblige all US agencies to abide by the UN Torture Convention, was rejected.

The use of evidence obtained under torture is an unresolved issue.

It is claimed that the federal prosecuting authorities decided not to charge a man, held for three years as an "enemy combatant", with planning to detonate a "dirty bomb", because the evidence against him was extracted under torture.

And the House of Lords will shortly give a landmark ruling on the same issue. Can such evidence obtained abroad be admissible in the British courts?

The Appeal Court said that it could because the UN Torture Convention has not been incorporated into UK law.

If the ruling is upheld by the law lords, the ambition of human rights groups to place legal curbs around the apparently growing use of torture will be thwarted.

Backsliding Marxist?

Hitchens is still scribbling away at SLATE. This is a scandal all on it's own and one that stinks up an entire portal...glad it's Hitchens confrere's that have to live with it...much like sharing a W/house with a Turd blossom I imagine.
Best not to linger in either cesspit.
In the recent past, Hitchen's has claimed to be a ' recovering Marxist'. He's also written a grovelling brown nosing paen to ' The Old Man' Leon Trotsky in ' Atlantic'.
( Another site suffering from the old ' lie down with dog's syndrome' )
You could see an example of how much a recovering Marxist Hitchens really is today at SLATE...'...How strange that the anti-war left should have forgotten all of its Marxism and superciliously ignored the fact that oil is blood: lifeblood for Iraqis and others. Under Saddam it was wholly privatized; now it can become more like a common resource. But it will need to be protected against those who would shed it and spill it without compunction, and we might as well become used to the fact...'

It would appear Hitchens hasn't forgotten his Marxism at all!

How feeble his ' recovery'!

But then he ' recover's' again...fast as WC Fields. ( I have to wonder if Hitch ever gets whiplash quaffing all that refrigerator wine he inhales...shouldn't be surprised if he shows up with a neck brace I guess )

"...With or without a direct Anglo-American garrison, there is an overwhelming humanitarian and international and civilizational interest in defeating the Arab Khmer Rouge that threatens Mesopotamia,..'

And they called John Kerry a ' Flipper'!

Those of us not six sheets to the wind on SLATE claret might consider who created the original Khmer Rouge by massive air bombing campaigns while ' Vietnamization' was underway. Then the same crew that maintained recognition of the Khymer Rouge AFTER their terrible ( yet typically Marxist) atrocities were known.

Why the friends of Christopher Hitchens of course. You know him. The ' recovering Marxist' who's Kissinger now. Hey ferggedabout ' Blood for oil'. Blood for CLARET!

Hitchens is overtaking Stephen Schwartz and coming up fast on David Horowitz with a sideways nod to James A Donald!

' With or without Ali Baba Ahmed and his 400 Sandline thieves...'

NSA Takeout

GREENBELT // A former National Security Agency employee admitted to backing his pickup truck up to an unguarded exit and hauling away boxes of classified material, an FBI agent testified yesterday.
The former NSA employee, Kenneth Ford, made the admission during a raid on his Waldorf home, FBI agent Michael Thompson testified. Thompson, the first witness called in Ford's trial, said he was "surprised" to find the classified materials in Ford's home, but said, "I don't recall Mr. Ford reacting."

Prosecutors said they raided the home after receiving a tip from Ford's girlfriend, Tanya Tucker.

Ford told the agents he was using the documents as reference material for a new job. The former NSA employee is charged with illegally possessing classified materials and making false statements while trying to obtain security clearance.

Defense attorney Spencer Hecht said in opening statements that the case was not as simple as the prosecutor said. Noting the strict security policies in place at the NSA, Hecht told jurors the case was about the "feasibility and possibility that Ford could have taken them."

The defense attorney also said he would show a link between the girlfriend and the NSA. By the end of the trial, jurors will come to the conclusion "that something here just isn't right, something here just doesn't make sense and there's a whole lot more to this story."

As the trial started in U.S. District Court yesterday, the judge warned jurors the conduct of the case would be unusual because of the classified nature of much of the evidence.

For example, jurors would not be allowed to discuss much of what they would hear even after the trial is over, said Judge Peter J. Messitte. He said they also would "hear" testimony from so-called silent witnesses who would point to significant sections of classified documents the jury would be handed, but would not talk about those sections in open court.

Ford, 34, faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison on the charges, prosecutors said.

Howard the Hangman

Australian government deserts young man due to hang in Singapore
By Mike Head 30 November 2005 WSWS
A young Australian man will almost certainly be hanged in Singapore at 6 a.m. this Friday after the Australian government made it plain it was prepared to sacrifice his life to bolster its economic and strategic relations with the anti-democratic south-east Asian regime.

Despite pleas from around the world, Van Tuong Nguyen, 25, will be executed under Singapore’s mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, including those people caught working as “mules”.

Over recent weeks, tens of thousands of people, including school students and community groups, in Australia have taken part in “candles of hope” rallies, signed petitions, sent SMS messages and written letters, pleading for a halt to the execution. In Singapore, where public assemblies are forbidden and the government-controlled media has suppressed reportage and discussion, hundreds have nevertheless attended protest meetings. In one instance, authorities censored an anti-hanging art exhibit, removing all references to Nguyen.

In the face of the groundswell of support for the young man, Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his key ministers have engaged in hypocritical hand wringing—claiming to oppose the execution, but not even lodging a formal diplomatic protest to Singapore. On Monday, they finally ended the pretence, declaring that there was nothing further they could do.

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer ruled out mounting a challenge in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Howard dismissed calls for a minute’s silence across Australia to mark the execution and the prime minister confirmed that he would not alter his plans to attend a cricket game in Canberra on Friday.

Even then, Howard claimed to be doing the “decent” thing by ending the “false hopes” of Nguyen’s family. “There does come a time when the most decent, honest thing I can do is to express the view that I am now, that I do not believe that the Singaporean Government will be moved to change its mind.”

An Australian citizen of Vietnamese descent, Nguyen was arrested at Singapore’s Changi Airport almost exactly three years ago, on December 12, 2002, after being found in possession of 396 grams of heroin. He admitted attempting to smuggle the narcotics between Cambodia and Australia and agreed to cooperate with the authorities, including the Australian Federal Police, in the hope of avoiding the noose.

Nguyen has been on death row since March 2004 after being convicted under Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act, which carries a compulsory death sentence for anyone found guilty of trafficking in more than 15 grams of heroin. Singapore’s high court rejected his appeal on October 20 and the country’s president S.R. Nathan, dismissed a clemency plea the very next day.

The young man’s case is a particularly tragic example of the way in which many poor people become drug couriers, taking huge risks for relatively small payments from narcotics syndicates. He agreed to carry the heroin in an effort to pay off debts incurred by his identical twin brother, Khoa, stemming from drug problems. The family has struggled financially since arriving in Australia from a refugee camp in Thailand, where Nguyen and his brother were born.

While claiming to sympathise with Nguyen and his distraught family, Howard spelt out Canberra’s attitude most bluntly on November 20. He described Nguyen’s plight as a “desperately sad case”, but then said it would not “contaminate our bilateral relationship with Singapore”. His comment underscored the primary calculation that has been made in corporate, political and media circles from the outset—popular support for Nguyen must not be allowed to disrupt Australia’s lucrative business, geo-political and military links with Singapore.

In an attempt to cover the government’s tracks, Downer on Monday tabled in parliament a list of 30 occasions on which Australian representatives had raised Nguyen’s case with Singaporean ministers. Two things, however, stand out about the list. First, no senior Australian minister said a word until almost a year after Nguyen was arrested, by which time he had already been charged with an offence carrying the mandatory death penalty.

A senior Singaporean defence lawyer, Subhas Anandan, said the time for Australia to intervene was back in December 2002, before Nguyen was formally charged. Anandan had represented a German woman, Julia Bohl, who was originally charged with a capital offence over drug crimes but had her sentence commuted to five years by a plea bargain.

More fundamentally, not once has the Australian government issued a formal protest in any diplomatic forum or court, either against Nguyen’s death sentence or capital punishment itself.

Over the past month, Howard has had the opportunity to raise Nguyen’s case in two international gatherings—on the floor of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum in South Korea and at the (former British) Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Malta—but decided not to do so. Instead, he held friendly talks with Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the son of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding prime minister and continuing “Minister Mentor”.

At the time when Howard was meeting with Lee in South Korea, Nguyen’s mother received an official letter from Singapore, advising her of the date and time of her son’s execution.

Over the past week, Howard and Downer have rejected out of hand expert legal opinion that Australia could take the case to the ICJ. Nguyen’s lawyer, Lex Lasry, QC, received advice from barrister, Dr Christopher Ward, who practices in international law and has experience at the international court, that Australia could apply to the court to halt the hanging, with or without Singapore’s acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction.

In his written opinion, Ward stated: “Australia and Singapore are parties to each of the United Nations Narcotic Conventions. Each of those conventions contains a clause permitting recourse to the International Court of Justice.” Other international law experts, including Sydney University’s professor Don Rothwell, said the narcotic convention and other treaties signed by Singapore would allow Australia to obtain an emergency injunction to stop the execution. Rothwell cited three “death row” cases heard by the court in the past seven years, each against the United States.

But after apparently scouring the globe for a contrary opinion, Downer said he had received advice from Cambridge international law professor James Crawford that there was no basis to take the case to the court. Downer declared there were no more legal avenues left and “only a miracle” would save Nguyen’s life. Yet, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock admitted that Australia had not even formally demanded that Singapore accede to the international court’s jurisdiction.


Corporate and strategic interests

The motivations behind the Howard’s government’s callous inaction are clear. As a financial and trading hub for regional and global capital in South East Asia, Singapore is Australia’s largest trading partner in the region, with two-way exports and imports currently worth $10.6 billion annually. Singaporean investment in Australia is substantial, involving companies such as Optus, Singapore Airlines and CapitaLand, Singapore’s Government Investment Corporation, which owns hotels, and Temasek, which holds a stake in the airline Qantas. These corporate ties were cemented by a Free Trade Agreement signed between the two countries in 2003.

Canberra also places high value on its military and security links with the Singaporean regime. The two governments conduct joint military exercises and their police and intelligence agencies work intimately together as part of the “war on terrorism”. Diplomatically, Singapore maintains close relations with the region’s major powers—the US, Japan and China—and recently assisted Howard in gaining a belated invitation to the new East Asia Summit.

If Howard were in any doubt as to the stance he should take, Monday’s editorial in the Australian, Rupert Murdoch’s national daily, spelled it out. Pouring scorn on calls by broadcaster Mike Carlton and others for economic sanctions and consumer boycotts against Singapore, it said: “Are our economic relations with Singapore a mere bagatelle that we should be prepared to sacrifice on the altar of a feel-good moral gesture? Hardly. Singapore is our largest trading partner in the region, and the eighth-largest of all, with annual two-way trade of well over $10 billion. Around a quarter of a million Singaporeans visit here each year, and they are a huge market for our elite schools and universities.”

Significantly, the editorial noted that Singapore was an “authoritarian” society, but a “successful” one. Since the British granted Singapore self-government in 1959, Lee Kuan Yew’s Peoples Action Party (PAP) has made the country a virtual one-party state. The PAP has ruled through a mixture of electoral payoffs and the systematic suppression of even the most moderate political opposition. Local big business and the major powers have backed the PAP for decades as a guarantor of economic and political stability.

Its drug laws are part of the PAP’s wide-ranging draconian measures. Singapore has retained the notorious Internal Security Act (ISA), instituted by the former British colonial administration, which can be used to arrest and detain people without trial virtually indefinitely on the vague grounds of national security.

Nguyen is far from the only citizen being sacrificed on the altar of the financial and strategic interests of Australian capitalism. The Howard government has likewise wiped its hands of responsibility for the nine young people—dubbed the Bali Nine—currently facing the death penalty in Indonesia on similar heroin trafficking charges. In that case, the drive to boost ties with Jakarta saw the Australian Federal Police effectively hand the nine over to the Indonesian police. David Hicks is another victim. After more than four years in Guantánamo Bay, he remains incarcerated without trial in the interests of the government’s close ties with the Bush administration.


Howard and the death penalty

According to Amnesty International, Singapore, with a population of just over four million, is believed to have the highest per capita execution rate in the world. By best estimates—given that secrecy surrounds the official statistics—more than 420 people have been executed since 1991, the majority for drug trafficking.

But for the Howard government to offer any criticism would call into question its relations with two other death penalty regimes—the Stalinist bureaucracy in China and the Bush administration in the US.

Based on public reports available, Amnesty International estimates that at least 3,400 people were executed by Chinese authorities during 2004, although the true figures are believed to be much higher. In the same year there were 59 executions in the US, bringing the total to 944 since the use of the death penalty was resumed in 1977. More than 3,400 US prisoners remain on death row and US President George W. Bush has personally presided over 152 executions—when he was governor of Texas.

The death penalty was abolished in Australia in the 1970s. But the Howard government, which came to office in 1996, has never issued any condemnation of its use by its key trading partners.

Only two years ago, in August 2003, Howard exploited the trials of the October 2002 Bali bombers to call for a “debate” on capital punishment. While he claimed to oppose it for “pragmatic” reasons, he used the occasion to appeal to a right-wing constituency that has periodically clamoured for its return. “I respect the fact that a lot of people are in favour of the death penalty, a lot of people who are close to me are in favour of the death penalty.... They are not barbaric, they’re not insensitive, they’re not vindictive, they’re not vengeful.”

As some media commentators have observed, Howard has been playing “dog whistle” politics throughout the Nguyen affair—seemingly opposing this particular execution but carefully courting this pro-death penalty base. In all their statements, Howard and his ministers have scrupulously avoided any condemnation of capital punishment per se.

Amid the countdown to Van Nguyen’s state murder, the federal parliament is preparing to pass the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, which contains provisions—such as “preventative” detention without trial, house arrests and sweeping sedition laws—that would not be out of place in Singapore.

See Also:
Howard government abandons Australian citizen sentenced to death in Singapore
[26 October 2005]
The Howard government, the Australian media and the Schapelle Corby case
[9 June 2005]
Howard government leaves “Bali nine” alleged drug runners to their fate
[11 May 2005] WSWS

Yes we have no secret torture dungeon's

Rice: US will respond to inquiry about CIA prisons
Boston Globe - United States
... Rice promised Germany's foreign minister yesterday that the United States would respond to a European Union inquiry into secret CIA prisons allegedly operating all around Europe and added...' please, PLEASE don't let them bust any more of our station chiefs and agents, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF BABY JESUS!'

A judge has rejected an appeal by a former CIA station chief in Milan against an arrest warrant issued for his alleged role in the kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric, ruling that he was not protected by diplomatic immunity.

Italian judges have issued arrest warrants for 22 purported CIA agents, including the former station chief Robert Seldon Lady, accused of involvement in the kidnapping of cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr.

The judge on Monday rejected arguments by Seldon Lady's lawyer, Daria Pesce, who claimed that he was protected under international treaty and Italian law, and that evidence of his involvement in any alleged abduction was weak.

Prosecutors claimed Nasr's abduction was a serious violation of Italian sovereignty, and said it hindered Italian terrorism investigations. They reconstructed the alleged operation through cell phone traffic and other evidence, contending that Seldon Lady played a central role.

They have sought the extradition of the 22 suspects, and the Italian Justice Ministry is deciding whether to press the case with Washington.

Prosecutors claim that Nasr, believed to belong to an Islamic terror group, was abducted on a Milan street on Feb. 17, 2003, before being flown to Egypt, where he was reportedly tortured. He is believed to still be there.

Pesce contended that Seldon Lady's work as an intelligence officer accredited at the U.S. Consulate protected him.

But Milan Judge Enrico Manzi ruled that Seldon Lady lost immunity when he left his post in August 2004, and that in any case consular officials could be arrested for grave crimes, according to court documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

He said that consular officials did enjoy protection, ``but always within the limits of international law. Within these limits, naturally, is the principle of the sovereignty of the host state that cannot allow on its territory the use of force by a foreign state that outside every control of the political and judicial authorities.''

Neither Seldon Lady, who owns a home in Italy, nor any of the other suspects has been arrested, with all of them believed to be out of the country.

Pesce said Seldon Lady was in the United States. She said she planned to appeal Manzi's decision.

Manzi noted in his ruling that there had been contacts between Seldon Lady's phone and others used by suspects believed to have carried out the kidnapping.

The judge said evidence from a raid on Seldon Lady's home, turning up among other evidence a photo of Nasr and records of Internet searches to plan the route of Nasr's transfer from Milan, ``have made the picture of evidence against him even more complete.''

Nasr's alleged abduction was purportedly part of the CIA's ``extraordinary rendition'' program, in which terrorism suspects are transferred to third countries without court approval, subjecting them to possible ill-treatment.

Premier Silvio Berlusconi's government, a strong U.S. ally, has denied it had any prior knowledge of the alleged kidnapping. The United States has consistently declined comment on the case.

Don't call them insurgent's

Call them winners. Don't call us, we'll call you ...Oh wait. ' We have always been at war with Oceania bin Ladin', my bad.

Curious Moves on the P2P Playing Field
TechNewsWorld - Sherman Oaks,CA,USA
... They know they can't beat P2P though -- so they're trying to enjoin it. The use of P2P technologies would solve many, if not most ...


First media center with P2P support
Register - London,England,UK
A Dutch company has launched a mediacenter under the name of Lamabox, which takes all its content from P2P networks such as Edonkey, Bittorrent, Fasttrack ...


Court Dismisses P2P Mom Appeal
MP3 Newswire - Freehold,NJ,USA
... The cartel is fighting a losing battle against the p2p file sharing networks which sprang up as a form of citizen protest against the labels, and people such ...


New P2P service uses Gmail storage
PC Pro - UK
... His new service, known as G2G Exchange combines the storage capacity of Gmail with p2p technology to create a new file-sharing service. ...

Empire of corruption

The Abramoff affair: Snapshots from an empire of corruption
By Patrick Martin 29 November 2005
Many episodes in Abramoff’s relations with various congressmen have already been given considerable exposure in newspaper accounts and court filings. What follows is a summary of the most revealing:

Christian fundamentalists and Internet gambling

In what seems to have been a dress rehearsal for the Coushatta Indian shakedown, Abramoff and Tony Rudy, a senior aide to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, induced a prominent Christian fundamentalist to intervene against a bill restricting Internet gambling, without telling him that Abramoff was working on behalf of eLottery, a Connecticut-based e-gambling company.

In the spring and summer of 2000, after the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act had passed the Senate and was moving through the House of Representatives, Abramoff was hired by eLottery to spike it. He arranged for a $25,000 payment from eLottery to a foundation which hired Rudy’s wife as a consultant, then himself hired Rudy as a lobbyist after the gambling bill was defeated.

As reported by the Washington Post October 16, Abramoff hit on the idea of inducing Christian fundamentalists to oppose the ban on e-gambling on the grounds that it did not go far enough, since the bill had loopholes to protect established horse-racing and jai alai interests. To disguise the source of funds, he had $150,000 funneled from eLottery through Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, then to a fundamentalist lobby called the Faith and Family Alliance, then to Ralph Reed’s Century Strategies company, before it reached the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon, apparently unwitting, came out publicly against the Internet gambling bill, breaking with other fundamentalist groups like the Moral Majority and Focus on the Family.

This money-laundering had an additionally seedy aspect: according to the Post account, the director of the Faith and Family Alliance, Robin Vanderwall, a former colleague of Reed’s at the Christian Coalition, “was later convicted of soliciting sex with minors via the Internet and is serving a seven-year term in Virginia state prison.”

Ultimately, the combined efforts of DeLay inside the House of Representatives and Sheldon’s lobbying outside tipped enough Republican votes. The ban on Internet gambling failed to get the two-thirds majority required to clear a procedural hurdle, and the effort was abandoned.

The congressman, the casino boat, and a mob hit

In the course of 2000, Congressman Robert Ney of Ohio twice placed into the Congressional Record remarks on a topic far-removed from his southeast Ohio district, an impoverished area on the border of Appalachia, once a center of coal mining. Ney denounced Gus Boulis, the owner of SunCruz Casinos, which operated a fleet of gambling boats based in south Florida (the boats went out beyond the three-mile limit to evade state gaming laws). And he praised the would-be purchaser of the company, Adam Kidan, whose partner in the business venture was Jack Abramoff.

Kidan and Abramoff had been members of the College Republicans together at Georgetown Law School. Kidan had later developed a close business relationship with Anthony “Big Tony” Moscatiello, linked in the press to the Gambino crime family. That did not stop Congressman Ney from praising Kidan lavishly and hailing the proposed sale of SunCruz by Boulis, which took place in September 2000.

Subsequently, aides to Ney and Tom DeLay were flown to Tampa, Florida on a SunCruz corporate jet to attend the 2001 Super Bowl, courtesy of Abramoff. Ney and his sons were invited but passed up the trip, although Ney went on at least three other junkets with Abramoff, including one to Scotland and another to the Northern Marianas Islands.

Shortly after the Super Bowl, Boulis, the man denounced by Ney from the safety of the House of Representatives—where he enjoyed immunity from libel action—was murdered in south Florida in a mob-style hit. Three men have been arrested and charged with the murder, including Moscatiello, who had been hired to supply “catering and security services” to SunCruz, as well as Anthony “Little Tony” Ferrari and James “Pudgy” Fiorillo.

Kidan and Abramoff awarded themselves $500,000 salaries and other perks from SunCruz, but it later emerged that they had borrowed $60 million to finance the takeover without putting down any of their own money. The two were indicted last summer for allegedly filing false documents showing they had invested $23 million in the purchase.

Michael Scanlon has now agreed to cooperate with the prosecution in the SunCruz fraud case. In his plea agreement, Scanlon admitted that he helped persuade Congressman Ney to insert comments into the Congressional Record that were “calculated to pressure the then-owner to sell on terms favorable” to Abramoff and Kidan.

A wireless contract and a school for snipers

No account of Abramoff’s operations would be complete without noting his close ties to right-wing Zionist groups in Israel. These surfaced in at least two incidents detailed in court documents related to the indictment of Michael Scanlon.

In 2002, Congressman Ney, in his capacity as chairman of the House Administration Committee, approved a license for an Israeli telecommunications company to install wireless antennas for the House of Representatives. His decision bypassed the usual bidding process and led to protests from competitors of Foxcom Wireless, the Israeli company. Foxcom subsequently paid Abramoff $280,000 for lobbying and donated $50,000 to a charity controlled by Abramoff.

The House of Representatives had earlier authorized a group of wireless companies to select a company which would install antennas for cellular phones in the Capitol and House office buildings, where service was poor. The companies were to choose the contractor and pay for the work, and they initially chose LGC Wireless of San Jose, California for the $3 million contract.

Foxcom Wireless, then an Israeli start-up, lobbied for the job. (After the job’s successful completion, Foxcom moved its offices from Jerusalem to Vienna, Va., in the Washington suburbs, and renamed itself MobileAccess Networks). Ney delayed the award of the contract, sparking a protest from LGC about the “highly politicized selection process.” In November 2002, Ney gave Foxcom the contract. He has refused to release documents about the award, on the grounds that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Congress.

More sinister is Abramoff’s apparent connection to efforts to train ultra-right Zionist settlers in Israel in how to kill Palestinians. The New York Times made one cryptic reference to this on November 4, in an article which noted in passing that Abramoff’s private charity, the Capital Athletic Foundation, “has come under scrutiny by Senate investigators since the foundation was used to underwrite overseas travel by members of Congress and senior government officials, as well as a Jewish day school that Mr. Abramoff had established and paramilitary training for kibbutz residents in Israel. Mr. Abramoff’s e-mail messages describe the training program as a ‘sniper school.’”

There is a grim irony in the possibility that contributions from American Indian tribes ultimately made their way to ultra-right settlers on the West Bank, many of them transplanted American Jews who boast of treating the Palestinians in the same way that white settlers in the Old West treated the Native Americans.

A front group for corporate polluters

One of the principal beneficiaries of cash from Abramoff was the Council of Republican Environmental Activists (CREA), which received hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from Indian tribes at Abramoff’s direction. The CREA was a peculiar target for the dollars of American Indian tribes, since its main function is to provide suitably “green” rationales for the rape of the American landscape by giant mining, timber and oil companies, frequently to the detriment of the Native American population.

Both Indian affairs and the environment are under the purview of the Department of the Interior, where the highest-ranking executive branch beneficiary of Abramoff’s attentions, J. Steven Griles, worked until recently. Griles was deputy secretary of interior, making him number two at the agency to Secretary Gale A. Norton (herself a right-wing activist who co-founded CREA with Grover Norquist). He was frequently lobbied by Abramoff on behalf of his tribal clients.

At a tense hearing November 3 before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the former legal counsel to the department, Michael G. Rossetti, sat next to Griles and directly contradicted his claim that he had never intervened in Indian casino matters during his four-year tenure. At one point, Rossetti testified, he demanded to know the reason for Griles’ intervention on a particular issue, and asked him “whose water was he carrying.”

Documents presented to the committee session included 300 pages of e-mails detailing close relations between Abramoff and Giles, including one in which Abramoff wrote that he had offered Griles a job and, “I expect he will be with us in 90-120 days. This will restrict what he can do for us in the meantime.” Griles acknowledged the job offer, which he said he had rejected and then immediately reported to the Interior Department’s ethics officer.

CREA’s current chief, Italia Federici, also testified—only after initially refusing to appear until US marshals served her with a subpoena. She admitted receiving $250,000 in contributions from Indian tribes, but denied having used her personal relationship with Griles to influence Interior Department actions on behalf of Abramoff’s clients. One e-mail released by the committee was a message from Abramoff to Federici about the Louisiana Jena tribe’s casino: “Can you make sure Steve knows about this and puts the kibosh on it? Thanks.”

See Also:
The Abramoff affair: Corruption scandal threatens Republican control of US Congress
[29 November 2005]WSWS

Where Westerners congregate...

I myself was in a whorehouse in Amman the night the bombing (I am one of the US mercs (or in PC terms, dirty nasty contractors)). I had stopped by the Hyatt about 30 minutes before the bombing but they were booked solid (some tour group had just checked in). I normally stay there as it caters to Westerners. The basement nightclub is well known, as Shahin states, for the place to go for women if you are new to Amman and haven't found the local haunts yet (which exist in ALL countries, Muslim nations included. It just takes some time to develop these ties). There are a couple other well-known western whore haunts but they are under French or German ownership (both vocal opponents against the war) hence not bombed.

Shahin makes many valid and legit points. When I was in Amman ten years ago, there wasn't a single strip club. Within the last two years, they have opened six that I know of. Before the war it was difficult for the un-informed visitor to find a whore. Today it takes fifteen minutes. Plenty of US and UK contractor operations are ran out Amman. Many internats have long-term leases on entire hotel floors where they run their Iraqi operations. You ask any merc which way they would prefer to enter / exit Iraq (you only have TWO choices, Kuwait or Jordan) and they will all agree Jordan. Not only are the Jordanians friendlier to Westerners (even on an individual basis), but Jordan has booze and women right out in the OPEN, something Kuwait doesn't have (even at Western hotels). Some people might not condone this, but after months of war-zone related stress, you just need to let your hair down for a couple days before transiting home or holiday. You need to go wild and get all that pent-up stress and anger out of your system before seeing the people that really care about you, friends and family back home. You don't want or need to take this baggage home with you. Amman provides this outlet (and profits off it quite well).

Food for thought:

- The Hyatt bombing was directed more than people realize (I stopped by the next day to survey the damage). The bomber did not just walk into the lobby and blow himself up. He went directly for the hotel bar (maybe 20 meters aways from the lobby) killing everybody there. I would have been there myself, drunk and dead, had the hotel not been booked solid. Sadly, they also killed the cute hostess who had been seating me for years.

- It doesn't help that the new so-called secular Iraqi government shut down the BIAP liquor store after meeting with Iran two months ago. Before mercs could at least blow off some steam over a few beers with co-workers. Now we are forced to carry an even bigger burden when we visit Amman.

Not that happy about the Amman bombings BUT this mainly has to do with the legit reasons Shahin pointed out. Him and I just sit on different sides the morality coin for these issues. I will be flying back in the next couple weeks, kind of curious if the open hedonism has died down in the aftermath of the bombings. I have my doubts; money is money and whores / drugs / alcohol are all high margin businesses. I know the whorehouses and bars were still going strong a week later. Let's see what a month does.

25 November 2005.

"Jordanian King Abdullah the Second, or rather Queen Elizabeth of England’s Corgi dog, turned Jordan into a brothel for servicing the needs of Crusaders carrying out murder, looting and rape in Iraq. Nobody should be surprised that Crusader inns were targeted." From CRYPTOME.

Red fascist China at it again

Reporters sans Frontieres has called on the Chinese authorities to stop blocking accessing to the website of the independent online encyclopedia Wikipedia, whose popularity has been growing steadily in China.

The site has been unavailable in several provinces including Shanghai since 18 October. This latest online censorship paradoxically comes at a moment when China is openly raising the issue of democracy by publishing its first white paper entitled The Construction of Political Democracy in China on 19 October. Internet users trying to visit the Wikipedia site since 18 October get an error message referring to temporary connection problems for unknown reasons. Wikipedia was previously blocked by the Chinese authorities in June and September 2004 because of dissident political content.

http://www.indexonline.org/

Licenced to demonstrate

Monday, November 28, 2005. Page 1.

Activists Find It Difficult to Protest Fascism By Nabi Abdullaev

Police physically prevented human rights activists from attending a City Hall-approved rally against fascism near Belorussky Station on Sunday, and when demonstrators rallied instead at City Hall, dozens were promptly detained and whisked away to a police station.

Liberal politicians, who organized the demonstration in response to a march by thousands of nationalists and skinheads through central Moscow earlier this month, accused authorities of encouraging nationalism and quashing a civil initiative aimed at curbing it. Moscow Times.

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck?

If a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Mystery of Woodward's Three Sources By Robert Parry - November 29, 2005

Buried deep in an article by the Washington Post’s media writer Howard Kurtz is new evidence that senior Bush administration officials knew their case for war with Iraq was shaky – and that the Post’s star reporter Bob Woodward ducked his duty to the American people to present this information before the invasion began.

Toward the end of a lengthy Style section piece on Nov. 28, Kurtz makes reference to an interview he did with Woodward in 2004, in which the famed Watergate reporter laments his failure to turn a more critical eye on the Bush administration’s claims about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction.

In the new article, Kurtz wrote, “Woodward has faulted himself for not being more aggressive before the war when three sources told him the weapons intelligence on Iraq was not as strong as the administration was claiming. ‘I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder,’ he said last year.”

That Woodward quote about blaming himself came from an Aug. 12, 2004, article that Kurtz wrote about shortcomings in the Post’s pre-war coverage of the WMD issue. But that article made no reference to Woodward having three of his own presumably well-placed sources challenging the administration’s WMD intelligence.

Instead, Kurtz’s 2004 article focused on Woodward’s pre-invasion efforts to help Post investigative reporter Walter Pincus polish up one of his story that raised doubts about the WMD assertions. But without Woodward’s full participation, the Pincus story ended up stuck on Page A17, a marginal item that did little to deter the march to war.

Without doubt, a co-bylined story with Woodward – that added the gravitas of Woodward’s three administration sources – would have landed the story on Page One. Such a story might then have had a serious impact on the national debate about whether a preemptive invasion of Iraq was justified.

Woodward's Risks

But if Woodward had written such a story, he would have been risking his journalistic reputation – if WMD were later discovered – as well as his cozy relationship with the Bush administration, which granted him extraordinary access for his best-selling books on Bush’s decision-making, Bush at War and Plan of Attack.

In the 2004 Kurtz article, Woodward observed that journalists risked looking silly if they questioned the administration’s WMD claims and then the U.S.-led invasion force found the weapons.

Woodward also noted the complaints about “groupthink” in the U.S. intelligence community on Iraq’s WMD, adding, “I think I was part of the groupthink. …We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier” than widely believed. [See Washington Post, Aug. 12, 2004.]

Given Woodward’s high-level access inside the Bush administration, WMD doubts expressed by his sources would have carried far more weight than those of other reporters who were seen as speaking more from the perspective of mid-level government officials.

Woodward is known to talk with officials in the government’s stratosphere, including top State Department officials such as Colin Powell and Richard Armitage as well as senior military officers at the Pentagon and top political operatives at the White House. So a Woodward-bylined story citing doubts about the WMD intelligence would have sent shockwaves through the Washington Establishment.

But during the run-up to war, Woodward chose to remain in the background, boosting the skeptical reporting of Pincus – even suggesting how Pincus might rewrite some paragraphs of one pivotal story – but not getting out front..

As Kurtz described in the 2004 article, Woodward's moment of truth came in mid-March 2003 as Bush was putting the finishing touches on his war plan and Pincus was hitting walls inside the Post against publication of a skeptical article about the WMD evidence.

“Woodward stepped in to give the stalled Pincus piece about the administration's lack of evidence a push,” Kurtz wrote. “As a star of the Watergate scandal who is given enormous amounts of time to work on his best-selling books, Woodward, an assistant managing editor, had the kind of newsroom clout that Pincus lacked.”

Woodward said he compared notes with Pincus and volunteered a draft of five paragraphs that concluded that the administration’s WMD evidence “looks increasingly circumstantial and even shaky,” according to “informed sources.”

According to Kurtz’s article, Woodward urged editors to run the Pincus article, though Woodward later faulted himself for not intervening with executive editor Leonard Downie to ensure that the Pincus article landed on Page One. Instead, the article questioning “whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence” ran on March 16, relegated to the back pages of the national news section.

Woodward told Kurtz that “he wished he had appealed to Downie to get front-page play for the story, rather than standing by as it ended up on Page A17,” according to Kurtz’s 2004 article. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.

Commenting more than a year after the invasion, Downie said: “In retrospect, that probably should have been on Page One instead of A17, even though it wasn't a definitive story and had to rely on unnamed sources. It was a very prescient story.”

Access to Bush

If bolstered by Woodward’s three sources and his co-byline, the story would have almost surely demanded Page One treatment. That would, however, have put Woodward access to Bush and other top administration officials in jeopardy.

That, in turn, could have meant fewer details available for Woodward’s best-selling book, Plan of Attack, which was published in spring 2004. A highlight of the book was a lengthy one-on-one interview with President Bush, who is known to be vengeful against people whom he sees as betraying him.

Yet, as the U.S. death toll in Iraq exceeds 2,100 (along with tens of thousands of Iraqis), many Americans have become markedly less sympathetic to the career predicaments of Washington journalists, especially multi-millionaires like Woodward.

Media critics also have questioned how Woodward has chosen to balance his duty to provide timely reporting on important issues against his friendly relations with the White House. Woodward, who is writing another book on Bush’s presidency, has been faulted, too, for withholding information about an administration official leaking to him information about the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003.

Woodward has since defended his reticence as necessary to protect the source. But rather than just keep quiet, Woodward went on TV to attack special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald as a “junkyard dog” for pressing journalists to divulge who inside the administration had outed Plame in 2003 after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, challenged Bush’s assertions about Iraq seeking enriched uranium from Niger.

Woodward also misled the public about what he knew regarding the Plame leak. On CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Oct. 27, 2005, Woodward denied rumors then swirling around Washington that he had “bombshell” information about the outing of Plame.

“I wish I did have a bombshell,” Woodward said. “I don’t even have a firecracker. I’m sorry. In fact, I mean this tells you something about the atmosphere here. … This went around that I was going to do it tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie, who is the editor of the Washington Post, called me and said, ‘I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on it?’ And I said, ‘I’m sorry to disappoint you but I don’t.’”

The Post later reported that Woodward revised his story to Downie, telling the editor that, in fact, Woodward was a recipient of possibly the earliest leak of Plame’s identity.

According to the Post’s chronology, Woodward told Downie this fact shortly before special prosecutor Fitzgerald announced the Oct. 28 indictment of vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby on charges of lying to FBI investigators, committing perjury before the grand jury and obstructing justice. Libby has pleaded not guilty.

But back on Oct. 27, while still denying the “bombshell,” Woodward dismissed Fitzgerald’s investigation as much ado about nothing.

“When the story comes out, I’m quite confident we’re going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson’s wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal. And there’s a lot of innocent actions in all of this,” Woodward said on CNN.

It’s unclear why Woodward saw only “innocent actions in all of this.” Two years earlier, a senior White House official told another Washington Post writer that at least six reporters had been informed about Plame before her name appeared in a July 14, 2003, column by conservative writer Robert Novak. The White House official said the disclosures about Plame were “purely and simply out of revenge.”

The outing of Plame, a covert officer working under what’s called “non-official cover,” destroyed her career as a counter-proliferation specialist, while also exposing her cover company – Brewster Jennings & Associates – and possibly agents whom she recruited.

Yet, on the eve of Libby’s indictment, Woodward was offering advice to Fitzgerald via CNN, that it would be best if the prosecutor left well enough alone.

“I don’t see an underlying crime here and the absence of the underlying crime may cause somebody who is a really thoughtful prosecutor to say, you know, maybe this is not one to go to the court with,” Woodward said. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Woodward & Washington’s ‘Tipping Point.’”]

So, Woodward, the journalistic hero in exposing Richard Nixon’s Watergate cover-up three decades ago, engaged in at least two instances of protecting dubious information emanating from George W. Bush’s White House.

Not only did Woodward withhold evidence that pre-war WMD intelligence was suspect, he added his clout to a post-invasion public relations campaign aimed at heading off criminal indictments of White House officials who had retaliated against an Iraq War critic by leaking classified information that endangered a covert CIA officer and her contacts.

To make matters worse, both these abuses of information came not on some garden-variety political dirty trick but on life-and-death questions about the administration’s integrity in leading the nation to war.

While it may be true that few of Washington’s elite know the mostly working-class men and women in the all-volunteer U.S. military, the moral weight of their sacrifices – and their deaths – should have some bearing on the consciences in the nation’s capital. Career advancement and seven-figure book contracts might for once take a back seat.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Have cellphone - will travel

Is your White house going to the dogs? Smell a bit woofy?

Professor Rat will give a featured keynote presentation at the 4th Annual Clinical Trials Congress (CTC), February 13-15, 2006 in Orange NSW.

As the ILF*'s senior negotiator and principal developer of their intercommunally acclaimed crisis negotiation training course, professor rat's experiences as one of earth's foremost experts on hostage situations gives him exceptional whisker perspective on negotiating through even the most difficult situations. Professor rat has been involved in hundreds of hostage, terrorist, barricade, suicide, aircraft hijacking and kidnapping cases (including the Milosovic, Belgrade negotiations).

Professor rat is a firm believer that "there are many parallels between what netlaw enforcement negotiators do and business minded people do." His keynote presentation will highlight these commonalities, illustrating a common skill set that can be applied for successful negotiations across all self managed industries and providing techniques that attendees can apply to their own clinical negotiations processes.

* Interzone Liberation Front - along with the ELF and ALF, the ILF form the part of the United Networks practising full sprectrum resistance.

New Police Terror Regime

As the Senate inquiry makes clear, an ill-considered response to the terrorist threat creates a second threat to our values and way of life.

AUSTRALIA has lived with the threat of terrorism for years. The official alert level hasn't changed since the September 11 attacks. All the while, significant counter-terrorism measures, both legislative and operational, have been put in place. Then came the London bombings in July. The Howard Government responded with a new anti-terrorism bill, based on a September 27 agreement with state and territory leaders, and intends to use its Senate majority to pass it by Christmas. When details were leaked, the Government reacted angrily. Once it became clear that public disquiet extended into Coalition ranks, the Government agreed to a Senate committee review. It reported back on Monday, having had less than four weeks to do its job. This was patently inadequate when, as the Government-dominated committee's report observes, the inquiry involved "the proposed introduction into Australian law of a completely new scheme capable of depriving citizens and residents of their liberty and allowing far-reaching intrusions into other fundamental civil liberties".

So radical are some changes that the committee insists these need to be reviewed within five years — the Government's concession of 10-year sunset clauses is exposed as almost meaningless. Whatever promises of restraint are made, the key issue is not the Government's intent — its pledges do not bind future governments. What ultimately matters is the effect of the law as it is written. The Parliament must get it right. The fact that it has been given just weeks to review and debate this bill, along with far-reaching workplace and welfare-to-work bills, betrays a disturbing Government attitude to the parliamentary process.

The committee reviewing the anti-terrorism bill has done well to identify key concerns and safeguards. For a start, it notes that questions of whether current anti-terrorism laws are, in fact, inadequate have not had a detailed official response. Despite citing exceptional circumstances, the Government hasn't signalled any intention to invoke a state of emergency — the only terms under which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides exemptions from provisions that the bill appears to infringe. While the bill draws on British legislation, Australia lacks the British and European human rights laws that protect people against the abuse of such powers.

The report records "significant opposition" to proposals for preventive detention and control orders. If draconian powers are adopted — and The Age remains opposed to the bill's extreme provisions — this will inevitably create an environment that increases risks of abuse. The report notes the Australian Federal Police did not oppose extra safeguards that "would not unduly undermine their operational capacity to respond to the terrorist threat"; these account for many of its 52 recommendations. Among them are better safeguards in regard to evidence, legal representation and rights to contest and appeal decisions, with the Commonwealth Ombudsman to oversee the whole process. Officers of the state do make mistakes, which can lead to horrible injustices.

The committee makes its strongest stand against the sedition provisions. It notes that "an overwhelming amount of evidence … indicated strong opposition to the sedition offences from all sectors of the community". So strong is the evidence against these provisions, which Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has oddly undertaken to review after the bill passes, that the committee recommends the sedition laws be excised. As the report recognises, the potential threats to free speech and reporting could extend the impact beyond the intended target of terrorist activity to legitimate political and media activity.

The Parliament has a duty to tell the Government it has gone too far. If the sedition laws are not excised for review by the Australian Law Reform Commission, Coalition members should follow the committee's example and put national interest ahead of party interest by voting down the provisions. Yesterday, Mr Ruddock insisted: "The law is not, in my view, flawed." That, as the report demonstrates, is very much a minority view, and a dangerously blinkered one at that.

Manchurian Global

When presented with large profit potential, U.S. corporations are willing to overlook violations of freedom of expression in China.
Analysts suggest that China’s sophisticated Internet infrastructure would not be possible without technology and equipment imported from U.S. and other foreign companies. For China’s latest network upgrade, “CN2,” which began in mid-2004, two U.S. companies, Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks, were granted four out of six contracts. Cisco Systems, a U.S. telecommunications equipment company, has previously faced allegations that it assisted China in developing censorship capabilities. In its recent router contract for CN2, Cisco will provide China with its 12000 Series routers, which are equipped with filtering capability typically used to prevent Internet attacks (i.e., worms and viruses). This technology can also be used by PRC authorities to block politically sensitive content.36 Derek Bambauer, a researcher at the OpenNet Initiative, believes that without this upgrade, routers in China are not searching deeply within packets of data for banned keywords, because it would put an enormous load on the routers. Some contend that Cisco routers and the CN2 network upgrade may enable Chinese authorities to employ more CRS-8 sophisticated keyword filtering. Cisco denies allegations that it has altered its products to suit the objectives of PRC cyber-policing. Cisco has declared that it does not tailor its products to the China market, and the products it sells in China are the same as those to other countries.
In addition to U.S. companies, such as Cisco, that provide hardware, a number of U.S. software and Internet service providers, such as Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft, have been accused of complying with censorship in China. In 2002, Yahoo was heavily criticized by human rights groups for voluntarily signing a pledge of “self-discipline,” promising to follow China’s censorship laws. In June 2005, Microsoft’s blog-hosting service, MSN Spaces, began removing words like “democracy” and “human rights” from use in Chinese blog titles and postings. Google also prevents Chinese Internet users from accessing sites that Chinese authorities deem politically sensitive. When asked about their role in Chinese censorship, most companies maintain that they must follow the laws of the host country in which they are doing business.
Yahoo and Shi Tao Case.
Yahoo has come under fire for giving the
personal e-mail address of a Chinese journalist, Shi Tao, to PRC government authorities, which led to his criminal conviction and sentence of 10 years in prison. In April 2004, Shi, who was an editor at Contemporary Business News based in Hunan province, attended an editorial meeting in which government officials read an internal document outlining media restrictions before the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown in June 2004. Shi sent copies of his notes via his personal Yahoo e-mail account to a pro-democracy organization in the United States. PRC state security authorities later requested information from Yahoo that enabled them to identify Shi and use it in his conviction. Jerry Yang, co-founder and senior executive of Yahoo, confirmed that his company gave Chinese authorities information and described the company’s ultimate compliance as part of the legal burden of doing business in China. Human rights groups and others contend, however, that Yahoo and other U.S. companies seem too willing to accommodate the Chinese government in order to pursue business opportunities in the huge Chinese market.

Ram raiders destroy rule of law

Terror laws rammed through without change

The Federal Government has used its numbers to ram its tough new terrorism legislation through Parliament's lower house and reject changes demanded by Coalition MPs.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock last night told Government backbenchers he would not be adopting the main recommendations of a Coalition-led Senate committee which wanted a controversial sedition section removed and the sunset clause changed to ensure the law expired in five years rather than 10.

Opposition amendments were defeated and the Government gagged debate at 9.30pm.

Labor backbencher Harry Quick and independent Peter Andren insisted that the House record their opposition to the legislation.

A Labor spokesman said later he did not know it Mr Quick would be disciplined for breaking ranks with his party, which had agreed to support the bill.

Mr Ruddock said he wanted the bill passed as it was. The Australian Law Reform Commission would be able to examine its sedition provisions after it was enacted.

Lawyers and academics warned the committee that while the tough sedition provisions were intended to prevent incitement to commit terrorist acts, they could also curtail free speech and catch journalists, cartoonists, and others making fair comment.

Mr Ruddock said he would consider minor changes among 52 recommendations made by the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.

The committee wants the Government to remove restrictions on those under preventive detention from communicating with their lawyers; oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and better protection for children aged 16 to 18.

On the sedition section, Mr Ruddock said he did not intend to remove a provision that was designed to deal with people who urged the use of violence to overthrow democratic institutions and other groups.

Committee chairwoman Marise Payne declined to say whether she would cross the floor and vote with the Opposition to have the sedition section removed.

Sandline Iraq

WMR. November 29, 2005 -- British mercenary firm with Pentagon contracts exposed in civilian shooting incident in Iraq. A souvenir video has surfaced on the Internet showing private security contractors working for Aegis Defense Services "Victory" Group firing indiscriminately at Iraqi civilian motorists in Baghdad. The video was reportedly taken by an Aegis employee and posted on a web site run by an ex-Aegis employee. The video has since been removed from the site. The video contains four clips showing Aegis mercenaries firing at civilian automobiles. The video's soundtrack includes Elvis Presley's "Train I Ride." Aegis is run by former British Scots Guard officer Lt. Col. Tim Spicer, an international mercenary who has been involved in UN sanctions busting in Sierra Leone and Bougainville invasion planning in Papua New Guinea. Spicer's firm, Aegis, was awarded a $293 million security contract in Iraq. Spicer's men also stand accused of shooting teenager Peter McBride in the back in Belfast in 1992. That has prompted a number of members of the Irish Caucus in the Congress to demand the Pentagon withdraw its contract to Aegis. The Pentagon has rejected such action.
Pentagon Iraq contractor head Tim Spicer under arrest in 1997 in Papua New Guinea following failed Bougainville invasion and resulting coup d'etat.(pic)

Aegis maintains its head office in London's Picadilly. It is also reported to have an office on K Street in Washington, DC.
The Pentagon has had a longstanding relationship with Spicer. The Pentagon's love affair with mercenary firms began in the 1990s when they were viewed with favor for their military activities, including sanctions busting, in Africa. Under the Clinton administration, mercenary firms blossomed. Under George W. Bush, they have flourished. On June 24, 1997, the Defense Intelligence Agency sponsored a seminar titled "The Privatization of National Security Functions in Sub-Saharan Africa." This conference ushered in the present cooperation between mercenaries, oil companies, diamond and other mineral companies, U.S. intelligence agencies, the military, and non-government organizations (NGOs), including the always suspect Human Rights Watch, an NGO that often obscures and obfuscates important facts, as it did with the causality of the Rwandan genocide and as it is currently doing with regard to offering an incomplete list of CIA prisoner aircraft in Europe.

WMR has obtained the attendee list [Page One Page Two] for the 1997 Pentagon mercenary seminar. Spicer attended along with two colleagues from Sandline International (for which Spicer served as CEO), a mercenary firm that had already been implicated in illegal Sierra Leone and Papua New Guinea operations.

Mercenary firms, which in neo-con "Newspeak" are referred to as "Private Military Contractors," "Private Security Contractors (PSCs), and Personal Security Details/Detachments (PSDs), are viewed by informed observers as the future military forces that will continue to protect US business interests in Iraq after the planned withdrawal of a large number of U.S. troops next year. These companies are not governed by any military regulations or international legal constraints. According to informed sources within the security contractor community, three U.S. firms, Phoenix, Anteon, and Sytex, should be looked at closely by U.S. authorities for their interrogation operations in Iraq. Sytex is currently advertising for interrogators for the US Central Command's Area of Responsibility (AOR), which includes Iraq and Afghanistan. Military interrogators who were charged with sexually humiliating prisoners at Guantanamo and Iraq are now working for firms like Anteon and Phoenix Consulting Group.