Monday, November 16, 2009

The Bob Ney-CIA-Iran story continues to unfold

On September 17, 2006, WMR ran the following story and suggested that Representative Bob Ney (R-OH)'s prosecution was part of a larger effort by neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby to "take out" all those who were providing a back channel to Iran, including Ney. Our report follows:

On Jul. 14 and Aug. 8, WMR reported on convicted Ohio Rep. Bob Ney's longtime intelligence role for the CIA. More details are emerging about that role. The following is what WMR reported last month on the Ohio Republican:

"WMR has learned that covert Iranian backchannels employed by a current member of the U.S. House of Representatives in support of [Valerie] Plame's Brewster Jennings & Associates network were thoroughly compromised by the White House leak. The member of Congress, who, like Plame, had been an earlier CIA 'non-officialcover (NOC) energy consultant' in the Middle East during the late 1970s and early 80s, and who was familiar with the early weapons of mass destruction proliferation involving the A. Q. Khan network of Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, was compromised and he and his connections to the Brewster Jennings & Associates intelligence network and Iranian government contacts were made known to adversarial intelligence agencies. The staff of the member whose covert Iranian contact network was compromised was targeted and tainted with Jack Abramoff money, putting the U.S. Representative in extreme political jeopardy."

WMR can now report that according to congressional sources in Washington and well-placed sources in Columbus, Ohio, including high-level Democratic sources, the congressman in question is Republican Rep. Bob Ney, who yesterday announced that he was dropping out of his race for re-election. Because neo-con elements opposed to any negotiations between the United States and Iran discovered Ney's involvement in CIA backchannels to Tehran they decided to use Abramoff's illegal political money and favors conduit to steer money and non-monetary gifts to Ney's staff and eventually to Ney himself. With Ney's departure from Congress, his role as an intermediary between Washington and Tehran is severely diminished.

After Ney'sstint as a CIA "NOC" in the Middle East, he returned to Ohio to run against former US Representative and then-Ohio state representative Wayne Hays. Hays resigned from Congress amid a sex scandal involving Elizabeth Ray in 1976. Ney, who beat the coal industry-connected Hays in his run for the state House of Representatives in 1980, also received the backing of the unions in a traditionally Democratic district. Ney eventually became the chairman of the powerful US House of Representative Administration Committee, an office referred to as the "Mayor of Capitol Hill."

After Ney's stint as a CIA "NOC" in the Middle East, he returned to Ohio to run against former US Representative and then-Ohio state representative Wayne Hays . . . In May, Ney's former chief of staff Neil Volz pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy involving his role in getting Ney to support several Abramoff initiatives that benefited Abramoff's Indian casino, Israeli-connected wireless company, Northern Marianas clothing manufacturer, and other clients.

According to a Democratic Party official in Ohio, it was always well known that Neyhad "special protection" stemming from his CIA past. A House of Representatives source revealed that Abramoff's interest in Ney was accentuated by Ney's involvement as a CIA Counter-proliferation Division (CPD) backchannelto Tehran. However, under General Michael Hayden's iron fist, the CIA continues to purge and put into the cold those involved with Brewster Jennings, the CPD, and questioning fanciful Bush administration weapons of mass destruction claims."

The Department of Justice, in its charges against Ney, failed to mention the name of the Syrian-born arms trader from whom Ney pleaded guilty to accepting casino chip bribes -- in return for getting him a U.S. visa -- and a sanctions waiver on the sale of U.S. aircraft parts from his front company in Larnaca, Cyprus for later sale to Iran. The reasons for the mystery surrounding Ney's Middle East interlocutors are that they point to high-level corruption within the Bush Justice Department -- corruption that is tied to covering up the role of U.S. and Russian Mafia state and non-state players in assisting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction throughout the Middle East and South Asia. The Syrian, Fouad al Zayat, whose Larnaca-based company, FN Aviation (later changed to FAZ Aviation), is based in Russian-Israeli mobbed-up Cyprus and has an office in London, is known as a high-rolling gambler called "The Fat Man" in London gambling parlors. The London gambling dens are known to act as major money laundering enterprises for arms smugglers and other mob activities. FN Aviation's British director, Nigel Winfield, a thrice-convicted felon, paid for Neyto take a three-day trip to London in February 2003, a month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. According to well-placed congressional sources, Ney was using the dodgy London arms network to determine whether neocon-supplied intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs had any merit. However, Ney had also stumbled across incriminating evidence tying top Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, to the WMD proliferation network -- the same intelligence discovered by covert CIA agent Valerie PlameWilson and her Brewster Jennings & Associates (BJ&A) network in their investigation of arms smuggling routes through Cyprus, South Africa, Turkey, and former Soviet Central Asian states. Zayat's money laundering reportedly coincided with BJ&A's investigation of WMD money laundering and sanctions-busting activities in Switzerland, Cyprus, and the Isle of Man. Ney's links to the Middle East arms bazaar also provided the CIA with an important backchannel into Tehran, Damascus, and Baghdad -- a backchannel not wanted by the neoconswho were anxious to bomb all three capital cities.

UPDATE:Zayat, a Syrian Christian nicknamed "The Fat Man," has retired but continues to act as a consultant for Samata Enterprises in Nicosia, Cyprus, which is also his primary residence.

Ney is said to have agreed to cooperate with Justice prosecutors in return for a sentence of 27 months in prison and a $500,000 fine. In reality, Gonzales' prosecutors are more interested in how much Ney discovered about links between top GOP and White House officials and the arms smuggling business involving Iran, Iraq, and the Zayat, Abdul Qadeer (AQ) Khan, and other shady networks connected to neocon and Russian-Israeli Mafia activities. By finding out what Ney knows, Cheney and his neocon provocateurs will be able to neutralize any embarrassing information on their proliferation activities prior to the November 7 election. In fact, during the DOJ investigation of Ney, the congressman, aware that wireless communications in the House was in the hands of Israeli-owned MobileAccess Communications (formerly Foxcom Wireless), studiously avoided communicating with sensitive sources through any member of his staff.

FN Aviation's chief lobbyists in the United States, people whose activities were of interest to Ney (and Brewster Jennings and the CIA) were Roy Coffee and David DiStefano, both of whom work for failed Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' old law firm, Locke Liddell & Sapp. According to the Jan. 24, 2006, Dallas Morning News, Coffee, who was a one time deputy campaign manager for then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, and DiStefano, pressured Ney to lobby the State Department to grant an export license for the sale of U.S. spare aircraft parts by FN Aviation to Iran. Coffee has been called Bush's "eyes and ears on K Street," a reference to the lobbyist district of Washington, DC. WMR has been told that Ney was passing the information he was getting on FN Aviation's activities, as well as other intelligence, to BJ&A. After BJ&A's cover was blown by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Richard Armitage (who was worried that the CIA would discover his own involvement in shady deals in Azerbaijan), Ney's intermediary activities also became known to the White House and the Special Prosecutor named to investigate the leak of the classified CIA information to the media -- Patrick Fitzgerald.

UPDATE: Although Coffee and DiStefano, who served as Ney's chief of staff from 1994 to 1998, were investigated in the Justice Department probe of Abramoff, they were never charged.

Fitzgerald's decision not to prosecute Karl Rove and to seek the lesser charges of perjury and obstruction of justice against Cheney's former Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby stems from Fitzgerald's own conflicts-of-interest in the CIA case. Ney and BJ&A were uncovering past and embarrassing links between the Russian-Israeli mob and key players in the Bush administration. Zayat's myriad aircraft firms in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan are based in the same locations as those of Russian Mafia arms smuggler (and favored Pentagon contractor) Viktor Bout. Bout's Kyrgyzstan companies -- Phoenix Aviation and Inter Transavia, both connected to U.S. private military contractors operating in Iraq and Africa -- and Zayat's Kyrgyz-based aviation company, Aqua Transit, share the same airfield in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek. Zayat's Samaya Investments Ltd. comfortably resides in Tashkent, Uzbekistan along with firms controlled by the Uzbek-speaking Bout. Bout and Zayatshare more than centralAsian airports and capitals in common -- they both have high level contacts in the Bush administration, contacts that reach right into the Oval Office.

When she was National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice interceded with Sharjah authorities not to arrest Bout. She informed U.S. intelligence to "look but don't touch" with regard to Bout. And Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department, while convicting Ney, has yet to go after Zayat's lobbyist, Coffee, George W. Bush's former deputy campaign manager and "eyes and ears" on K Street. And there is continued Department of Homeland Security disinterest in the activities of Bout's Syrian associate Monzer al Qasser, who has been involved with his brother Ghassem in arms and drug smuggling and counterfeiting of $100 U.S. notes. Interpol has long been interested in the al Qassers' weapons smuggling and counterfeiting activities but the official U.S. Secret Service replies have echoed Rice's "look but don't touch" orders. Monzer Al Qasser's weapons smuggling activities, selling former East Bloc arms and using secret bank accounts in Luxembourg and Switzerland, cross the path of Viktor Bout's supply of weapons to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and pro-Al Qaeda Islamist elements in the Balkans. The supply of arms from Mafia smugglers to Muslim guerrillas in Bosnia and Kosovoalso involve the financialnetworks employed by the Bosnia Defense Fund, a 1990s weapons-purchasing slush fund set up at Riggs Bank in Washington, DC and the Central Bank of Bosnia in Sarajevo by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. WMR has learned of a significant Washington, DC-based lobbying and smuggling operation involving Al Qasser and Bout. This operation appears to be sanctioned by high-level Bush administration officials.

Key bad actors in the real "Path to 911 [and Iraq]" -- Bush, Cheney, Bin Laden, Rice, Libby, Rove, Fitzgerald, Gonzales and Bout.

And their targets.

And there is even more to this story. Bout was a supplier of logistics and arms to both the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. As WMR has reported, a classified French intelligence report obtained by WMR shows that Bin Laden remained under the operational control of the CIA and Britain's MI-6 until 1995. According to U.S. intelligence sources, Fitzgerald, working for then-US Attorney for Southern New York James Comey, failed to translate from Arabic and Farsi and present to the grand jury and jury in the trials of 1993 World Trade Center bombers several important telecommunications intercepts. The intercepts proved that Bin Laden, who was based in Sudan at the time and living on the largesseof the Saudi-backed Sudanese government, was directly involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Suspiciously, the attack took place only a few weeks after Bill Clinton was sworn in an President. Sudanese and Bin Laden involvement in the bombing was proven by NSA-decrypted messages sent between the Sudanese Mission to the UN and the Sudanese Foreign Ministry in Khartoum. According to a former Sudanese government officials, the NSA possessed a backdoor into the encryption equipment Sudan's Foreign Ministry purchased from a Hamburg, Germany firm named PK Electronics. Fitzgerald also covered up key evidence that a US Army Special Forces non-commissioned officer, Ali Mohammed, was in direct contact with Bin Laden in Afghanistan while still on active duty and reporting to the U.S. Special Forces command in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

It is believed by many legaland intelligence observers that the Washington, DC U.S. District Court grand jury's decision to indict Karl Rove last May was derailed after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confronted Fitzgerald with his past prosecutorialmisconduct in the 1993 World Trade Center trials. Therefore, an unusual "SEALED vs. SEALED" indictment of the grand jury against Rove remains sealed to this day and Rove attorney Robert Luskin maintains a veil of secrecy around a 10-page letter, dated June 12, 2006, that stated that Fitzgerald did not intend to charge Rove in the leak of Valerie PlameWilson's name and identity to a number of journalists. Nor did Fitzgerald charge either Rove or Libby with the underlying crime of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- an act cited by federal appellate Judge David Tatel in a February 2005 as having "serious" national security implications. In fact, Tatel wrote that Valerie PlameWilson "worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation." In fact, Mrs. Wilson and her CIA network were targeting the very same smuggling and money laundering networks that were aided and abetted by Cheney and his neocon influence network.

It is now clear that Fitzgerald has been playing what the French call a "double jeu" -- a "double game." Eager to protect his and then-New Jersey federal prosecutor Michael Chertoff's own cover-up of the U.S. intelligence links to the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, Fitzgerald folded when confronted with the threat of exposure from Gonzales, who was acting on behalf of Cheney, Rove, and Bush. Cheney's and Libby's ties to Russian-Israeli mobsters like Marc Rich, a major global smuggler in his own right, and their involvement in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to form the conditions to promote a casus belli for neocon war goals were the real reasons behind the Cheney's operation to expose Mrs. Wilson and her BJ&A network and Abramoff's and Gonzales' entrapment of CIA asset Ney in a double cross sting operation.

On November 13, "The Cable," an on-line publication of Foreign Policy, a division of Newsweek, published a piece that further exposed the neocon operation against not only Ney but also Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), and a key Iran policy adviser to the Obama administration. Parsi is an Iranian-Swede who holds a U.S. residency permit.

"The Cable" reported that The Washington Times, in a November 13 article by Eli Lake was highlighting Parsi's alleged links to the Iran government and pointed out that NIAC's advisory board includes Thomas Pickering, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs during the Clinton administration, and, until his appointment as deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran, John Limbert, a former U.S. hostage in Tehran.

In his report, Lake asserts that Parsi and NIAC may have operated as undeclared lobbyists for Iran and cites the fact that Parsi failed to register as a lobbyist pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Yet Lake also reports that Parsi and another Iranian expatriate, Siamak Namazi, organized NIAC in 2002 as an Iranian-American version of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Namazi has served as a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, headed up by former Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN), and as an economist at the National Endowment for Democracy and has attended a number of Middle East energy conferences, the same types of conferences that attracted the attendance of Brewster Jennings & Associates and its top non-official cover CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.

Namazi and his family are key players in Middle East finance and politics. They are involved in the operation of the Atieh Group and its affiliates, Atieh Roshan, Atieh Bahar, and Atieh Associates, as well as other energy companies.

Lake fails to mention that AIPAC, with a long and documented history of ties to Israeli intelligence, has never registered under the FARA as a lobbying organization for the government of Israel, although there is an insistence that NIAC should register under FARA.

In 2007, an Iranian-American named Hassan Daioleslam charged that NIAC was a lobbying agent for Iran. In fact, NIAC had received grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Parsi sued Daioleslam for defamation. "The Cable" revealed in its article that Daioeslam was working, according to court documents, with Ken Timmerman, a neocon journalist who has close ties to the Israel Lobby and is executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, a neocon contrivance that also involves such neocon operatives as Peter Rodman and Joshua Muravchik.

One of the documents published by "The Cable" is a memo allegedly sent from Parsi's House of Representatives e-mail address to Coffee and Ney's chief of staff DiStefano, in which a new Iranian lobby, designed to work closely with NIAC, is proposed. However, the meno cited by "The Cable" has a constantly updating date, which calls into question the validity of the document since the article in "The Cable" is dated November 13, 2009 and the date of the memo is reflected as the current date. Moreover, Ney resigned from his seat on November 3, 2006, making it virtually impossible for Parsi to have sent the e-mail from Ney's office on any date after November 3, 2006.

Parsi claims to have passed an Iranian offer to negotiate with the Bush administration in May 2003 and passed it to Ney, who then, in turn, passed it to Karl Rove at the White House. The offer, which included an Iranian proposal to normalize relations with Israel, in addition to the United States, was reportedly in a letter passed by the Swiss ambassador to Iran, Tim Guldimann, from the Tehran authorities, via Ney, to the White House. However, Rove was being advised by the arch-neocon and virulent anti-Iranian government operative Michael Ledeen, who was a supporter, along with Richard Perle, of the Iranian terrorist organization, the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq (MEK), who were no friends of either Parsi or NIAC. Ney has since stated that he believes his prosecution was a political pay-back from the neocons over his back channel communications with Iran.

Parsi, in an October 5, 2008, article in The Washington Times, which later was involved in the campaign to discredit him, stated that the MEK, the favorite Iranian opposition group of Perle and Ledeen, openly celebrated the September 11 terrorist attacks from their base at Camp Ashraf inside Iraq.

E-mails obtained by Parsi's attorneys during the discovery process indicate that Parsi, Namazi, and NIAC were all targets in a neo-con operation involving Newsmax's Kenneth Timmerman, Daioleslem, and Lake of The Washington Times. On April 2, 2009, Daioleslam sent an e-mail to Timmerman, who is also President of the Middle East Data Project, Inc., asking two questions:

"1- Is it politically correct to attack the Rockefeller foundation [sic]?

2- Is the CA senator going for reelection? In this case, we coul use her support to NIAC."

Daioleslam adds, "Ken, I strongly believe that Trita Parsi is the weakest part of the Iranian web because he is related to Siamak Namazi and Bob Ney. I believe that destroying him will be the start of attacking the whole web. This is an absolute integralpart of any attack on Clinton or Obama. I hope your friends understand this crucial point."

In an August 27, 2008, e-mail to Daioleslam, Timmerman states that there is no link between Parsi and to Joseph Biden or Barack Obama but that there is a Hassan Nemazee link. Nemazee is the chairman of Nemazee Capital and a multi-millionaire Iranian-American investment banker. Nemazee, along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, irritated the neocons in early 2008 when they met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad, the same week that Hezbollah military commander Imad Mugniyeh was blown up in a car bomb in Damascus.

Two days before the interchange of e-mails between Daoileslam and Timmermann, Nemazee was arrested and charged by the US Attorney for the Southern District of Manhattan for trying to obtain a $74 million fraudulent loan from Citigroup.

Nemazee is a big Democratic Party political donor, having chaired John Kerry's 2004 New York presidential campaign's finance committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign finance committee, and was nominated by President Clinton to be the U.S. ambassador to Argentina but the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in the hands of Republicans, sent to nomination back to the White House saying Nemazee had no diplomatic experience.

The August 27, 2008, exchange of e-mails between Timmermann and Daioleslam suggest that there was a conspiracy by neocons to take down Nemazee, along with Parsi, Namazi, and NIAC.

The August 27 e-mail from Timmerman to Daioleslam states that Nemazee "IS the big fish here, but as of now we have nothing to hang him with." Timmerman also suggests to Daioleslam that he can put him "in touch with people at The Washington Times."

Daioleslam replies the same day by e-mail and states "Namazee [sic] is part of a web. The best way to attack this web is to bring down the weakest part of it Trita Parsi."

Timmerman replies: "The missing link that we MUST fill in is between hassan [sic] Nemazee and the regime." He added, referring to Nemazee, "Here is a case where, if you're going to attack the King, make sure you kill him. Otherwise, he's just an Iranian-American who's made it big, and is playing politics with the big boys. And it's not a story."

On September 21, 2009, the U.S. Attorneys Office for Southern Manhattan, reported by WMR in the past to be a beehive of corruption, announced a further indictment of Nemazee for running a $292 million Ponzi scheme that benefited the political campaigns of a number of Democratic politicians, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The indictment of Nemazee was announced by US Attorney Preet Bharara, born in Ferozapur, India and moved to the United States as an infant with his Sikh father and Hindu mother who were both born in what is now Pakistan and fled the Muslim-ruled nation to India leaving their property and possessions behind. Needless, to say, with someone with Bharara's built-in biases, it is not difficult to find someone better to hammer Iran and Iranian-American believed to be conduits to Tehran than Bharara.

It was no surprise, therefore, that Bharara and his prosecutors in Manhattan, known for their close links to AIPAC and Israeli organizations, moved on the New York-based Alavi Foundation, a non-profit Iranian organization that reportedly made donations to Bill Clinton's foundation. On November 12, the US Attorneys Office moved to seize the assets of Alavi Foundation's interest in a 36-story office tower in Manhattan. The government sought to seize the building from the 650 Fifth Avenue Company, a joint venture between Alva and Assa Corporation, both linked by the prosecutors to the government of Iran and the Iranian government-owned Bank Melli. Prosecutors also moved to seize a number of Sh'ia mosques around the United States in a virtually unprecedented move by the government against religious institutions.

The Saudis and Yemenis are currently piggybacking on Israeli and neocon claims that Iran is funding terrorist groups abroad. The Al-Huthi clan rebellion in the Yemeni mountains on the Yemeni-Saudi border is now being claimed by Yemen and the Saudis to have the financial backing of Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah, as well as wealthy Shi'a families in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Dubai. The move by the Justice Department against the Alavi Foundation, Shi'a mosques, and Bank Melli in New York is actually welcome news in both Sana'a and Riyadh.

One of the chief government officials who has targeted Iranian investments in the United States is Stuart Levey, the Undersecretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Levey is a holdover from the Bush administration, where he served in the Treasury Department and in the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft.

What is apparent is that the Obama Justice Department appears to be a continuation of the Bush Justice Department with all those who favor dialogue with Iran being singled out for prosecution by politically-motivated U.S. Attorneys who are meting out the worst treatment to Iranian-American supporters of Obama and other Democrats. Meanwhile, documented cases of conspiracies to take down Iranian-American moderates, conspiracies linked to known activists and agents for Israel and right-wing Jewish organizations who use forged documents -- their signature stock-in-trade -- remain untouched by the Justice Department prosecutors and FBI G-Men.

Letter from Zelaya to Obama, last night (Original in Spanish)

PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPUBLICA

Del Escritorio
del Señor Presidente

Tegucigalpa, 14 de Noviembre de 2009

S. E.
BARACK OBAMA
PRESIDENTE EEUU
Washington D.C.

Estimado Presidente Obama:

Cuando nos reunimos por primera vez el 8 de julio con la Secretaria de Estado Clinton después del Golpe de Estado se dejo claro ante mí y ante el mundo la posición de la administración Obama de condenar el Golpe de Estado, desconocer sus autoridades y exigir el retorno del estado de derecho con la restitución, al cargo de Presidente electo por el pueblo. La posición oficial de su gobierno y sus representantes que patrocinaron y firmaron las resoluciones de la ONU, OEA. En el que el tercer punto exige mi restitución inmediata y segura.

A partir del 28 de junio de 2009 mi secuestro por los militares y destierro a Costa Rica. El Congreso de la República emitió un decreto ilegal donde ordena “Separar al ciudadano José Manuel Zelaya del cargo de Presidente Constitucional de la República” sin facultades constitucionales para hacerlo, y sin el debido procesos sin ser citado a ningún juicio.

Desde la primera reunión con la secretaria Hillary Clinton me propusieron la mediación del Presidente de Costa Rica Oscar Arias a pesar de que considero que es contraproducente dialogar con personas que tienen un arma en sus manos, acepte considerando el auspicio de EE.UU y de la comunidad internacional.

En un comunicado de fecha 04 de septiembre del presente año la Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton expresaba a lo siguiente: “La conclusión positiva del proceso iniciado por Arias sería la base adecuada para proceder con una elección legítima”

De todos es conocido que el Régimen de Facto sin la visita a Honduras del sub. Secretario de Estado para el Hemisferio Occidental, Thomas Shannon, Daniel Restrepo y Craig Kelly no hubieran firmado el Acuerdo. Todos sabemos por qué se rompió el acuerdo, Tegucigalpa – San José. El propio Presidente Oscar Arias en aras de la verdad declaro que: “Micheletti nunca tuvo voluntad de colaborar y que por el contrario se estaba burlando de la comunidad internacional y sólo buscaba dilatar el tiempo para nunca entregar el poder a quien corresponde”.

El Ex Presidente Ricardo Lagos, miembro prominente de la Comisión Internacional de Verificación en sus declaraciones confirmo esto, al manifestar: “El Señor Micheletti lo rompió”, “Micheletti hizo cosas que no debía haber hecho como decir yo formare un gobierno de unidad sin Zelaya” lo que hizo fracasar este acuerdo negociado.

El propio día en que se instalaba en Tegucigalpa la Comisión de Verificación, del
acuerdo sorprendieron las declaraciones, de funcionarios del Departamento de Estado donde modifican su posición e interpretan el acuerdo unilateralmente con las declaraciones siguientes“…las elecciones serían reconocidas por Estados Unidos con o sin restitución…”; El régimen de facto celebro este cambio y utilizaron estas declaraciones para sus objetivos, e inmediatamente terminaron por incumplir y violar el Acuerdo Por lo anteriormente expuesto nos manifestamos de la siguiente manera:

Que el Acuerdo Tegucigalpa-San José queda sin valor ni efecto por incumplimiento unilateral del gobierno de facto. Este fue concebido para implementarse en forma integral y simultánea; pues no se contemplaron como doce acuerdos separados, fue un solo acuerdo con doce puntos el cual tenía un solo propósito, restaurar el orden democrático y la paz social, y con esto se revirtiera el golpe de estado, lo que implica el seguro retorno del Presidente de República elegido legítimamente por voto popular. Y con esto, propiciar un clima de reconciliación nacional y un siguiente proceso electoral
constitucional, limpio, con garantías de participación igualitaria y libre para todos los ciudadanos de Honduras Que las próximas elecciones se debían desarrollar en un marco de legalidad y respaldo internacional especialmente de la OEA y ONU y que fuera de esas condiciones políticas y de derechos ciudadanos mínimos para garantizar un resultado apegado a la libertad y a la transparencia.

En esto, quiero anotar que la nueva posición de los funcionarios del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos esquiva el objetivo inicial del diálogo de San José, relegando un acuerdo con el Gobierno legítimamente reconocido hacia un segundo plano, y tratando de trasladar este acuerdo hacia un nuevo proceso electoral sin importar las condiciones en que se desarrolle. Entre otras, con recursos públicos están siendo autorizados por funcionarios públicos no reconocidos legalmente e imputados a un documento de Presupuesto que no ha sido autorizado por Presidente legítimamente reconocido.

En estas condiciones, este proceso, y por lo tanto sus resultados serán sujetos de impugnación y no reconocimiento; lo cual pone en grave riesgo la estabilidad futura de las relaciones entre Honduras y el resto de naciones que reconozcan sus resultados.

Como lo ha señalado el Secretario General de la OEA José Miguel Insulza, no existe un ambiente político, para elecciones, como lo ha observado y apuntado la Congresista Norteamericana Jane Sharkorky en su visita a Honduras, se observa un ambiente comprobado de violación a los derechos humanos en Honduras.

El 6 de noviembre pasado, hemos comunicado nuestra negativa a continuar con el dialogo falso, y por lo tanto al expirarse el plazo el texto constituye letra muerta que pierde vigencia, porque un acuerdo se cumple en tiempo y forma, la violación de este por el régimen de facto es para nosotros la condición que determina que el acuerdo dejo de existir. Indudablemente se perdió tiempo precioso en este intento fallido.

La elección presidencial está actualmente prevista para la última semana de noviembre. En este caso, como Presidente Constitucional de Honduras, y como ciudadano que representa y fue elegido por voto democrático del pueblo de Honduras, me veo en la obligación de informar que bajo estas condiciones no podemos respaldarla y procederemos a impugnarlo legalmente en nombre de millares de hondureños y de cientos de candidatos que sienten que esta competencia es desigual y no se presentan las condiciones de participación en libertad.

En Honduras por la represión a que hoy está sometido el pueblo Hondureño, donde no se respeta ni la más alta autoridad el Presidente de la Republica, donde no se ha considerado que en tres años logré los mejores indicadores económicos y la más grande reducción de la pobreza de los 28 años de vida democrática, donde fui derrocado por la fuerza de las armas, nunca fui sometido a un juicio ni al proceso debido y tengo hoy 24 acusaciones y ordenes de captura por narcotráfico corrupción y terrorismo entre otros, y donde la mayor parte de los Ministros de mi gabinete son objeto de persecución política y se encuentran huyendo del régimen en diferentes partes de América.

3500 personas detenidas en cien días, mas de 600 personas heridas y golpeadas en los hospitales, más de un centenar de asesinatos y una incontable cantidad de personas sometidas a torturas cometidas contra ciudadanos que se atreven a oponerse y manifestar sus ideas, de libertad y justicia, en manifestaciones pacificas, todo esto convierten las elecciones de noviembre en un ejercicio anti-democrático por estado de ilegitimidad, por la incertidumbre y la intimidación militar, para grandes sectores de nuestro pueblo.

Realizar elecciones, en las que el Presidente electo por el pueblo de Honduras, a quien reconoce su Gobierno y la Comunidad Internacional, está prisionero, rodeado por militares en la sede diplomática de Brasil, y un Presidente de Facto, que impusieron los militares, rodeado por los poderosos en el palacio de gobierno, será una vergüenza histórica para Honduras y una infamia para los pueblos Democráticos de América.

Este proceso electoral es ilegal porque oculta el golpe de estado militar, y el estado de facto en que vive Honduras no brinda garantías de igualdad y libertad en la participación ciudadana, a todos los Hondureños, es una maniobra electoral antidemocrática repudiada por grandes sectores del pueblo para encubrir los autores materiales e intelectuales del Golpe de Estado.

Las Elecciones son un proceso no son solo un día donde se va elegir, es un debate, es exposición de ideas es igualdad de oportunidades.

En mi condición de Presidente electo por el pueblo Hondureño, reafirmo mi decisión que a partir de esta fecha cualquiera que fuera el caso, YO NO ACEPTO, ningún acuerdo de retorno a la presidencia, para encubrir el golpe de estado, que sabemos que tiene un impacto directo por la represión militar sobre los derechos humanos de las habitantes de nuestro país.

Sr. Presidente en la Cumbre de Países del Continente Americano celebrada en Trinidad y Tobago a principios de este año, donde estuve presente Usted manifestó

“Que dejáramos de acusar a Estados Unidos por lo que hizo en el pasado en el continente y que viéramos hacia el futuro”. El futuro que hoy nos muestran al alterar su posición en el caso de Honduras y favorecer así la intervención abusiva de las castas militares en la vida cívica de nuestro Estado, (causa histórica del atraso y estancamiento de nuestros países en el siglo XX) No es mas que el ocaso de la libertad y un desprecio a la dignidad humana, es una nueva guerra contra los procesos de reformas sociales y democráticas tan necesarios en Honduras.

Presidente Obama, cada vez que se derroca un Gobierno legítimamente electo en América la violencia y el terrorismo nos gana una batalla y la Democracia sufre
una derrota.

Todavía Nos resistimos a creer que este golpe de estado militar en ejecución en Honduras, es ya el nuevo, terrorismo de estado del siglo XXI. Y será el futuro para América latina que nos hablo en Trinidad y Tobago.

Estamos firmes decididos a luchar por nuestra democracia sin ocultar la verdad y cuando un pueblo se decide a luchar pacíficamente por sus ideas, no hay arma, no hay ejército ni maniobra capaz de detenerlo.

En espera de su pronta respuesta, le reitero mi más alta consideración.

JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES
Presidente de Honduras

Letter from Zelaya to Obama, last night

Office of the President of the Republic

From the Desk of the President

Tegucigalpa, 14 November, 2009

His Excellency
Barack Obama
President of the United States
Washington D.C.

Dear President Obama:

When we met for the first time the 8th of July with the Secretary of State Cinton after the Coup d'Etat there was made clear to me and to the world the position of the Obama administration of condemning the Coup d'Etat, not recognizing its authorities and demanding the return to the state of law with the restitution to the office of President elected by the people. The official position of your government and its representatives that sponsored and signed the resolutions of the UN, OAS. In which the third point demanded my immediate and secure restitution.

Beginning the 28th of June of 2009 my kidnapping by the military and expatriation to Costa Rica. The Congress of the Republic issued an illegal decree where it ordered "To separate the citizen José Manuel Zelaya Rosales from the office of Constitutional President of the Republic" without constitutional abilities to do so, and without due process without any legal ruling being cited.

From the first meeting with Secretary Hillary Clinton mediation by the president of Costa Rica Oscar Arias was proposed to me, despite the fact that I consider that it is counterproductive to engage in dialogue with persons that have a gun in their hands, I accepted considering the auspices of the US and the international community.

In a communiqué dated the 4th of September of the present year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed the following: "The positive conclusion of the process initiated by Arias will be the suitable basis to proceed with a legitimate election".

It is known by everyone that the de facto regime, without the visit to Honduras of the Subsecretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Thomas Shannon, Daniel Restrepo and Craig Kelly, would not have signed the Accord. Everyone knows why they broke the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. The same president Oscar Arias for the sake of the truth declared that "Micheletti never had the will to collaborate and that on the contrary he was mocking the international community and only sought to extend the time to never turn over the power that he has".

Ex-president Ricardo Lagos, prominent member of the international Verification Commission in his declarations confirms this, by stating "Sr. Micheletti broke it", "Micheletti did things that he should not have done such as to say I will form a government of unity without Zelaya" which made this negotiated accord fail.

The same day that the Verification Commission of the accord was installed in Tegucigalpa, they were caught unaware by declarations of functionaries of the State Department where they modified their position and interpreted the accord unilaterally with the following declarations: "the elections will be recognized by the US with or without restitution"; the de facto regime celebrated this change and used these declarations for their objectives, and immediately ended by default and violation of the Accord. For the before expounded we declare in the following manner:

That the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord remains worthless and without effect for the unilateral default of the de facto government. This was conceived to be implemented in an integrated and simultaneous form; since it cannot be treated as twelve separate accords, it was one single accord with twelve points which had one sole goal, to restore the democratic order and social peace, and with this the coup d'etat would be reverted, which implies the certain return of the President of the Republic elected legitimately by popular vote. And with that, to bring about a climate of national reconciliation and a constitutional electoral process to follow, fair, with guarantees of equal participation and free for all the citizens of Honduras. That the upcoming elections should be developed in a framework of legality and international backing, especially by the OAS and UN and there would be the political conditions and conditions of minimum civil rights to guarantee a result that holds to liberty and transparency.

In this, I want to note that the new position of the functionaries of the Government of the US skirts the initial objective of the San Jose dialogue, relegating an accord with the legitimately recognized Government to a second place, and trying to move this accord toward a new electoral process without concern for the conditions in which it would be carried out. Among others, with public resources that are being authorized by public functionaries not legally recognized and attributed to a Budget document that has not been authorized by the legitimately recognized President.

In these conditions, this process, and therefore its results, will be subject to challenge and non-recognition; which will put in grave risk the future stability of relations between Honduras and the rest of the nations that might recognize its results.

As the Secretary General of the OAS José Miguel Insulza has pointed out, there does not exist a political environment for elections, as has been observed and pointed out by the North American Congress member [Jan Schakowsky] in her visit to Honduras, observing a veritable environment of violation of human rights in Honduras.

This past November 6, we communicated our refusal to continue with a false dialogue, and therefore on the expiration of the due date the text constitutes a dead letter that loses its validity, because an accord is fulfilled in time and form, the violation of this by the de facto regime is for us the condition that determines that the accord stopped existing. Undoubtedly precious time was lost in this unsuccessful attempt.

The presidential election is now scheduled for the last week of November. In this case, as Constitutional President of Honduras, and as citizen who represents and was elected by the democratic vote of the people of Honduras, I see myself obligated to state that under these conditions we cannot back it and we will proceed to challenge it legally in the name of thousands of Hondurans and hundreds of candidates that feel that this contest is unequal and does not present the conditions of free participation.

In Honduras due to the repression that the Honduran people today is subjected to, where there is no respect even for the highest authority of the President of the Republic, where they have not considered that in three years I achieved the best economic indicators and the greatest reduction of poverty in the 28 years of democratic life, where I was removed by force of arms, never was submitted to a trial nor to due process and today have 24 accusations and orders for arrest for drug trafficking, corruption, and terrorism, among others, and where the major part of the Ministers of my cabinet are the object of political persecution and are to be found fleeing the regime in different parts of the Americas.

3500 people detained in 100 days, more than 600 people wounded and beaten in hospitals, more than 100 assassinations and an unknown number of people subjected to tortures committed against citizens that dared to oppose and demonstrate for their ideas, for liberty, and for justice, in peaceful demonstrations, all that converts the elections of November into an anti-democratic exercise by an illegitimate state, due to the uncertainty and military intimidation, for large sectors of the people.

To carry out elections, in which the President elected by the people of Honduras, who is recognized by your Government and the international community, is prisoner, surrounded by military in the diplomatic mission of Brazil, and a de facto president, who imposes the military, surrounded by the powerful in the palace of government, would be a historic shame for Honduras and an infamy for the democratic peoples of the Americas.

This electoral process is illegal because it covers up the military coup d'etat, and the de facto state that Honduras lives with does not furnish guarantees of equality and liberty of citizen participation, for all the Hondurans, it is an antidemocratic electoral maneuver repudiated by large sectors of the people to cloak the material and intellectual authors of the Coup d'Etat.

The elections are a process, not just a day when you go to vote, they are a debate, they are the exposition of ideas, they are equality of opportunities.

In my status as President elected by the Honduran people, I reaffirm my decision that from this date on, whatever will happen, I WILL NOT ACCEPT any accord of returning to the presidency, to cloak the coup d'etat, that we know has a direct impact through military repression on the human rights of the inhabitants of our country.

Mr. President, in the Summit of Countries of the American Continent celebrated in Trinidad and Tobago at the beginning of this year, where I was present, you said

"That we should stop accusing the US for what it did in the past in the continent and that we should look toward the future". The future that today shows us the alteration of your position in the case of Honduras and thus favors abusive intervention by military groups in the civic life of our State (historical cause of the backwardness and stagnation of our countries in the 20th century). It is nothing more than the sunset of liberty and a deprecation of human dignity, it is a new war against the process of social and democratic reform that are so necessary in Honduras.

President Obama, each time that a legitimate elected Government is overturned in the Americas violence and terrorism win a battle and Democracy suffers a defeat.

We still refuse to believe that this military coup d'etat executed in Honduras, is now the new state terrorism of the 21st century. And that it will be the future for Latin America that you spoke to us about in Trinidad and Tobago.

We are firmly resolved to battle for our democracy without hiding the truth and when a people decide to peacefully fight for its ideas, there is no weapon, no army nor maneuver that is capable of stopping it.

In the expectation of your prompt response, I repeat my highest regards.

JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES
President of Honduras

Sunday, November 15, 2009

National Security Letters, the Deceitful Media & the Convergence of Interests


This week we interviewed Mark Klein, the AT&T whistleblower; the interview should be posted in 3 or 4 weeks. I know you’re going to find it interesting and enlightening. Speaking of AT&T, check out our contributor Ishmael’s informative interview with Jeff Farias here.

I have a few noteworthy tidbits below. Don’t pay attention to their publication dates, since the issues, these cases and reports, are ‘timeless’ in nature.

Another Police State Government Villains & an Irate Minority Fighter Story

MakingsofapolicestateThis week the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a privacy watchdog organization, released a comprehensive and eye-opening report on a bogus subpoena issued by a US attorney in Indiana to force Indymedia.us , an independent alternative news site to hand over all the data containing about their users who visited the site on a particular day. Not only that, consistent with other National Security Letters practices, the Justice Department issued gag order to prevent the site from speaking about the subpoena:

The report describes how, earlier this year, U.S. attorneys issued a federal grand jury subpoena to Indymedia.us administrator Kristina Clair demanding “all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us” for a particular date, potentially identifying every person who visited any news story on the Indymedia site. As the report explains, this overbroad demand for internet records not only violated federal privacy law but also violated Clair’s First Amendment rights, by ordering her not to disclose the existence of the subpoena without a U.S. attorney’s permission.

Because Indymedia follows EFF’s Best Practices for Online Service Providers and does not keep historical IP logs, there was no information for Indymedia to hand over, and the government withdrew the subpoena. However, as the report describes, that wasn’t the end of the tale: Ms. Clair wanted EFF to be able to tell the story of the subpoena and shine a light on the government’s illegal demand, yet the subpoena ordered silence. Under pressure from EFF, the government admitted that the subpoena’s gag order had no legal basis, and ultimately chose not to go to court to try to force Ms. Clair’s silence despite earlier threats to do so.

This is another story of our government villains determined to butcher the Constitution and speed up our descent towards a police state. This is another example illustrating how government abuses are thriving and expanding in secrecy. In this case, it took an irate, a determined, and a believer in Constitutional Rights, to get up and challenge the attempted despotism. In this particular case, the despotic villains backed down. But as EFF appropriately questions:

How often does the government attempt such illegal fishing expeditions through internet data? How many online service providers have received similarly bogus demands, and handed over how much data, violating how many internet users’ privacy? How many of those subpoena recipients have been intimidated into silence by unconstitutional gag orders?

Let’s hope the number of those who choose to speak up and fight back keeps increasing. But meanwhile, in addition to sitting and wishing and hoping, let us each be one of the irate minority who keeps on fighting until we become the majority, and the villains are restrained and ruled by we the people.

The Deceitful Media Pimping Tyranny

PimpingMediaFreedom daily had a well-presented piece by James Bovard on the US media. I get tons of links and references everyday, and usually all I can do is a quick glance. With this one I was hooked after the first paragraph, and I’m sure those of you who’ve been visiting my site for a while would know why:

Why do politicians so easily get away with telling lies? In large part, because the news media are more interested in bonding with politicians than in exposing them. Americans are encouraged to believe that the media will serve as a check and a balance on the government. Instead, the press too often volunteer as unpaid pimps, helping politicians deceive the public.

And no, it is not because he uses my favorite adjective, pimp! Keep reading the article, because Bovard goes on providing some good and highly relevant examples and cases. Here is another right-on-target remark after he presents relevant cases supporting his view:

Deceit has become ritualized in U.S. foreign policy. From 2002 onwards, the White House Iraq Group spewed out false information that the New York Times and other prominent media outlets routinely accepted without criticism or verification. After many of the assertions were later discovered to be false, the White House and much of the media treated the falsehoods as irrelevant to the legitimacy of the U.S. invasion. The lack of attention paid to political lies is itself symptomatic of the bias in favor of submitting to rulers regardless of how much people are defrauded.

…

The pursuit of respectability in Washington usually entails acquiescing to government lies. Many if not most members of the Washington press corps are government dependents. Few Washington journalists have the will to expose government lies. That would require placing one in an explicitly adversarial position to the government. It is not that the typical journalist is intentionally covering up government lies, but that his radar is not set to detect such occurrences. Lies rarely register in Washington journalists’ minds because they are usually supplicants for government information, not dogged pursuers of the truth. Raising troublesome questions will not help you get any “silver platter” stories.

And finally his conclusion, the punch line, to which I wholeheartedly subscribe:

If Americans wish to retain the remnants of their liberty, they cannot trust the media to warn them about government tyranny. In order to recognize government deceit, there is no substitute for more citizens to make more effort to find the truth for themselves.

Don’t worry about the article’s November 5 date. It’s been relevant for many years, and will be relevant for the foreseeable future. So I encourage you to go read the piece, and come back

as an even more determined and irate minority!

The Convergence of Interests: MIC & Members of Congress

MICandCongressOur friend and regular Boiling Frogs Post commenter Metem kindly sent this over a year old but way under-reported and highly important report my way, assuming I’d seen it already. Well, I had not, and although not surprised by its content, I am grateful to have it and share it with you here.

This article, Congress Invested in Defense Contracts, made it to the Project Censored top 25 censored stories for 2009-2010. It is based on a report issued by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which made public the fact that more than 151 members of Congress have up to $195 million invested in major defense contractors that are earning profits from the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

When General David Petraeus, the top US military officer in Iraq, went to Capitol Hill to brief Congress in April of 2008, he was addressing lawmakers who had a lot more than just a political stake in the Iraq occupation. Along with their colleagues in the House and Senate, the politicians who got a status report from the general and the US ambassador to Iraq had millions of dollars of their own money invested in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD).

Guess which lawmaker made it to the top of the list, became number one, with the most money invested in companies with DoD contracts? Someone I am not familiar with: Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), with $49,140,000.

But the number two man is familiar to all. I bet many of you are guessing McCain or Lieberman. Well, that’s not the case. Number two happens to be Senator John Kerry (D-Mass), with up to $38,209,020. Just in case the comas cause this to be difficult to make out, that is more than 38 million dollars, my friends.

Here are a few others who made it into the top 10: Rep. Hayes, with $37+ Million; Rep. Sensenbrenner Jr., with $7+ M; Rep. Harman, with $6 +M; Rep. Upton, with $8+M; and Sen. Rockefeller, with $2 million dollars.

And the implications:

Forty-seven members of Congress (or 9 percent of all members of the House and Senate) in 2006 were invested in companies that are primarily in the defense sector. The average share price of these corporations today is nearly twice what it was in 2004. Lawmakers’ investments in these contracting firms yielded them between $15.8 million and $62 million in income between 2004 and 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest, the Center found.

Companies with congressional investors received more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006. The minimum value of Congress members’ personal investments in defense contracting firms increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006, but because lawmakers are only required to report their assets in broad ranges, the value of these investments could have risen as much as 160 percent—or even dropped 51 percent.

The above data is only the personal gain minus ‘the lobby’ gain. There is more into this:

Lawmakers aren’t just benefiting from the defense sector personally, but also politically. In the first three months of 2009, the defense sector gave nearly $2 million to candidates, party committees and political action committees, with 57 percent of that going to Democrats. In the 2008 election cycle, the sector gave $23.5 million. Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee chairman, has collected more money from the sector than any other lawmaker since 1989 at $2.6 million. Murtha has gotten some heat—and a lot of attention—this year for his connections to now-defunct lobbying firm PMA Group, which the FBI is investigating for allegedly violating campaign finance laws. The firm’s clients were primarily defense companies that sought earmarks from Murtha’s subcommittee.

This is the sorry state of those entrusted with the oversight of our government and its practices. So who has the oversight of these overseers? Who gets to watch for these kinds of mammoth conflicts of interests, and who gets to hold the overseers who’ve been given the authority to exercise accountability accountable? Last time I checked, that was ‘we, the people.’ Now when will we, the people, start exercising these rights? When will we say ‘it is time to kick out, haul out, some a..es from the place called the United States Congress? Just asking…

Doc Jazz – Undhor! Anti-wall song and video

Doc Jazz – Undhor! Anti-wall song and video

By Guest Post • Nov 14th, 2009 at 21:12 • Category: Counter-terrorism, No thanks!, Grassroots Activism, Israel, Music, Poetry, Events, Newswire, Palestine, Resistance

About the song
Music: Doc Jazz
Words: Doc Jazz and Miko

This song is dedicated to Basem Abu Rahme, 29 years old, who was non-violently protesting the theft of his village's farmlands and was shot dead by the Israeli Occupation Forces. Read his story here: http://palsolidarity.org/2009/04/6273
The song expresses support for the people's struggle against the Israeli Apartheid Wall in Bil'in and Nil'in, on the West Bank in Palestine. People there are waging daily non-violent protests against the confiscation of their lands and their livelihood, while the armed forces of Israel respond with live ammunition and have injured and killed several people in this way.

Lyrics
(see below for non-rhyming English translation)
Music by Doc Jazz
Words by Doc Jazz and Miko

Undhur!
Isma3!
Lazem
Terja3
Sha3bak beddo Falasteen

Undhur!
Isma3!
Sootak
Erfa3
Min Bil3een w min Ni3leen

Lazem enhedd el jedaar
Lazem ned3am el thuwwaar
El 3ado 3am yetleq naar
Jnood 3ala madaniyyeen

Bnetla3 3ala sat7 el daar
Bnerfa3 3alam el a7raar
Bendallna 3alal madaar
Thuwwaar w feda2iyyeen

1.
Wein el naas el mehtammeen
3adadna bil malayeen
Bne7lam beeki Falasteen
Mahma taalat el seneen

Sha3bik 3endo este3daad
Yesmod raghm el i7tilaal
Mahma taal el dholm w zaad
Istiqlaalik 3ala el baal

min ajlik
ya deir yasin
w min ghazza
7atta jeneen
maghla traabik falasteen
wardet ummetna

2.
Ahel Ghazza jabbareen
Ummahaatna samideen
Filnehaaye mansooreen
3ala qawm el ghaddaareen

braghm el 7aal wel 2a7waal
E7na 3endna isti3daad
Ennaadel ded el i7tilaal
Lan7arrer quds el amjaad

(c) 2009 Doc Jazz

- – - – - – - – - – - – -

Here is the (non-rhyming, and non-literal) English translation – although when you translate something, it's bound to lose some of its luster:

Watch!

Watch!
Listen!
You have to return
Your people wants Palestine

Watch!
Listen!
Raise your voices
From Bil'in and from Ni'lin

We have to bring down the wall
We have to support the revolutionaries
The enemy is opening fire
Soldiers against civilians

We climb unto the rooftops
We raise the flag of the free
We will stay around the clock
Revolutionaries and freedom fighters

1.
Where are the people who care?
Our numbers are in the millions
We dream of you oh Palestine
No matter how long the years are

Your people have the readiness
To be steadfast despite the occupation
No matter how long the injustice lasts, and increases
Your independence is on our minds!

For your sake, oh Deir Yasin
And from Gaza to Jenin
Your soil is so precious, Palestine
The rose of our nation

2.
The people of Gaza are so brave
And our mothers so resilient
And in the end they will overcome
The treacherous people

Despite the situation and the circumstances
We have the readiness
To wage resistance against the occupation
And to free Jerusalem, city of the exalted

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=221052&content=songinfo&songID=7788173

From Tariq, (Doc Jazz) Dear friends,

My recent concert in Al Quds University in Palestine was received very well, especially my Arabic anti-wall song "Undhor"!

This song now has a music video with footage from the anti-wall protests in Ni'lin and Bil'in, including the shots of where Palestinian activists manage to bring down a section of this horrendous Apartheid edifice.

I hope a music video like this can help keep the struggle against zionism, apartheid and racism alive. If you also think it can, then please mail the (link to) the video to your friends:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BKIvQRZpzc

Another great way to help re-igniting the fire of anti-wall activism is by posting this video on your Facebook page, your website, Twitter, or publicizing it by any internet means that is available to you.

Yours sincerely,

Tariq

P.S. the concert was recorded on video, and will be made available soon!

Friday, November 13, 2009

Mossad's (almost) forgotten journalist assassination victim, David Holden

Mossad's (almost) forgotten journalist victim

In the archives of the CIA can be found the smallest of news clippings with some of the most revealing information. Take one small clipping from the New Times "Overseas Bulletins," preceded by "Bee-bee-beep, Bee-bee-beep," on February 20, 1978.

The item concerns the professional assassination of the London Sunday Times' top foreign correspondent, David Holden, in Cairo on December 7, 1977. Holden had just returned to Cairo airport from a trip to Damascus, east Jerusalem, and Amman where he was trying to size up reaction to the upcoming peace talks between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Holden was always considered pro-Arab by the Israelis, mainly because of his close connections to top Palestinian leaders and his sympathy for their plight. After landing at Cairo airport, Holden never made it to his hotel room at the Cairo Hilton. Holden's body had been discovered on a Cairo roadside with a single bullet fired from a silencer-enabled 9 mm automatic pistol. The bullet pierced Holden's heart and exited through his chest.

Holden had, like many British and American Middle East correspondents, including ABC News' Peter Jennings and John Cooley, developed a close working relationship with a number of Arab leaders and diplomats. With much of the Arab world rejecting Sadat's peace offering to Israel following the Egyptian President's landmark November 1978 visit to Jerusalem, Holden was in a position to act as a back channel between Egypt, Britain and the United States -- Holden also enjoyed close contact with MI-6 and CIA personnel -- Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian leadership. If Holden was acting as a high-level courier, certain parties opposed to any Middle East peace deal may have wanted him dead and the contents of his briefcase secured.

The CIA's interest in the New Times item, published a little over two months after Holden's assassination, may be the following: "It seems that Holden, who had strong ties to moderate Palestinian factions in Jordan, was attempting to act as an 'honest broker between them and Egyptian officials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating an Israeli-Egyptian agreement for the West Bank. Some CIA Mideast officials believe the Mossad (the Israeli intelligence organization) had Holden killed . . ."

The assassination of Holden was followed by a carefully scripted character assassination. It was suggested that Holden, who was married, had a pre-marital homosexual relationship with a German Jewish communist-turned-Zionist-turned anti-Zionist named Leo Silberman. Holden, who was 53 when he was killed, was known as a lady's man by his family and colleagues.

In stories about Holden that appeared in The Times as recently as September 6, 2009, and other newspapers, there was scant attention paid to the CIA clipping that Holden was, in fact, assassinated by the Mossad. The most recent Times story actually suggests that Holden was murdered by the CIA. Of course, The Times of today scarcely resembles the broadsheet of 1977, having been turned by the neocon/Zionist media mogul Rupert Murdoch into a tabloid largely devoid of independent investigative journalism.

To further absolve Mossad of Holden's assassination, the Soviet news agency TASS reported on June 19, 1979, that the satirical London bi-weekly magazine, Private Eye, identified Holden as himself a Mossad agent. Private Eye had paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in libel claims over the years and The Times and Sunday Times were always high on its target list.

In July 1977, Holden's paper reported on the torture of Palestinian prisoners, described as the "ugliest forms" of torture. Meir Vilner, the Secretary General of the Israeli Communist Party, issued the following statement on January 27, 1979, "The London 'Sunday Times' talked about this torture in July 1977. Of the 49 former prisoners in Israeli jails questioned by the paper's correspondents, 44 had been tortured. The publication of these facts gave rise to hysteria in Zionist circles, and barely a few months later the dead body of the leading special correspondent of the 'Sunday Times', David Holden, was found." Vilner appeared to have been suggesting a quid pro quo in Holden's assassination by the Israelis.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Welcome Home, War! How America's Wars Are Systematically Destroying Our Liberties


By Alfred W. McCoy

In his approach to National Security Agency surveillance, as well as CIA renditions, drone assassinations, and military detention, President Obama has to a surprising extent embraced the expanded executive powers championed by his conservative predecessor, George W. Bush. This bipartisan affirmation of the imperial executive could "reverberate for generations," warns Jack Balkin, a specialist on First Amendment freedoms at Yale Law School. And consider these but some of the early fruits from the hybrid seeds that the Global War on Terror has planted on American soil. Yet surprisingly few Americans seem aware of the toll that this already endless war has taken on our civil liberties.

Don't be too surprised, then, when, in the midst of some future crisis, advanced surveillance methods and other techniques developed in our recent counterinsurgency wars migrate from Baghdad, Falluja, and Kandahar to your hometown or urban neighborhood. And don't ever claim that nobody told you this could happen -- at least not if you care to read on.

Think of our counterinsurgency wars abroad as so many living laboratories for the undermining of a democratic society at home, a process historians of such American wars can tell you has been going on for a long, long time. Counterintelligence innovations like centralized data, covert penetration, and disinformation developed during the Army's first protracted pacification campaign in a foreign land -- the Philippines from 1898 to 1913 -- were repatriated to the United States during World War I, becoming the blueprint for an invasive internal security apparatus that persisted for the next half century.

Almost 90 years later, George W. Bush's Global War on Terror plunged the U.S. military into four simultaneous counterinsurgency campaigns, large and small -- in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and (once again) the Philippines -- transforming a vast swath of the planet into an ad hoc "counterterrorism" laboratory. The result? Cutting-edge high-tech security and counterterror techniques that are now slowly migrating homeward.

As the War on Terror enters its ninth year to become one of America's longest overseas conflicts, the time has come to ask an uncomfortable question: What impact have the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and the atmosphere they created domestically -- had on the quality of our democracy?

Every American knows that we are supposedly fighting elsewhere to defend democracy here at home. Yet the crusade for democracy abroad, largely unsuccessful in its own right, has proven remarkably effective in building a technological template that could be just a few tweaks away from creating a domestic surveillance state -- with omnipresent cameras, deep data-mining, nano-second biometric identification, and drone aircraft patrolling "the homeland."

Even if its name is increasingly anathema in Washington, the ongoing Global War on Terror has helped bring about a massive expansion of domestic surveillance by the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) whose combined data-mining systems have already swept up several billion private documents from U.S. citizens into classified data banks. Abroad, after years of failing counterinsurgency efforts in the Middle East, the Pentagon began applying biometrics -- the science of identification via facial shape, fingerprints, and retinal or iris patterns -- to the pacification of Iraqi cities, as well as the use of electronic intercepts for instant intelligence and the split-second application of satellite imagery to aid an assassination campaign by drone aircraft that reaches from Africa to South Asia.

In the panicky aftermath of some future terrorist attack, Washington could quickly fuse existing foreign and domestic surveillance techniques, as well as others now being developed on distant battlefields, to create an instant digital surveillance state.

The Crucible of Counterinsurgency

For the past six years, confronting a bloody insurgency, the U.S. occupation of Iraq has served as a white-hot crucible of counterinsurgency, forging a new system of biometric surveillance and digital warfare with potentially disturbing domestic implications. This new biometric identification system first appeared in the smoking aftermath of "Operation Phantom Fury," a brutal, nine-day battle that U.S. Marines fought in late 2004 to recapture the insurgent-controlled city of Falluja. Bombing, artillery, and mortars destroyed at least half of that city's buildings and sent most of its 250,000 residents fleeing into the surrounding countryside. Marines then forced returning residents to wait endless hours under a desert sun at checkpoints for fingerprints and iris scans. Once inside the city's blast-wall maze, residents had to wear identification tags for compulsory checks to catch infiltrating insurgents.

The first hint that biometrics were helping to pacify Baghdad's far larger population of seven million came in April 2007 when the New York Times published an eerie image of American soldiers studiously photographing an Iraqi's eyeball. With only a terse caption to go by, we can still infer the technology behind this single record of a retinal scan in Baghdad: digital cameras for U.S. patrols, wireless data transfer to a mainframe computer, and a database to record as many adult Iraqi eyes as could be gathered. Indeed, eight months later, the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon had collected over a million Iraqi fingerprints and iris scans. By mid-2008, the U.S. Army had also confined Baghdad's population behind blast-wall cordons and was checking Iraqi identities by satellite link to a biometric database.

Pushing ever closer to the boundaries of what present-day technology can do, by early 2008, U.S. forces were also collecting facial images accessible by portable data labs called Joint Expeditionary Forensic Facilities, linked by satellite to a biometric database in West Virginia. "A war fighter needs to know one of three things," explained the inventor of this lab-in-a-box. "Do I let him go? Keep him? Or shoot him on the spot?"

A future is already imaginable in which a U.S. sniper could take a bead on the eyeball of a suspected terrorist, pause for a nanosecond to transmit the target's iris or retinal data via backpack-sized laboratory to a computer in West Virginia, and then, after instantaneous feedback, pull the trigger.

Lest such developments seem fanciful, recall that Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward claims the success of George W. Bush's 2007 troop surge in Iraq was due less to boots on the ground than to bullets in the head -- and these, in turn, were due to a top-secret fusion of electronic intercepts and satellite imagery. Starting in May 2006, American intelligence agencies launched a Special Action Program using "the most highly classified techniques and information in the U.S. government" in a successful effort "to locate, target and kill key individuals in extremist groups such as al-Qaeda, the Sunni insurgency and renegade Shia militias."

Under General Stanley McChrystal, now U.S. Afghan War commander, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) deployed "every tool available simultaneously, from signals intercepts to human intelligence" for "lightning quick" strikes. One intelligence officer reportedly claimed that the program was so effective it gave him "orgasms." President Bush called it "awesome." Although refusing to divulge details, Woodward himself compared it to the Manhattan Project in World War II. This Iraq-based assassination program relied on the authority Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld granted JSOC in early 2004 to "kill or capture al-Qaeda terrorists" in 20 countries across the Middle East, producing dozens of lethal strikes by airborne Special Operations forces.

Another crucial technological development in Washington's secret war of assassination has been the armed drone, or unmanned aerial vehicle, whose speedy development has been another by-product of Washington's global counterterrorism laboratory. Half a world away from Iraq in the southern Philippines, the CIA and U.S. Special Operations Forces conducted an early experiment in the use of aerial surveillance for assassination. In June 2002, with a specially-equipped CIA aircraft circling overhead offering real-time video surveillance in the pitch dark of a tropical night, Philippine Marines executed a deadly high-seas ambush of Muslim terrorist Aldam Tilao (a.k.a. "Abu Sabaya").

In July 2008, the Pentagon proposed an expenditure of $1.2 billion for a fleet of 50 light aircraft loaded with advanced electronics to loiter over battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing "full motion video and electronic eavesdropping to the troops." By late 2008, night flights over Afghanistan from the deck of the USS Theodore Roosevelt were using sensors to give American ground forces real-time images of Taliban targets -- some so focused that they could catch just a few warm bodies huddled in darkness behind a wall.

In the first months of Barack Obama's presidency, CIA Predator drone strikes have escalated in the Pakistani tribal borderlands with a macabre efficiency, using a top-secret mix of electronic intercepts, satellite transmission, and digital imaging to kill half of the Agency's 20 top-priority al-Qaeda targets in the region. Just three days before Obama visited Canada last February, Homeland Security launched its first Predator-B drones to patrol the vast, empty North Dakota-Manitoba borderlands that one U.S. senator has called America's "weakest link."

Homeland Security

While those running U.S. combat operations overseas were experimenting with intercepts, satellites, drones, and biometrics, inside Washington the plodding civil servants of internal security at the FBI and the NSA initially began expanding domestic surveillance through thoroughly conventional data sweeps, legal and extra-legal, and -- with White House help -- several abortive attempts to revive a tradition that dates back to World War I of citizens spying on suspected subversives.

"If people see anything suspicious, utility workers, you ought to report it," said President George Bush in his April 2002 call for nationwide citizen vigilance. Within weeks, his Justice Department had launched Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System), with plans for "millions of American truckers, letter carriers, train conductors, ship captains, utility employees and others" to aid the government by spying on their fellow Americans. Such citizen surveillance sparked strong protests, however, forcing the Justice Department to quietly bury the president's program.

Simultaneously, inside the Pentagon, Admiral John Poindexter, President Ronald Reagan's former national security advisor (swept up in the Iran-Contra scandal of that era), was developing a Total Information Awareness program which was to contain "detailed electronic dossiers" on millions of Americans. When news leaked about this secret Pentagon office with its eerie, all-seeing eye logo, Congress banned the program, and the admiral resigned in 2003. But the key data extraction technology, the Information Awareness Prototype System, migrated quietly to the NSA.

Soon enough, however, the CIA, FBI, and NSA turned to monitoring citizens electronically without the need for human tipsters, rendering the administration's grudging retreats from conventional surveillance at best an ambiguous political victory for civil liberties advocates. Sometime in 2002, President Bush gave the NSA secret, illegal orders to monitor private communications through the nation's telephone companies and its private financial transactions through SWIFT, an international bank clearinghouse.

After the New York Times exposed these wiretaps in 2005, Congress quickly capitulated, first legalizing this illegal executive program and then granting cooperating phone companies immunity from civil suits. Such intelligence excess was, however, intentional. Even after Congress widened the legal parameters for future intercepts in 2008, the NSA continued to push the boundaries of its activities, engaging in what the New York Times politely termed the systematic "overcollection" of electronic communications among American citizens. Now, for example, thanks to a top-secret NSA database called "Pinwale," analysts routinely scan countless "millions" of domestic electronic communications without much regard for whether they came from foreign or domestic sources.

Starting in 2004, the FBI launched an Investigative Data Warehouse as a "centralized repository for... counterterrorism." Within two years, it contained 659 million individual records. This digital archive of intelligence, social security files, drivers' licenses, and records of private finances could be accessed by 13,000 Bureau agents and analysts making a million queries monthly. By 2009, when digital rights advocates sued for full disclosure, the database had already grown to over a billion documents.

And did this sacrifice of civil liberties make the United States a safer place? In July 2009, after a careful review of the electronic surveillance in these years, the inspectors general of the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the CIA, the NSA, and the Office of National Intelligence issued a report sharply critical of these secret efforts. Despite George W. Bush's claims that massive electronic surveillance had "helped prevent attacks," these auditors could not find any "specific instances" of this, concluding such surveillance had "generally played a limited role in the F.B.I.'s overall counterterrorism efforts."

Amid the pressures of a generational global war, Congress proved all too ready to offer up civil liberties as a bipartisan burnt offering on the altar of national security. In April 2007, for instance, in a bid to legalize the Bush administration's warrantless wiretaps, Congressional representative Jane Harman (Dem., California) offered a particularly extreme example of this urge. She introduced the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, proposing a powerful national commission, functionally a standing "star chamber," to "combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States." The bill passed the House by an overwhelming 404 to 6 vote before stalling, and then dying, in a Senate somewhat more mindful of civil liberties.

Only weeks after Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, Harman's life itself became a cautionary tale about expanding electronic surveillance. According to information leaked to the Congressional Quarterly, in early 2005 an NSA wiretap caught Harman offering to press the Bush Justice Department for reduced charges against two pro-Israel lobbyists accused of espionage. In exchange, an Israeli agent offered to help Harman gain the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee by threatening House Democratic majority leader Nancy Pelosi with the loss of a major campaign donor. As Harman put down the phone, she said, "This conversation doesn't exist."

How wrong she was. An NSA transcript of Harman's every word soon crossed the desk of CIA Director Porter Goss, prompting an FBI investigation that, in turn, was blocked by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. As it happened, the White House knew that the New York Times was about to publish its sensational revelation of the NSA's warrantless wiretaps, and felt it desperately needed Harman for damage control among her fellow Democrats. In this commingling of intrigue and irony, an influential legislator's defense of the NSA's illegal wiretapping exempted her from prosecution for a security breach discovered by an NSA wiretap.

Since the arrival of Barack Obama in the White House, the auto-pilot expansion of digital domestic surveillance has in no way been interfered with. As a result, for example, the FBI's "Terrorist Watchlist," with 400,000 names and a million entries, continues to grow at the rate of 1,600 new names daily.

In fact, the Obama administration has even announced plans for a new military cybercommand staffed by 7,000 Air Force employees at Lackland Air Base in Texas. This command will be tasked with attacking enemy computers and repelling hostile cyber-attacks or counterattacks aimed at U.S. computer networks -- with scant respect for what the Pentagon calls "sovereignty in the cyberdomain." Despite the president's assurances that operations "will not -- I repeat -- will not include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic," the Pentagon's top cyberwarrior, General James E. Cartwright, has conceded such intrusions are inevitable.

Sending the Future Home

While U.S. combat forces prepare to draw-down in Iraq (and ramp up in Afghanistan), military intelligence units are coming home to apply their combat-tempered surveillance skills to our expanding homeland security state, while preparing to counter any future domestic civil disturbances here.

Indeed, in September 2008, the Army's Northern Command announced that one of the Third Division's brigades in Iraq would be reassigned as a Consequence Management Response Force (CMRF) inside the U.S. Its new mission: planning for moments when civilian authorities may need help with "civil unrest and crowd control." According to Colonel Roger Cloutier, his unit's civil-control equipment featured "a new modular package of non-lethal capabilities" designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals -- including Taser guns, roadblocks, shields, batons, and beanbag bullets.

That same month, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey flew to Fort Stewart, Georgia, for the first full CMRF mission readiness exercise. There, he strode across a giant urban battle map filling a gymnasium floor like a conquering Gulliver looming over Lilliputian Americans. With 250 officers from all services participating, the military war-gamed its future coordination with the FBI, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and local authorities in the event of a domestic terrorist attack or threat. Within weeks, the American Civil Liberties Union filed an expedited freedom of information request for details of these deployments, arguing: "[It] is imperative that the American people know the truth about this new and unprecedented intrusion of the military in domestic affairs."

At the outset of the Global War on Terror in 2001, memories of early Cold War anti-communist witch-hunts blocked Bush administration plans to create a corps of civilian tipsters and potential vigilantes. However, far more sophisticated security methods, developed for counterinsurgency warfare overseas, are now coming home to far less public resistance. They promise, sooner or later, to further jeopardize the constitutional freedoms of Americans.

In these same years, under the pressure of War on Terror rhetoric, presidential power has grown relentlessly, opening the way to unchecked electronic surveillance, the endless detention of terror suspects, and a variety of inhumane forms of interrogation. Somewhat more slowly, innovative techniques of biometric identification, aerial surveillance, and civil control are now being repatriated as well.

In a future America, enhanced retinal recognition could be married to omnipresent security cameras as a part of the increasingly routine monitoring of public space. Military surveillance equipment, tempered to a technological cutting edge in counterinsurgency wars, might also one day be married to the swelling domestic databases of the NSA and FBI, sweeping the fiber-optic cables beneath our cities for any sign of subversion. And in the skies above, loitering aircraft and cruising drones could be checking our borders and peering down on American life.

If that day comes, our cities will be Argus-eyed with countless thousands of digital cameras scanning the faces of passengers at airports, pedestrians on city streets, drivers on highways, ATM customers, mall shoppers, and visitors to any federal facility. One day, hyper-speed software will be able to match those millions upon millions of facial or retinal scans to photos of suspect subversives inside a biometric database akin to England's current National Public Order Intelligence Unit, sending anti-subversion SWAT teams scrambling for an arrest or an armed assault.

By the time the Global War on Terror is declared over in 2020, if then, our American world may be unrecognizable -- or rather recognizable only as the stuff of dystopian science fiction. What we are proving today is that, however detached from the wars being fought in their name most Americans may seem, war itself never stays far from home for long. It's already returning in the form of new security technologies that could one day make a digital surveillance state a reality, changing fundamentally the character of American democracy.

Alfred W. McCoy is the J.R.W. Smail Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of A Question of Torture, among other works. His most recent book is Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State (University of Wisconsin Press) which explores the influence of overseas counterinsurgency operations throughout the twentieth century in spreading ever more draconian internal security measures here at home.

Copyright 2009 Alfred W. McCoy

Printer-Friendly Version

Obama administration playing footsie with Honduran junta

RT: Obama administration playing footsie with Honduran junta

Veterans For Peace Statement for Armistice/Veterans' Day 2009


Veterans' Day began as "Armistice" Day, to celebrate November 11, 1918 when the guns of World War One finally stopped - and what cause for celebration there was!

From August 1914 until November 1918, 30 million soldiers were killed or wounded and another 7 million were taken captive. Never before had people witnessed such industrialized slaughter. A hint of the wreckage can be glimpsed by visiting a Great War memorial in any European town and invariably seeing a list of names long enough to include every young man who lived there at the time - hence the "lost generation."

Today we can hardly imagine the horror of the trenches where rats provided a real service by eating away at the corpses hanging on the barbed wire, in shell holes and half-buried in the walls of the dugouts.

The reality of the battlefield permeated the consciousness back home; so much so that even in America, whose troops arrived in Europe only in the closing months of the war, Congress responded to a universal hope that such a war would never happen again. It passed a resolution calling for "exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding...inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples." Later, Congress added that November 11 was to be "a day dedicated to the cause of world peace."

Armistice Day was more than a time for department store midnight madness sales. It meant more than military color guards marching in parades featuring the cleaned-up machinery of war. It was a reminder of the insane, horrific cost of war paid by soldiers at the front, those who ministered to the dead and wounded, and their families back home. It was a day to reflect on that memory and vow to learn to live in a world without war.

These days, when some still give all, but very few give some, it's easy for most of us to go on with our lives of work, shopping and family as if that's all there was. It's easy to overlook the tremendous pain and pressures caused by the multiple deployments needed for a "volunteer" military - unless someone in your family is directly involved in the fighting or is cut down by war's wide blade of "collateral damage" that can strike an Army base in Texas as well as a village in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Some truths are indeed universal. Veterans For Peace abides by two very simple ones: Wars are easy to start and hard to stop; and the innocent on all sides always suffer most.

The doughboys of WWI, shivering in the soggy, rotten trenches of Europe in November 1918, would have nodded wearily in agreement.

Mike Ferner, President
Veterans For Peace