Lea el texto completo del acuerdo militar entre EEUU y Colombia

La remisión de este material fue gracias a Eva Golinger.

Acuerdo complementario para la Cooperación y Asistencia Técnica en Defensa y Seguridad entre los Gobiernos de la República de Colombia y de los Estados Unidos de América

Índice



Preámbulo



Artículo I Definiciones



Artículo II Consultas bilaterales sobre defensa y seguridad



Artículo III Objetivo de la cooperación y asistencia técnica en defensa y seguridad



Artículo IV Acceso, uso y propiedad de las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas



Artículo V Procedimientos de autorización de ingreso y sobrevuelo de aeronaves



Artículo VI Pago de tarifas y otros cargos



Artículo VII Respeto por las leyes nacionales



Artículo VIII Estatus del personal



Artículo IX Documentación para entrar, salir y viajar



Artículo X Importación, exportación, adquisición y utilización de bienes y fondos



Artículo XI Construcción



Artículo XII Contratación y contratistas



Artículo XIII Servicios públicos



Artículo XIV Facilitación administrativa



Artículo XV Uniformes y armas



Artículo XVI Seguridad



Artículo XVII Licencias de conducción, matrículas, seguros de
vehículos y licencias profesionales



Artículo XVIII Trato fiscal



Artículo XIX Reclamaciones



Artículo XX Servicios postales y comunicaciones



Artículo XXI Medio ambiente, salud y seguridad



Artículo XXII Facilitación de los observadores aéreos



Artículo XXIII Implementación, evaluación y enmienda



Artículo XXIV Solución de controversias



Artículo XXV Entrada en vigor y duración



Preámbulo

El Gobierno de la República de Colombia ("Colombia") y el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América ("los Estados Unidos"), en adelante "las Partes" o "la Parte", según convenga:



En el marco del Acuerdo de Asistencia Militar entre la República de Colombia y los Estados Unidos de América, suscrito en Bogotá el 17 de abril de 1952 ("el Acuerdo de 1952"); de laConvención de Viena sobre Relaciones Diplomáticas, suscrita en Viena el 18 de abril de 1961("la Convención de Viena"); del Convenio General para Ayuda Económica, Técnica y Afín entre el Gobierno de Colombia y el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América, suscrito en Bogotá el 23 de julio de 1962 ("el Convenio de 1962"); del Acuerdo entre el Gobierno de Colombia y el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América relativo a una Misión del Ejército, una Misión Naval y una Misión Aérea de las Fuerzas Militares de los Estados Unidos de América en la República de Colombia, suscrito en Bogotá el 7 de octubre de 1974 ("el Acuerdo de Misiones Militares de 1974"); de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas Contra el Tráfico Ilícito de Estupefacientes y Sustancias Sicotrópicas, suscrita en Viena el 20 de diciembre de 1988; de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas contra la Delincuencia Organizada Transnacional, suscrita en Nueva York el 15 de noviembre de 2000; de las convenciones sobre la lucha contra actividades terroristas, suscritas en el marco de las Naciones Unidas y de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, de las cuales ambos países son signatarios; de la Resolución 1373 de 2001 del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas; de la Carta Democrática Interamericana de 2001; y de laPolítica de Defensa y Seguridad Democrática de la República de Colombia;

Teniendo en cuenta la Declaración de Cartagena, sobre la producción, el tráfico y la demanda de drogas ilícitas, suscrita en Cartagena el 15 de febrero de 1990, y la Declaración de San Antoniosobre la cooperación regional en la lucha contra el problema mundial de las drogas y los delitos relacionados, suscrita en San Antonio el 27 de febrero de 1992;

Observando el Anexo al Convenio General para Ayuda Económica, Técnica y Afín entre el Gobierno de la República de Colombia y el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América, suscrito en Bogotá el 30 de agosto de 2004, que establece un programa bilateral de control de narcóticos, incluido un programa integral contra el narcotráfico, las actividades terroristas y otras amenazas contra la seguridad nacional de Colombia;

De conformidad con el Memorando de Entendimiento para una Relación Estratégica de Seguridad para Promover la Cooperación entre el Gobierno de la República de Colombia y el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América, suscrito en Bogotá el 14 de marzo de 2007;

Teniendo en cuenta el Acuerdo entre el Gobierno de la República de Colombia y el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América para Suprimir el Tráfico Ilícito por Mar (conocido como "el Acuerdo de Interdicción Marítima"), suscrito en Bogotá el 20 de febrero de 1997 y el Acuerdo entre el Gobierno de la República de Colombia y el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América Relativo al Programa de Supresión del Tráfico Ilícito Aéreo de Estupefacientes y Sustancias Sicotrópicas ("Acuerdo Air Bridge Denial"), suscrito en Bogotá el 20 de diciembre de 2007;

Reconociendo el historial de cooperación bilateral, así como la importancia de promover y facilitar la cooperación regional para contrarrestar las amenazas persistentes a la paz y la estabilidad, como el terrorismo, el problema mundial de las drogas, la delincuencia organizada transnacional y la proliferación de armas pequeñas y ligeras;

Reconociendo la necesidad de fortalecer la relación estratégica de seguridad entre las Partes, estrechar la cooperación bilateral en materia de defensa y seguridad, así como para enfrentar las amenazas comunes a la paz, la estabilidad, la libertad y la democracia;

Afirmando que esa cooperación se funda en el pleno respeto por la soberanía de cada Parte y por los principios y propósitos de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas;

Observando la labor que lleva a cabo continuamente durante los últimos años el Grupo de Trabajo Bilateral de Defensa Colombia - Estados Unidos y su Comité de Dirección, el cual sirve de marco general para orientar la cooperación entre las Partes;

Con el deseo de suscribir un acuerdo que fortalezca la cooperación y asistencia técnica en defensa y seguridad entre las Partes; y

Reconociendo la importancia del fortalecimiento de la interoperabilidad de las Fuerzas Militares de Colombia a través del incremento de su capacidad de cooperar bilateral o multilateralmente con otras fuerzas militares;

Han convenido en lo siguiente:



Artículo I



Definiciones

A efectos del presente Acuerdo:



a) Por "personal civil" se entiende los empleados civiles o personas formalmente asignadas alDepartamento de Defensa de los Estados Unidos que se encuentren en Colombia para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo, así como los empleados civiles de otros departamentos u organismos del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos que estén en Colombia apoyando directamente una misión del Departamento de Defensa de los Estados Unidos para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



b) Por "personal militar" se entiende los miembros de las Fuerzas Armadas de los Estados Unidos que estén en Colombia para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



c) Por "personal de los Estados Unidos" se entiende el personal militar y el personal civil de los Estados Unidos que estén en Colombia para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



d) Por "contratistas de los Estados Unidos" se entiende las personas naturales o jurídicas que hayan concertado contratos con el Departamento de Defensa de los Estados Unidos para proporcionar bienes y prestar servicios para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



e) Por "empleados de contratista de los Estados Unidos" se entiende las personas naturales que sean empleados por un contratista de los Estados Unidos que estén en Colombia para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



f) Por "observadores aéreos" se entiende los representantes de Colombia o de terceros Estados que, previa autorización de Colombia y por invitación de los Estados Unidos, participen enmisiones aéreas que se lleven a cabo en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



g) Por "instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas" se entiende los sitios, emplazamientos e infraestructura cuyo acceso y uso sea autorizado por Colombia a los Estados Unidos para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



h) Por "partes operativas" se entiende el Ministerio de Defensa de Colombia y el Departamento de Defensa de los Estados Unidos.



i) Por "personas a cargo" se entiende los cónyuges del personal de los Estados Unidos, o hijos de dicho personal que dependen de ellos para su manutención, así como aquellas personas que por razones de tipo legal, financiero o de salud dependen del personal de los Estados Unidos, son mantenidos por ellos, residen con dicho personal, y que se encuentran en territorio de Colombia bajo órdenes de viaje del Departamento de Defensa de los Estados Unidos que autorizan su presencia en Colombia, para las actividades que se lleven a cabo en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



j) Por "bienes" se entiende, entre otros bienes muebles, los productos, equipos, materiales y suministros que guarden relación con el presente Acuerdo.



k) Por "aeronave de Estado de los Estados Unidos", se entiende una aeronave así designada por los Estados Unidos ante las autoridades colombianas, que lleve a cabo actividades mutuamente acordadas en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



l) Por "buque de Estado de los Estados Unidos", se entiende un buque así designado por los Estados Unidos ante las autoridades colombianas, que lleve a cabo actividades mutuamente acordadas en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



Artículo II

Consultas bilaterales sobre defensa y seguridad

Las Partes convienen en continuar las consultas bilaterales sobre defensa y seguridad en el Grupo de Trabajo Bilateral (GTB) de Defensa Colombia - Estados Unidos para promover la relación estratégica entre las Partes.



Artículo III

Objetivo de la cooperación y asistencia técnica en defensa y seguridad

1. En el espíritu del Preámbulo de este Acuerdo y de conformidad con los acuerdos bilaterales y multilaterales pertinentes de los cuales Colombia y los Estados Unidos sean parte, en particular aquellos atinentes a la lucha contra el narcotráfico y el terrorismo y con sujeción al ordenamiento jurídico de cada una de las Partes, éstas acuerdan profundizar su cooperación en áreas tales como interoperabilidad, procedimientos conjuntos, logística y equipo, entrenamiento e instrucción, intercambio de inteligencia, capacidades de vigilancia y reconocimiento, ejercicios combinados, y otras actividades acordadas mutuamente, y para enfrentar amenazas comunes a la paz, la estabilidad, la libertad y la democracia.



2. Las actividades mutuamente acordadas, mencionadas anteriormente, requerirán ser autorizadas por y coordinadas con las autoridades colombianas pertinentes, quienes podrán tomar las medidas de seguimiento que correspondan. La información derivada de tales actividades será compartida por las Partes de acuerdo con los acuerdos existentes y los futuros acuerdos. Estas actividades mutuamente acordadas no excederán lo establecido en los acuerdos de cooperación bilaterales y multilaterales firmados por las Partes y respetarán las normas colombianas. Para tal fin, las Partes podrán suscribir uno o más acuerdos de implementación que establezcan un mecanismo ágil y eficiente para la autorización, coordinación y seguimiento según la naturaleza de las actividades.



3. Las Partes se comprometen a fortalecer y apoyar iniciativas de cooperación regionales y globales para el cumplimiento de los fines del presente Acuerdo.



4. Las Partes cumplirán sus obligaciones derivadas del presente Acuerdo de manera que concuerde con los principios de la igualdad soberana, de la integridad territorial de los Estados y de la no intervención en los asuntos internos de otros Estados.



5. Las Partes, a través de sus Partes Operativas, tienen la intención de suscribir un acuerdo de implementación en el que se establezcan las líneas y características de la cooperación que los Estados Unidos podrán otorgar a Colombia, para mejorar sus capacidades para el desarrollo de actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



Artículo IV

Acceso, uso y propiedad de las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas

1. El Gobierno de Colombia, de conformidad con su legislación interna, cooperará con los Estados Unidos, para llevar a cabo actividades mutuamente acordadas en el marco del presente Acuerdo y continuará permitiendo el acceso y uso a las instalaciones de la Base Aérea Germán Olano Moreno, Palanquero; la Base Aérea Alberto Pawells Rodríguez, Malambo; el Fuerte Militar de Tolemaida, Nilo; el Fuerte Militar Larandia, Florencia; la Base Aérea Capitán Luis Fernando Gómez Niño, Apíay; la Base Naval ARC Bolívar en Cartagena; y la Base Naval ARC Málaga en Bahía Málaga; y permitiendo el acceso y uso de las demás instalaciones y ubicaciones en que convengan las Partes o sus Partes Operativas. Para tal fin, las Partes Operativas establecerán un mecanismo de coordinación para autorizar el número y categoría de las personas (personal de los Estados Unidos, contratistas de los Estados Unidos, empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y observadores aéreos) y el tipo y la cantidad de equipos que no excederá la capacidad de las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas.



2. Las autoridades de Colombia, sin cobro de alquiler ni costos parecidos, permitirán a los Estados Unidos el acceso y uso de las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas y a las servidumbres y derechos de paso sobre bienes de propiedad de Colombia que sean necesarios para llevar a cabo las actividades dentro del marco del presente Acuerdo, incluida la construcción convenida. Los Estados Unidos sufragarán todos los gastos de funcionamiento y de conservación necesarios que se relacionen con la utilización de las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas.



3. El personal de los Estados Unidos, los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos tendrán acceso y la capacidad de moverse libremente dentro y entre las instalaciones y ubicaciones mutuamente convenidas que se requieran para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo. Lo anterior sin perjuicio de lo establecido en el numeral 5 de este artículo.



4. Los edificios, las estructuras inamovibles y los montajes construidos por los Estados Unidos serán para su uso, salvo acuerdo en contrario entre las Partes o sus Partes Operativas, hasta la entrega de los mismos a Colombia, en concordancia con lo dispuesto por el numeral 7 de este artículo.



5. Para poner en práctica las disposiciones de los numerales 1, 2, 3 y 4 del presente artículo, las Partes, a través de sus Partes Operativas, tienen la intención de suscribir uno o más acuerdos de implementación en los cuales se establecerán los protocolos de seguridad y los términos y condiciones para el acceso a dichas instalaciones y ubicaciones, así como a los edificios, las estructuras inamovibles y los montajes construidos por los Estados Unidos para su uso.



6. Colombia conservará el derecho de propiedad y título con respecto a las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas, incluyendo los edificios, las estructuras inamovibles y los montajes conectados a la tierra.



7. Una vez haya concluido el uso de cualquier instalación o ubicación convenida, o de parte de la misma, incluidas las instalaciones construidas, mejoradas, modificadas o reparadas conforme al presente Acuerdo, los Estados Unidos entregarán dichas instalaciones a Colombia, en el estado de uso en que éstas se encuentren. Los Estados Unidos no contraerán ningún gasto por concepto de esa entrega. Los Estados Unidos no estarán obligados a desinstalar cualquier instalación, edificio o mejora de los mismos que se haya construido con sus propios fondos, a menos que se haya acordado esa condición en el momento de la construcción. Las Partes o sus Partes Operativas se consultarán acerca de las condiciones para la devolución de cualquier instalación o ubicación convenida, incluyendo, donde hubiere lugar, consultas sobre la posible compensación por las mejoras u obras de construcción.



Artículo V

Procedimientos de autorización de ingreso y sobrevuelo de aeronaves

1. Las aeronaves de Estado de los Estados Unidos serán autorizadas para entrar al territorio colombiano, de conformidad con la normatividad colombiana.



2. Las Partes suscribirán un acuerdo de implementación en el que se establecerán los procedimientos para la entrada, sobrevuelo y aterrizaje; se designarán los aeropuertos internacionales para el ingreso y salida del país; y se establecerá un mecanismo para determinar el número estimado de vuelos que harán uso de los aeropuertos internacionales, de conformidad con la normatividad colombiana.



3. Cada Parte designará un punto de contacto para coordinar las solicitudes de entrada, sobrevuelo y aterrizaje para las aeronaves de Estado de los Estados Unidos que operen en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



4. Cuando se requiera, las aeronaves de estado de los Estados Unidos que lleven a cabo actividades mutuamente acordadas en el espacio aéreo colombiano tendrán un observador aéreo de Colombia a bordo, de conformidad con los procedimientos mutuamente acordados por las Partes Operativas. Las funciones de dichos observadores y las calidades necesarias de los mismos, se establecerán en el acuerdo de implementación previsto en el artículo III del presente Acuerdo.



Artículo VI

Pago de tarifas y otros cargos

1. Las aeronaves de Estado de los Estados Unidos, cuando se encuentren en el territorio de Colombia, no estarán sujetas al pago de derechos, incluidos los de navegación aérea, sobrevuelo, aterrizaje y parqueo en rampa. Los Estados Unidos pagarán las tarifas estándar establecidas por las empresas comerciales por los servicios requeridos y recibidos. Colombia hará todos los esfuerzos necesarios para que los Estados Unidos paguen tarifas no superiores a aquellas que pagan las Fuerzas Militares de Colombia por los servicios solicitados y recibidos de empresas comerciales.



2. Los buques de Estado de los Estados Unidos recibirán el mismo tratamiento y privilegios que los buques de guerra, y en consecuencia no estarán sujetos al pago de tasas de señalización marítima y fondeo. Los Estados Unidos pagarán las tarifas establecidas en los puertos concesionados por los servicios solicitados y recibidos de las empresas comerciales.



3. Los Estados Unidos certificarán ante las autoridades colombianas que los buques y aeronaves de Estado de los Estados Unidos que se encuentren en Colombia para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo cumplen con los estándares internacionales aplicables, incluidos los estándares pertinentes de medio ambiente, salud, sanidad y seguridad.



4. De conformidad con el derecho consuetudinario internacional y la práctica, las aeronaves y buques de Estado de los Estados Unidos no se someterán a abordaje e inspección.



5. Sujeto a disponibilidad de fondos, en el marco de la cooperación bilateral y de conformidad con el artículo IV del Acuerdo de 1952, Colombia sufragará los pagos de peajes de las vías no concesionadas y del componente estatal de las concesionadas, por el uso de la infraestructura que realicen los Estados Unidos para el logro de actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo. Las Partes tienen la intención de suscribir un acuerdo de implementación para asegurar la circulación expedita de los vehículos por los puntos de peajes en las vías.



Artículo VII

Respeto por las leyes nacionales

El personal de los Estados Unidos y sus personas a cargo respetarán las leyes de Colombia y se abstendrán de realizar cualquier actividad que sea incompatible con ellas y con el presente Acuerdo. Los Estados Unidos informarán al personal de los Estados Unidos y sus personas a cargo acerca de las leyes, usos y costumbres colombianas pertinentes.



Artículo VIII

Estatus del personal

1. De conformidad con los artículos 5 y 11 del Acuerdo de Misiones Militares de 1974, Colombia otorgará al personal de los Estados Unidos y a las personas a cargo los privilegios, exenciones e inmunidades otorgadas al personal administrativo y técnico de una misión diplomática, bajo la Convención de Viena.



2. En relación con la presencia de personal militar de Colombia en los Estados Unidos, para llevar a cabo actividades relacionadas con la cooperación bilateral, dentro del marco del presente Acuerdo, las Partes reafirman lo previsto en el Artículo V del Acuerdo de 1952. Los Estados Unidos brindarán a dicho personal militar de Colombia, las cortesías usualmente disponibles para el personal militar de los Estados Unidos de rango similar, hasta el máximo permitido por la ley de los Estados Unidos.



3. De conformidad con el numeral 1 del presente artículo, Colombia garantizará que sus autoridades verificarán, en el menor tiempo posible, el estatus de inmunidad del personal de los Estados Unidos y sus personas a cargo, que sean sospechosos de una actividad criminal en Colombia y los entregarán a las autoridades diplomáticas o militares apropiadas de los Estados Unidos en el menor tiempo posible. Por su parte, los Estados Unidos tomarán todos los pasos necesarios para asegurar que el personal de los Estados Unidos y sus personas a cargo, de que trata el presente numeral por supuestos crímenes cometidos en territorio colombiano, sean investigados con la cooperación de las autoridades colombianas y, si se amerita, sean procesados con todo el rigor de la ley. Adicionalmente, los Estados Unidos informarán periódicamente a las autoridades colombianas y atenderán, en el marco de sus capacidades, los requerimientos de información que éstas formulen sobre el desarrollo de las investigaciones y procesamientos que se adelanten en contra del personal de los Estados Unidos o sus personas a cargo que hayan cometido supuestos delitos en territorio colombiano, así como la decisión final de las investigaciones o procesamientos.



4. Colombia reconoce la importancia del control disciplinario que ejercen las autoridades de las Fuerzas Armadas de los Estados Unidos sobre el personal militar de los Estados Unidos. En concordancia con el artículo 12 del Acuerdo de Misiones Militares de 1974, los Estados Unidos podrán ejercer autoridad disciplinaria sobre el personal militar de los Estados Unidos en Colombia.



5. Las autoridades pertinentes de los Estados Unidos considerarán con el debido interés cualquier solicitud de renuncia a la inmunidad en las causas que las autoridades de Colombia consideren de especial importancia.



6. Las Partes se brindarán mutua asistencia con fundamento en los acuerdos vigentes, para realizar investigaciones de los supuestos crímenes cometidos por el personal de los Estados Unidos o sus personas a cargo que se encuentren en Colombia para los propósitos de este Acuerdo. Las Partes buscarán establecer y fortalecer procedimientos para dicha asistencia mutua, incluso, si fuere apropiado, con la conclusión de acuerdos adicionales.



7. Teniendo en cuenta que al personal de los Estados Unidos y sus personas a cargo, Colombia les otorga una visa preferencial de servicio, estarán exonerados de obtener permisos laborales y de residencia por concepto de las actividades que se lleven a cabo en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



Artículo IX

Documentación para entrar, salir y viajar

1. Las autoridades de Colombia permitirán al personal de los Estados Unidos, el ingreso y permanencia hasta por 90 días, a menos que se acuerde mutuamente de otra manera, para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo. Con tal propósito este personal registrará sus entradas y salidas del territorio colombiano, con la debida documentación de identidad (militar o civil) expedida por los Estados Unidos, sin la necesidad de presentar pasaporte o visa. El personal civil y las personas a cargo que no sean titulares de pasaporte de los Estados Unidos podrán ingresar con visa de cortesía.



2. Las autoridades de Colombia permitirán a los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y a los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos, el ingreso y permanencia hasta por 90 días, a menos que se acuerde mutuamente de otra manera, para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo. Para este efecto, cuando entren y salgan del territorio colombiano, los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos presentarán el respectivo pasaporte en el momento del registro migratorio.



3. Las autoridades de Colombia facilitarán los procedimientos de migración para la entrada y salida sin demora de Colombia del personal de los Estados Unidos, las personas a cargo, los contratistas de los Estados Unidos, los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los observadores aéreos que entren o salgan de Colombia para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



4. Para poner en práctica las disposiciones de este artículo, las Partes tienen la intención de suscribir un acuerdo de implementación, en el cual se definirán: las características de los documentos de identificación; los trámites migratorios expeditos para el personal de nacionalidad estadounidense; los criterios para el ingreso de nacionales de terceros países; los puertos de ingreso y salida; los términos para obtener el visado correspondiente; los parámetros necesarios para hacer efectivo el registro y control migratorio; y las condiciones para prolongar el término de permanencia estipulado para los ciudadanos estadounidenses. En ningún caso se excederán los límites establecidos por la normatividad migratoria colombiana en cuanto a permanencia sin visa en el territorio nacional.



5. El personal de los Estados Unidos, sus personas a cargo, los contratistas de los Estados Unidos, los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los observadores aéreos que ingresen y salgan de Colombia, para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo, estarán exentos de pagos por entrada y salida del país u otros impuestos de salida, a menos que utilicen aeropuertos comerciales.



Artículo X

Importación, exportación, adquisición y utilización de bienes y fondos

1. De conformidad con el Artículo IV, numeral 2, del Acuerdo de 1952 y el literal (a) del Artículo IV del Acuerdo de 1962, Colombia exonerará a los Estados Unidos y a los contratistas de los Estados Unidos, salvo los ciudadanos colombianos y los extranjeros con residencia permanente en Colombia, de todas las tarifas, aranceles, impuestos y demás tributos que de otra forma se gravarían en Colombia, por la importación, adquisición y utilización de bienes en Colombia y sobre los fondos que se utilicen en Colombia para las actividades que se efectúen de conformidad con el presente Acuerdo. El título de propiedad de dichos bienes seguirá perteneciendo a los Estados Unidos, sus contratistas o las personas que se encuentren en Colombia para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo, según el caso, y dichos bienes podrán sacarse de Colombia en cualquier momento.



2. Los Estados Unidos presentarán las declaraciones de aduanas de los bienes importados o exportados para las actividades que se lleven a cabo en el marco del presente Acuerdo, los cuales obtendrán el levante automático, en virtud del cual no serán objeto de inspección. Lo anterior, sin perjuicio de las facultades que las autoridades competentes de Colombia puedan ejercer, previa coordinación entre las Partes, a través de canales diplomáticos.



3. En virtud de lo establecido en el numeral 1 del Artículo VIII del presente Acuerdo, el equipaje, los efectos personales, productos u otros bienes que sean para uso personal, del personal de los Estados Unidos y sus personas a cargo, y que se importen o utilicen en Colombia o se exporten de Colombia, están exentos de derechos de importación y exportación, aranceles, impuestos, matriculación y autorización de vehículos y demás tributos, que de otra forma se causarían en Colombia. Esos bienes muebles podrán cederse a otro personal de los Estados Unidos, o sus personas a cargo, exentos de derechos, aranceles, impuestos y tributos similares. En el caso de que dichos bienes se cedan en Colombia a personas o entidades a las que no corresponda la exoneración de derechos, aranceles, impuestos y otros gravámenes, los mismos los pagarán las personas que reciban dichos bienes, conforme a las leyes y los reglamentos locales.



4. En concordancia con el literal (b) del Artículo IV del Acuerdo de 1962, Colombia exonerará al personal de los Estados Unidos que esté presente en Colombia, para las actividades que se desarrollen en el marco del presente Acuerdo, de impuestos en la compra, propiedad, uso y disposición de bienes para su propio uso.



Artículo XI

Construcción

1. Las construcciones nuevas y modificaciones mayores en las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas requerirán el consentimiento de la Parte Operativa colombiana. Las autoridades de Colombia permitirán que los Estados Unidos, con la debida consideración de las operaciones existentes y planificadas, emprendan reparaciones, mejoras, modificaciones y remociones menores para satisfacer las necesidades que se relacionen con las actividades desarrolladas en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



2. En el caso de que las especificaciones internas no concuerden con las de los Estados Unidos, las Partes Operativas se consultarán para resolver el asunto de forma práctica.



3. Con base en lo dispuesto en el numeral 1 del presente Artículo y en los planes y estudios técnicos proporcionados por los Estados Unidos, la Parte Operativa de Colombia será responsable de facilitar la expedición de los permisos y/o licencias requeridos por las autoridades competentes de Colombia. Los impuestos u otros tributos asociados a las construcciones serán asumidos por Colombia.



Artículo XII

Contratación y contratistas

1. Respetando la ley colombiana y de conformidad con las leyes y reglamentos de los Estados Unidos, los Estados Unidos podrán adjudicar contratos para la adquisición de artículos o servicios en Colombia, incluidas las obras de construcción. Los Estados Unidos podrán adjudicar contratos a cualquier oferente y llevar a cabo obras de construcción y otros servicios con su propio personal. De conformidad con la política de los Estados Unidos de que el procedimiento de solicitud de contrato sea abierto y plenamente competitivo, los Estados Unidos recibirán con agrado las ofertas que presenten los contratistas colombianos o los contratistasresidentes en Colombia. Los contratistas de los Estados Unidos podrán emplear a nacionales de los Estados Unidos o de otros países.



2. Las controversias contractuales se resolverán de conformidad con las cláusulas correspondientes de los contratos respectivos. Los Estados Unidos instarán a los contratistas de los Estados Unidos a que obtengan y mantengan los seguros necesarios u otras garantías necesarias que permitan atender el pago de los salarios, prestaciones sociales y demás emolumentos que se generen con ocasión de la ejecución de los contratos y conforme a la normatividad colombiana.



3. Los Estados Unidos instarán a los contratistas de los Estados Unidos a que obtengan y mantengan los seguros necesarios u otras garantías necesarias que permitan atender las reclamaciones por responsabilidad civil extracontractual.



4. En cualquier contrato adjudicado en relación con las actividades dentro del marco del presente Acuerdo, los Estados Unidos incluirán disposiciones que informen al contratista que su conducta en el pasado, así como las observaciones que sobre ésta tenga Colombia, será considerada antes de adjudicar futuros contratos relacionados con actividades que se lleven a cabo en el marco del presente Acuerdo.



Artículo XIII

Servicios públicos

Los Estados Unidos y los contratistas de los Estados Unidos podrán usar agua, electricidad y otros servicios públicos para la construcción, mejora y utilización de las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo. Cada una de las Fuerzas Militares colombianas seguirá siendo titular de sus respectivas cuentas de los servicios públicos, por lo que asumirán los derechos u otros gravámenes que puedan cobrarse de manera adicional en las facturas. Los Estados Unidos y los contratistas de los Estados Unidos pagarán exclusivamente los valores correspondientes a los servicios públicos efectivamente solicitados y consumidos. Los Estados Unidos y los contratistas de los Estados Unidos pagarán las mismas tarifas legalmente establecidas para los militares colombianos por los servicios públicos solicitados y recibidos. Las autoridades de Colombia, previa solicitud, ayudarán a las autoridades del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos a obtener suministros de agua, electricidad y otros servicios públicos.



Artículo XIV

Facilitación administrativa

Los Estados Unidos, el personal de los Estados Unidos, los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos que estén llevando a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo, recibirán de las autoridades colombianas toda la colaboración necesaria con respecto a la tramitación sin demora de todos los procedimientos administrativos.



Artículo XV

Uniformes y armas

1. El personal de los Estados Unidos estará autorizado a usar uniforme de conformidad con el Artículo 8 del Acuerdo de Misiones Militares de 1974.

2. El personal de los Estados Unidos podrá portar armas para actividades que se lleven a cabo en el marco del presente Acuerdo, de conformidad con los procedimientos acordados por las Partes Operativas en un acuerdo de implementación y con el debido respeto de la normatividad colombiana.



Artículo XVI

Seguridad

Las autoridades de los Estados Unidos y Colombia se consultarán y adoptarán las medidas necesarias para velar por la seguridad del personal de los Estados Unidos, sus personas a cargo, los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los bienes de los Estados Unidos. Las autoridades de Colombia tienen la responsabilidad por la seguridad física de las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas. Las Partes Operativas desarrollarán protocolos y establecerán responsabilidades para la seguridad, acceso y uso de las instalaciones, y equipos para los cuales los Estados Unidos requieren medidas de seguridad especiales.



Artículo XVII

Licencias de conducción, matrículas, seguros de vehículos y licencias profesionales

1. De conformidad con la normatividad colombiana, para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo, las autoridades colombianas aceptarán la validez, sin exámenes ni cobros, de las licencias o permisos de conducción de vehículos, buques o aeronaves expedidos por las autoridades competentes de los Estados Unidos al personal de los Estados Unidos, los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos, que se encuentren temporalmente presentes en Colombia. Los vehículos tácticos de propiedad de los Estados Unidos y operados por éstos, que se encuentren temporalmente presentes en Colombia para llevar a cabo actividades en el marco del presente Acuerdo, estarán exentos de inspecciones técnicas, de licencias y matriculación por las autoridades de Colombia pero llevarán las debidas identificaciones.



2. El personal de los Estados Unidos, las personas a cargo y los contratistas de los Estados Unidos obtendrán seguros acordes con las leyes de Colombia para los vehículos de su propiedad, incluido seguro de responsabilidad civil extracontractual.



3. En conexión con las actividades efectuadas en relación con el presente Acuerdo, las autoridades de Colombia aceptan como válidas las credenciales y licencias profesionales expedidas por las autoridades competentes de los Estados Unidos al personal de los Estados Unidos, los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos.



Artículo XVIII

Trato fiscal

1. En virtud de lo establecido en el numeral 1 del Artículo VIII del presente Acuerdo, para efectos fiscales, los períodos en los que el personal de los Estados Unidos y sus personas a cargo se encuentren en Colombia por razón de las actividades efectuadas conforme al presente Acuerdo, no se considerarán períodos de residencia ni de domicilio.



2. En virtud de lo establecido en el numeral 1 del Artículo VIII del presente Acuerdo y del Artículo IV literal b) del Convenio de 1962, los ingresos que perciba el personal de los Estados Unidos por los servicios prestados para el desarrollo de las actividades relacionadas con el presente Acuerdo no estarán sometidos a los gravámenes de Colombia. Los ingresos provenientes de fuera de Colombia del personal de los Estados Unidos y sus personas a cargo que gocen de la condición de no residentes en Colombia no estarán sometidos a gravámenes de Colombia.



3. En virtud de lo establecido en el Artículo IV del Convenio de 1962, los fondos usados por los Estados Unidos, incluidos los fondos recibidos por los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos, en conexión con las actividades desarrolladas en el marco del presente Acuerdo, están exentos de cualquier gravamen de Colombia.



4. En virtud de lo establecido en el numeral 1 del Artículo, VIII del presente Acuerdo, Colombia exonerará al personal de los Estados Unidos y a sus personas a cargo, de los gravámenes por concepto de la propiedad, posesión, uso o cesión a otro personal de los Estados Unidos y personas a cargo, o la transferencia por defunción, de bienes que se encuentren en Colombia sólo por la presencia de esas personas en Colombia con relación al presente Acuerdo.



5. Nada de lo establecido en este Artículo se aplicará a los colombianos o los residentes en Colombia.



Artículo XIX

Reclamaciones

1. Teniendo en cuenta que uno de los objetivos del presente Acuerdo es la profundización de la cooperación para la lucha contra el narcotráfico y el terrorismo, entre otros, cada Parte se compromete a asumir los costos por daños, pérdida o destrucción de su respectiva propiedad o por la muerte o lesión del personal militar de sus respectivas fuerzas u otro personal de sus Gobiernos que ocurran en el cumplimiento de tareas oficiales relacionadas con actividades que se desarrollen en el marco del presente Acuerdo, de conformidad con su normatividad respectiva. Lo anterior sin perjuicio de las reclamaciones que puedan presentar los terceros, como se establece en el numeral 2 del presente Artículo. Cualquier controversia que surja con relación a este Artículo será resuelta de conformidad con el Artículo XXIV de este Acuerdo.



2. Los Estados Unidos pagarán conforme a sus leyes y reglamentos aplicables indemnizaciones para conciliar las reclamaciones justificadas de terceros. Esas reclamaciones se presentarán a las autoridades que estén a cargo de actividades de los Estados Unidos en Colombia llevadas a cabo en el marco del presente Acuerdo. Las autoridades de los Estados Unidos tramitarán dichas reclamaciones sin demora, de conformidad con las leyes y los reglamentos de los Estados Unidos.



Artículo XX

Servicios postales y comunicaciones

1. Las autoridades de Colombia reconocen que los Estados Unidos pueden recolectar, transportar y distribuir documentos y correspondencia, para el personal de los Estados Unidos, sus personas a cargo, los contratistas de los Estados Unidos y los empleados de los contratistas de los Estados Unidos, fuera de la red postal colombiana, sin trámite o concesión de licencias y sin costo alguno, siempre que ello no constituya prestación de servicios postales en Colombia. Estos documentos y correspondencia podrán llevar estampillas de los Estados Unidos siempre y cuando no ingresen al sistema postal colombiano. Los documentos y la correspondencia oficial tendrán el tratamiento equivalente de acuerdo a lo establecido en el artículo 27 de la Convención de Viena en cuanto a inviolabilidad, inspección y detención.



2. Los Estados Unidos podrán establecer estaciones receptoras por satélite para la difusión de radio y televisión, sin trámite o concesión de licencias y sin costo alguno para los Estados Unidos. Dichas difusiones podrán transmitirse a las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas por mutuo acuerdo entre las Partes, en consulta con las autoridades competentes.



3. La Parte Operativa de Colombia, de conformidad con la legislación colombiana, permitirá a los Estados Unidos el uso de la infraestructura de red de telecomunicaciones requerida, como sedefine "telecomunicaciones" en la Constitución y la Convención de 1992 de la Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones, para el logro de las actividades que se lleven a cabo en el marco del presente Acuerdo y sin trámite o concesión de licencias y sin costo alguno, para los Estados Unidos. Las frecuencias de radio y el espectro de telecomunicaciones que se utilizarán serán objeto de consultas entre las Partes teniendo en cuenta las capacidades disponibles.



Artículo XXI

Medio ambiente, salud y seguridad

Las Partes convienen en aplicar el presente Acuerdo de forma compatible con la protección del medio ambiente y la salud y seguridad de las personas.



Artículo XXII

Facilitación de los observadores aéreos

Previa autorización de las autoridades colombianas, las autoridades de los Estados Unidosfacilitarán la estadía de los observadores aéreos de terceros países en las instalaciones y ubicaciones convenidas, e, inter alia, informarán a los observadores aéreos de terceros paísesacerca de las leyes y costumbres nacionales, con el fin de asegurar su comportamiento disciplinado mientras se encuentren en Colombia.



Artículo XXIII

Implementación, evaluación y enmienda

1. Las Partes o sus Partes Operativas podrán suscribir los acuerdos de implementación que sean requeridos para aplicar las disposiciones del presente Acuerdo.



2. Las Partes o sus Partes Operativas, después de consultarse, facilitarán en todo lo posible las actividades que prevé el presente Acuerdo, lo que incluye la cooperación con otras naciones de la región.



3. Con el ánimo de colaborar estrechamente, las Partes Operativas se consultarán de forma periódica con el propósito de asegurar la adecuada aplicación de las disposiciones del presente Acuerdo y el cumplimiento satisfactorio de las mismas. Anualmente las Partes Operativas se reunirán para evaluar el desarrollo del Acuerdo en términos de las responsabilidades y beneficios compartidos y podrán presentar un informe a sus respectivos gobiernos que incluya, entre otros aspectos, las actividades desarrolladas, los resultados obtenidos y las recomendaciones que se estimen pertinentes.



4. Cualquiera de las Partes podrá solicitar consultas con el fin de enmendar el presente Acuerdo. Toda enmienda al presente Acuerdo, acordada por las Partes, se hará por escrito.



Artículo XXIV

Solución de controversias

Toda controversia que surja en cuanto a la interpretación del presente Acuerdo será resuelta por medio de consulta entre las Partes, incluso si fuera necesario a través de la vía diplomática. Aquellas controversias relativas a la aplicación del presente Acuerdo serán resueltas mediante consultas entre las Partes Operativas. En caso de no lograrse acuerdo, la controversia se resolverá por consulta entre las Partes. Las controversias no se remitirán a ninguna corte o tribunal nacional o internacional u organismo similar ni a terceros para su resolución, salvo acuerdo mutuo entre las Partes.



Artículo XXV

Entrada en vigor y duración

1. El presente Acuerdo entrará en vigor en la fecha de su firma.



2. Este Acuerdo permanecerá vigente durante un período inicial de diez (10) años y en adelante, sujeto a revisión y acuerdo por escrito de las Partes, será prorrogable por periodos adicionales de diez (10) años. Además, cualquiera de las Partes tiene el derecho de terminar este Acuerdo al final de los periodos de diez (10) años respectivos mediante notificación escrita de su propósito de terminar el Acuerdo enviada a la otra Parte por la vía diplomática, con un (1) año de antelación.

Honduras: VICTORY FOR "SMART POWER" by Eva Golinger

HONDURAS: A VICTORY FOR "SMART POWER"

Henry Kissinger said that diplomacy is the “art of restraining power”. Obviously, the most influential ideologue on US foreign policy of the twenty first century was refering to the necessity to “restrain the power” of other countries and goverments in order to maintain the dominant world power of the United States. Presidents in the style of George W. Bush employed “Hard Power” to achieve this goal: weapons, bombs, threats and military invasions. Others, like Bill Clinton, used “Soft Power”: cultural warfare, Hollywood, ideals, diplomacy, moral authority and campaigns to “win the hearts and minds” of those in enemy nations. The Obama administration has opted for a mutation of these two concepts, fusioning military power with diplomacy, political and economic influence with cultural penetration and legal manuvering. They call this “Smart Power”. Its first application is the coup d’etat in Honduras, and as of today, it’s worked to perfection.

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that “we should use what has been called “smart power”, the complete range of tools that are at our disposal – diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural – choosing the correct tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With “smart power”, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy.” Clinton later reinforced this concept affirming that the “wisest path will be to first use persuasion.”

So, what is intelligent about this concept? It’s a form of politics that is difficult to classify, difficult to detect and difficult to deconstruct. Honduras is a clear example. On one hand, President Obama condemned the coup against President Zelaya while his ambassador in Tegucigalpa held regular meetings with the coup leaders. Secretary of State Clinton repeated over and over again during the past four months that Washington didn’t want to “influence” the situation in Honduras – that Hondurans needed to resolve their crisis, without outside interference. But it was Washington that imposed the mediation process “led” by President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, and Washington that kept funding the coup regime and its supporters via USAID, and Washington that controlled and commanded the Honduran armed forces, involved in repressing the people and imposing a brutal regime, through its massive military presence in the Soto Cano military base.

Washington lobbyists also wrote the San José “agreement”, and in the end, it was the high level State Department and White House delegation that “persuaded” the Hondurans to accept the agreement. Despite the constant US interference in the coup d’etat in Honduras – funding, design, and political and military support – Washington’s “smart power” approach was able to distort public opinion and make the Obama administration come out as the grand victor of “multilateralism”.

What “smart power” achieved was a way to disguise Washington’s unilateralism as multilateralism. From day one, Washington imposed its agenda. On July 1st, spokespeople for the Department of State admitted in a press briefing that they had prior knowledge of the coup in Honduras. They also admitted that two high level State Department officials, Thomas Shannon and James Steinberg, were in Honduras the week before the coup meeting with the civil and military groups involved. They said their purpose was to “impede the coup”, but how, therefore, can they explain that the airplane that forcefully exiled President Zelaya left from the Soto Cano military base in the presence of US military officers?

The facts demonstrate the truth about Washington and the coup in Honduras, and the subsequent successful experiment with “smart power”. Washington knew about the coup before it happened, yet continued to fund those involved via USAID and NED. The Pentagon aided in the illegal forced exile of President Zelaya, and later, the Obama administration used the Organization of American States (OAS) – during a moment at which it was on the border of extinction – as a façade to impose its agenda. The discourse of the Department of State always legitimated the coup leaders, calling on “both parts…to resolve the political dispute in a peaceful way through dialogue.” Since when is an illegal usurper of power considered a “legitimate part” capable of dialogue? Obviously, a criminal actor who takes power by force is not interested in dialoguing. Based on this Washington logic, the world should call on the Obama administration to “resolve its political dispute with Al Qaeda in a peaceful way through dialogue, and not war”.

The Obama/Clinton “smart power” achieved its first victory during the initial days of the coup, persuading the member states of the OAS to accept a 72-hour wait period to allow the coup regime in Honduras to “think through its actions”. Soon after, Secretary of State Clinton imposed the mediation efforts, led by Arias, and by then, so much space had been ceded to Washington, that the US just stepped in and took the reigns. When President Zelaya went to Washington and met with Clinton, it was obvious who was in control. And that’s how they played it out, buying more and more time up until the last minute, so that even if Zelaya returns to power now he will have no space or time to govern.

The people were left out, excluded. Months of repression, violence, persecution, human rights violations, curfews, media closures, tortures and political assasinations have been forgotten. What a relief, as Subsecretary of State Thomas Shannon remarked upon achieving the signature of Micheletti and Zelaya on the final “agreement”, that the situation in Honduras was resolved “without violence”.

Upon signature of the “agreement” this past October 30th, Washington immediately lifted the few restrictions it had imposed on the coup regime as a pressure tactic. Now they can get visas again and travel north, they don’t have to worry about the millions of dollars from USAID, which hadn’t even been suspended in the first place. The US military in presence in Soto Cano can reinitiate all their activities – oh wait, they never stopped in the first place. The Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) of the Pentagon affirmed just days after the coup that “everything is normal with our armed forces in Honduras, they are engaging in their usual activities with their Honduran counterparts.” And Washington is already preparing its delegation of elections observors for the November 29th presidential elections – they are already on their way.

Forget about Cold War torturer Billy Joya who was scheming with the coup regime against the resistance; or the Colombian paramilitary forces sent in to help the coup regime “control” the population. Don’t worry anymore about the sonic warfare LRAD weapon used to torture those inside the Brazilian embassy in an attempt to oust Zelaya from the building. Nothing happened. As Thomas Shannon said, “we congratulate two great men for reaching this historic agreement”. And Secretary of State Clinton commented that “this agreement is a tremendous achievement for the Hondurans.” Wait, for who?

In the end, the celebrated “agreement” imposed by Washington only calls upon the Honduran Congress – the same Congress that falsified Zelaya’s resignation letter in order to justify the coup, and the same Congress that supported the illegal installation of Micheletti in the presidency – to determine whether or not it wants to reinstate Zelaya as president. And only after receiving a legal opinion from the Honduran Supreme Court – the same one that said Zelaya was a traitor for calling for a non-binding poll vote on potential future constitutional reform, and the same one that ordered his violent capture. Even if the Congress’ answer is positive, Zelaya would not have any power. The “agreement” stipulates that the members of his cabinet will be imposed by those political parties involved in the coup, the armed forces will be under the control of the Supreme Court that supported the coup, and Zelaya could be tried for his alleged “crime” of “treason” because he wanted to have a non-binding poll on constitutional reform.

Per the “agreement” a truth commission would supervise its implementation. Today, Ricardo Lagos, ex president of Chile and staunch Washington ally, was announced as the leader of the Honduran Truth Commission. Lagos is co-director of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Dialogue, a right wing think tank that influences Washington’s policies on Latin America. Lagos also was charged with creating a Chilean version of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), la Fundación Democracia y Desarrollo, to “promote democracy” in Latin America, US-style. Upon leaving the presidency in 2006, Lagos was named President of the Club of Madrid – an exclusive club of ex presidents dedicated to “promoting democracy” around the world. Several key figures involved in currently destabilizing left-leaning Latin American governments are members of this “club”, including Jorge Quiroga and Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (ex presidents of Bolivia), Felipe González (ex prime minister of Spain), Václav Havel (ex president of the Chech Republic) and José María Aznar (ex prime minister of Spain), amongst many others.

In the end, “smart power” was sufficiently intelligent to deceive those who today celebrate an “end to the crisis” in Honduras. But for a majority of people in Latin America, the victory of Obama’s “smart power” in Honduras is a dark and dangerous shadow closing in on us. Initiatives such as ALBA have just begun to achieve a level of Latin American independence from the dominant northern power. For the first time in history, the nations and peoples of Latin America have been collectively standing strong with dignity and sovereignty, building their futures. And then along came Obama with his “smart power”, and ALBA was hit by the coup in Honduras, Latin American integration has been weakened by the US military expansion in Colombia, and the struggle for independence and sovereignty in Washington’s backyard is being squashed by a sinister smile and insincere handshake.

Bowing before Washington, the crisis in Honduras “was resolved”. Ironically, the same crisis was fomented by the US in the first place. There is talk of similar coups in Paraguay, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Venezuela, where subversion, counterinsurgency and destabilization increase daily. The people of Honduras remain in resistance, despite the “agreement” reached by those in power. Their determined insurrection and commitment to justice is a symbol of dignity. The only way to defeat imperialist agression – soft, hard or smart - is through the union and integration of the people.

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes longer.” – Henry Kissinger

MSA Resolution to Boycott Apartheid Israel, and to Stop Apartheid on Campus

DEARBORN BOYCOTTS ISRAEL

MSA Resolution to Boycott Apartheid Israel, and to Stop Apartheid on Campus

Photo:

Malcolm X, meeting with the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964.

This was sixteen years after European Zionists invaded Palestine, destroying over 400 Palestinian villages.

It was an extremely violent ethnic cleansing operation.

It exiled the majority of Palestinians out of Palestine.

____________________________________________________________________

This Resolution has been proposed for an immediate vote by the Michigan Student Assembly, at the University of Michigan.

This Resolution then was torn up by the Assembly's General Counsel, as the "Michigan Daily" reporter watched:

http://dearbornboycottsisrael.blogspot.com/2008/09/attempted-resolution-proposal.html

But the Resolution was again presented to the Assembly for a vote.

This Resolution has also been proposed for a vote by the University's LSA Student Government:

Resolution to Boycott Apartheid Israel,

and to Stop Apartheid on Campus

Resolution Summary:

1. Boycott all Israeli products.
2. Take that $1 trillion you’re spending to kill Muslims, and spend it instead on re-building Detroit.
3. Stop 400 years of White Privilege—the University should admit every Black high school graduate.

1. Boycott all Israeli products

WHEREAS, White Supremacism, including Zionism, is the most genocidal force on Earth,

WHEREAS, Congress has paid $300 billion to Israel, according to Congressman John Dingell,

WHEREAS, Israel spent that money on a genocidal ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinian people, which has culminated in the Israeli siege against Gaza,

WHEREAS, Israel has forced 1.5 million Palestinians into a concentration-camp existence in Gaza, where childhood malnutrition and anemia are rampant,

WHEREAS, Israel is threatening to unleash a “Holocaust” on Gaza,

WHEREAS, Malcolm X was right— the Zionists had no “legal or moral right to invade Arab Palestine, uproot its Arab citizens from their homes and seize all Arab property for themselves”

WHEREAS, Israel’s alliance with Apartheid South Africa was "more intimate and more extensive than anything similar in Israel’s history", according to Professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi,

WHEREAS, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, which it tried to share with Apartheid South Africa,

WHEREAS, Israel is training its pilots to nuke Iran, a land of 76 million people who have never invaded anyone,

WHEREAS, Israel trained and oversaw SAVAK, the brutal force of torturers who kept the Shah of Iran in power,

WHEREAS, the United States has been bleeding Iran with economic sanctions, then with U.S.-imposed dictatorship, then with U.S.-fueled invasions, almost continuously since 1952,

WHEREAS, those economic sanctions still make it impossible for Iranians to get spare parts for any airplane, from anywhere in the world,

WHEREAS, Israel is demanding even crueler economic sanctions against Iran,

THEREFORE, the Michigan Student Assembly demands that Congress impose a total boycott against all Israeli products,

THEREFORE, we demand that Congress cut off all aid to the racist state of Israel, the last Apartheid State on Earth.

THEREFORE, we demand that the University of Michigan Board of Regents declare a boycott against all products imported from the racist state of Israel.

2. Take that $1 trillion you’re spending to kill Muslims, and spend it instead on re-building Detroit.

WHEREAS, Congress has spent $1 trillion to kill millions of Iraqis since 1991,

WHEREAS, Congress has killed over a million Afghans since the 1980’s, using a series of unbelievable excuses,

WHEREAS, the U.S. repeatedly bombs Somalia, using more unbelievable excuses,

WHEREAS, Senator Clinton threatens to “obliterate Iran”, and Senator McCain sings “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”,

WHEREAS, Senator Obama threatens to invade Pakistan, then President Bush launches military strikes directly on Pakistan,

WHEREAS, Congress’s trillion-dollar genocide against Muslim lands is conducted at the direct expense of Black America,

WHEREAS, Congress’s trillion-dollar occupation of Muslim lands is conducted at the direct expense of Black America,

THEREFORE, the Michigan Student Assembly demands that Congress immediately remove its trillion-dollar army of occupation from every nation on Earth, because that army only brings coups, torture, racism, and death to the planet;

THEREFORE, we demand that Congress immediately spend that trillion dollars, which was stolen from Black America, on the immediate rebuilding of Detroit, including mass transit that every Detroiter can walk to, including the best elementary, secondary, and university education in the nation, including the best neighborhood clinics, the best neighborhood libraries, and the best housing infrastructure in the nation, and including the necessary industrial facilities to build all of those things, and to employ every Detroiter of working age, with full union wages and benefits,

THEREFORE, we demand that Congress similarly rebuild every U.S. inner city, and that this rebuilding be directed by Black engineers, architects, professors, physicians, educators, and managers, and that this rebuilding be staffed by Black union labor, nationwide, until Black unemployment ceases to exist,

3. Stop 400 Years of White Privilege—

--the University should Admit every Black high school graduate.

WHEREAS, centuries of government policy, backed up by organized white violence at every level, has attempted to beat down African political power, financial power, industrial power, and landholding power, from the Congo to Chicago,

WHEREAS, Martin Luther King Jr. was right— the U.S. government is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”,

WHEREAS, the U.S. has murdered and imprisoned African and African-American leadership on a mind-boggling scale, from Lumumba in the Congo, to Mandela in South Africa, to Fred Hampton in Chicago, to Marcus Garvey, to the Orangeburg Massacre, to the Jackson State Massacre, to the U.S.-Israeli-South-African invasion of Angola in the 1970’s, to the U.S.-Israeli-South-African creation of death squads across the African continent which have murdered millions and stripped Africa of unimaginable wealth,

WHEREAS, today’s white suburban power structure was built with a trillion-dollar federal highway subsidy, and with massive governmental subsidies to build all-white suburban settlements, which have sucked the wealth and political power of Black America into virtually all-white enclaves, while barring the bulk of Black America from entry,

WHEREAS, white political, economic, employment, and educational power has always been built on massive federal subsidies, from the railroads in the 19^th century, to the government-backed white academies created to suck away resources from any public educational system that might benefit Black students,

THEREFORE, the Michigan Student Assembly finds it obscene that a violent, 400-year steamroller of white privilege-- where whites use the riches of Black labor to perpetuate a closed circle of privileged white university admissions, a closed circle of white business connections, a closed circle of white jobs, perpetuated by a heavily subsidized white suburban political machine,-- is called a “meritocracy”, while the slightest effort to get Black students into the University is called “reverse racism”;

THEREFORE, the Michigan Student Assembly demands that the University of Michigan Board of Regents immediately guarantee admission, tuition-free, to every Black student who graduates from every Michigan high school, together with year-round tutoring for every new student who needs it;

THERFORE, we declare, in advance, a highly visible picket line and a 3-day student strike, if any state authority attempts to “stand in the schoolhouse door” to block the open admission of Black students to this University.

____________________________________________________________________

Photo:

In 1975, Israel had helped South Africa to invade Angola, sending military advisers and electronic equipment to the front.

The next year, you see the Prime Minister of Apartheid South Africa, John Vorster (second from right), meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (right), with future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (left), and with Moshe Dayan, in Israeli-occupied Jerusalem (al-Quds).

Eleições e atentados no Iraque

Lejeune Mirhan *

Já fazia certo tempo queria retornar a esse país árabe ocupado em minhas colunas semanais. Precisava comentar sobre as “eleições” marcada para janeiro de 2010. Mas, agora, uma nova onda de atentado sacode o país, mostrando a completa fragilidade da segurança e o impasse sobre a saída dos soldados estadunidenses que ocupam a Nação árabe.

Iraquianos não votam lei eleitoral para 2010

“Eleições” de 2010

Em 31 de janeiro de 2005, eu estava no último Fórum Social Mundial ocorrido no Brasil, na cidade de Porto Alegre. Acompanhei de longe as primeiras “eleições livres” ocorridas no Iraque, sob ocupação militar desde 19 de março de 2003 e quando os Estados Unidos viviam a chamada era Bush. Uma verdadeira farsa eleitoral e tratei disso em diversas colunas deste portal Vermelho.

Não custa relembrar esse episódio. As rádios e TVs iraquianas, todas sob censura e ocupadas por militares americanos, registrar “elevada” presença de eleitores e uma espantosa “calma”. Pura mentira e invenções dos meios de comunicação de massa para enganar o ocidente. Para nos fazer crer que George W. Bush estava “levando a democracia ao Iraque”. Cenários encenados, filas de “eleitores” montadas pelos próprios cinegrafistas e agentes americanos. A verdade é que a abstenção foi elevadíssima, a fraude comeu solto na maioria das sessões “eleitorais” e o grupo sunita, boicotou as eleições.

Os resultados não poderiam ser diferentes. “Vitória” da coalizão xiita em aliança com os curdos, grupos étnico-religioso que se diziam mais perseguidos pelos sunitas que governaram o país desde 1979 até 2003, com Saddam Hussein à frente. Das 275 cadeiras em disputa no parlamento, a Aliança Unida Iraquiana uma coalizão de partidos xiitas apoiadas pelo líder religioso máximo do país, Aiatolá Ali El Sistani, venceu e elegeu 146 cadeiras, ou 53% do total. Os curdos, da União Patriótica do Curdistão, que formavam a Aliança Lista do Curdistão obteve outras 77 cadeiras, ou 28%, totalizando 81% de todo o novo parlamento.

Essa coligação permitiu a indicação (indireta) do curdo Jalal Talabani para presidente do país e os xiitas de lá para cá dominam a política, o governo e o parlamento, sendo o atual primeiro Ministro, Nuri El-Maliki, um xiita. Ele vai disputar a liderança do país e do governo, mais uma vez nas próximas “eleições”.

Insisto em colocar entre aspas essas pretensas eleições por dois motivos básicos. Um é que o país encontra-se sob completa ocupação militar e mais de 160 mil soldados estadunidenses (em sua maioria), encontram-se estacionados em todas as localidades. O segundo aspecto, é que o país vive uma espécie de ditadura sob governo civil, ou seja, não há liberdade quase alguma, sejam em rádio, jornal ou rede de TV, controlados ou pelo governo fantoche dos Estados Unidos ou por partidários e apoiadores desse mesmo governo, que comungam com a linha de aceitação da ocupação militar do país.

O parlamento do Iraque vem discutindo duas coisas básicas para as próximas eleições. Uma delas é o aumento das cadeiras das atuais 275 vagas para 311 (um aumento de 13%). No Iraque temos um deputado, em média para cada 95 mil habitantes (no Brasil, essa proporção é de 350 mil habitantes; e dizem que temos muitos deputados...). O segundo aspecto são as regras dessas eleições, que estão marcadas para ocorrer em 16 de janeiro.

A esta altura do campeonato, diz a comissão eleitoral central que será quase impossível manter a data inicial. Isso porque as novas regras eleitorais deveriam estar aprovadas pelo parlamento até o dia 16 de outubro e até semana passada, dia 21, quarta-feira, as notícias que nos chegavam ao Ocidente eram de que não havia acordo e a lei não fora votada ainda.

A polêmica central esta relacionado com a autonomia de certas regiões do Iraque, em especial o Curdistão, que reivindica total controle do petróleo da região mais rica do país nesse bem que deveria ser de toda a não como era à época do governo de Saddam. Nessa região vivem 900 mil curdos, que, na prática, defendem mesmo é a completa separação do país.

Atentados no Iraque

Após alguns meses de certa “clamaria”, o Iraque foi sacudido, neste final de semana, por dois grandes atentados. Números parciais até o momento dão conta de mais de 200 mortos e centenas de feridos. A grande imprensa à serviço dos Estados Unidos e dos sionistas, já, imediatamente, divulgam notas e comunicados de que a rede “terrorista” Al Qaeda esta por trás das operações.

Um comunicado foi divulgado por um agrupamento que se proclama de “libertação nacional”. Não quero entrar no mérito dessas ações, mas realizar atentados, usar de terrorismo nunca foi e nem será uma novidade em guerras de guerrilha e de resistência à ocupação e em lutas de libertação nacional. Mesmo nos Estados Unidos, antes de sua independência isso foi fartamente utilizado pelo lutadores na tentativa de expulsar os ingleses. O mesmo na II Guerra Mundial, pela resistência antifascista e contra o nazismo de Hitler. Este mesmo sofreu 15 atentados documentados e o mais expressivo, que acaba de virar filme, foi o da Operação Valquíria. Os terroristas dos grupos que se proclamavam “libertadores” dos judeus sionistas massacraram centenas de aldeias palestinas para implantar um clima de terror, para, depois, dizerem que “os palestinos fugiram” (sic). Quem não se lembra da explosão do Hotel King David em Jerusalém em 22 de julho de 1946, organizado por Menachem Béguin, matando 91 pessoas, na sua maioria britânicos que lá se hospedavam e jornalistas? E ainda por cima, anos depois essa asquerosa pessoa recebeu o prêmio Nobel da “Paz”!

O comunicado recente cuja autenticidade nunca pode ser comprovada, menciona que os ocupantes só entendem a linguagem da força. Eu estabeleço uma ligação clara e nítida entre as eleições marcadas para janeiro e o recrudescimento dos ataques. É uma clara tentativa de inviabilizar o processo eleitoral, já marcado por fraudes e exclusões. Os sunitas ameaçam boicotar o processo se as eleições não forem democráticas (é importante que se esclareçam, posteriormente das eleições de 31 de janeiro de 2005, os sunitas resolveram participar do parlamento, mas não do governo, mas são minoria entre os parlamentares).

O processo não tem um desfecho seguro, até porque nada no Iraque está seguro. O governo não conseguirá controlar o país sem a ajuda do exército americano, cuja saída está prevista, no limite, para final de 2011, bem depois do prazo prometido em campanha pelo “prêmio” Novel da Paz, Barak Obama. As coisas podem tomar outros rumos, porque, como já dissemos, os americanos estão perdendo a guerra tanto no Iraque como no Afeganistão a cada dia que passa. Seria melhor colocar a “viola no saco” e retornarem para suas casas enquanto é tempo e enquanto a derrota não seja humilhante e acachapante.

Protesto contra a Rádio Record News

Em comentários que faz com frequência, o jornalista Salomão Schwartzsman da Rede de TV e Rádio Band News, judeu e sionista, teceu comentários sobre concessões injustas de prêmios Nobel a quem não mereceu. Começa falando de Obama, mas concentra-se em Yasser Arafat e nada menciona do sionista e terrorista Menachem Begin, laureado junto com Anuar El Sadat, do Egípcio em 1979 pelos acordos de Paz de Camp David.

O combativo jornalista José Arbex Jr., meu amigo da época de movimento estudantil e de tantas lutas de 1975 em diante, enviou e-mail protestando contra tais comentários. Faço minhas as suas palavras e as republico abaixo. Os que quiserem se dirigir à redação desse órgão de notícias podem fazê-lo pelo e-mail:

Fale Conosco da rádio Band News: http://bandnewsfm.band.com.br/fale.asp
Contato geral da rádio: ouvinte@bandnewsfm.com.br
Contato do Salomão Schwartzsman: salomao@bandnewsfm.com.br
Telefone do grupo Band news: 3131-1313 (é preciso pedir transferência para a rádio)

“Prezados Senhores Produtores da Band News: Recentemente, o comentarista Salomão Schwartzsman cometeu uma grave injustiça, para dizer o mínimo, ao comentar a concessão do prêmio Nobel da paz ao presidente dos estados unidos Barack Obama. Segundo Schwartzsman, o prêmio foi concedido a Obama não tanto por aquilo que ele fez, mas sim por aquilo que propõe. Até aí, tudo bem, é uma avaliação aceitável. Em seguida, Schwartzsman nota que, historicamente, o Nobel da paz já foi concedido a pessoas que não eram dele merecedores. Também nisso estamos de acordo. Mas o que causa espanto é o fato de que ao dar exemplo de um caso de premiação não merecida, Schwartzsman citou unicamente o ex-líder palestino Yasser Arafat. Pior: expressou a sua desaprovação com estranhas caretas, que mais se assemelharam a estertores de alguém em estado de profunda agonia, sem sequer explicar a causa da desaprovação, como se fosse óbvio para todos que Arafat realmente não deveria ter sido agraciado com o prêmio. A pergunta é: o que pensa Schwartzsman do prêmio concedido ao assassino e terrorista de estado Henry Kissinger, responsável pelo morticínio de milhões do Vietnã, Laos e Camboja, além de ter sido o principal articulador do golpe de estado no Chile, em 1973, para mencionar apenas uma parte de sua brilhante carreira homicida? Ou o que pensa Schwartzsman do prêmio concedido a Menachem Begin, conhecido por suas atividades na organização terrorista Irgun, nos anos 1940? Preocupa-me o fato de que a Band News dê cobertura e empreste o seu prestígio a esse tipo de comentário, absolutamente parcial e desequilibrado. Schwartzsman utilizou a vossa emissora para expressar um ponto de vista em sintonia com o do atual governo de Israel, cujas posições extremadas e racistas já mereceram condenações por parte de Barack Obama e de setores expressivos da própria sociedade israelense. Só posso esperar que a Band News repare o erro cometido por um de seus comentaristas e que não caia no lugar comum da ignorância e do preconceito contra o heróico povo palestino. Grato pela atenção, José Arbex, Jornalista, Professor Universitário e Diretor de Relações Internacionais do Instituto da Cultura Árabe”.

3 comentários

* Presidente do Sindicato dos Sociólogos do Estado de São Paulo, escritor, arabista e professor. Membro da Academia de Altos Estudos Ibero-Árabe de Lisboa e da International Sociological Association.

Lords of Misrule - THE YES MEN

The bottle looks beautiful. It sports an old-fashioned spring-top stopper. The red, diamond-shaped label features an elegant font. From a distance, the silhouetted landscape on the label looks exotic. It is, like all fine gourmet water, "bottled at source." Even the French name of the water suggests elegance: B'eau Pal.

But wait: B'eau Pal? That sounds rather familiar. You look at the label more carefully. The top of the label reads: "25 years of pollution." The picture on the label isn't an exotic location after all. It's...the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India that poisoned a half a million people and killed thousands back in 1984 when it accidentally released tons of methyl isocyanate.

B'eau Pal is the work of the Yes Men, the dynamic duo of disinformation. Five years ago, one of the pair, Andy Bichlbaum, appeared on BBC as a spokesman for Dow Chemical, which now owns Union Carbide, to announce that his company would provide $12 billion in medical care for the 120,000 victims of the Bhopal calamity and fully clean up the site. Dow lost $2 billion in market value in 20 minutes. That's how long it took before the hoax was exposed.

"We demonstrated what would happen if Dow did do the right thing in Bhopal," Bichlbaum told Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) senior analyst Mark Engler in Pranksters Fixing the World. "What happened? The stock market punished Dow. And if it had really happened, the stock market would have kept punishing Dow. The guy who made the decision would have lost his job. Or he would have been sued by the shareholders, which happens."

The Yes Men's point: The heads of major corporations won't suddenly do the right thing even if someone - somehow, somewhere, some day - manages to reveal to them the errors of their ways. Now five years later, Dow blathers on about the importance of clean water even as it does nothing for the residents of Bhopal, who are suffering from a drought. To catch the attention of all those who have forgotten about Bhopal - virtually everyone except the people of Bhopal and a handful of dedicated activists - the Yes Men created B'eau Pal, a critique wrapped in a jest and shrouded in faux-corporate hype.

With their spoofs of the World Bank, fast food restaurants, and Exxon Mobil, the Yes Men are culture jammers par excellence. Their altered advertisements, mock press conferences, and off-kilter conference presentations are delightful inversions of corporate propaganda. They interrupt life's regularly scheduled programming to bring us these important announcements. They treat corporate reality in the same way that hackers approach websites or Marcel Duchamp approached the Mona Lisa.

They are, in other words, the ultimate Lords of Misrule.

During the Middle Ages, at the end of the Christmas holiday, came Twelfth Night, a tradition dating back to the Saturnalia of the Roman age. On this one night, under the guidance of a specially selected Lord of Misrule, the world turned upside down. Men become women, beggars became kings, prostitutes became queens, jesters became judges. In this topsy-turvy world, the community indulged in fantasies and tolerated transgressions. Everyone drank a lot and let off steam. Indeed, because it was more a safety valve than a way of imagining alternative futures, Twelfth Night ultimately reinforced the status quo. Nevertheless, the tradition has spawned satirists, surrealists, and subversives of all varieties.

As the latest Lords of Misrule, the Yes Men aim to change the rules of the game. They're not satisfied with an annual flouting of tradition. They're not interested in turning poisoned water into a high-end beverage as a one-off prank. They want to continually bring the high low and the low high, smothering the corporate elite in their own puffery and amplifying the voices of the victims.

This is deadly serious stuff. But remember: If you can't laugh, don't bother to join their revolution.

Torture and the Bomb

The Yes Men are the mirror image of those infamous No Men, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The Yes Men speak truth to power; the No Men spoke lies to the powerless. The president and vice president said no to peace, to international treaties, to economic common sense. When the world protested, they said, "No, we will go our own way." When the U.S. public protested, they replied, "No, history will vindicate us."

This repudiation of moral standards reached its nadir with the torture issue. The Bush administration attempted to create its own moral universe ruled over by a ticking bomb and governed by ruthless expediency. This was not, however, an unprecedented break with tradition, as FPIF contributor Jon Reinsch points out.

"When the United States adopted torture as a weapon in its 'war on terror,' it was a turn to methods that shock the conscience, and when discovered, officials and their media surrogates went to great lengths to gain public acquiescence for their policies," Reinsch writes in Torture and the Bomb. "It was not the first time the country betrayed its highest ideals, nor the first time U.S. citizens were led to deny that any betrayal had occurred. The United States had gone down the same road in 1945, when it used nuclear weapons to destroy two Japanese cities. One case involved the product of intensive scientific research, the other methods dating back hundreds of years, if not to prehistory. But in the way the U.S. government made and justified these fateful decisions, the two stories contain many disturbing parallels."

I am Israel (Documentary Film)

Ego sum pauper. Nihil habeo. Cor dabo".
("Eu sou pobre. Nada tenho. Darei meu coração")

CIA was focused on American journalist Wolf Blitzer in Israel

WMR has learned from a former top official of the CIA station at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv that in the late 1970s, a young and "impudent" American correspondent for the Jerusalem Post first came to the attention of the CIA because of his attempts to paint the Camp David peace accords between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, brokered by President Jimmy Carter, in a bad light. The correspondent was also seen by the CIA station as being too close to the Israeli intelligence apparatus, mainly because of his simultaneous work on behalf of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), seen by the CIA at the time as a cipher for Israeli intelligence in the United States.

The journalist in question was Wolf Blitzer, who is now CNN's top man for its Washington news bureau. The former CIA officer said that in his dealings with Blitzer, the American journalist always showed an air of "arrogance."

Blitzer's unique role as both a journalist and a public relations man for AIPAC gave him unique insight into the Israel Lobby in Washington since he was an integral part of it. in a March 24, 1993, article in the Jerusalem Post, Blitzer sounded a warning bell about a member of Congress who had been tapped as George H. W. Bush's new Defense Secretary and seemed to be wavering on support for Israel, especially in light of the Jonathan Pollard spy case.

From Blitzer's report we have the following: "A day after Jonathan Jay Pollard was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to spying for Israel, Richard Cheney, then a congressman from Wyoming, and a few other members of the House Intelligence Committee received a high-level classified briefing from the Central Intelligence Agency. Cheney, the new secretary of defence in the Bush administration, emerged from that closed-door session to tell reporters that he did not believe that Pollard was part of any unauthorized Israeli operation. 'I don't think it was a rogue operation,' he said on March 5, 1987. 'I think it was a major, very successful penetration of the U.S. government and our intelligence agencies by the Israeli government.' He said that such behaviour 'doesn't behoove an ally,' adding: 'I don't think we've heard the last of it.'"

Blitzer continued on reporting on Cheney's rant against Israel. ""On the one hand," he [Cheney] said, "Israel pleads a special relationship with the United States, and on the other hand, they run a major intelligence operation against us. There isn't much they couldn't get if they asked for it, but they chose not to do it that way, and I think the Israeli government ought to know that some of us are deeply concerned about that kind of conduct.'"

Blitzer also noted Cheney's support for U.S. arms sales to Arab countries: "On the sensitive matter of U.S. arms sales to Arab countries, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia, he almost always has voted in favour. And most observers here believe that he will almost certainly follow in the footsteps of his Pentagon predecessors in pushing for additional large-scale weapons transfers to moderate Arab countries." And Blitzer bemoaned the fact that Cheney had not had very much interaction with AIPAC, other Jewish lobbying groups, and Jews in general: "Because he represented a very small state with only a handful of Jews, Cheney did not have to deliver many major addresses on Israel. 'He hasn't thought about the subject too much,' one Capitol Hill source said."

Blitzer continues to act as Israel's gatekeeper at CNN, determining what spokespeople will represent the Palestinian and other Arab views on the increasingly propaganda-oriented cable news network.

Israeli spying is a pandemic . . . including in Nevada

The truth about George Joannides and the CIA’s fight to hide it

First, a brief word of apology to Jefferson Morley, whose excellent and meticulously researched book, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA was first mentioned here almost exactly one year ago, with the promise of a review to come…like so many other worthy projects, the review ended up on the back burner (the saltmine beckons and is unusually active at present), but it has not been forgotten. In the meantime, Machetera will say this: the book is terrific – engagingly written, carefully corroborated, it is a must-read for anyone curious about the CIA’s long reach in Mexico, particularly during the period in the fall of 1963 when the CIA did and then didn’t know about Lee Harvey Oswald’s visit to Mexico City in his failed search for a Cuban visa. So get the book, now.

Second, José Pertierra has just published an exclusive interview with Morley at Cubadebate. Normally Machetera resists translating articles written by those with a perfect grasp of English, such as that possessed by Pertierra, not least because translation is invariably an imperfect art and she dislikes second-guessing an interview that undoubtedly transpired in English to begin with. But this interview is exceptionally interesting and important, and as yet, no English version has appeared. So in the meantime, with additional apologies to Morley, and to Pertierra, here it is. A bit of a filmed interview with Morley follows the interview.

Jeff Morley: “I’m only asking that the CIA obey the law” - Español

José Pertierra for Cubadebate

English translation: Machetera

Washington – The day that his brother was assassinated, the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, spoke by telephone with one of the leaders of the terrorist campaign against Cuba, Enrique “Harry” Ruiz-Williams. Kennedy said to him directly: “One of your men did it.” Bobby Kennedy didn’t ask him. He told him. It came from his gut, because he knew those people. That’s how the journalist/researcher Jefferson Morley tells it in an interview he granted Cubadebate.

“The assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 and the dirty war against Cuba organized by the Miami Cubans are intimately linked: they’re battles in the same war, “ said Morley.

“The anecdote about the conversation between Bobby Kennedy and Ruiz-Williams is well founded,” says Morley, “because the prestigious journalist Haynes Johnson was a witness. He was with Ruiz-Williams during the conversation with Kennedy.”

Jefferson Morley has a long career as a well-known journalist in Washington. He worked for 15 years for the Washington Post and has also been published in the New York Review of Books, the Nation, the New Republic, Slate, Rolling Stone and the Los Angeles Times. Recently, he published a biography of the CIA station chief in Mexico, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA. Six years ago he filed suit (Morley v. CIA) against the CIA in order to force the Central Intelligence Agency to declassify documents dating from the period between 1962 and 1964, relative to George E. Joannides, a CIA official charged with many of the operations against Cuba in that period. On November 16^th, Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., will hold a hearing to listen to the arguments of both Morley and the CIA about the possible declassification of these documents.

José Pertierra: Why do you believe the CIA wishes to keep nearly 50 year old documents secret?

Jefferson Morley: Because they may contain something delicate or embarrassing for the CIA. The story that we’re told about Joannides is a show. A lie. According to his own documents which I’ve gone over personally, the story that the CIA tells us now about Joannides doesn’t match reality. The Agency tries to trivialize Joannides’ role in the operations that took place between 1962 and 1964, but history shows us the truth. Furthermore, if the documents being hidden truly do not incriminate the CIA, why do they want them to be hidden? Could it be because Kennedy was killed in 1963? That conditioned reflex to keep this secret hides something.

JP: Who was George E. Joannides?

JM: He was a CIA man whose assignment was to control and direct the Miami Cubans who were in charge of the operations against Cuba at the beginning of the 1960’s. Specifically, he was charged with controlling the Directorio Revolucionario Esudiantil (DRE) [Revolutionary Student Directorate]. The CIA commended him in 1963 for his good work directing the DRE. After the missile crisis in October of 1962, Washington wanted to “reign in” the DRE’s activities, and the CIA put Joannides in charge of that assignment. When the CIA gave him his evaluation in August of 1963, he was congratulated for having “controlled” the DRE.

JP: Who was the DRE?

JM: It was a Cuban organization headquartered in Miami. A CIA analyst told me that the DRE came to be “the most militant of the Miami exile organizations at the beginning of the 1960’s.”

Its leaders were Alberto Muller, Ernesto Travieso and Juan Manual Salvat. Salvat later started a bookstore on Miami’s Calle Ocho, called the Librería Universal [Universal Library]. One of its militants was the young Jorge Mas Canosa, who would later go on to found the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF). The DRE operated from Miami under the direction of a couple of important CIA officers: David Phillips and Howard Hunt.

One of their most well-known violent operations against Cuba took place in August of 1962, when Salvat and a group of DRE militants headed to Cuba from Miami in a small boat and attacked the Hotel Rosita de Hornedo, known after the revolution as the Hotel Sierra Maestra, in Miramar (Havana), at midnight. They attacked the hotel with a cannon, terrorized the guests, and fled. Among the DRE militants who attacked the hotel that night was José Basulto, who would go on to found the Brothers to the Rescue organization in 1995. Basulto told me personally that he was the one who purchased and shot the cannon that was used to attack the Hotel Sierra Maestra that night. He said that he’d bought it in a Miami pawnshop.

(Translator’s note: Morley repudiates the word “terrorized” as it is attributed to him.)

In August of 1963, members of the DRE in New Orleans had a series of encounters with Lee Harvey Oswald. After the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, the members of the DRE spread a publicity campaign to insinuate that Castro had assassinated Kennedy, because Oswald was supposedly affiliated with Cuba and the Soviet Union.

JP: George E. Joannides’ official assignment was “Head of psychological warfare for JMWAVE.” What were his responsibilities?

JM: The plan was to affect the psychology of the enemy. To change their perceptions of reality in order to bring about a change in government. The best example is that of Guatemala in 1954, when the CIA orchestrated false news bulletins about an opposition to the Arbenz government, in the Guatemalan jungle. In the end, Arbenz confused fiction for reality and panic set in. Something that never happened to Fidel Castro or Che Guevara. They understood very well the difference between the fiction of psychological war, and reality.

Joannides paid the members of the DRE. He gave them a lot of money. We know that they received $50,000 a month. In today’s currency that’s more than $150,000. It was a lot of money. He was Washington’s man in Miami in charge of the DRE.

The DRE members at that time were the CIA’s favorite Cubans. Under Joannides’ direction, the DRE had four specific tasks:

1. Political action against Cuba.
2. Acquisition of intelligence against Cuba.
3. Distribution of propaganda against Cuba.
4. Distribution of its actions and propaganda toward Latin America.

JP: What is the connection between Lee Harvey Oswald, the individual who is said to have assassinated President Kennedy in November of 1963, and the DRE? What might the CIA documents tell us about that?

JM: Four months before President Kennedy’s assassination, Oswald and members of the DRE met several times in New Orleans. They had an altercation with him in the street. The DRE sent a member to his house, making him seem like a follower of Fidel. They debated about this on the radio and sent the tape of the debate to Joannides; they even wrote to Congress asking for an investigation of Oswald who at that point in time was an innocuous person. You have to remember that at that time, the DRE had specific instructions to ask for the CIA’s authorization before making any kind of public declaration.

Scarcely an hour after Oswald’s arrest on November 22^nd, the DRE leaders published the documentation they’d accumulated against Oswald and in this way influenced the coverage of the assassination by insinuating that a Castro agent had killed the President of the United States.

The Warren Commission, who investigated the assassination, never realized the connection between Joannides’ employees in the DRE and Oswald. Even in 1978, when the House of Representatives Committee on Assassinations hired Joannides as an advisor to its investigation, Joannides didn’t inform the Committee about his role in the events of 1963 and the DRE.

The attorney for the House Committee, Bob Blakey, says that Joannides obstructed the investigation by not divulging the role he played with the DRE.

JP: What are you asking of the CIA with this suit you filed in December of 2003?

JM: I’m only asking that the CIA obey the law. The CIA has told me that it has more than 295 documents that it will not release for reasons of national security. The documents I have show that Joannides traveled to New Orleans to complete tasks that the CIA charged him with in 1963 and 1964. [They show] that the CIA entrusted him with delicate operations throughout 1962-64. We don’t have any information about those operations. Joannides can’t tell us, because he died in 2001. Those are the only documents about what he did in that city with the DRE members. The CIA has the legal obligation to declassify those documents, but it does not want to declassify them. It’s locked them up. I believe that the lockup sources from the CIA department in charge of Latin America. They are hiding something. The CIA tells us that Joannides had nothing to do with the DRE. I know that’s not true. The documents I have in my possession prove that indeed there was that relationship. Why do they make these statements that are so openly false? What are they hiding?

I hope that on November 16^th, Judge Richard J. Leon will support my motion to have the CIA declassify these documents, so that they may be studied. This is the only way for us to know what really happened in those two mysterious CIA operations in which Joannides worked in 1963 and 1964.

JP: The CIA says that if these documents are declassified, the national security of the United States will be endangered. Do you know what the danger is?

JM: There’s no danger. Washington has a mistaken perception about what is truly national security. I’m told that they cannot declassify nearly 50 year old documents for reasons of national security. That’s not true.

I don’t know who killed Kennedy, I don’t pretend to know. What I’m asking is that these documents be declassified which have to do with George E. Joannides during 1962 and 1964, in order to clarify the facts. This is not a threat to the country, and the Freedom of Information Act says that they must be declassified. I am only asking that the CIA obey the law.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

Palabras para las vísperas

Por Eduardo Galeano

Falta muy poquito para que el pueblo uruguayo elija nuevo gobierno.

Al mismo tiempo, en las mismas urnas, se somete a plebiscito la posibilidad de liberarnos de dos palos metidos en la rueda de la democracia. Uno de esos palos es el que impide el voto por correo de los uruguayos que viven en el extranjero. La ley electoral, ciega de ceguera burocrática, confunde la identidad con el domicilio. Dime dónde vives y te diré quién eres. Los uruguayos de la patria peregrina, en su mayoría jóvenes, no tienen derecho de voto si no pueden pagarse el pasaje. Nuestro país, país de viejos, no sólo ha castigado a los jóvenes, durante años negándoles trabajo y obligándolos al exilio, sino que además les sigue negando el ejercicio del más elemental de los derechos democráticos. Nadie se va porque quiere. Los que se han ido, ¿son traidores? ¿Es traidor uno de cada cinco uruguayos? ¿Traidor o traicionado?

Ojalá los uruguayos acabemos de una vez con esta discriminación que nos mutila.
Y ojalá acabemos también con otra discriminación todavía peor, la ley de impunidad, ley de caducidad de la pretensión punitiva del Estado, bautizada con ese nombre rocambolesco por los especialistas en el arte de no llamar a las cosas por su nombre.

La Corte Suprema de Justicia acaba de dictaminar que esa ley viola la Constitución. Desde mucho tiempo antes se sabía que también viola nuestra dignidad nacional y nuestra vocación democrática. Es una triste herencia de la dictadura militar, que nos ha condenado al pago de sus deudas y al olvido de sus crímenes.

Sin embargo, hace veinte años, esta ley infame fue confirmada por un plebiscito popular. Algunos de los impulsores de aquel plebiscito estamos reincidiendo ahora, y a mucha honra: perdimos, por muy poco pero perdimos, y no nos arrepentimos. Creemos que aquella derrota nuestra fue en gran medida dictada por el miedo, un bombardeo publicitario que identificaba a la justicia con la venganza y anunciaba el apocalipsis, larga sombra de la dictadura que no quería irse; y creemos que nuestro país ha demostrado, en estos primeros años de gobierno del Frente Amplio, que ya no es aquel país que el miedo paralizaba.

Eso creemos, digo, y ojalá no me equivoque.

Ojalá triunfe el sentido común. El sentido común nos dice que la impunidad estimula al delincuente. El golpe de Estado en Honduras no ha hecho más que confirmarlo. ¿Quién puede sorprenderse de que los militares hondureños hayan hecho lo que han venido haciendo desde hace muchos años, con el entrenamiento del Pentágono y el visto bueno de la Casa Blanca?
La lucha contra la impunidad, impunidad de los poderes y los “poderitos”, se está desarrollando en los cuatro puntos cardinales del mundo. Ojalá nosotros podamos contribuir a desenmascarar a los defensores de la impunidad, que hipócritamente ponen el grito en el cielo ante la inseguridad pública, aunque bien saben que los ladrones de gallinas y los navajeros de barrio son buenos alumnos de los banqueros y los generales recompensados por sus hazañas criminales.
Ojalá el próximo domingo confirme nuestra fe en una democracia sin coronitas, ni las coronitas del uniforme militar, ni las coronitas del dinero.

Ojalá podamos envolver esta ley en papel celofán, en un paquete bien atado, con moña y todo, para enviársela de regalo a Silvio Berlusconi. Este gran mago de la impunidad universal, que ha atravesado más de sesenta procesos y no conoce la cárcel ni siquiera de visita, nos agradecerá el obsequio y seguramente sabrá encontrarle alguna utilidad.

Ojalá.

Lo único seguro es que, pase lo que pase, la historia continuará, y continuará el incesante combate entre la libertad y el miedo.

Yo suelo invocar una palabra, una palabra mágica, una palabra abrepuertas, que es, quizá, la más universal de todas. Es la palabra abracadabra, que en hebreo antiguo significa: Envía tu fuego hasta el final. A modo de homenaje a todos los fuegos caminantes, que van abriendo puertas por los caminos del mundo, la repito ahora:

Caminantes de la justicia,
portadores del fuego sagrado,
¡abracadabra, compañeros!


* Versión del discurso pronunciado en el Obelisco de Montevideo, en el cierre de la campaña contra la ley de impunidad, la noche del martes 20.

What Are Pres. Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman Trying to Hide? Still More Proof of US_Sponsored Bloody Sexual Assault

By Naomi Wolf

For four years now, I have been following the fates of the
hundreds of men who have been and the 200 plus men who still are being
held and the many who have, now the record is clear, been tortured at
Guantanamo Bay. But until this weak I had never actually heard a single
such man's voice -- speaking to me live and in person.
When I went to the prison in June of this year, we journalists
were brought to view the prisoners from afar -- exactly as if they were
dangerous animals in a cage. They called to us, anguishedly, in a voice
that still haunts me. `Can I talk to them?" I asked. Many of them speak
English. No; no, no, was the answer. No one is permitted to talk to
them. Prisoners in the US have many rights to speak; but silencing the
Guantanamo detainees has been -- as all oppressors know -- key to
maintaining opprssion; and key to manipulating US popular opinion. Bill
Kristol, may God forgive him, and Dick Cheney's daughter have
started a new organization to spin the torture at Guantanamo and
elsewhere: `Keep America Safe.' (Or: `Keep Daddy Out of Prison.') But
if the perpetrators are to continue to spin America, the prisoners'
voices have to continue to be silenced.
Even those who empathize with the detainees tend to speak `for'
them -- casting them as faceless victims, who are the sum of their
victimization, just as the opposite `side' casts them as faceless,
voiceless monsters.
The biggest thing that has happened to me for a long time is
that, for the first time since I have begin this journey -- I spoke -- have
been speaking to, listening to -- a former detainee. I have been in
touch with Binyam Mohamed, who is the UK resident who was released from
Guantanamo in February -- after seven years' captivity -- and who last
Friday won a major victory when a British court ruled that the US and
the UK could not continue to conceal from the public the seven
paragraphs that describe horrific torture of Mr Mohamed, in documents
from Guantanamo. He is also suing Boeing for its part in rendering him
to `black sites' where he was also tortured.
Of course, the UK government is appealing the ruling, so we still
can't know what happened to him; but officials have told reporters that
one action that the paragraphs describe is the cutting of genitals with
a razor; waterboarding, this official said drily, is well dowon on the list of atrocities Mr Mohamed suffered.
Why are President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman trying so desperately to cover up what the record will show? Because it will be still more horrific evidence of yet more unbelievably violent sexual assault among many cases now on the record -- perpetrated by the US against those men held without charges in their direct custody or in blacksites. To the many confirmed cases of anal rape with objects that prisoners have suffered under the aegis of the US, we will now add attempted genital mutilation.
As Mr Mohamed told the Uk Daily Mail, 'they cut off my clothes with some kind of doctor's scalpel. I was totally naked. I was afraid to ask Marwan [the interrogator] what would happen because it would show fear.

'I tried to put on a brave face. But maybe I was going to be raped. Maybe they'd electrocute me. Maybe castrate me.
'They took the scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut. Maybe an inch. Then they cut my left chest.
'One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction.

'I was in agony, crying, trying desperately to suppress myself, but I was screaming.

'I remember Marwan seemed to smoke half a cigarette, throw it down, and start another. They must have done this 20 to 30 times in maybe two hours.

'There was blood all over. They cut all over my private parts.

'One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists.'
This, Mohamed says, was repeated many times over the next 15 months.' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160238/How-MI5-colluded-torture-Binyam-Mohamed-claims-British-agents-fed-Moroccan-torturers-questions--WORLD-EXCLUSIVE.html#ixzz0Umlk9hLh]
Indeed, Mr Mohamed explained that when he was later
taken into direct US custody, a female
official was sent in daily to photograph his bloodied penis,
saying that the photos were `for Washington' to make sure
his wounds were healing. These photos are almost certainly among the images
that President Obama, Lieberman and Mrs Clinton are seeking to suppress -- and
one more example of the wholesale sexual sadism and violent perversity
-- one more example of detainees being used to generate, essentially,
real-life snuff videos and photographs - that characterized the highly perverse orders
from the White House during this era.
In a Kafkaesque situation that applies to many detainees and
their
lawyers, Mr Mohamed can get into legal trouble if he tells the story of
his own abuse -- and his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith of the heroic UK
organization Reprieve, was threatened with six months in prison by the
US -- Obama's team -- for writing a letter to President Obama
describing what had happened to his client.
(Right now, thinking about how the truth got out in Soviet
societies before 1989, I am desperately asking lawyers
if I can legally tell these stories through allegory, like Animal Farm.
`Once there as an island...')
In a masterpiece of perversity, the US classified the torture
used against the prisoners -- so that IF THEY TELL THEIR OWN STORIES
they are illegally releasing `classified information.' It is like
someone saying to a woman: I raped you, and now I will classify how I
raped you, so if you tell anyone you were raped -- I can send you to
prison.
You will recall that the Obama administration shocked those of us
working on human rights issues by threatening the UK's intelligence
service with refusing to cooperate in intelligence-sharing about
terrorist threats if the UK did not continue to conceal those seven
paragraphs. President Obama was willing to put the thirty million
innocent UK citizens at grave risk in order to keep secret the slashing
of men's genitals, and other nightmares, at Gitmo. Hillary Clinton, to
her eternal shame, sought to do so again as the trial unfolded. Luckily
the judge was not intimidated by these Mafia-like tactics -- though
Clinton supporters should think about what it means for American
womanhood's self-styled premiere role model to lend her efforts to
concealing and thus colluding in a crime of violent sexual torture.
I tried to find a way to talk to Mr Mohamed because he had known
Mohamed al-Hanashi, the thirty-one-year-old Yemenite detainee, the
prisoners' representative -- the man who knew all the crimes committed
against his fellows -- who was declared an `apparent suicide' in Guantanamo in June, when I was there;
turns out his death is now a criminal investigation. Someone killed
him, and the Obama administration is stonewalling; refusing, despite this secret investigation being a violation of Geneva Conventions, to give out any more
information.

In the course of seeking Mr Mohamed out, I received his email --
and had that odd sense of unreality to see this little piece of
normality; not monster, not `victim' alone; a guy with an email address.
We corresponded; and I had the privilege of reading an op ed
piece

he is writing, which eloquently makes the case that America's actions
in torturing people, and denying them due process, did more to inflate
al Qaida's numbers than any other factor; and that America can regain
hearts and minds around the world by prosecuting rather than concealing
war crimes. He also points out -- fascinatingly to me -- that the US
lumped all kinds of groups that were critical of the US but not
terrorist organizations under the `logo' of Al Qaida -- and terrified
the Muslim world by saying `you are either with us or against us' -
meaning, you could not be anywhere in the middle. This idea bears a
great deal more elucidation.

In the course of setting up the interview, I briefly spoke to Mr
Mohamed by phone; it was a brief, unremarkable conversation about
logistics; but in speaking directly, human to human, for the first
time, I had an existential shock. It is one thing when these names are
abstract; another when you hear a voice, just like the voices of one of
your friends, but with layers and layers of unspeakable sorrow
resonating underneath somehow -- and you realize, like a German
speaking directly to a Jew in 1950: this is one man here on the other
end of the line who was tortured in my name and in the name of my
fellow citizens. I carry this.

I asked if I could interview him about his own story and I felt
the closing-down: he explained that he is unable to tell me what was
done to him, since his case is ongoing, and, I presumed, because of the
issues of classification. This silencing still seemed to me as painful -
painful on both sides -- as other kinds of pain.

Since then I have learned something even more remarkable about Mr
Mohamed: the US offered to release him from Guantanamo years ago --
in exchange for his silence
about what happened to him -- and HE REFUSED the deal. He chose to stay in
rather than leave with his tongue -- and truth -- severed, in the hands
of his captors.

Hearing his voice in the op ed is also remarkable. He describes
his captors as `our kidnappers', for instance, which is, again,
shocking to an American sensibility -- but indeed, that is the literal
truth. He explains that while the torture was devastating, the
experience in many ways made him and his fellow prisoners stronger and
gave them a deeper understanding of the nature of oppression; it's
clear that for him, as for those held in tyrannical situations around
the world, torture gets at the body but nothing an oppressor does can
overtake the soul.

President Obama wants to try some remaining prisoners in real
trials; to release some; and he wants a third category, the devil's own
category -- of people who will be held forever because of `problems
with evidence.' What are the problems with evidence? The problem is
that what was done to them will emerge into light and be so horrific --
slashing of genitals, for instance, which any man would assume is a
prelude to castration -- that a continued coverup and impunity would be
impossible to sustain.

I was honored when Mr Mohamed let me know he had `friended' me on
facebook. I hope his voice, and that of other former prisoners, is
heard again and again, louder and louder, and gets through the media
bubble in the US; ironically, many more interviews with them are
offered in media throughout Europe and around the world. It is we
Americans who are being kept, intellectually, in a soundproof, padded room.
Only our hearing these voices can begin our long arduous path to
redemption. Hearing, listening, facing, grieving -- and owning, as the
Germans had to do, and as others have had to do at other times of
satanic mass hypnosis -- that this, this, is what we have done.

Predator and Reaper UAV operations -- from the inside

WMR has received a number of briefings on the operations of the MQ-1 Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). For the operators of the remotely-piloted vehicles, however, they do not consider the aircraft "unmanned" because they provide 24 hours and seven days a week coverage and there is a large support team behind every Predator and Reaper flight. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Lance "Sky" King is quick to point out that "we do not fly drones, we fly aircraft."

The Air Force has proudly claimed that it has not had one Predator shot down. Unofficially, however, there are reports of Predators being shot down in Iraq. There are plans afoot to place more than two A6M-114P laser-guided Hellfire supersonic missiles on the Predator, replace the Predator with a new and more foolproof radar-avoiding stealthy version. The present fleet of Predators and Reapers already possess stealth capabilities due to their carbon-fiber skin and very little metal components. An advanced version of the Reaper foresees the capability for in-flight re-fueling. Currently, the larger Reaper, which can carry four Hellfire missiles, can operate with 18 hours of sustained flight. There are plans to increase to eight the number of Hellfires carried by a Reaper.

One drawback of the Predators and Reapers are that they are not all weather. Because of the satellite links to operators at Nellis Air Force base in Nevada, cloud cover poses problems for the satellite links, requiring operations to be conducted from line-of-sight forward ground control centers.

When UAVs were first used by the Air Force in 1995, they only has line-of-sight capabilities, which meant they could operate 100 miles from the ground control station. Beyond line-of-sight capabilities, using satellite links via the Predator Primary Satellite Link (PPSL) for Predator in-flight operations, began in 2001. Hellfires were also first fitted on the Predators in 2001.

There have also been reported icing problems with the Predator and Reaper, which has resulted in them being grounded. The reconnaissance capabilities of the forward camera on the Predator and Reaper, known as the "MTS Ball" or MQ-16 electro-optical/intra-red camera, can read a driver's license from 20,000 plus feet. Infra-red sensors are so sensitive, often the operators have honed on lit cigarettes at night to target people. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) permits day and night operations in most weather conditions. The infra-red surveillance systems have one drawback at night that does not exist for daytime operations. At night, the color of a vehicle, for example, cannot be determined.

Currently, the Air Force can fly 50 UAVs 24 hours a day. Two-thirds of the remotely-piloted vehicle training squadrons are at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, while the others are at Creech Air Force Base, north of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. Four every four UAVs, there are two ground control stations. Reservist training on the UAVs takes place at Ellington Field, Houston, Texas and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona.

Each Predator and Reaper has a "cockpit" comprised of a pilot on the left, usually a qualified Air Force pilot, and and a sensor operator on the right, usually a senior enlisted person. The pilot controls a throttle stick and a rudder control. The sensor operator controls the camera at the bottom of the aircraft. There is also a moving map display with a Global Positioning System (GPS) overlay.

The pilot's screen permits the pilot to look out from the nose and the bottom of the aircraft. The screen feature is of primary importance during takeoffs and landings. For deployment operations, there is a two second delay in sending instructions to the aircraft from either Nellis or Creech.

The pilot and sensor operator also have access to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network or "SIPRNET" screen, which allows them to read email and scan Internet websites. A third member of the UAV team is the mission intelligence contol (MIC) operator. The MIC monitors additional screens to gather real-time and other intelligence.

Presently, Predators and Reapers, which are exchanged between the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters, are a high priority for the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), Central Command (CENTCOM), and European Command (EUCOM). However, at the present time, 90 percent of all UAVs are dedicated to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although the Hellfire missiles are billed by the Air Force as causing "minimal collateral damage," some Air Force personnel pointed out that they do not exclusively use the weaponry or the Predators. It is known that the CIA maintains its own fleet of Predators and that some of the operations were contracted out to the former Blackwater USA, now Xe Security Services. Predators firing Hellfires have been reported to have killed hundreds of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly, Somalia.

In 2007, there were 112 Hellfire attacks from UAVs, in 2008, the number climbed to 132, and in 2009, so far, there have been 87 missile attacks. The UAVs are a personal favorite of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Israeli intelligence active in Nevada

From the Nevada Test Site to the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) bases at Nellis and Creech Air Force Bases in Nevada, and even into the above top secret Tonopah and Groom Lake (Area 51) test sites, Israeli intelligence has been engaged in a full-court press, mostly targeting Department of Energy, Air Force, and contractor personnel.

Some of the Israeli intelligence presence at Nellis and Creech is semi-official, with a number of contractor personnel having past associations with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), the Israeli state-owned firm that manufactured the Hunter UAV used by the U.S. Army in the Kosovo war. WMR has learned that IAI contractors and officials have been present at Nellis and Creech Lake, the latter formerly known as the Indian Springs Auxiliary Air Field. The prime contractor for the Predator and Reaper UAVs, which are operated from Nellis and trained on by Air Force personnel at Creech, is General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, a major competitor of IAI that is also teamed on many contracts with Boeing.

In 2005, Moshe Keret, IAI's chief executive officer, was detained by the Israeli fraud investigation unit in an investigation of a kickback arrangement between IAI corporate managers and IAI's foreign agents. The investigation of Keret was dropped in 2007. Elta Electronics Industries in Ashdod, Israel also played a part in the corruption investigation. IAI was also suspected by U.S. intelligence of transferring sensitive technology to China.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories continues to maintain a presence at the Nevada Test Site. On October 19, 2009, a one-time scientist for Lawrence Livermore, Dr. Stewart David Nozette of Chevy Chase, Maryland, was arrested by the FBI for volunteering to pass classified U.S. defense secrets to an FBI agent posing as an Israeli Mossad agent. Significantly, Nozette, who also worked for the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory NRL), the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), was an "outside consultant" for IAI. Nozette also worked for the George H. W. Bush White House. Nozette held a high-level "Q" security clearance -- which grants access to sensitive U.S. nuclear secrets -- while working for Lawrence Livermore and the Energy Department. The would-be Israeli spy also attempted to pass information on U.S. intelligence satellites.

Nozette also worked for the U.S. Air Force's Phillips Laboratory in Alexandria, Virginia and was considered as expert on the Strategic Defense Initiative or "Star Wars." In 2006, a non-profit organization run by Nozette, the Alliance for Competitive Technology, came under a federal investigation for making false expense claims for work performed for NASA under contract. The non-profit had also done work for DARPA and NRL and similar suspected fraudulent expense claims arose. Nozette had written checks on his non-profit business bank account for three different mortgages, pool cleaning, a Mercedes Benz, and membership dues for the LaJolla, California Tennis Club.

In January 2009, Nozette reportedly flew to an "unnamed" country, not Israel, with two computer thumb drives. He returned to the United States without the drives and immediately became suspect by U.S. counter-intelligence agents. In the past, Nozette had expressed a desire to move to Israel and tell the Israelis about his classified work for the Pentagon and Energy Department.

Adding to the Israeli intelligence and military presence in the Nellis-Nevada Test Site complex is the presence of yet another mall kiosk near Nellis that employs aggressive Israelis who try to hawk "Dead Sea" skin care products to passers-by, many of whom are active duty Air Force personnel at Nellis and Creech and civilian employees and contractors at the Nevada Test Site and Area 51. The kiosk is located on the Las Vegas Boulevard side of the Fashion Show Mall in downtown Las Vegas. In the past, U.S. counter-intelligence agencies have identified these Israeli-operated mall kiosks as intelligence fronts and WMR has reported on their activities in Columbia, Maryland, near the National Security Agency, and the MacArthur Center Mall in downtown Norfolk, Virginia, near the U.S. Naval Base.