BBC
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
France violates human rights in the way it handles terrorism-related cases, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report says.
The pressure group says France uses a catch-all offence to charge suspects even when they have only a vague link to an alleged terrorist organisation.
The report also says suspects can face long periods of detention before trial, and some have suffered physical violence during interrogation.
HRW says ministers need to take action or risk alienating some communities.
France prides itself on having perhaps the most effective anti-terrorist system in Europe, says the BBC’s Hugh Schofield in Paris.
The country has a team of specialist magistrates operating in close contact with the intelligence services, and an armoury of finely honed laws to tackle the threat of terrorism, our correspondent says.
Justice breaches
Since the mid 1990s, there has been no serious terrorist attack.
But according to HRW, that level of security comes at the cost of some important breaches of natural justice.
The prime focus of the group's displeasure is the catch-all criminal charge under which the vast majority of terrorist suspects are held and tried.
The offence of "criminal association in relation to a terrorist undertaking" is excessively vague, HRW says.
It means that people face prosecution because of the flimsiest of links to an alleged terrorist operation.
"It doesn't do enough to respect the rights of the accused; large numbers of people end up getting arrested and detained on very minimal evidence," says Judith Sunderland of HRW.
The other main criticism concerns the way suspects are treated once in custody.
"Our second concern is once you are arrested, you are stuck in police detention for up to six days in particular circumstances, but our main concern is that you don't see a lawyer until after three days and during those three days you are interrogated around the clock, incessantly, quite oppressive questioning," Ms Sunderland says.
"And when you do see a lawyer, it's only for 30 minutes, and the lawyer usually has very little information about your case and the charges against you, and can really do little more than make sure you don't have any broken bones."
After being presented before a judge, suspects can be locked away in pre-trial detention for months or even years as the case against them is compiled.
HRW also says it has evidence of mistreatment of prisoners, including sleep deprivation, psychological pressure and physical abuse.
It urges the French government to take steps to address these problems, or risk alienating the communities from which future terrorist groups could emerge.
SOURCE: BBC
Thursday, 3 July 2008
Olbermann gets more critical of Obama’s FISA stance
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Raw Story
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Senator Barack Obama’s announcement that he would be supporting the Congressional “compromise” on expanding wireless wiretapping and giving the telecom companies retroactive immunity has created fierce arguments in the liberal wing of the Democratic party over whether Obama’s “move to the center” is a necessary strategy for the general election or a pointless sellout on a core issue.
Last week, blogger Glenn Greenwald fiercely attacked MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann over his praise of Obama for “refusing to cower even to the left,” setting off an online argunment that raged between them for several days, drawing in other bloggers and even former Watergate figure John Dean.
In a Special Comment delivered on Monday’s Countdown, Olbermann attempted to find a middle ground in the dispute, suggesting that “the Democratic leadership in the Senate, Republican knuckle-dragging in the same chamber, and the mediocre skills of whoever wrote the final version of the FISA bill have combined to give Sen. Barack Obama a second chance to make a first impression. And he damned well better take it.”
“It would be sweet to have a pure, politics-free president, but the last of those retired from office in 1797,” Olbermann noted sourly. “Inside that obscenity that was Charlie Black’s comment about how a terrorist attack in this country would be ‘good’ — good for his boy McCain’s chances for election … there is a sad and cynical reality. The Republicans can scare some of the people all of the time and they can scare all the people some of the time. This is all they are right now.”
“Senator, the Republicans are going to paint you as soft on terror no matter how you vote on FISA,” Olbermann continued, addressing Obama directly. “This political tight-rope act that you’ve tried on FISA the last two weeks, which from the outside seems to have been intended to increase the chances of your election, probably hasn’t helped that chance in the slightest.”
Olbermann then pointed out that there is a loophole in the FISA legislation, since it immunizes the telecoms only from civil liability, leaving them and administration officials subject to criminal prosecution. He advised that Obama should vote for the FISA bill, but after its passage he should “say, loudly, that your understanding of this bill is such, that if you are elected, your Attorney General will begin a full-scale criminal investigation of the telecom companies.”
“Explain that you are standing aside on civil immunity,” concluded Olbermann, “not just for political expediency, but for a greater and more tangible good: the holding to account of the most corrupt, the most dangerous, and the most anti-democracy presidential administration in our long history. … The Republicans are going to call you the names any which way, Senator.
They’re going to cry regardless, Senator. And as the old line goes: Give them something to cry about.”
In a post on Tuesday morning, Glenn Greenwald saw much to approve of in Olbermann’s Special Comment, noting that “in general, Olbermann’s commentary about Obama’s FISA position was much more critical, in both senses of the word. Still, there are numerous, glaring flaws with the fantasy that Obama will criminally prosecute telecoms.”
Greenwald also emphasized that “the FISA bill is dangerous and destructive for reasons having nothing to do with the telecom immunity provisions (i.e., the warrantless eavesdropping powers it vests in the president).” He then went on to list half a dozen different ways in which Obama has repudiated his base since securing the Democratic nomination in early June.
“There is no question, at least to me, that having Obama beat McCain is vitally important,” Greenwald concluded. “But so, too, is the way that victory is achieved and what Obama advocates and espouses along the way. … Electing Barack Obama is a very important political priority but it isn’t the only one there is, and his election is less likely, not more likely, the more homage he pays to these these tired, status-quo-perpetuating Beltway pieties.”
A full transcript of Olbermann’s remarks is available here.
This video is from MSNBC’s Countdown, broadcast June 30, 2008.
SOURCE: Raw Story
Raw Story
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Senator Barack Obama’s announcement that he would be supporting the Congressional “compromise” on expanding wireless wiretapping and giving the telecom companies retroactive immunity has created fierce arguments in the liberal wing of the Democratic party over whether Obama’s “move to the center” is a necessary strategy for the general election or a pointless sellout on a core issue.
Last week, blogger Glenn Greenwald fiercely attacked MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann over his praise of Obama for “refusing to cower even to the left,” setting off an online argunment that raged between them for several days, drawing in other bloggers and even former Watergate figure John Dean.
In a Special Comment delivered on Monday’s Countdown, Olbermann attempted to find a middle ground in the dispute, suggesting that “the Democratic leadership in the Senate, Republican knuckle-dragging in the same chamber, and the mediocre skills of whoever wrote the final version of the FISA bill have combined to give Sen. Barack Obama a second chance to make a first impression. And he damned well better take it.”
“It would be sweet to have a pure, politics-free president, but the last of those retired from office in 1797,” Olbermann noted sourly. “Inside that obscenity that was Charlie Black’s comment about how a terrorist attack in this country would be ‘good’ — good for his boy McCain’s chances for election … there is a sad and cynical reality. The Republicans can scare some of the people all of the time and they can scare all the people some of the time. This is all they are right now.”
“Senator, the Republicans are going to paint you as soft on terror no matter how you vote on FISA,” Olbermann continued, addressing Obama directly. “This political tight-rope act that you’ve tried on FISA the last two weeks, which from the outside seems to have been intended to increase the chances of your election, probably hasn’t helped that chance in the slightest.”
Olbermann then pointed out that there is a loophole in the FISA legislation, since it immunizes the telecoms only from civil liability, leaving them and administration officials subject to criminal prosecution. He advised that Obama should vote for the FISA bill, but after its passage he should “say, loudly, that your understanding of this bill is such, that if you are elected, your Attorney General will begin a full-scale criminal investigation of the telecom companies.”
“Explain that you are standing aside on civil immunity,” concluded Olbermann, “not just for political expediency, but for a greater and more tangible good: the holding to account of the most corrupt, the most dangerous, and the most anti-democracy presidential administration in our long history. … The Republicans are going to call you the names any which way, Senator.
They’re going to cry regardless, Senator. And as the old line goes: Give them something to cry about.”
In a post on Tuesday morning, Glenn Greenwald saw much to approve of in Olbermann’s Special Comment, noting that “in general, Olbermann’s commentary about Obama’s FISA position was much more critical, in both senses of the word. Still, there are numerous, glaring flaws with the fantasy that Obama will criminally prosecute telecoms.”
Greenwald also emphasized that “the FISA bill is dangerous and destructive for reasons having nothing to do with the telecom immunity provisions (i.e., the warrantless eavesdropping powers it vests in the president).” He then went on to list half a dozen different ways in which Obama has repudiated his base since securing the Democratic nomination in early June.
“There is no question, at least to me, that having Obama beat McCain is vitally important,” Greenwald concluded. “But so, too, is the way that victory is achieved and what Obama advocates and espouses along the way. … Electing Barack Obama is a very important political priority but it isn’t the only one there is, and his election is less likely, not more likely, the more homage he pays to these these tired, status-quo-perpetuating Beltway pieties.”
A full transcript of Olbermann’s remarks is available here.
This video is from MSNBC’s Countdown, broadcast June 30, 2008.
SOURCE: Raw Story
Analyst sees ‘ghost town’ in Inland Empire
Peter Viles
LA Times
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
A financial analyst fresh from a tour of construction sites in the Inland Empire is warning Wall Street of a “ghost town” where finished homes sit vacant and additional homes are still under construction.
“At several properties, there were a significant number of fully built homes sitting vacant along with a large number of additional homes still under construction,” Sandler O’Neill & Partners analyst Aaron Deer wrote today after touring developments in Corona and Ontario. “At one master plan community, the entire development appeared to be vacant — with the exception of crews working on new construction, it was a ghost town.”
Median home prices in both communities have dropped sharply over the last year, declining 33.6% in Corona and 30.3% in Ontario, according to DataQuick Information Systems. In Corona, the median sales price fell nearly $200,000 from May 2007 to May 2008, dropping from $565,000 to $375,000.
More from Deer’s note: “The homes all appeared to be empty, and there were no prospective buyers anywhere to be found. Surprisingly, the sales office was open … but the woman working there had questionable English fluency. When asked how many homes had been sold in the past month she simply responded, ‘Uh huh. Thank you. Yes!’ and handed us some additional literature on the property.”
FULL ARTICLE @ LA Times
LA Times
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
A financial analyst fresh from a tour of construction sites in the Inland Empire is warning Wall Street of a “ghost town” where finished homes sit vacant and additional homes are still under construction.
“At several properties, there were a significant number of fully built homes sitting vacant along with a large number of additional homes still under construction,” Sandler O’Neill & Partners analyst Aaron Deer wrote today after touring developments in Corona and Ontario. “At one master plan community, the entire development appeared to be vacant — with the exception of crews working on new construction, it was a ghost town.”
Median home prices in both communities have dropped sharply over the last year, declining 33.6% in Corona and 30.3% in Ontario, according to DataQuick Information Systems. In Corona, the median sales price fell nearly $200,000 from May 2007 to May 2008, dropping from $565,000 to $375,000.
More from Deer’s note: “The homes all appeared to be empty, and there were no prospective buyers anywhere to be found. Surprisingly, the sales office was open … but the woman working there had questionable English fluency. When asked how many homes had been sold in the past month she simply responded, ‘Uh huh. Thank you. Yes!’ and handed us some additional literature on the property.”
FULL ARTICLE @ LA Times
Deal lets U.S. drones strike bin Laden
Rowan Scarborough
Washington Times
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The United States has a standing agreement with Pakistan that CIA-operated Predator drones may strike Osama bin Laden’s hide-out without prior permission from Islamabad, according to people familiar with the arrangement.
One source said the free hand - an exception in a country politically sensitive to U.S. counterterrorism operations - was granted by President Pervez Musharraf early in the war if the U.S. locates bin Laden in Pakistan’s rugged tribal areas, where he is thought to be hiding.
A knowledgeable official disclosed the arrangement to The Washington Times at a time of growing frustration in the Pentagon and in the CIA that bin Laden remains at large seven years into the war and as President Bush’s term approaches an end.
That fact has put renewed focus on the Pakistani government’s restraints on the U.S. effort to find bin Laden. Pakistan prohibits American military ground forces on its soil, limiting the U.S. presence to scores of CIA officers and paramilitary operators.
Nadeem Kiani, spokesman at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, declined to comment on the purported bin Laden deal but said Pakistan stands ready to move against bin Laden if he is inside the country.
Pakistan allowed the CIA to secretly launch missile-equipped Predators from its soil into Afghanistan during the war to oust the Taliban. It has continued to let the agency fly the unmanned surveillance planes over Pakistan.
But earlier this year, Mr. Musharraf rejected a Bush administration request to allow more CIA personnel into his country. Washington must coordinate planned strikes on militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) where bin Laden is thought to be hiding. Bin Laden as a target is an exception to that rule.
"What I can tell you is that the president has a strong, overarching commitment to make sure that we track down and bring to justice Osama bin Laden and other top members of al Qaeda," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters Monday.
The arrangement with Pakistan was confirmed by a second source - a former U.S. intelligence officer who spent time in Afghanistan.
A CIA spokesman declined to comment.
Pakistan's sovereignty has been an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said at one point that he would unleash strikes into Pakistan without Islamabad's approval to hit bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.
The U.S. has options for sending special operations teams into Pakistan if bin Laden's exact location is determined, but military officials said it would be the Predator, not boots on the ground, that would be dispatched to kill the al Qaeda leader.
This is because a Predator could be airborne - or redirected in flight - in a matter of minutes. In contrast, special operations forces in Afghanistan would have to be assembled, briefed on the mission and then dispatched by helicopter - a time-consuming and risky process.
By not requesting Pakistan's approval first, the U.S. would avoid the risk of breaching operational security. Washington still harbors suspicions about Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI), which helped establish pro-al Qaeda Taliban rule in Afghanistan.
It is one thing to have Pakistan's permission to shoot bin Laden on sight. It is another to find him.
"It's a needle in a haystack," said one intelligence official.
For nearly seven years, since his escape from Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountain region, bin Laden has evaded capture.
The reasons given by intelligence officials: He stopped communicating on radios and telephones to avoid being intercepted by the National Security Agency; he is protected by militant leaders whose tribes have been infiltrated by al Qaeda operatives who impose a no-talk discipline; the CIA has been unable to penetrate this tribal ring of security to find a spy who might disclose his location; and bin Laden moves frequently amid the FATA's vast, rugged terrain.
"I would say to you in the last seven years there has been a lot of success in terms of finding that second- and third-level al Qaeda guy," Mrs. Perino said. "And we have been able to prevent attacks so far. But one of the things that we're up against is that we have a very determined enemy. They hide in caves, they respect no uniform, they are in a very treacherous geographic area that's very hard to get into."
The NSA installed a network of electronic boxes in the Afghan mountains to absorb communications from the FATA. The chatter has helped the CIA identify militant hide-outs and training bases, but the network has not picked up bin Laden's voice.
The military's chief terrorist hunting unit is Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), a mix of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and a special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.
An intelligence source said most JSOC assets are committed to Iraq to hunt a list of high-value targets within the al Qaeda in Iraq organization. At one point last year, the JSOC contingent in Afghanistan was down to just 30 SEALs.
The U.S. Special Operations Command, which oversees the JSOC, does not discuss the unit´s numbers.
SOURCE: Washington Times
Washington Times
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The United States has a standing agreement with Pakistan that CIA-operated Predator drones may strike Osama bin Laden’s hide-out without prior permission from Islamabad, according to people familiar with the arrangement.
One source said the free hand - an exception in a country politically sensitive to U.S. counterterrorism operations - was granted by President Pervez Musharraf early in the war if the U.S. locates bin Laden in Pakistan’s rugged tribal areas, where he is thought to be hiding.
A knowledgeable official disclosed the arrangement to The Washington Times at a time of growing frustration in the Pentagon and in the CIA that bin Laden remains at large seven years into the war and as President Bush’s term approaches an end.
That fact has put renewed focus on the Pakistani government’s restraints on the U.S. effort to find bin Laden. Pakistan prohibits American military ground forces on its soil, limiting the U.S. presence to scores of CIA officers and paramilitary operators.
Nadeem Kiani, spokesman at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, declined to comment on the purported bin Laden deal but said Pakistan stands ready to move against bin Laden if he is inside the country.
Pakistan allowed the CIA to secretly launch missile-equipped Predators from its soil into Afghanistan during the war to oust the Taliban. It has continued to let the agency fly the unmanned surveillance planes over Pakistan.
But earlier this year, Mr. Musharraf rejected a Bush administration request to allow more CIA personnel into his country. Washington must coordinate planned strikes on militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) where bin Laden is thought to be hiding. Bin Laden as a target is an exception to that rule.
"What I can tell you is that the president has a strong, overarching commitment to make sure that we track down and bring to justice Osama bin Laden and other top members of al Qaeda," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters Monday.
The arrangement with Pakistan was confirmed by a second source - a former U.S. intelligence officer who spent time in Afghanistan.
A CIA spokesman declined to comment.
Pakistan's sovereignty has been an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said at one point that he would unleash strikes into Pakistan without Islamabad's approval to hit bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.
The U.S. has options for sending special operations teams into Pakistan if bin Laden's exact location is determined, but military officials said it would be the Predator, not boots on the ground, that would be dispatched to kill the al Qaeda leader.
This is because a Predator could be airborne - or redirected in flight - in a matter of minutes. In contrast, special operations forces in Afghanistan would have to be assembled, briefed on the mission and then dispatched by helicopter - a time-consuming and risky process.
By not requesting Pakistan's approval first, the U.S. would avoid the risk of breaching operational security. Washington still harbors suspicions about Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI), which helped establish pro-al Qaeda Taliban rule in Afghanistan.
It is one thing to have Pakistan's permission to shoot bin Laden on sight. It is another to find him.
"It's a needle in a haystack," said one intelligence official.
For nearly seven years, since his escape from Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountain region, bin Laden has evaded capture.
The reasons given by intelligence officials: He stopped communicating on radios and telephones to avoid being intercepted by the National Security Agency; he is protected by militant leaders whose tribes have been infiltrated by al Qaeda operatives who impose a no-talk discipline; the CIA has been unable to penetrate this tribal ring of security to find a spy who might disclose his location; and bin Laden moves frequently amid the FATA's vast, rugged terrain.
"I would say to you in the last seven years there has been a lot of success in terms of finding that second- and third-level al Qaeda guy," Mrs. Perino said. "And we have been able to prevent attacks so far. But one of the things that we're up against is that we have a very determined enemy. They hide in caves, they respect no uniform, they are in a very treacherous geographic area that's very hard to get into."
The NSA installed a network of electronic boxes in the Afghan mountains to absorb communications from the FATA. The chatter has helped the CIA identify militant hide-outs and training bases, but the network has not picked up bin Laden's voice.
The military's chief terrorist hunting unit is Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), a mix of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and a special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.
An intelligence source said most JSOC assets are committed to Iraq to hunt a list of high-value targets within the al Qaeda in Iraq organization. At one point last year, the JSOC contingent in Afghanistan was down to just 30 SEALs.
The U.S. Special Operations Command, which oversees the JSOC, does not discuss the unit´s numbers.
SOURCE: Washington Times
Merrill says GM bankruptcy possible
Soyoung Kim
Reuters
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
General Motors Corp will need to raise as much as $15 billion in cash to shore up liquidity and bankruptcy is “not impossible” if the U.S. auto market continues to slump, Merrill Lynch said.
Other analysts have suggested GM, whose shares fell to a new 54-year low on Wednesday, needs to raise funds to ride out the downturn in the U.S. auto market through 2009.
But Merrill’s estimate of GM’s financing needs is the highest yet. It also carried the most stark warning of the bankruptcy risk for the largest U.S. automaker.
GM declined to comment directly on the Merrill Lynch report but it believes it has sufficient liquidity for 2008 despite lower volumes and could take more steps to cut costs if sales conditions worsen.
“If conditions continue to deteriorate, we would consider other operating measures,” GM spokeswoman Renee Rashid-Merem told Reuters.
Merrill Lynch analyst John Murphy cut GM to "underperform" from "buy" and lowered his price target for the largest U.S. automaker to $7 from $28. Shares fell as much as 11 percent to $10.50 in Wednesday's trading in the New York Stock Exchange. The cost to insure GM's debt rose.
Murphy also lowered his forecast for 2008 U.S. industry-wide light vehicle sales for the third time this year and said the recent drastic decline in sales would likely to continue through 2009.
Murphy forecasts light vehicle sales of 14.3 million units this year and 14 million units for next year. That compares with 16.15 million units in 2007 and is sharply lower than the current forecast of most major automakers, including GM.
"The recent extreme deterioration in volume and mix is driving much higher cash burn and eroding GM's cash position," Murphy said. "We believe $15 billion is necessary because there is downside risk to our current estimates and a greater cushion is essential."
Any capital GM raises has the potential to dilute equity if it's done through convertible offering or the issuance of additional equity, both possibilities analysts have raised.
DEEPER DOWNTURN AHEAD?
The deepening concerns about the sales outlook for GM come after a June sales report that showed industry-wide auto sales dropping to a 15-year low.
GM's own sales fell by a narrower-than-expected 8 percent on an adjusted basis after the automaker offered zero-percent financing for six years.
But Deutsche Bank analyst Rod Lache said GM could see a "payback" from its June sale in coming months, with its U.S. market share dropping back below 20 percent from 22 percent in June as sales fall back.
Several other Wall Street banks including Citigroup also downgraded automakers and parts suppliers on Wednesday and lowered their outlook for U.S. auto sales this year and next.
Citigroup analyst Itay Michaeli lowered his forecast for 2008 U.S. vehicle sales to 14.5 million units from 15 million, saying plummeting resale values of trucks and SUVs was crimping demand already hurt by weak housing and tighter credit.
Itay said a full recovery in the U.S. auto market would begin only in 2010 or 2011.
Michaeli said GM has to weather the current downturn with considerably less backup liquidity than smaller rival Ford Motor Co (NYSE:F - News), which tapped the leveraged loan market at its peak in late 2006 to raise $23 billion.
"While we do not believe GM is facing an immediate cash crunch, the urgency to shore up liquidity to navigate through a difficult 2008-2009 has risen significantly in recent months," Michaeli said. He cut GM's target price to $14 from $21.
Industry tracking firm Global Insight cut its forecast for the annualized sales rate in July to 14.4 million units and cut its 2009 forecast to 14.2 million units in sales, citing the risk of higher average oil prices in the months ahead.
Credit option contracts on the Chicago Board Options Exchange that would pay out if GM or Ford default before September 2012 ticked higher. The contracts, which remain lightly traded, point to a roughly 73-percent default risk for GM and a 69-percent risk for Ford over that period.
SOURCE: Reuters
Reuters
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
General Motors Corp will need to raise as much as $15 billion in cash to shore up liquidity and bankruptcy is “not impossible” if the U.S. auto market continues to slump, Merrill Lynch said.
Other analysts have suggested GM, whose shares fell to a new 54-year low on Wednesday, needs to raise funds to ride out the downturn in the U.S. auto market through 2009.
But Merrill’s estimate of GM’s financing needs is the highest yet. It also carried the most stark warning of the bankruptcy risk for the largest U.S. automaker.
GM declined to comment directly on the Merrill Lynch report but it believes it has sufficient liquidity for 2008 despite lower volumes and could take more steps to cut costs if sales conditions worsen.
“If conditions continue to deteriorate, we would consider other operating measures,” GM spokeswoman Renee Rashid-Merem told Reuters.
Merrill Lynch analyst John Murphy cut GM to "underperform" from "buy" and lowered his price target for the largest U.S. automaker to $7 from $28. Shares fell as much as 11 percent to $10.50 in Wednesday's trading in the New York Stock Exchange. The cost to insure GM's debt rose.
Murphy also lowered his forecast for 2008 U.S. industry-wide light vehicle sales for the third time this year and said the recent drastic decline in sales would likely to continue through 2009.
Murphy forecasts light vehicle sales of 14.3 million units this year and 14 million units for next year. That compares with 16.15 million units in 2007 and is sharply lower than the current forecast of most major automakers, including GM.
"The recent extreme deterioration in volume and mix is driving much higher cash burn and eroding GM's cash position," Murphy said. "We believe $15 billion is necessary because there is downside risk to our current estimates and a greater cushion is essential."
Any capital GM raises has the potential to dilute equity if it's done through convertible offering or the issuance of additional equity, both possibilities analysts have raised.
DEEPER DOWNTURN AHEAD?
The deepening concerns about the sales outlook for GM come after a June sales report that showed industry-wide auto sales dropping to a 15-year low.
GM's own sales fell by a narrower-than-expected 8 percent on an adjusted basis after the automaker offered zero-percent financing for six years.
But Deutsche Bank analyst Rod Lache said GM could see a "payback" from its June sale in coming months, with its U.S. market share dropping back below 20 percent from 22 percent in June as sales fall back.
Several other Wall Street banks including Citigroup also downgraded automakers and parts suppliers on Wednesday and lowered their outlook for U.S. auto sales this year and next.
Citigroup analyst Itay Michaeli lowered his forecast for 2008 U.S. vehicle sales to 14.5 million units from 15 million, saying plummeting resale values of trucks and SUVs was crimping demand already hurt by weak housing and tighter credit.
Itay said a full recovery in the U.S. auto market would begin only in 2010 or 2011.
Michaeli said GM has to weather the current downturn with considerably less backup liquidity than smaller rival Ford Motor Co (NYSE:F - News), which tapped the leveraged loan market at its peak in late 2006 to raise $23 billion.
"While we do not believe GM is facing an immediate cash crunch, the urgency to shore up liquidity to navigate through a difficult 2008-2009 has risen significantly in recent months," Michaeli said. He cut GM's target price to $14 from $21.
Industry tracking firm Global Insight cut its forecast for the annualized sales rate in July to 14.4 million units and cut its 2009 forecast to 14.2 million units in sales, citing the risk of higher average oil prices in the months ahead.
Credit option contracts on the Chicago Board Options Exchange that would pay out if GM or Ford default before September 2012 ticked higher. The contracts, which remain lightly traded, point to a roughly 73-percent default risk for GM and a 69-percent risk for Ford over that period.
SOURCE: Reuters
ID cards: aviation industry a political pawn say airline bosses
Dan Milmo
London Guardian
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Britain’s leading airline bosses have accused the government of using their industry as a political pawn in the national identity card debate by forcing aviation workers to join the scheme next year.
In a scathing letter to the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, the chief executives of British Airways, easyJet, Virgin Atlantic and BMI said that forcing airport workers to have an ID card from November next year was “unnecessary” and “unjustified”.
All airport airside workers, who work in departure areas and on runways, must enrol in the scheme from next year under government plans, but the aviation industry is claiming it will bring no security benefits.
“First and foremost, no additional security benefits have been identified. Indeed, there is a real risk that enrolment in the national ID scheme will be seen to provide an added, but ultimately false, sense of security to our processes,” said the British Air Transport Association (Bata) letter, signed by airline bosses including Willie Walsh of British Airways and Andy Harrison of easyJet.
It also accused the government of singling out the industry for politically motivated reasons, contradicting previous pledges that the scheme would be voluntary.
“This supports our view that the UK aviation industry is being used for political purposes on a project which has questionable public support,” said Bata.
The first wave of the ID card scheme will see the cards becoming compulsory for non-EU foreign nationals living in Britain this year, and for 200,000 airport workers and Olympic security staff from next year.
Parliament is to decide whether the £4.4bn scheme should be made compulsory for British citizens.
The aviation industry has consistently demanded greater state support for the increased security costs at airports since the liquid bomb scare in August 2006, when expensive passenger and baggage screening measures were implemented by the government overnight.
Bata said it had worked closely with the Home Office and Immigration Service on tightening procedures, including longer passport checks, but said ID cards were a step too far and must not be made mandatory.
"The priority for government attention should be the improved efficiency of border processes, which would result in a more reliable operation and better levels of service for the travelling public," said Bata.
"We would urge you to reverse the decision to compel airport airside workers to enrol in the national ID card scheme."
A Home Office spokesperson said: "Biometric identity cards for airside workers lock identity to the individual providing far greater assurance of identity than currently exists within the aviation sector."
The spokesperson added that it brought benefits to employers and employees and reassurance to the public by identifying workers in security-sensitive jobs, including airport posts.
Department for Transport officials expressed concerns last year that airside workers might take the components for a bomb into airports and store them in departure lounges for terrorists to pick up and assemble on planes.
The Home Office added that the scheme for airport workers had not been finalised and negotiations were ongoing. A spokesman said: "A fully defined identity card scheme for airside workers is still being developed and we continue to work with and listen to the UK aviation industry, and other airport employers."
SOURCE: London Guardian
London Guardian
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Britain’s leading airline bosses have accused the government of using their industry as a political pawn in the national identity card debate by forcing aviation workers to join the scheme next year.
In a scathing letter to the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, the chief executives of British Airways, easyJet, Virgin Atlantic and BMI said that forcing airport workers to have an ID card from November next year was “unnecessary” and “unjustified”.
All airport airside workers, who work in departure areas and on runways, must enrol in the scheme from next year under government plans, but the aviation industry is claiming it will bring no security benefits.
“First and foremost, no additional security benefits have been identified. Indeed, there is a real risk that enrolment in the national ID scheme will be seen to provide an added, but ultimately false, sense of security to our processes,” said the British Air Transport Association (Bata) letter, signed by airline bosses including Willie Walsh of British Airways and Andy Harrison of easyJet.
It also accused the government of singling out the industry for politically motivated reasons, contradicting previous pledges that the scheme would be voluntary.
“This supports our view that the UK aviation industry is being used for political purposes on a project which has questionable public support,” said Bata.
The first wave of the ID card scheme will see the cards becoming compulsory for non-EU foreign nationals living in Britain this year, and for 200,000 airport workers and Olympic security staff from next year.
Parliament is to decide whether the £4.4bn scheme should be made compulsory for British citizens.
The aviation industry has consistently demanded greater state support for the increased security costs at airports since the liquid bomb scare in August 2006, when expensive passenger and baggage screening measures were implemented by the government overnight.
Bata said it had worked closely with the Home Office and Immigration Service on tightening procedures, including longer passport checks, but said ID cards were a step too far and must not be made mandatory.
"The priority for government attention should be the improved efficiency of border processes, which would result in a more reliable operation and better levels of service for the travelling public," said Bata.
"We would urge you to reverse the decision to compel airport airside workers to enrol in the national ID card scheme."
A Home Office spokesperson said: "Biometric identity cards for airside workers lock identity to the individual providing far greater assurance of identity than currently exists within the aviation sector."
The spokesperson added that it brought benefits to employers and employees and reassurance to the public by identifying workers in security-sensitive jobs, including airport posts.
Department for Transport officials expressed concerns last year that airside workers might take the components for a bomb into airports and store them in departure lounges for terrorists to pick up and assemble on planes.
The Home Office added that the scheme for airport workers had not been finalised and negotiations were ongoing. A spokesman said: "A fully defined identity card scheme for airside workers is still being developed and we continue to work with and listen to the UK aviation industry, and other airport employers."
SOURCE: London Guardian
Paulson says US economy enduring ‘rough period’
AFP
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Wednesday that the US economy was enduring “a rough period” and warned that home foreclosures would likely remain high in the near future.
The US Treasury chief said soaring crude oil prices, a widespread credit crunch and a two-year long housing market slump had taken some of the wind out of the sails of the US economy.
“The US economy is going through a rough period. US foreclosures will remain elevated and we should not be surprised at continued reports of falling home prices,” Paulson warned during a speech in London.
Paulson’s remarks were also released by the Treasury in Washington. The Treasury chief and former banker stopped off in London Wednesday amid a whistle-stop tour of European capitals.
He said the giant economic stimulus, stuffed with tax rebates, backed by the administration of US President George W. Bush had helped shore up US growth, but that the housing downturn poses a “significant” downside risk to economic momentum.
FULL ARTICLE @ AFP
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Wednesday that the US economy was enduring “a rough period” and warned that home foreclosures would likely remain high in the near future.
The US Treasury chief said soaring crude oil prices, a widespread credit crunch and a two-year long housing market slump had taken some of the wind out of the sails of the US economy.
“The US economy is going through a rough period. US foreclosures will remain elevated and we should not be surprised at continued reports of falling home prices,” Paulson warned during a speech in London.
Paulson’s remarks were also released by the Treasury in Washington. The Treasury chief and former banker stopped off in London Wednesday amid a whistle-stop tour of European capitals.
He said the giant economic stimulus, stuffed with tax rebates, backed by the administration of US President George W. Bush had helped shore up US growth, but that the housing downturn poses a “significant” downside risk to economic momentum.
FULL ARTICLE @ AFP
Iran oil minister warns of ‘fierce’ reaction to attack
AFP
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said Wednesday that Iran would react “fiercely” to any attack against it, which he warned would cause radically higher crude prices.
“Iran, if there were any kind of activity of any sort, is not going to be quiet and would react fiercely,” he told reporters on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress when asked what Tehran would do in the event of an attack.
“When just a statement (about a possible attack) makes this much volatility in the market, can you imagine that if any action happens … what would be the result in the oil market?” he said through a translator.
When questioned about whether Iran, the world’s fourth biggest oil exporter, would stop exports as a result of an attack, he replied: “Iran has been always a reliable source of supply to the market and Iran remains a supplier forever.”
There has been a surge in speculation recently that Israel might be planning a military strike against Iran’s nuclear sites.
Nozari also ruled out increasing supply to cool record crude prices.
"We have got some spare capacity for production. At the same time, there is no need for more supply of oil to the market," he said.
Consumer nations have been pressing Iran and fellow members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase supply to bring down prices of more than 140 dollars a barrel.
SOURCE: AFP
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said Wednesday that Iran would react “fiercely” to any attack against it, which he warned would cause radically higher crude prices.
“Iran, if there were any kind of activity of any sort, is not going to be quiet and would react fiercely,” he told reporters on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress when asked what Tehran would do in the event of an attack.
“When just a statement (about a possible attack) makes this much volatility in the market, can you imagine that if any action happens … what would be the result in the oil market?” he said through a translator.
When questioned about whether Iran, the world’s fourth biggest oil exporter, would stop exports as a result of an attack, he replied: “Iran has been always a reliable source of supply to the market and Iran remains a supplier forever.”
There has been a surge in speculation recently that Israel might be planning a military strike against Iran’s nuclear sites.
Nozari also ruled out increasing supply to cool record crude prices.
"We have got some spare capacity for production. At the same time, there is no need for more supply of oil to the market," he said.
Consumer nations have been pressing Iran and fellow members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase supply to bring down prices of more than 140 dollars a barrel.
SOURCE: AFP
McCain wants much larger U.S. military
Andrew Gray
Reuters
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Republican presidential candidate John McCain wants the U.S. military to be much larger than current expansion plans envision, an adviser to the Arizona senator said this week.
The Bush administration has begun expanding the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to create a combined strength of around 750,000 active duty troops — a process backed by McCain’s Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
But McCain believes an Army and Marine Corps with a combined strength of up to 900,000 troops is necessary, said Randy Scheunemann, an adviser to the candidate on foreign policy and national security.
“Sen. McCain feels the proposed increases are not sufficient. They need to be more, to fully address the challenges we face in the 21st century,” Scheunemann told Reuters in a telephone interview.
The U.S. Army and Marines have been severely strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many troops have served multiple tours in the war zones and currently spend only 12 months at home before they deploy again for another year.
As a member of the U.S. Senate’s armed services committee, McCain has built a reputation for scrutinizing the costs of big weapons programs and he has pledged to pursue that approach in the White House if he wins November’s election.
McCain led an investigation in 2003 that killed a $23.5 billion Air Force plan to lease and buy Boeing Co refueling planes. The probe sent two former Boeing executives to jail and led to the resignation of Boeing's chief executive and two Air Force officials.
FULL ARTICLE @ Reuters
Reuters
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Republican presidential candidate John McCain wants the U.S. military to be much larger than current expansion plans envision, an adviser to the Arizona senator said this week.
The Bush administration has begun expanding the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to create a combined strength of around 750,000 active duty troops — a process backed by McCain’s Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
But McCain believes an Army and Marine Corps with a combined strength of up to 900,000 troops is necessary, said Randy Scheunemann, an adviser to the candidate on foreign policy and national security.
“Sen. McCain feels the proposed increases are not sufficient. They need to be more, to fully address the challenges we face in the 21st century,” Scheunemann told Reuters in a telephone interview.
The U.S. Army and Marines have been severely strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many troops have served multiple tours in the war zones and currently spend only 12 months at home before they deploy again for another year.
As a member of the U.S. Senate’s armed services committee, McCain has built a reputation for scrutinizing the costs of big weapons programs and he has pledged to pursue that approach in the White House if he wins November’s election.
McCain led an investigation in 2003 that killed a $23.5 billion Air Force plan to lease and buy Boeing Co refueling planes. The probe sent two former Boeing executives to jail and led to the resignation of Boeing's chief executive and two Air Force officials.
FULL ARTICLE @ Reuters
Video shows cop choking marijuana suspect
David Edwards
Raw Story
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
WKRN News 2 reports that “the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating after video shot from inside a Mount Joliet patrol car shows an officer choking a suspect.”
In the video, the officer has both hands around the neck of the suspect and is telling him to “stick your tongue out.” The suspect, James Anders, then passes out.
According to WKRN, “The incident began with a traffic stop. Officer Cosby said he smelled burning marijuana, ordered Anders out of the car and told him to spit out something he had in his mouth. … Cosby didn’t find any marijuana in Anders’ mouth but did find a small bag of the drug inside his car.”
Anders was arrested on charges of possessing marijuana, resisting arrest, and tampering with evidence. The charges were later dismissed because of the police officer’s behavior. Cosby was reprimanded and the tape was handed over to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.
VIDEO @ Raw Story
Raw Story
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
WKRN News 2 reports that “the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating after video shot from inside a Mount Joliet patrol car shows an officer choking a suspect.”
In the video, the officer has both hands around the neck of the suspect and is telling him to “stick your tongue out.” The suspect, James Anders, then passes out.
According to WKRN, “The incident began with a traffic stop. Officer Cosby said he smelled burning marijuana, ordered Anders out of the car and told him to spit out something he had in his mouth. … Cosby didn’t find any marijuana in Anders’ mouth but did find a small bag of the drug inside his car.”
Anders was arrested on charges of possessing marijuana, resisting arrest, and tampering with evidence. The charges were later dismissed because of the police officer’s behavior. Cosby was reprimanded and the tape was handed over to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.
VIDEO @ Raw Story
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Poll: Terrorism fears are fading
Alan Silverleib
CNN
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
As Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama battle over who has the best approach to national security, a new CNN poll finds Americans’ concerns about terrorism have hit an all-time low for the post-September 11 era.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday, 35 percent of Americans believe a terrorist attack somewhere in the United States is likely over the next several weeks.
The figure is the lowest in a CNN poll since the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.
Between 2002 and 2006, summertime polls typically showed that a majority of Americans believed that a terrorist attack was likely. Last summer, that figure dropped to 41 percent. This summer, it dropped another 6 percentage points.
The latest CNN poll also indicates that the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Three in 10 voters favor the war, while 68 percent oppose it. Similarly, a third of voters would like to see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are stationed there now.
For McCain, who is seeking to highlight his national security credentials and has staunchly defended the U.S. presence in Iraq, the latest poll results may not be viewed in a positive light.
"Sen. McCain's greatest strength is in foreign policy, particularly his reputation as the candidate best able to fight the war on terror," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.
"As the threat of a terrorist attack continues to recede in the mind of the American voter, the state of the economy and other domestic issues are likely to become even more important. That would be good news for Sen. Obama, since the Democrats currently beat or tie the Republicans on every issue except terrorism."
Another potential problem for McCain may be found in President Bush's latest job approval ratings.
According to the survey, 30 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is handling his job, while 68 percent disapprove of Bush's job performance. These numbers are roughly consistent with the president's approval ratings over most of the last two years.
They also reinforce the need for the presumptive Republican nominee to create an impression of distance and distinction between himself and Bush.
Democrats, on the other hand, are eager to tie McCain to the unpopular outgoing president and portray his possible election as the equivalent of a third Bush term.
The poll, conducted Thursday through Sunday by phone, surveyed 1,026 adult Americans and carries a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
SOURCE: CNN
CNN
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
As Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama battle over who has the best approach to national security, a new CNN poll finds Americans’ concerns about terrorism have hit an all-time low for the post-September 11 era.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday, 35 percent of Americans believe a terrorist attack somewhere in the United States is likely over the next several weeks.
The figure is the lowest in a CNN poll since the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.
Between 2002 and 2006, summertime polls typically showed that a majority of Americans believed that a terrorist attack was likely. Last summer, that figure dropped to 41 percent. This summer, it dropped another 6 percentage points.
The latest CNN poll also indicates that the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Three in 10 voters favor the war, while 68 percent oppose it. Similarly, a third of voters would like to see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are stationed there now.
For McCain, who is seeking to highlight his national security credentials and has staunchly defended the U.S. presence in Iraq, the latest poll results may not be viewed in a positive light.
"Sen. McCain's greatest strength is in foreign policy, particularly his reputation as the candidate best able to fight the war on terror," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.
"As the threat of a terrorist attack continues to recede in the mind of the American voter, the state of the economy and other domestic issues are likely to become even more important. That would be good news for Sen. Obama, since the Democrats currently beat or tie the Republicans on every issue except terrorism."
Another potential problem for McCain may be found in President Bush's latest job approval ratings.
According to the survey, 30 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is handling his job, while 68 percent disapprove of Bush's job performance. These numbers are roughly consistent with the president's approval ratings over most of the last two years.
They also reinforce the need for the presumptive Republican nominee to create an impression of distance and distinction between himself and Bush.
Democrats, on the other hand, are eager to tie McCain to the unpopular outgoing president and portray his possible election as the equivalent of a third Bush term.
The poll, conducted Thursday through Sunday by phone, surveyed 1,026 adult Americans and carries a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
SOURCE: CNN
Forecast for U.S. workers: Gloom
Peter S. Goodman
IHT
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
As automakers dropped their latest batch of awful sales numbers on the market on Tuesday, reinforcing the gloom spreading across the economy, the troubles confronting American workers seemed to intensify.
Plummeting home prices have in recent months eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of people, from bankers and real estate agents to construction workers and furniture manufacturers. Tighter lending standards imposed by banks in the wake of huge mortgage losses have made it hard for many Americans to secure credit — the lifeblood of expansion in recent years — crimping the appetite of consumers, whose spending amounts to 70 percent of the economy.
Joblessness has accelerated, and employers have slashed working hours even for those on their payrolls, shrinking the size of paychecks just as workers need them the most.
Now, add to that unsavory mix the word from automakers that sales plunged in June — by 28 percent for Ford, 21 percent for Toyota and 18 percent for General Motors — a sharp sign that consumers are pulling back, making manufacturers more likely to cut production and impose more layoffs. Until recently, the weak labor market has been marked more by the reluctance of employers to create new jobs than by mass layoffs.
Among economists, the sense is broadening that the troubles dogging the economy will be stubborn, leaving in place an uncomfortable combination of tight credit and scant job opportunities perhaps well into next year.
"It's a slow-motion recession," said Ethan Harris, chief United States economist for Lehman Brothers. "In a normal recession, things kind of collapse and get so weak that you have nowhere to go but up. But we're not getting the classic two or three negative quarters. Instead, we're expecting two years of sub-par growth. Growth that's not enough to generate jobs. It's kind of a chronic rather than an acute pain."
FULL ARTICLE @ IHT
IHT
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
As automakers dropped their latest batch of awful sales numbers on the market on Tuesday, reinforcing the gloom spreading across the economy, the troubles confronting American workers seemed to intensify.
Plummeting home prices have in recent months eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of people, from bankers and real estate agents to construction workers and furniture manufacturers. Tighter lending standards imposed by banks in the wake of huge mortgage losses have made it hard for many Americans to secure credit — the lifeblood of expansion in recent years — crimping the appetite of consumers, whose spending amounts to 70 percent of the economy.
Joblessness has accelerated, and employers have slashed working hours even for those on their payrolls, shrinking the size of paychecks just as workers need them the most.
Now, add to that unsavory mix the word from automakers that sales plunged in June — by 28 percent for Ford, 21 percent for Toyota and 18 percent for General Motors — a sharp sign that consumers are pulling back, making manufacturers more likely to cut production and impose more layoffs. Until recently, the weak labor market has been marked more by the reluctance of employers to create new jobs than by mass layoffs.
Among economists, the sense is broadening that the troubles dogging the economy will be stubborn, leaving in place an uncomfortable combination of tight credit and scant job opportunities perhaps well into next year.
"It's a slow-motion recession," said Ethan Harris, chief United States economist for Lehman Brothers. "In a normal recession, things kind of collapse and get so weak that you have nowhere to go but up. But we're not getting the classic two or three negative quarters. Instead, we're expecting two years of sub-par growth. Growth that's not enough to generate jobs. It's kind of a chronic rather than an acute pain."
FULL ARTICLE @ IHT
U.S. military to patrol Internet
UPI
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The U.S. military is looking for a contractor to patrol cyberspace, watching for warning signs of forthcoming terrorist attacks or other hostile activity on the Web.
“If someone wants to blow us up, we want to know about it,” Robert Hembrook, the deputy intelligence chief of the U.S. Army’s Fifth Signal Command in Mannheim, Germany, told United Press International.
In a solicitation posted on the Web last week, the command said it was looking for a contractor to provide “Internet awareness services” to support “force protection” — the term of art for the security of U.S. military installations and personnel.
“The purpose of the services will be to identify and assess stated and implied threat, antipathy, unrest and other contextual data relating to selected Internet domains,” says the solicitation.
Hembrook was tight-lipped about the proposal. “The more we talk about it, the less effective it will be,” he said. “If we didn’t have to put it out in public (to make the contract award), we wouldn’t have.”
He would not comment on the kinds of Internet sites the contractor would be directed to look at but acknowledged it would “not (be) far off” to assume violent Islamic extremists would be at the top of the list.
The solicitation says the successful contractor will “analyze various Web pages, chat rooms, blogs and other Internet domains to aggregate and assess data of interest,” adding, “The contractor will prioritize foreign-language domains that relate to specific areas of concern … (and) will also identify new Internet domains” that might relate to “specific local requirements” of the command.
Officials were keen to stress the contract covered only information that could be found by anyone with a computer and Internet connection.
"We're not interested in being Big Brother," said LeAnne MacAllister, chief spokeswoman for the command, which runs communications in Europe for the U.S. Army and the military's joint commands there.
"I would not characterize it as monitoring," added Hembrook. "This is a research tool gathering information that is already in the public domain."
Experts say Islamic extremist groups like al-Qaida use the Web for propaganda and fundraising purposes. Although the extent to which it is employed in operational planning is less clear, most agree that important information about targeting and tactics can be gleaned from extremists' public pronouncements.
Hembrook said the main purpose of the contract is to analyze "trends in information." The contractor will "help us find those needles in that haystack of information."
The solicitor says the contractor's team will include a "principal cyber investigator," a "locally specialized threat analyst" and a "foreign-speaking analyst with cyber investigative skills," as well as a 24/7 watch team.
The contractor will produce weekly written reports, containing "raw data and supporting analysis."
The addresses of the Web page sources will be "captioned under alias to preserve access," says the solicitation. Experts have noted in the past that publishing the addresses of some extremists' sites has led to them being attacked or moving. However, the contractor will "consider releasing specific (Web page addresses) on an as-needed basis … if explicit threat materials or imminent threat to personnel or facilities are discovered."
The contractor also will notify the command immediately "upon receipt of any and all stated or implied threats that contain timing and/or targeting information relating to personnel, facilities or activities, and to specifically designated areas of concern."
While declining to comment on the specific solicitation, Ben Venzke, CEO of IntelCenter, an Alexandria, Va.-based company that monitors Islamic extremist propaganda for clients including U.S. government agencies, said it was "common" for the military or other agencies to employ contractors "to support their own work on these issues."
"What most people don't get," he said, "is that (each agency or entity) has their own very specific requirements. … They are looking for one type of thing in particular."
Venzke explained that while an analyst for a big-city police department might be looking at extremist Web sites for certain kinds of information, their requirements would be different from those of intelligence analysts looking for evidence of trends in extremist targeting or ideology, which in turn would be different from those concerned -- like the Fifth Signal Command -- with force protection.
"There is some overlap," he said, "and you always have to work to minimize that, but generally, there are so many different … pieces you can look at … it's not duplication."
SOURCE: UPI
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The U.S. military is looking for a contractor to patrol cyberspace, watching for warning signs of forthcoming terrorist attacks or other hostile activity on the Web.
“If someone wants to blow us up, we want to know about it,” Robert Hembrook, the deputy intelligence chief of the U.S. Army’s Fifth Signal Command in Mannheim, Germany, told United Press International.
In a solicitation posted on the Web last week, the command said it was looking for a contractor to provide “Internet awareness services” to support “force protection” — the term of art for the security of U.S. military installations and personnel.
“The purpose of the services will be to identify and assess stated and implied threat, antipathy, unrest and other contextual data relating to selected Internet domains,” says the solicitation.
Hembrook was tight-lipped about the proposal. “The more we talk about it, the less effective it will be,” he said. “If we didn’t have to put it out in public (to make the contract award), we wouldn’t have.”
He would not comment on the kinds of Internet sites the contractor would be directed to look at but acknowledged it would “not (be) far off” to assume violent Islamic extremists would be at the top of the list.
The solicitation says the successful contractor will “analyze various Web pages, chat rooms, blogs and other Internet domains to aggregate and assess data of interest,” adding, “The contractor will prioritize foreign-language domains that relate to specific areas of concern … (and) will also identify new Internet domains” that might relate to “specific local requirements” of the command.
Officials were keen to stress the contract covered only information that could be found by anyone with a computer and Internet connection.
"We're not interested in being Big Brother," said LeAnne MacAllister, chief spokeswoman for the command, which runs communications in Europe for the U.S. Army and the military's joint commands there.
"I would not characterize it as monitoring," added Hembrook. "This is a research tool gathering information that is already in the public domain."
Experts say Islamic extremist groups like al-Qaida use the Web for propaganda and fundraising purposes. Although the extent to which it is employed in operational planning is less clear, most agree that important information about targeting and tactics can be gleaned from extremists' public pronouncements.
Hembrook said the main purpose of the contract is to analyze "trends in information." The contractor will "help us find those needles in that haystack of information."
The solicitor says the contractor's team will include a "principal cyber investigator," a "locally specialized threat analyst" and a "foreign-speaking analyst with cyber investigative skills," as well as a 24/7 watch team.
The contractor will produce weekly written reports, containing "raw data and supporting analysis."
The addresses of the Web page sources will be "captioned under alias to preserve access," says the solicitation. Experts have noted in the past that publishing the addresses of some extremists' sites has led to them being attacked or moving. However, the contractor will "consider releasing specific (Web page addresses) on an as-needed basis … if explicit threat materials or imminent threat to personnel or facilities are discovered."
The contractor also will notify the command immediately "upon receipt of any and all stated or implied threats that contain timing and/or targeting information relating to personnel, facilities or activities, and to specifically designated areas of concern."
While declining to comment on the specific solicitation, Ben Venzke, CEO of IntelCenter, an Alexandria, Va.-based company that monitors Islamic extremist propaganda for clients including U.S. government agencies, said it was "common" for the military or other agencies to employ contractors "to support their own work on these issues."
"What most people don't get," he said, "is that (each agency or entity) has their own very specific requirements. … They are looking for one type of thing in particular."
Venzke explained that while an analyst for a big-city police department might be looking at extremist Web sites for certain kinds of information, their requirements would be different from those of intelligence analysts looking for evidence of trends in extremist targeting or ideology, which in turn would be different from those concerned -- like the Fifth Signal Command -- with force protection.
"There is some overlap," he said, "and you always have to work to minimize that, but generally, there are so many different … pieces you can look at … it's not duplication."
SOURCE: UPI
Oil Rises to Record After U.S. Reports Unexpected Supply Drop
Robert Tuttle
Bloomberg
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Crude oil futures rose to a record above $144 a barrel in New York after a U.S. government report showed an unexpected decline in inventories.
Supplies dropped 1.98 million barrels to 299.8 million last week, the lowest since January, the Energy Department said. Analysts in a Bloomberg News survey had predicted the report would show a 500,000 barrel rise in inventories. Prices also climbed as the dollar weakened.
“We dropped about 2 million barrels on crude and most everyone was looking for a slight build,” said Addison Armstrong, director of market research at TFS Energy LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. “That leaves us somewhere around 7 to 8 percent below normal on crude stocks.”
Crude oil for August delivery rose $2.60, or 1.8 percent, to settle at $143.57 a barrel at 2:55 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures touched a record $144.32 after the close of floor trading and have doubled in the past year.
Brent crude for August delivery rose $3.59, or 2.6 percent, to $144.26 a barrel on London’s ICE Futures Europe exchange. Futures touched a record $144.95 a barrel.
Oil’s appeal as a hedge against inflation may rise if the European Central Bank increases interest rates tomorrow, causing the dollar to fall. The European Central Bank will lift its 4 percent benchmark main refinancing rate by a quarter-percentage point tomorrow, according to 57 of 58 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
FULL ARTICLE @ Bloomberg
Bloomberg
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Crude oil futures rose to a record above $144 a barrel in New York after a U.S. government report showed an unexpected decline in inventories.
Supplies dropped 1.98 million barrels to 299.8 million last week, the lowest since January, the Energy Department said. Analysts in a Bloomberg News survey had predicted the report would show a 500,000 barrel rise in inventories. Prices also climbed as the dollar weakened.
“We dropped about 2 million barrels on crude and most everyone was looking for a slight build,” said Addison Armstrong, director of market research at TFS Energy LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. “That leaves us somewhere around 7 to 8 percent below normal on crude stocks.”
Crude oil for August delivery rose $2.60, or 1.8 percent, to settle at $143.57 a barrel at 2:55 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures touched a record $144.32 after the close of floor trading and have doubled in the past year.
Brent crude for August delivery rose $3.59, or 2.6 percent, to $144.26 a barrel on London’s ICE Futures Europe exchange. Futures touched a record $144.95 a barrel.
Oil’s appeal as a hedge against inflation may rise if the European Central Bank increases interest rates tomorrow, causing the dollar to fall. The European Central Bank will lift its 4 percent benchmark main refinancing rate by a quarter-percentage point tomorrow, according to 57 of 58 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
FULL ARTICLE @ Bloomberg
Groups Sue U.S. for Data On Tracking By Cellphone
Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Two civil liberties groups filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government yesterday, seeking records related to the government’s use of cellphones as tracking devices.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the government in federal court in Washington under the Freedom of Information Act. Last November, the ACLU had filed a FOIA request with the Justice Department for documents, memos and guides regarding the policies for tracking people through the use of their cellphones.
The groups also want to know how many times the government sought location information without first establishing probable cause that a crime was taking place.
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd declined to comment on the suit. But with respect to cell-tracking data in general, he said, “It is important to remember that the courts determine whether or not cell-site data or more precise cell location data can be turned over to law enforcement in a particular case.”
Boyd added that “law enforcement has absolutely no interest in tracking the locations of law-abiding citizens. Instead, law enforcement goes through the courts to lawfully obtain data to help locate criminal suspects, sometimes in cases where lives are literally hanging in the balance, such as a child abduction case or a serial murderer on the loose.”
The ACLU's FOIA request was made after an article in The Washington Post last fall revealed that federal officials were routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data on individuals and that courts sometimes have ordered the data released without first requiring a showing of probable cause.
SOURCE: Washington Post
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Two civil liberties groups filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government yesterday, seeking records related to the government’s use of cellphones as tracking devices.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the government in federal court in Washington under the Freedom of Information Act. Last November, the ACLU had filed a FOIA request with the Justice Department for documents, memos and guides regarding the policies for tracking people through the use of their cellphones.
The groups also want to know how many times the government sought location information without first establishing probable cause that a crime was taking place.
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd declined to comment on the suit. But with respect to cell-tracking data in general, he said, “It is important to remember that the courts determine whether or not cell-site data or more precise cell location data can be turned over to law enforcement in a particular case.”
Boyd added that “law enforcement has absolutely no interest in tracking the locations of law-abiding citizens. Instead, law enforcement goes through the courts to lawfully obtain data to help locate criminal suspects, sometimes in cases where lives are literally hanging in the balance, such as a child abduction case or a serial murderer on the loose.”
The ACLU's FOIA request was made after an article in The Washington Post last fall revealed that federal officials were routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data on individuals and that courts sometimes have ordered the data released without first requiring a showing of probable cause.
SOURCE: Washington Post
Videos of Violent Police Training Appear as Mexico Awaits U.S. Aid
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Videos showing Mexican police learning torture methods appeared on the Internet this week as the country, soon to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. anti-drug aid, is seeking to improve its human rights record.
The videos show officers in the city of Leon, about 150 miles northwest of Mexico City, forcing one of their colleagues to crawl through vomit and injecting carbonated water into the nose of another. An instructor, whose face can be seen in one video, barks out commands in English. Leon Police Chief Carlos Tornero told the Associated Press that the instructor is from a private U.S. security firm, but he declined to say which one.
“These are no more than training exercises for certain situations, but I want to stress that we
are not showing people how to use these methods,” Tornero said.
The videos — first uncovered by a local newspaper, El Heraldo de León — ran repeatedly Tuesday on television stations here and prompted huge headlines in daily newspapers. La Jornada, a left-leaning Mexico City newspaper, declared, “Law enforcement in León teaches police to torture.”
Mexican and international human rights organizations expressed concern over the videos.
"This is troubling," said Sergio Aguayo, founder of the nonprofit Mexican Academy for Human Rights. "In the past, torture was usually hidden. Now they don't even bother."
The videos show officers from Leon's Special Tactics Group, known here by its Spanish-language initials, GET. In one video, a man who appears to be in extreme pain is shown kneeling in the dirt. An instructor -- a bearded man of medium build in a black T-shirt, jeans and sunglasses -- gives orders in English.
"Now get him to roll back into the puke," the instructor tells one of the trainees.
The man, dressed in camouflage, can be seen rolling toward the vomit. But he does not touch it.
"He missed it. Roll back," the instructor says.
"This punishment works," a trainee, whose face is not shown, can be heard saying in English.
In another video, an officer -- presumably playing the role of a witness -- can be heard panting and gasping in pain as other officers squirt carbonated water into his nose. The man is being held in a dark room, and his arms are bound as he lies in a hole in the floor. Officers curse at him and talk of torturing him with rats and fecal matter.
Residents in several states have accused Mexican soldiers of committing hundreds of human rights violations, including rape and unjustified shootings, during a crackdown on drug cartels.
Activists say Mexicans frequently do not make human rights complaints against local police for fear of retribution.
In recent months, human rights concerns shaped negotiations between U.S. and Mexican lawmakers over a $400 million U.S. aid package designed to help Mexico fight drug cartels.
Mexican officials persuaded the U.S. Congress to remove some human rights conditions, but a provision prohibiting Mexico from using testimony derived from tortured witnesses remained in the final bill.
"The only thing that I thought when I saw those videos was 'Thank God the U.S. Congress attached some human rights conditions,' " said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director for New York-based Human Rights Watch.
The Guanajuato state human rights commission has launched an investigation into the police training methods in Leon, and state prosecutors have also said they will review the videos.
But local officials have defended the training methods.
Leon Mayor Vicente Guerrero told reporters that police need aggressive training methods to confront the threat of drug cartels suspected by law enforcement officials in more than 1,800 killings this year.
"Perhaps it looks inhuman to us," Guerrero told El Heraldo de León. "But it is part of a preparation method that is used all over the world."
SOURCE: Washington Post
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Videos showing Mexican police learning torture methods appeared on the Internet this week as the country, soon to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. anti-drug aid, is seeking to improve its human rights record.
The videos show officers in the city of Leon, about 150 miles northwest of Mexico City, forcing one of their colleagues to crawl through vomit and injecting carbonated water into the nose of another. An instructor, whose face can be seen in one video, barks out commands in English. Leon Police Chief Carlos Tornero told the Associated Press that the instructor is from a private U.S. security firm, but he declined to say which one.
“These are no more than training exercises for certain situations, but I want to stress that we
are not showing people how to use these methods,” Tornero said.
The videos — first uncovered by a local newspaper, El Heraldo de León — ran repeatedly Tuesday on television stations here and prompted huge headlines in daily newspapers. La Jornada, a left-leaning Mexico City newspaper, declared, “Law enforcement in León teaches police to torture.”
Mexican and international human rights organizations expressed concern over the videos.
"This is troubling," said Sergio Aguayo, founder of the nonprofit Mexican Academy for Human Rights. "In the past, torture was usually hidden. Now they don't even bother."
The videos show officers from Leon's Special Tactics Group, known here by its Spanish-language initials, GET. In one video, a man who appears to be in extreme pain is shown kneeling in the dirt. An instructor -- a bearded man of medium build in a black T-shirt, jeans and sunglasses -- gives orders in English.
"Now get him to roll back into the puke," the instructor tells one of the trainees.
The man, dressed in camouflage, can be seen rolling toward the vomit. But he does not touch it.
"He missed it. Roll back," the instructor says.
"This punishment works," a trainee, whose face is not shown, can be heard saying in English.
In another video, an officer -- presumably playing the role of a witness -- can be heard panting and gasping in pain as other officers squirt carbonated water into his nose. The man is being held in a dark room, and his arms are bound as he lies in a hole in the floor. Officers curse at him and talk of torturing him with rats and fecal matter.
Residents in several states have accused Mexican soldiers of committing hundreds of human rights violations, including rape and unjustified shootings, during a crackdown on drug cartels.
Activists say Mexicans frequently do not make human rights complaints against local police for fear of retribution.
In recent months, human rights concerns shaped negotiations between U.S. and Mexican lawmakers over a $400 million U.S. aid package designed to help Mexico fight drug cartels.
Mexican officials persuaded the U.S. Congress to remove some human rights conditions, but a provision prohibiting Mexico from using testimony derived from tortured witnesses remained in the final bill.
"The only thing that I thought when I saw those videos was 'Thank God the U.S. Congress attached some human rights conditions,' " said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director for New York-based Human Rights Watch.
The Guanajuato state human rights commission has launched an investigation into the police training methods in Leon, and state prosecutors have also said they will review the videos.
But local officials have defended the training methods.
Leon Mayor Vicente Guerrero told reporters that police need aggressive training methods to confront the threat of drug cartels suspected by law enforcement officials in more than 1,800 killings this year.
"Perhaps it looks inhuman to us," Guerrero told El Heraldo de León. "But it is part of a preparation method that is used all over the world."
SOURCE: Washington Post
Utility Workers Hired As Stasi Informants In Colorado, California, Arizona
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and utility workers have been trained and recently dispatched as “Terrorism Liaison Officers” in Colorado, Arizona and California to watch for “suspicious activity” which is later fed into a secret government database.
According to a Denver Post report, “It’s a tactic intended to feed better data into terrorism early-warning systems and uncover intelligence that could help fight anti-U.S. forces. But the vague nature of the TLOs’ mission, and their focus on reporting both legal and illegal activity, has generated objections from privacy advocates and civil libertarians.
“Suspicious activity” is broadly defined in TLO training as behavior that could lead to terrorism: taking photos of no apparent aesthetic value, making measurements or notes, espousing extremist beliefs or conversing in code, according to a draft Department of Justice/Major Cities Chiefs Association document.”
“We don’t snoop into private citizens’ lives. We aren’t living in a communist state,” claims Lt. Tony Lopez, commander of Denver’s intelligence unit - but the program bears close parallels to the East German Stasi system, which at its height employed one informant for every seven citizens.
Democracy Now interviewed the Denver Post writer and an ACLU representative about the program.
It is also reminiscent of the supposedly canned 2002 Operation TIPS program, which would have turned 4 per cent of Americans into informants under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department.
TIPS lived on in other guises, such as the Highway Watch program, a $19 billion dollar Homeland Security-run project which trains truckers to watch for suspicious activity on America’s highways.
More recently, ABC News reported that “The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort…..to aid with criminal investigations.”
Since authorities now define mundane activities like buying baby formula, beer, wearing Levi jeans, carrying identifying documents like a drivers license and traveling with women or children or mentioning the U.S. constitution as the behavior of potential terrorists, the bounty for the American Stasi to turn in political dissidents is sure to be too tempting to resist.
Indeed, last month Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers and the New York Times heartily celebrated the fact that an increasing number of Americans are becoming informants and turning in their neighbors and family members to the authorities in return for cash rewards.
Citing gas prices, foreclosure rates and runaway food price inflation, The Times lauded the fact that citizens are reporting on each other, ensuring “a substantial increase in Crime Stopper-related arrests and recovered property, as callers turn in neighbors, grandchildren or former boyfriends in exchange for a little cash.”
As any budding dictator will tell you, the creation of an informant society where individuals self-regulate their behavior in fear of being turned in by a citizen spy is one of the key stepping stones to tyranny. To have the media celebrate the fact that people are reporting on their neighbors and grandchildren puts the icing on the cake.
SOURCE: Prison Planet
Prison Planet
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and utility workers have been trained and recently dispatched as “Terrorism Liaison Officers” in Colorado, Arizona and California to watch for “suspicious activity” which is later fed into a secret government database.
According to a Denver Post report, “It’s a tactic intended to feed better data into terrorism early-warning systems and uncover intelligence that could help fight anti-U.S. forces. But the vague nature of the TLOs’ mission, and their focus on reporting both legal and illegal activity, has generated objections from privacy advocates and civil libertarians.
“Suspicious activity” is broadly defined in TLO training as behavior that could lead to terrorism: taking photos of no apparent aesthetic value, making measurements or notes, espousing extremist beliefs or conversing in code, according to a draft Department of Justice/Major Cities Chiefs Association document.”
“We don’t snoop into private citizens’ lives. We aren’t living in a communist state,” claims Lt. Tony Lopez, commander of Denver’s intelligence unit - but the program bears close parallels to the East German Stasi system, which at its height employed one informant for every seven citizens.
Democracy Now interviewed the Denver Post writer and an ACLU representative about the program.
It is also reminiscent of the supposedly canned 2002 Operation TIPS program, which would have turned 4 per cent of Americans into informants under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department.
TIPS lived on in other guises, such as the Highway Watch program, a $19 billion dollar Homeland Security-run project which trains truckers to watch for suspicious activity on America’s highways.
More recently, ABC News reported that “The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort…..to aid with criminal investigations.”
Since authorities now define mundane activities like buying baby formula, beer, wearing Levi jeans, carrying identifying documents like a drivers license and traveling with women or children or mentioning the U.S. constitution as the behavior of potential terrorists, the bounty for the American Stasi to turn in political dissidents is sure to be too tempting to resist.
Indeed, last month Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers and the New York Times heartily celebrated the fact that an increasing number of Americans are becoming informants and turning in their neighbors and family members to the authorities in return for cash rewards.
Citing gas prices, foreclosure rates and runaway food price inflation, The Times lauded the fact that citizens are reporting on each other, ensuring “a substantial increase in Crime Stopper-related arrests and recovered property, as callers turn in neighbors, grandchildren or former boyfriends in exchange for a little cash.”
As any budding dictator will tell you, the creation of an informant society where individuals self-regulate their behavior in fear of being turned in by a citizen spy is one of the key stepping stones to tyranny. To have the media celebrate the fact that people are reporting on their neighbors and grandchildren puts the icing on the cake.
SOURCE: Prison Planet
Military strike on Iran would be ‘catastrophic:’ Russian ministry
AFP
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Any military attack on Iran would have a “catastrophic” effect on the Middle East, a Russian foreign ministry official said Wednesday after reports that Israel might launch such an attack.
“All this is very dangerous. If force is used it will be catastrophic for the whole Middle East,” the official told journalists on condition of anonymity.
The official also said Iran was “ready to look seriously at proposals” presented on June 14 by six world powers aimed at getting the Islamic republic to suspend uranium enrichment. He called
Iran’s attitude a “positive signal.”
The comments came after US media reported on June 20 that Israeli jet pilots had trained for a possible strike on Iranian nuclear sites.
Western powers fear Russia is developing a nuclear weapons programme under cover of its stated aim of developing civilian nuclear energy. However Tehran denies such claims.
Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has a section of border close to northern Iran in the Caucasus mountains and has been cautious about Western efforts to punish Iran over its nuclear activities.
SOURCE: AFP
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Any military attack on Iran would have a “catastrophic” effect on the Middle East, a Russian foreign ministry official said Wednesday after reports that Israel might launch such an attack.
“All this is very dangerous. If force is used it will be catastrophic for the whole Middle East,” the official told journalists on condition of anonymity.
The official also said Iran was “ready to look seriously at proposals” presented on June 14 by six world powers aimed at getting the Islamic republic to suspend uranium enrichment. He called
Iran’s attitude a “positive signal.”
The comments came after US media reported on June 20 that Israeli jet pilots had trained for a possible strike on Iranian nuclear sites.
Western powers fear Russia is developing a nuclear weapons programme under cover of its stated aim of developing civilian nuclear energy. However Tehran denies such claims.
Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has a section of border close to northern Iran in the Caucasus mountains and has been cautious about Western efforts to punish Iran over its nuclear activities.
SOURCE: AFP
ACLU amends lawsuit as Denver Democratic Convention ‘free speech zone’ plans revealed
Nick Langewis
Raw Story
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The infamous “free speech zone,” set to make a comeback at Denver’s upcoming Democratic National Convention, needs to be within earshot of delegates, a coalition of civil liberties advocates backed by the ACLU said Monday.
Chain link fencing or chicken wire at the end of the parade route, about 700 feet away from the Pepsi Center under the current plan, would separate demonstrators and protesters from other convention attendees, the Rocky Mountain News reported. The coalition have amended their pending lawsuit against the United States Secret Service and the City and County of Denver, filed in May, saying that the plan could violate the visitors’ First Amendment rights, echoing the corralling and effective silencing of protesters at the 2004 gala in Boston. A judge in that case had ruled the “free speech zones” unconstitutional, but said that the suit was filed too late to order that plans be changed.
“No human voice, or any other sound,” ACLU counsel said in Monday’s amended complaint, “can ever hope to reach a person at the entrance.”
The case will go to trial on July 29.
Preparations for the upcoming convention, for which Denver has been federally granted $50 million, may include military choppers, as seen during a mid-June Department of Justice drill, details of which could not be revealed by the Denver Police Department. Lt. Nathan Potter, a military spokesperson with Special Operations Command, called the exercise “routine preparation for the global war on terrorism.”
Denver Sheriff division chief Marie Kielar also told Colorado Confidential in May that her department is preparing for convention-related arrests to top 1,200. The City and County of Denver will not make publicly available detention plans, such as where those arrested will be held, before the convention. In addition to the May suit, the ACLU has demanded that the City and County make publicly available the procedures it plans to follow in processing those arrested at its downtown jail.
The Monday complaint called not only for a protest zone closer to the Pepsi Center, but also that it large enough to host all demonstrators, and for searches to be conducted only when there is probable cause.
“Simply put, we are going to abide by the Constitution,” Denver city attorney David Fine said Monday.
SOURCE: Raw Story
Raw Story
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The infamous “free speech zone,” set to make a comeback at Denver’s upcoming Democratic National Convention, needs to be within earshot of delegates, a coalition of civil liberties advocates backed by the ACLU said Monday.
Chain link fencing or chicken wire at the end of the parade route, about 700 feet away from the Pepsi Center under the current plan, would separate demonstrators and protesters from other convention attendees, the Rocky Mountain News reported. The coalition have amended their pending lawsuit against the United States Secret Service and the City and County of Denver, filed in May, saying that the plan could violate the visitors’ First Amendment rights, echoing the corralling and effective silencing of protesters at the 2004 gala in Boston. A judge in that case had ruled the “free speech zones” unconstitutional, but said that the suit was filed too late to order that plans be changed.
“No human voice, or any other sound,” ACLU counsel said in Monday’s amended complaint, “can ever hope to reach a person at the entrance.”
The case will go to trial on July 29.
Preparations for the upcoming convention, for which Denver has been federally granted $50 million, may include military choppers, as seen during a mid-June Department of Justice drill, details of which could not be revealed by the Denver Police Department. Lt. Nathan Potter, a military spokesperson with Special Operations Command, called the exercise “routine preparation for the global war on terrorism.”
Denver Sheriff division chief Marie Kielar also told Colorado Confidential in May that her department is preparing for convention-related arrests to top 1,200. The City and County of Denver will not make publicly available detention plans, such as where those arrested will be held, before the convention. In addition to the May suit, the ACLU has demanded that the City and County make publicly available the procedures it plans to follow in processing those arrested at its downtown jail.
The Monday complaint called not only for a protest zone closer to the Pepsi Center, but also that it large enough to host all demonstrators, and for searches to be conducted only when there is probable cause.
“Simply put, we are going to abide by the Constitution,” Denver city attorney David Fine said Monday.
SOURCE: Raw Story
Blood Money Democrats
DAVE LINDORFF
Counterpunch
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Laid-off American workers will be getting temporary extended benefits as the nation sinks into recession, thanks to Congressional Democrats, who cleverly tacked a funding provision onto a bill giving the president all the money he asked for (and then some) to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on out through next June. Veterans of the Iraq War will also be getting tuition benefits equal to the full cost of in-state public college tuition plus $1000 a year for books and supplies.
When workers pick up those unemployment checks from their state Department of Labor offices, though, they should see them as dripping blood. Those checks have been bought with the blood of American men and women in uniform who have been sent over and over into harm’s way in those two countries in misbegotten and criminal adventures that have nothing to do with defending America and everything to do with boosting the profits of oil companies and defense contractors, and with getting Bush re-elected and Republicans elected.
Iraq Vets, too, should not overlook the blood on their VA education benefits checks, because their tuition will be paid by the blood of active-duty comrades still left stranded in battle zones overseas.
It didn’t have to be like this.
For generations, Congress has voted supplemental funding for unemployment benefits to be extended during economic downturns—not always willingly, but always eventually, following enough pressure from workers and the labor movement.
For generations, too, Congress has voted for education benefits for veterans.
This being an election year, passage of a freestanding supplemental benefits bill for unemployment insurance and a restoration of decent education benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans would have been a sure thing. Even Republicans facing the prospect of re-election campaigns would have signed on to both measures by Labor Day and the votes would have been their to override any Bush veto. Neither measure—both important in themselves and badly needed—had to be tied to a war-funding bill.
But Democrats in the House and Senate leadership weren’t really thinking about the plight of the unemployed or the needs of returning veterans in this case. They were, rather, thinking of a way of putting some “progressive” window-dressing on a war-funding bill that they wanted to pass without having to take responsibility for it. Their objective was to push the whole issue of funding the wars out past Election Day, in hopes of not having to discuss it in the coming campaign.
Funding Bush’s and Cheney’s war in Iraq especially has, after all, become a more and more unpopular and difficult affair for Democrats. In this last go-round, fully 141 House Democrats voted against further funding of the war—nearly the same number as voted for it (149). At first, back in mid-May, the measure didn’t even pass, because Republicans cleverly joined with the anti-war Democrats in blocking the measure, forcing Democratic leaders to scramble to round up the votes to pass a bill the second time around.
Americans clearly don’t want the war to continue, and Democrats don’t want to have to face the voters, as every member of the House and a third of the Senate have to do this November, being labeled as war backers. That’s why they come up with these pathetic excuses like, “I’m opposed to the war but we have to support the troops.”
Any sentient being in the country by now knows that most of the long-suffering and abused troops, as polls have shown, think that the best way to support them is to bring them home immediately. A Zogby poll of active-duty troops in Iraq taken in 2006 found that 72% wanted the US out within a year, while one in four wanted all US troops out immediately. Only one in five supported staying “as long as necessary.” (With many of those troops on yet another rotation, in some cases their fifth, those numbers are probably even more in favor of immediate withdrawal today.) Military experts have also written about how all the troops in Iraq could be pulled out safely in as little as two weeks’ time. All the Pentagon would need to do is start running a constant convoy of trucks south to Kuwait, carrying troops and weapons systems.
They could leave the porta-potties, the McDonalds stands, the bowling alleys, the gyms and the barracks to the Iraqis and then blow up whatever they didn’t want falling into the wrong hands. It would be easy and fast. There’s no need for Obama’s proposed 16-month staged withdrawal, which would just mean more unnecessary deaths and killings.
Democrats in Congress know all this, but congenitally spineless and devoid of principle, they’re afraid if they don’t fund the war they could be accused by Republicans of being “soft” on defense—as though the Iraq War had anything at all to do with protecting America.
And so they have come up with this shameless ruse of attaching a $95-billion domestic spending package, including unemployment funding measure and a veterans’ education benefits measure, to a $162-billion atrocity—a measure that assures more death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more dead and maimed American military personnel. They’re pretending that they “pulled one over” on Bush by forcing him to sign an unemployment extension bill and a veterans’ bill, when they know Republicans would have forced him to sign those anyway, later in the summer.
The real joke is on the American people, and on those very workers and veterans who will be receiving the unemployment checks and tuition reimbursements funded as a result of this duplicitous tactic.
The $162 billion that Congress has voted for the continuation of the two pointless and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the money already allocated for the so-called “War on Terror,” is all borrowed, and is a major contributor to the collapse of the dollar and to the resulting soaring of the price of oil, electricity and imported goods. It is thus a major contributor to the credit crisis and the collapse in the housing market that has pushed the nation into what may be the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
Furthermore, the blood-money unemployment and tuition checks bought through his gutless subterfuge by House and Senate Democrats will be pissed away in no time on higher gas prices spent by workers on desperate job searches, or on long commutes to distant jobs or commutes if they are lucky enough to find them. It will be pissed away too for veteran/students on their commutes to college, and on higher heating bills for their families at home.
Equally important, the $160 billion wasted in Iraq, along with the half trillion dollars being wasted every year on military spending for a military colossus that encircles the globe for no good purpose other than intimidation of other nations, assures that those Democrats who control Congress can do nothing of consequence to shore up retirement funds, to develop a national health program, to improve our dismal school system, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, or to develop alternative, non-polluting energy sources that could combat global warming.
The Democratic Congress has shown itself to be worse than useless. It is part of the problem.
That includes Sen. Barack Obama, who like Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, signed onto this contemptible funding bill.
SOURCE: Counterpunch
Counterpunch
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Laid-off American workers will be getting temporary extended benefits as the nation sinks into recession, thanks to Congressional Democrats, who cleverly tacked a funding provision onto a bill giving the president all the money he asked for (and then some) to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on out through next June. Veterans of the Iraq War will also be getting tuition benefits equal to the full cost of in-state public college tuition plus $1000 a year for books and supplies.
When workers pick up those unemployment checks from their state Department of Labor offices, though, they should see them as dripping blood. Those checks have been bought with the blood of American men and women in uniform who have been sent over and over into harm’s way in those two countries in misbegotten and criminal adventures that have nothing to do with defending America and everything to do with boosting the profits of oil companies and defense contractors, and with getting Bush re-elected and Republicans elected.
Iraq Vets, too, should not overlook the blood on their VA education benefits checks, because their tuition will be paid by the blood of active-duty comrades still left stranded in battle zones overseas.
It didn’t have to be like this.
For generations, Congress has voted supplemental funding for unemployment benefits to be extended during economic downturns—not always willingly, but always eventually, following enough pressure from workers and the labor movement.
For generations, too, Congress has voted for education benefits for veterans.
This being an election year, passage of a freestanding supplemental benefits bill for unemployment insurance and a restoration of decent education benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans would have been a sure thing. Even Republicans facing the prospect of re-election campaigns would have signed on to both measures by Labor Day and the votes would have been their to override any Bush veto. Neither measure—both important in themselves and badly needed—had to be tied to a war-funding bill.
But Democrats in the House and Senate leadership weren’t really thinking about the plight of the unemployed or the needs of returning veterans in this case. They were, rather, thinking of a way of putting some “progressive” window-dressing on a war-funding bill that they wanted to pass without having to take responsibility for it. Their objective was to push the whole issue of funding the wars out past Election Day, in hopes of not having to discuss it in the coming campaign.
Funding Bush’s and Cheney’s war in Iraq especially has, after all, become a more and more unpopular and difficult affair for Democrats. In this last go-round, fully 141 House Democrats voted against further funding of the war—nearly the same number as voted for it (149). At first, back in mid-May, the measure didn’t even pass, because Republicans cleverly joined with the anti-war Democrats in blocking the measure, forcing Democratic leaders to scramble to round up the votes to pass a bill the second time around.
Americans clearly don’t want the war to continue, and Democrats don’t want to have to face the voters, as every member of the House and a third of the Senate have to do this November, being labeled as war backers. That’s why they come up with these pathetic excuses like, “I’m opposed to the war but we have to support the troops.”
Any sentient being in the country by now knows that most of the long-suffering and abused troops, as polls have shown, think that the best way to support them is to bring them home immediately. A Zogby poll of active-duty troops in Iraq taken in 2006 found that 72% wanted the US out within a year, while one in four wanted all US troops out immediately. Only one in five supported staying “as long as necessary.” (With many of those troops on yet another rotation, in some cases their fifth, those numbers are probably even more in favor of immediate withdrawal today.) Military experts have also written about how all the troops in Iraq could be pulled out safely in as little as two weeks’ time. All the Pentagon would need to do is start running a constant convoy of trucks south to Kuwait, carrying troops and weapons systems.
They could leave the porta-potties, the McDonalds stands, the bowling alleys, the gyms and the barracks to the Iraqis and then blow up whatever they didn’t want falling into the wrong hands. It would be easy and fast. There’s no need for Obama’s proposed 16-month staged withdrawal, which would just mean more unnecessary deaths and killings.
Democrats in Congress know all this, but congenitally spineless and devoid of principle, they’re afraid if they don’t fund the war they could be accused by Republicans of being “soft” on defense—as though the Iraq War had anything at all to do with protecting America.
And so they have come up with this shameless ruse of attaching a $95-billion domestic spending package, including unemployment funding measure and a veterans’ education benefits measure, to a $162-billion atrocity—a measure that assures more death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more dead and maimed American military personnel. They’re pretending that they “pulled one over” on Bush by forcing him to sign an unemployment extension bill and a veterans’ bill, when they know Republicans would have forced him to sign those anyway, later in the summer.
The real joke is on the American people, and on those very workers and veterans who will be receiving the unemployment checks and tuition reimbursements funded as a result of this duplicitous tactic.
The $162 billion that Congress has voted for the continuation of the two pointless and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the money already allocated for the so-called “War on Terror,” is all borrowed, and is a major contributor to the collapse of the dollar and to the resulting soaring of the price of oil, electricity and imported goods. It is thus a major contributor to the credit crisis and the collapse in the housing market that has pushed the nation into what may be the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
Furthermore, the blood-money unemployment and tuition checks bought through his gutless subterfuge by House and Senate Democrats will be pissed away in no time on higher gas prices spent by workers on desperate job searches, or on long commutes to distant jobs or commutes if they are lucky enough to find them. It will be pissed away too for veteran/students on their commutes to college, and on higher heating bills for their families at home.
Equally important, the $160 billion wasted in Iraq, along with the half trillion dollars being wasted every year on military spending for a military colossus that encircles the globe for no good purpose other than intimidation of other nations, assures that those Democrats who control Congress can do nothing of consequence to shore up retirement funds, to develop a national health program, to improve our dismal school system, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, or to develop alternative, non-polluting energy sources that could combat global warming.
The Democratic Congress has shown itself to be worse than useless. It is part of the problem.
That includes Sen. Barack Obama, who like Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, signed onto this contemptible funding bill.
SOURCE: Counterpunch
TSA says ‘checkpoint friendly’ laptop bags on the way
Austin Modine
The Register
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
US airline travelers may have an opportunity to skip one particular round of manhandling by Transportation Security Administration agents this year.
The agency says passengers using new specially designed “checkpoint friendly” laptop bags won’t need to remove their portable from its case when passing through x-ray inspection.
TSA director Kip Hawley told The New York Times the agency will accept the new cases without the need for additional disrobement as soon as they come to market.
That should be late September or early October, according to two of the leading luggage brands, Pathfinder and Targus.
According to the TSA, travelers must place their laptops into a separate inspection tray because the case is often so stuffed with power cords and accessories that inspectors can’t see inside with an x-ray to the computer.
The new bags will either have a fold-down section or a separate sleeve for easier scanner inspection. Hawley told The Times the agency has been working with luggage manufacturers to develop the new designs.
Although the bags will supposedly get a pass at inspection points, the TSA said it's not formally certifying any bag designs because of the red tape required for an official government nod.
Hawley claims, however, there won't be any confusion about what passes or not because security officers will be well informed about them.
Hawley said luggage manufactures will be encouraged to properly advertise their wares as "checkpoint friendly."
Now if only they can come up with human-sized bags.
SOURCE: The Register
The Register
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
US airline travelers may have an opportunity to skip one particular round of manhandling by Transportation Security Administration agents this year.
The agency says passengers using new specially designed “checkpoint friendly” laptop bags won’t need to remove their portable from its case when passing through x-ray inspection.
TSA director Kip Hawley told The New York Times the agency will accept the new cases without the need for additional disrobement as soon as they come to market.
That should be late September or early October, according to two of the leading luggage brands, Pathfinder and Targus.
According to the TSA, travelers must place their laptops into a separate inspection tray because the case is often so stuffed with power cords and accessories that inspectors can’t see inside with an x-ray to the computer.
The new bags will either have a fold-down section or a separate sleeve for easier scanner inspection. Hawley told The Times the agency has been working with luggage manufacturers to develop the new designs.
Although the bags will supposedly get a pass at inspection points, the TSA said it's not formally certifying any bag designs because of the red tape required for an official government nod.
Hawley claims, however, there won't be any confusion about what passes or not because security officers will be well informed about them.
Hawley said luggage manufactures will be encouraged to properly advertise their wares as "checkpoint friendly."
Now if only they can come up with human-sized bags.
SOURCE: The Register
Provocateurs Planning Violence At DNC
TruthAlliance.net
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
We Are Change Colorado has now become aware that another group, Unconventional Action, is planning on being violent at the DNC protests. Violence is a broad term. Some argue that property damage is violent, others might tell you it sends a message. To most of the Truth Alliance and We Are Change Colorado activists, there is no message to property damage and is in fact, a form of violent behavior. In the eyes of the law, property damage is completely, without debate, illegal.
To make the long story short, Unconventional Action seems to be open about their plans for the DNC. Their website, which can be found here: http://www.unconventionalaction.org/ has one link which is pretty disturbing.
Under the link, “The Strategies: How We Win,” a section titled: Denver: Disrupt the DNC, clearly outlines for “Anarchists and Anti-Authoritarians” to “join (them) in Denver, Colorado, August 24th-28th as (they) engage in coordinated Direct Actions against the Democratic National Convention, its corporate sponsors, and the military/police occupation of public space.”
Direct Action is further defined on their website as getting directly involved rather than relying on a representative to do the framework. Their website goes on to further state that they are:
“currently organizing meetings, propaganda, and consultas in our communities and encourage those in other regions to do the same.
(They) aim to organize militant direct action that manifests opposition to both the Democratic and Republican Parties. As anti-authoritarians, (They) oppose so-called representational politics, but even those who still believe in it must understand that we can only have leverage over our rulers by showing our own power, that we must back our demands by demonstrating that we can interfere with their business as effectively as they interfere with our lives”
This can all be found on their website at the top link titled, What Is Unconventional Action?
Unconventional Action was attending the Alliance for Real Democracy meeting which is a new group that has formed in light of the information that was presented here on Truth Alliance about Re-Create 68. Many members of Re-Create 68 have broken away from the group and saw that the intentions of R-68’s demonstrations held no message and potentially could get protesters arrested, agitated and/or violent, aside from the fact that Truth Alliance got direct verbal confirmation that there is violence in the planning of some of the demonstrations. Read both of the articles of information about Re-Create 68 at these links:
ReCreate 68 Starting to Look Like a Threat to Peaceful Activist Groups
More Information Develops on ReCreate 68 and Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement
Alliance for Real Democracy is made up of Ex-ReCreate 68 members who wanted to make clear that they are not planning violent demonstrations at the DNC. While clearly admitting that they needed to separate themselves from R-68, they banned We Are Change from being one of the groups that would be allowed in “Alliance for Real Democracy.” The reason for this is still unclear.
Unconventional Action is attending and apart of Alliance for Real Democracy. A member of Alliance for Real Democracy contacted Truth Alliance and described that Unconventional Action is planning property damage as their attempt to send a message. This is not just illegal but something that will get all of the activists labeled by the police as violent. This is exactly what we DO NOT want.
We want peaceful demonstrations with a fair, united presence. Alliance for Real Democracy states on their website found here, http://realdemocracy2008.org/, that they are “a nonviolent, transparent coalition of progressive and radical groups that will organize global justice and peace events and protests at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008.”
First of all, why have they banned We Are Change when they have invited so many other groups to be apart of this “umbrella” group? Second, the battle of the New World Order is that there is a two party, divide and conquer, agenda that has been used against the people to get different puppets into the White House to push the same exact agendas? Obama has recently stated that he supports war with Iran, among many things, his support for the FISA bill and spying on Americans. After attending the Bilderberg meeting, it seems Obama sold out quick. McCain is a joke too. McCain not only supports war with Iran but wants to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years! McCain, when asked about the price of oil, stated that he really didn’t think it mattered. McCain is clearly one of the worst people to even enter politics and Obama seems to be selling out just as quick.
Aren’t these the real issues? The economy, the war, the falling dollar, false flag terrorism and real terrorism (which has been proven that some terrorist groups are trained, protected, financed and supported by the US Government), the Federal Reserve System, the still unresolved assassination of President John Kennedy, the continued Iran-Contra network which is still operating today, the completely illegal “drug war,” the prison system, 9/11 investigations, and so many more which seem to many as the real issues, since they single handedly represent the fact that there is a completely totalitarian system in place which uses the media to propagate its lies and the left/right paradigm to conquer the system in place. It seems that people want others to come forward as the “savior” to fix everything and get behind a party of a candidate and that is not, has not, and will not be acceptable anymore.
The citizens of the United States have to take back the government and hold politicians accountable for their actions and quit giving “Free Rides” to corrupt businesses, corporations, politicians and others if they want to see some REAL change.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
We Are Change Colorado has now become aware that another group, Unconventional Action, is planning on being violent at the DNC protests. Violence is a broad term. Some argue that property damage is violent, others might tell you it sends a message. To most of the Truth Alliance and We Are Change Colorado activists, there is no message to property damage and is in fact, a form of violent behavior. In the eyes of the law, property damage is completely, without debate, illegal.
To make the long story short, Unconventional Action seems to be open about their plans for the DNC. Their website, which can be found here: http://www.unconventionalaction.org/ has one link which is pretty disturbing.
Under the link, “The Strategies: How We Win,” a section titled: Denver: Disrupt the DNC, clearly outlines for “Anarchists and Anti-Authoritarians” to “join (them) in Denver, Colorado, August 24th-28th as (they) engage in coordinated Direct Actions against the Democratic National Convention, its corporate sponsors, and the military/police occupation of public space.”
Direct Action is further defined on their website as getting directly involved rather than relying on a representative to do the framework. Their website goes on to further state that they are:
“currently organizing meetings, propaganda, and consultas in our communities and encourage those in other regions to do the same.
(They) aim to organize militant direct action that manifests opposition to both the Democratic and Republican Parties. As anti-authoritarians, (They) oppose so-called representational politics, but even those who still believe in it must understand that we can only have leverage over our rulers by showing our own power, that we must back our demands by demonstrating that we can interfere with their business as effectively as they interfere with our lives”
This can all be found on their website at the top link titled, What Is Unconventional Action?
Unconventional Action was attending the Alliance for Real Democracy meeting which is a new group that has formed in light of the information that was presented here on Truth Alliance about Re-Create 68. Many members of Re-Create 68 have broken away from the group and saw that the intentions of R-68’s demonstrations held no message and potentially could get protesters arrested, agitated and/or violent, aside from the fact that Truth Alliance got direct verbal confirmation that there is violence in the planning of some of the demonstrations. Read both of the articles of information about Re-Create 68 at these links:
ReCreate 68 Starting to Look Like a Threat to Peaceful Activist Groups
More Information Develops on ReCreate 68 and Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement
Alliance for Real Democracy is made up of Ex-ReCreate 68 members who wanted to make clear that they are not planning violent demonstrations at the DNC. While clearly admitting that they needed to separate themselves from R-68, they banned We Are Change from being one of the groups that would be allowed in “Alliance for Real Democracy.” The reason for this is still unclear.
Unconventional Action is attending and apart of Alliance for Real Democracy. A member of Alliance for Real Democracy contacted Truth Alliance and described that Unconventional Action is planning property damage as their attempt to send a message. This is not just illegal but something that will get all of the activists labeled by the police as violent. This is exactly what we DO NOT want.
We want peaceful demonstrations with a fair, united presence. Alliance for Real Democracy states on their website found here, http://realdemocracy2008.org/, that they are “a nonviolent, transparent coalition of progressive and radical groups that will organize global justice and peace events and protests at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008.”
First of all, why have they banned We Are Change when they have invited so many other groups to be apart of this “umbrella” group? Second, the battle of the New World Order is that there is a two party, divide and conquer, agenda that has been used against the people to get different puppets into the White House to push the same exact agendas? Obama has recently stated that he supports war with Iran, among many things, his support for the FISA bill and spying on Americans. After attending the Bilderberg meeting, it seems Obama sold out quick. McCain is a joke too. McCain not only supports war with Iran but wants to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years! McCain, when asked about the price of oil, stated that he really didn’t think it mattered. McCain is clearly one of the worst people to even enter politics and Obama seems to be selling out just as quick.
Aren’t these the real issues? The economy, the war, the falling dollar, false flag terrorism and real terrorism (which has been proven that some terrorist groups are trained, protected, financed and supported by the US Government), the Federal Reserve System, the still unresolved assassination of President John Kennedy, the continued Iran-Contra network which is still operating today, the completely illegal “drug war,” the prison system, 9/11 investigations, and so many more which seem to many as the real issues, since they single handedly represent the fact that there is a completely totalitarian system in place which uses the media to propagate its lies and the left/right paradigm to conquer the system in place. It seems that people want others to come forward as the “savior” to fix everything and get behind a party of a candidate and that is not, has not, and will not be acceptable anymore.
The citizens of the United States have to take back the government and hold politicians accountable for their actions and quit giving “Free Rides” to corrupt businesses, corporations, politicians and others if they want to see some REAL change.
False Flag?
As if this wasn’t enough to report on, it seems the Denver Office of Emergency Management is planning for mass evacuations of the city during the week of the DNC. Does this mean that there is intel on a threat or that a flase flag is coming? Perhaps this is evidence of just a mere excersize to plan for the worse. You decide.
A member of We Are Change Colorado overheard a conversation by some people who worked for the Office of Emergency Management of Denver at a Denver restaurant where they work in waiting tables. They discussed multiple detention facilities that had already been acquired as well as others that were still in the process of trying to be obtained. Some facilities mentioned were “already a done deal” were “DPS (Denver Public Schools) facilities for Detention and because of their use as viable LZ’s” (which we are assuming means landing zones). They also stated that DPS knew of some of these facilities and some they didn’t know about” It was a noisy environment and the We Are Change Colorado member may have not heard everything in their conversation correctly. They also discussed the “FBI securing Coors Field for “their assets”" as well as the use of Invesco Field and the Denver Coliseum as ” Fully Equiped Decon facilities” (Again, we are assuming that this means decontamination). One said something to the effect of “these 3 decon facilities would not be able to support the number of people in Denver but in a lot of circumstances most die before they can reach a decon facility anyway so the numbers who actually make it should not be to many.”
The DNC convention was specifically mentioned several times and the Change Colorado member is 100% confident that is what all of these subjects pertained to. They discussed logistics of both getting emergency vehicles into the city in an emergency as well as the logistics of “evacuating the entire downtown metro area of Denver and the difficulties of such.” During this conversation with members who wore shirt identifying that they were members of Denver’s Office of Emergency Management, they discussed that approximately 20,000 people would die from the event of this “pandemic biological attack.”
Denver recently held a pandemic drill where vaccinations were offered at sites around the city. The drills were set up to specifically treat 20,000 victims. Could this be a coincidence?
SOURCE: TruthAlliance.net
Hersh: Cheney ‘Privately’ Says He Prefers U.S. — Not Israel — Strike Iran Because ‘We’ll Get Blamed Anyway’
Think Progress
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Earlier this week, in an article called “Preparing the Battlefield,” the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh reported that late last year, “Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran.” On MSNBC today, Andrea Mitchell asked Hersh if the U.S. was “planning military action” against Iran or “planning to support Israeli military action?”
“Oh, you know, how the hell do I know,” replied Hersh. “What I can tell you is we’re loaded for bear. And we’ve been looking at it for three years.” He then said that Vice President Dick Cheney “privately” is against an Israeli attack because the U.S. will “be blamed anyway”:
HERSH: If Israel goes — I’ll tell you what Cheney’s says privately, and whether or not you, how I know this is, — what he says privately is, “we can’t let Israel go because, first of all, they don’t have the firepower, we do. We have much more firepower. And secondly, if they go, we’ll be blamed anyway.”
Asked by Mitchell if that meant Cheney wanted the U.S. involved, Hersh replied, “there you go.” Watch it:
Though Hersh says Cheney only conveys this view “privately,” he has made a similar argument at least once before in public. On Jan. 20, 2005, Cheney went on the “Imus in the Morning” show and discussed another Hersh article about U.S. war posture towards Iran.
“Why don’t we make Israel do it?” asked Imus. “We don’t want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it,” replied Cheney. But, he said, “Israel might do it without being asked,” leaving the world to clean up “the diplomatic mess afterwards”:
IMUS: Why don’t we make Israel do it?
CHENEY: Well, one of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.
Asked by Mitchell if it was “possible this would happen before the election,” Hersh said he didn’t think so, but that what he thinks “means nothing” because “this could happen tomorrow, the president could have a bad hair day and say, ‘to hell with it, let’s go.’”
SOURCE: Think Progress
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Earlier this week, in an article called “Preparing the Battlefield,” the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh reported that late last year, “Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran.” On MSNBC today, Andrea Mitchell asked Hersh if the U.S. was “planning military action” against Iran or “planning to support Israeli military action?”
“Oh, you know, how the hell do I know,” replied Hersh. “What I can tell you is we’re loaded for bear. And we’ve been looking at it for three years.” He then said that Vice President Dick Cheney “privately” is against an Israeli attack because the U.S. will “be blamed anyway”:
HERSH: If Israel goes — I’ll tell you what Cheney’s says privately, and whether or not you, how I know this is, — what he says privately is, “we can’t let Israel go because, first of all, they don’t have the firepower, we do. We have much more firepower. And secondly, if they go, we’ll be blamed anyway.”
Asked by Mitchell if that meant Cheney wanted the U.S. involved, Hersh replied, “there you go.” Watch it:
Though Hersh says Cheney only conveys this view “privately,” he has made a similar argument at least once before in public. On Jan. 20, 2005, Cheney went on the “Imus in the Morning” show and discussed another Hersh article about U.S. war posture towards Iran.
“Why don’t we make Israel do it?” asked Imus. “We don’t want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it,” replied Cheney. But, he said, “Israel might do it without being asked,” leaving the world to clean up “the diplomatic mess afterwards”:
IMUS: Why don’t we make Israel do it?
CHENEY: Well, one of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.
Asked by Mitchell if it was “possible this would happen before the election,” Hersh said he didn’t think so, but that what he thinks “means nothing” because “this could happen tomorrow, the president could have a bad hair day and say, ‘to hell with it, let’s go.’”
SOURCE: Think Progress
We, the Salt of the Earth, Take Precedence
Paul Craig Roberts
Lew Rockwell.com
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Which country is the rogue nation? Iraq? Iran? Or the United States? Syndicated columnist Charley Reese asks this question in a recently published article.
Reese notes that it is the US that routinely commits “acts of aggression around the globe.” The US government has no qualms about dropping bombs on civilians whether they be in Serbia, the Middle East, or Africa. It is all in a good cause – our cause.
This slaughtering of foreigners doesn’t seem to bother the American public. Americans take it for granted that Americans are superior and that American purposes, whatever they be, take precedence over the rights of other people to life and to a political existence independent of American hegemony.
The Bush regime has come up with a preemption doctrine that justifies attacking a country in order to prevent the country from possibly becoming a future threat to the US. “Threat” is broadly defined. It appears to mean the ability to withstand the imposition of US hegemony.
This insane doctrine justifies attacking China and Russia, a direction in which the Republican presidential candidate John McCain seems to lean.
The callousness of Americans toward the lives of other peoples is stunning. How many Christian churches ask God’s forgiveness for having been rushed into an error that has killed, maimed, and displaced a quarter of the Iraqi population?
How many Christian churches ask God to give better guidance to our government so that it does not repeat the error and crime by attacking Iran?
The indifference of Americans to others flows from “American exceptionalism,” the belief that Americans are graced with a special mission to impose their virtue on the rest of the world. Like the French revolutionaries, Americans don’t seem to care how many people they kill in the process of spreading their exceptionalism.
American exceptionalism has swelled Americans’ heads, filling them with hubris and self-righteousness and making Americans believe that they are the salt of the earth.
Three recent books are good antidotes for this unjustified self-esteem. One is Patrick J. Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Another is After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation by Giles MacDonogh, and a third is John Pilger’s Freedom Next Time.
Buchanan’s latest book is by far his best. It is spell-binding from his opening sentence: “All about us we can see clearly now that the West is passing away.” As the pages turn, the comfortable myths, produced by history written by the victors, are swept aside. The veil is lifted to reveal the true faces of British and American exceptionalism: stupidity and deceit.
Buchanan’s strength is that he lets the story be told by Britain’s greatest 20th century historians and the memoirs of the participants in the events that destroyed the West’s dominance and moral character. Buchanan’s contribution is to assemble the collective judgment of a hundred historians.
As I read the tale, it is a story of hubris destroying judgment and substituting in its place blunder and miscalculation. Both world wars began when England, for no sound or sensible reason, declared war on Germany. Winston Churchill was a prime instigator of both wars. He seems to have been a person who needed a war stage in order to be a “great man.”
The American President Woodrow Wilson shares responsibility with Britain and France for the Versailles Treaty, which dismembered Germany, stripping her of territory and putting millions of Germans under foreign rule, and imposed reparations that Britain’s greatest economist, John Maynard Keynes, correctly predicted to be unrealistic. All of this was done in violation of assurances given to Germany that there would be no reparations or boundary changes. Once Germany surrendered, the assurances were withdrawn, and a starvation blockade forced
German submission to the new harsh terms.
Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together. He was succeeding without war until Churchill provoked Chamberlain into an insane act. Danzig was 95 percent German. It had been given to Poland by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler was negotiating its return and offered in exchange a guarantee of Poland’s frontiers. The Polish colonels, assessing the relative strengths of Poland and Germany, understood that a deal was better than a war. But suddenly, the British Prime Minister issued Poland a guarantee of its existing territory, including Danzig, whose inhabitants wished to return to Germany.
Buchanan produces one historian after another to testify that British miscalculations and blunders, culminating in Chamberlain’s worthless and provocative “guarantee” to Poland, brought the West into a war that Hitler did not want, a war that destroyed the British Empire and left Britain a dependency of America, a war that delivered Poland, a chunk of Germany, all of Eastern Europe, and the Baltic states to Joseph Stalin, a war that left the Western allies with a 45-year cold war against the nuclear-armed Soviet Union.
People resist the shattering of their illusions, and many are angry with Buchanan for assembling the facts of the case that distinguished historians have provided.
Churchill admirers are outraged that their hero is revealed as the first war criminal of World War II. It was Churchill who initiated the policy of terror bombing civilians in non-combatant areas. Buchanan quotes B.H. Liddell Hart: “When Mr. Churchill came into power, one of the first decisions of his government was to extend bombing to the non-combatant area.”
In holding Churchill to account, Buchanan makes no apologies for Hitler, but the ease with which Churchill set aside moral considerations is discomforting.
Buchanan documents that Churchill’s plan was to destroy 50% of German homes. Churchill also had plans for using chemical and biological warfare against German civilians. In 2001 the Glasgow Sunday Herald reported Churchill’s plan to drop five million anthrax cakes onto German pastures in order to poison the cattle and through them the people. Churchill instructed the RAF to consider drenching “the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany” with poison gas “in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention.”
“It is absurd to consider morality on this topic,” the great man declared.
Paul Johnson, a favorite historian of conservatives, notes that Churchill’s policy of terror bombing civilians was “approved in cabinet, endorsed by parliament and, so far as can be judged, enthusiastically backed by the bulk of the British people.” Thus, the terror bombing of civilians, which “marked a critical stage in the moral declension of humanity in our times,” fulfilled “all the conditions of the process of consent in a democracy under law.”
British historian F.J.P. Veale concluded that Churchill’s policy of indiscriminate bombing of civilians caused an unprecedented “reversion to primary and total warfare” associated with “Sennacherib, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane.”
The Americans were quick to follow Churchill’s lead. General Curtis LeMay boasted of his raid on Tokyo: “We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that night of March 9–10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.”
MacDonogh’s book, After the Reich, dispels the comfortable myth of generous allied treatment of defeated Germany. Having discarded all moral scruples, the allies fell upon the vanquished country with brutal occupation. Hundreds of thousands of women raped; hundreds of thousands of Germans died in deportations; a million German prisoners of war died in captivity.
MacDonogh calculates that 2.5 million Germans died between the liberation of Vienna and the Berlin airlift.
Nigel Jones writes in the conservative London Sunday Telegraph: “MacDonogh has told a very inconvenient truth,” a story long “cloaked in silence since telling it suited no one.”
The hypocrisy of the Nuremberg trials is that the victors were also guilty of crimes for which the vanquished were punished. The purpose of the trials was to demonize the defeated in order to divert attention from the allies’ own war crimes. The trials had little to do with justice.
In Freedom Next Time, Pilger shows the complete self-absorption of American, British and Israeli governments whose policies are unimpeded by any moral principle.
Pilger documents the demise of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia. The Americans wanted Diego Garcia for an air base, so the British packed up the 2,000 residents, people with British passports under British protection, and deported them to Mauritius, one thousand miles away.
To cover up its crime against humanity, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office created the fiction that the inhabitants, which had been living in the archipelago for two or three centuries, were “a floating population.” This fiction, wrote a legal adviser, bolsters “our arguments that the territory has no indigenous or settled population.”
Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart conspired to mislead the UN about the deported islanders by, in Stewart’s words, ” presenting any move as a change of employment for contract workers – rather than as a population resettlement.”
Pilger interviewed some of the displaced persons, but emotional blocs will shield patriotic Americans and British from the uncomfortable facts. Rational skeptics can find a second documented account of the Anglo-American rape of Diego Garcia online. An entire people were swept away.
Two thousand people were in the way of an American purpose – an air base – so we had our British dependency deport them.
Several million Palestinians are in Israel’s way. Pilger’s documented account of Israel’s crushing of the Palestinians shows that our “democratic ally” in the Middle East is capable of any evil and has no remorse or mercy. Israel is an apt student of the British and American empires’ attitudes toward lesser beings. They simply don’t count.
Those who are the salt of the earth take precedence over everything.
SOURCE: Lew Rockwell.com
Lew Rockwell.com
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Which country is the rogue nation? Iraq? Iran? Or the United States? Syndicated columnist Charley Reese asks this question in a recently published article.
Reese notes that it is the US that routinely commits “acts of aggression around the globe.” The US government has no qualms about dropping bombs on civilians whether they be in Serbia, the Middle East, or Africa. It is all in a good cause – our cause.
This slaughtering of foreigners doesn’t seem to bother the American public. Americans take it for granted that Americans are superior and that American purposes, whatever they be, take precedence over the rights of other people to life and to a political existence independent of American hegemony.
The Bush regime has come up with a preemption doctrine that justifies attacking a country in order to prevent the country from possibly becoming a future threat to the US. “Threat” is broadly defined. It appears to mean the ability to withstand the imposition of US hegemony.
This insane doctrine justifies attacking China and Russia, a direction in which the Republican presidential candidate John McCain seems to lean.
The callousness of Americans toward the lives of other peoples is stunning. How many Christian churches ask God’s forgiveness for having been rushed into an error that has killed, maimed, and displaced a quarter of the Iraqi population?
How many Christian churches ask God to give better guidance to our government so that it does not repeat the error and crime by attacking Iran?
The indifference of Americans to others flows from “American exceptionalism,” the belief that Americans are graced with a special mission to impose their virtue on the rest of the world. Like the French revolutionaries, Americans don’t seem to care how many people they kill in the process of spreading their exceptionalism.
American exceptionalism has swelled Americans’ heads, filling them with hubris and self-righteousness and making Americans believe that they are the salt of the earth.
Three recent books are good antidotes for this unjustified self-esteem. One is Patrick J. Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Another is After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation by Giles MacDonogh, and a third is John Pilger’s Freedom Next Time.
Buchanan’s latest book is by far his best. It is spell-binding from his opening sentence: “All about us we can see clearly now that the West is passing away.” As the pages turn, the comfortable myths, produced by history written by the victors, are swept aside. The veil is lifted to reveal the true faces of British and American exceptionalism: stupidity and deceit.
Buchanan’s strength is that he lets the story be told by Britain’s greatest 20th century historians and the memoirs of the participants in the events that destroyed the West’s dominance and moral character. Buchanan’s contribution is to assemble the collective judgment of a hundred historians.
As I read the tale, it is a story of hubris destroying judgment and substituting in its place blunder and miscalculation. Both world wars began when England, for no sound or sensible reason, declared war on Germany. Winston Churchill was a prime instigator of both wars. He seems to have been a person who needed a war stage in order to be a “great man.”
The American President Woodrow Wilson shares responsibility with Britain and France for the Versailles Treaty, which dismembered Germany, stripping her of territory and putting millions of Germans under foreign rule, and imposed reparations that Britain’s greatest economist, John Maynard Keynes, correctly predicted to be unrealistic. All of this was done in violation of assurances given to Germany that there would be no reparations or boundary changes. Once Germany surrendered, the assurances were withdrawn, and a starvation blockade forced
German submission to the new harsh terms.
Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together. He was succeeding without war until Churchill provoked Chamberlain into an insane act. Danzig was 95 percent German. It had been given to Poland by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler was negotiating its return and offered in exchange a guarantee of Poland’s frontiers. The Polish colonels, assessing the relative strengths of Poland and Germany, understood that a deal was better than a war. But suddenly, the British Prime Minister issued Poland a guarantee of its existing territory, including Danzig, whose inhabitants wished to return to Germany.
Buchanan produces one historian after another to testify that British miscalculations and blunders, culminating in Chamberlain’s worthless and provocative “guarantee” to Poland, brought the West into a war that Hitler did not want, a war that destroyed the British Empire and left Britain a dependency of America, a war that delivered Poland, a chunk of Germany, all of Eastern Europe, and the Baltic states to Joseph Stalin, a war that left the Western allies with a 45-year cold war against the nuclear-armed Soviet Union.
People resist the shattering of their illusions, and many are angry with Buchanan for assembling the facts of the case that distinguished historians have provided.
Churchill admirers are outraged that their hero is revealed as the first war criminal of World War II. It was Churchill who initiated the policy of terror bombing civilians in non-combatant areas. Buchanan quotes B.H. Liddell Hart: “When Mr. Churchill came into power, one of the first decisions of his government was to extend bombing to the non-combatant area.”
In holding Churchill to account, Buchanan makes no apologies for Hitler, but the ease with which Churchill set aside moral considerations is discomforting.
Buchanan documents that Churchill’s plan was to destroy 50% of German homes. Churchill also had plans for using chemical and biological warfare against German civilians. In 2001 the Glasgow Sunday Herald reported Churchill’s plan to drop five million anthrax cakes onto German pastures in order to poison the cattle and through them the people. Churchill instructed the RAF to consider drenching “the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany” with poison gas “in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention.”
“It is absurd to consider morality on this topic,” the great man declared.
Paul Johnson, a favorite historian of conservatives, notes that Churchill’s policy of terror bombing civilians was “approved in cabinet, endorsed by parliament and, so far as can be judged, enthusiastically backed by the bulk of the British people.” Thus, the terror bombing of civilians, which “marked a critical stage in the moral declension of humanity in our times,” fulfilled “all the conditions of the process of consent in a democracy under law.”
British historian F.J.P. Veale concluded that Churchill’s policy of indiscriminate bombing of civilians caused an unprecedented “reversion to primary and total warfare” associated with “Sennacherib, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane.”
The Americans were quick to follow Churchill’s lead. General Curtis LeMay boasted of his raid on Tokyo: “We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that night of March 9–10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.”
MacDonogh’s book, After the Reich, dispels the comfortable myth of generous allied treatment of defeated Germany. Having discarded all moral scruples, the allies fell upon the vanquished country with brutal occupation. Hundreds of thousands of women raped; hundreds of thousands of Germans died in deportations; a million German prisoners of war died in captivity.
MacDonogh calculates that 2.5 million Germans died between the liberation of Vienna and the Berlin airlift.
Nigel Jones writes in the conservative London Sunday Telegraph: “MacDonogh has told a very inconvenient truth,” a story long “cloaked in silence since telling it suited no one.”
The hypocrisy of the Nuremberg trials is that the victors were also guilty of crimes for which the vanquished were punished. The purpose of the trials was to demonize the defeated in order to divert attention from the allies’ own war crimes. The trials had little to do with justice.
In Freedom Next Time, Pilger shows the complete self-absorption of American, British and Israeli governments whose policies are unimpeded by any moral principle.
Pilger documents the demise of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia. The Americans wanted Diego Garcia for an air base, so the British packed up the 2,000 residents, people with British passports under British protection, and deported them to Mauritius, one thousand miles away.
To cover up its crime against humanity, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office created the fiction that the inhabitants, which had been living in the archipelago for two or three centuries, were “a floating population.” This fiction, wrote a legal adviser, bolsters “our arguments that the territory has no indigenous or settled population.”
Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart conspired to mislead the UN about the deported islanders by, in Stewart’s words, ” presenting any move as a change of employment for contract workers – rather than as a population resettlement.”
Pilger interviewed some of the displaced persons, but emotional blocs will shield patriotic Americans and British from the uncomfortable facts. Rational skeptics can find a second documented account of the Anglo-American rape of Diego Garcia online. An entire people were swept away.
Two thousand people were in the way of an American purpose – an air base – so we had our British dependency deport them.
Several million Palestinians are in Israel’s way. Pilger’s documented account of Israel’s crushing of the Palestinians shows that our “democratic ally” in the Middle East is capable of any evil and has no remorse or mercy. Israel is an apt student of the British and American empires’ attitudes toward lesser beings. They simply don’t count.
Those who are the salt of the earth take precedence over everything.
SOURCE: Lew Rockwell.com
U.S. Government Ignores Flu Vaccine Death
Mercola.com
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Even as U.S. federal health officials gather to discuss the controversial case of a 9-year-old girl from Athens, Georgia, who became autistic after receiving numerous vaccinations, the government has so far kept quiet a second case that some say is even more disturbing.
On January 11, a 6-year-old girl from Colorado received FluMist, a flu vaccine, and about a week later “became weak with multiple episodes of falling to the ground”. The girl grew increasingly weak and feverish, was hospitalized, and underwent surgery. She died on April 5.
Both the 9- and 6-year-olds had mitochondrial disorders, a spectrum of genetic diseases that have received almost no attention from federal health officials.
SOURCE: Mercola.com
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Even as U.S. federal health officials gather to discuss the controversial case of a 9-year-old girl from Athens, Georgia, who became autistic after receiving numerous vaccinations, the government has so far kept quiet a second case that some say is even more disturbing.
On January 11, a 6-year-old girl from Colorado received FluMist, a flu vaccine, and about a week later “became weak with multiple episodes of falling to the ground”. The girl grew increasingly weak and feverish, was hospitalized, and underwent surgery. She died on April 5.
Both the 9- and 6-year-olds had mitochondrial disorders, a spectrum of genetic diseases that have received almost no attention from federal health officials.
SOURCE: Mercola.com
Oil majors to lead another Iraq invasion
ABC Australia
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Five years after the US-led coalition stormed into Iraq there is set to be another western invasion.
This time it is the world’s biggest oil companies leading the charge, 36 years after Saddam Hussein kicked them out.
The oil giants are seeking access to Iraq’s rich crude reserves, Australian companies BHP Billiton and Woodside are among them.
The Iraqi government wants to make up for the lost opportunities under Hussein’s rule and has the ambitious goal of doubling Iraqi oil production to more than 4 million barrels a day within five years.
Peter Zeihan, an energy analyst at geopolitical intelligence group Stratfor, says there is plenty of incentive for the big oil companies.
“They have the largest, easiest reservoirs to tap, they’re very close to existing export points, there’s infrastructure in place for over double the amount of oil that currently is being produced in Iraq,” Mr Zeihan said.
“When Iraq does ultimately open up in a big way and allow greenfield investments, every single oil major in the world wants to be part of that play. And if that means signing deals that you’re not exactly thrilled with today, so be it.”
The Iraqi government insists the companies that win contracts must take on a local partner who in turn must have a minimum 25 per cent stake in the deal.
In an attempt to fast track oil production the government will award six contracts on a no-bid basis, to a handful of mainly US companies.
The move has been criticised by some US law-makers but State Department spokesman Tom Casey insists Iraqi arms were not twisted.
"The United States was not involved in any decisions to award contracts, to make determinations of what kinds of contracts would be offered," Mr Casey said.
Still the mad rush for Iraqi oil has reignited debate over why the US invaded Iraq in the first place.
Rick Barton of the Washington based Centre for Strategic and International Studies says gaining access to the Iraqi oil fields was always a key strategic motivation.
"Of course oil is important. It matters to the world, it is one of the true assets of this region," Mr Barton said.
"And to be more matter of fact about it and then to make it clear to people that really the more oil that is produced and exported, it's better for the world markets and it's better for the Iraqis."
"Instead of people being coy about it, my feeling is that total transparency makes it - takes away the argument."
The Iraqi government hopes to sign most of the oil deals by the middle of next year.
Adapted from a report by Washington correspondent Michael Rowland for AM
SOURCE: ABC Australia
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Five years after the US-led coalition stormed into Iraq there is set to be another western invasion.
This time it is the world’s biggest oil companies leading the charge, 36 years after Saddam Hussein kicked them out.
The oil giants are seeking access to Iraq’s rich crude reserves, Australian companies BHP Billiton and Woodside are among them.
The Iraqi government wants to make up for the lost opportunities under Hussein’s rule and has the ambitious goal of doubling Iraqi oil production to more than 4 million barrels a day within five years.
Peter Zeihan, an energy analyst at geopolitical intelligence group Stratfor, says there is plenty of incentive for the big oil companies.
“They have the largest, easiest reservoirs to tap, they’re very close to existing export points, there’s infrastructure in place for over double the amount of oil that currently is being produced in Iraq,” Mr Zeihan said.
“When Iraq does ultimately open up in a big way and allow greenfield investments, every single oil major in the world wants to be part of that play. And if that means signing deals that you’re not exactly thrilled with today, so be it.”
The Iraqi government insists the companies that win contracts must take on a local partner who in turn must have a minimum 25 per cent stake in the deal.
In an attempt to fast track oil production the government will award six contracts on a no-bid basis, to a handful of mainly US companies.
The move has been criticised by some US law-makers but State Department spokesman Tom Casey insists Iraqi arms were not twisted.
"The United States was not involved in any decisions to award contracts, to make determinations of what kinds of contracts would be offered," Mr Casey said.
Still the mad rush for Iraqi oil has reignited debate over why the US invaded Iraq in the first place.
Rick Barton of the Washington based Centre for Strategic and International Studies says gaining access to the Iraqi oil fields was always a key strategic motivation.
"Of course oil is important. It matters to the world, it is one of the true assets of this region," Mr Barton said.
"And to be more matter of fact about it and then to make it clear to people that really the more oil that is produced and exported, it's better for the world markets and it's better for the Iraqis."
"Instead of people being coy about it, my feeling is that total transparency makes it - takes away the argument."
The Iraqi government hopes to sign most of the oil deals by the middle of next year.
Adapted from a report by Washington correspondent Michael Rowland for AM
SOURCE: ABC Australia
Two dead in bulldozer attack on Jerusalem bus
Mark Tran
London Guardian
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Aftermath of the bus attack
A man seized control of a bulldozer and overturned a bus on a main road in Jerusalem today, killing at least three people before he was shot dead, Israeli police said.
Officials identified the man as a Palestinian resident of east Jerusalem who had an Israeli identification card and a criminal record.
He was shot by an off-duty soldier and then by an anti-terrorism officer, Eli Mizrahi. "I ran up the stairs [of the vehicle] and, when he was still driving like crazy and trying to harm civilians, I fired at him twice more and, that's it, he was liquidated," Mizrahi said.
A TV camera captured footage of the caterpillar bulldozer crushing a vehicle and an off-duty soldier shooting the driver in the head several times at point-blank range.
Local television reported that four people had died in the rampage, although rescue services put the number at three. Israel Radio said one of the victims was a woman who had been driving a Toyota. Israel's national rescue service said at least 45 people were wounded.
TV pictures showed a single-decker bus lying on its side on the busy Jaffa Road, near the city's old central bus station and the headquarters of the Israel Broadcasting Authority. Another bus was heavily damaged, half a dozen cars were flattened and the entire front section of a van was crushed.
A police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld, said: "A suspect driving a tractor ran over a number of vehicles and Israelis in the street, on Jaffa Road. Israeli police arrived at the scene. Many people were injured." He described the attack as a terrorist incident.
The driver of the overturned bus, Assaf Nadav, said: "I saw a bulldozer coming towards me and initially there was a small bang on the left side. I opened the window to tell him to watch his driving. He looked me in the eye and drove towards the bus and then lifted it and turned it on its side."
He said his number 13 bus was full and some of the passengers were standing. After it was flipped over, a policewoman broke the back window and people streamed out.
Asked to describe what it had been like inside the bus, Assaf replied: "Screaming would be too mild a word."
Rory McCarthy reports from the scene
Three organisations claimed responsibility for the attack: the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, which is affiliated with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas; the Galilee Freedom Battalion, which is suspected of being affiliated with Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas; and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a fringe left-wing militant group.
However, the Israeli police chief, Dudi Cohen, said the attacker appeared to have been acting alone. "It looks as if it was a spontaneous act," he said.
Cohen said the attacker was a father of two. Local TV, citing police, reported that he was in his 30s and had worked for a construction contractor as a bulldozer driver.
Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is maintaining a fragile ceasefire with Israel, said it did not carry out the attack but praised it nevertheless.
"We consider it as a natural reaction to the daily aggression and crimes committed against our people in the West Bank and all over the occupied lands," said a spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri.
An aide to Abbas, Saeb Erekat, condemned the violence. "We condemn any attacks that target civilians, whether Israelis or Palestinians, and President Abbas has been consistent in his position to condemn any attacks, including the one in west Jerusalem, that targeted civilians," he said.
Hundreds of people fled through the streets in panic as medics treated the wounded. Hen Shimon, a 19-year-old soldier, said the whole scene was a "nightmare."
"I just got off the bus and I saw the tractor driving and knocking everything down in his path," she said. "Everything he saw he rammed. He had a gun and started shooting at a police officer."
"I saw the bulldozer smash the car with its shovel. He smashed the guy sitting in the driver's seat," Yaakov Ashkenazi, an 18-year-old seminary student, told the Associated Press.
Another witness, Yosef Spielman, said the bulldozer picked up a car "like a toy". "I was shocked. I saw a guy going crazy," he said. "All the people were running. They had no chance."
Sixteen-year-old Eyal Lang Ben-Hur said he was in the second damaged bus. The driver yelled out "Get out of the vehicle! Everyone out!" and people fled in a panic before the bus was hit, he said.
The mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lupolianski, said his daughter was on one of the buses rammed by the attacker, but was not injured. "To our regret, the attackers do not cease coming up with new ways to strike at the heart of the Jewish people here in Jerusalem," he said.
The last attack by an Arab in west Jerusalem was in March, when a gunman killed eight students at a religious school before he was shot dead.
Today's rampage occurred in an area of Jerusalem where a new train system is being built. The project has turned many parts of the city into a construction zone.
SOURCE: London Guardian
London Guardian
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Aftermath of the bus attack
A man seized control of a bulldozer and overturned a bus on a main road in Jerusalem today, killing at least three people before he was shot dead, Israeli police said.
Officials identified the man as a Palestinian resident of east Jerusalem who had an Israeli identification card and a criminal record.
He was shot by an off-duty soldier and then by an anti-terrorism officer, Eli Mizrahi. "I ran up the stairs [of the vehicle] and, when he was still driving like crazy and trying to harm civilians, I fired at him twice more and, that's it, he was liquidated," Mizrahi said.
A TV camera captured footage of the caterpillar bulldozer crushing a vehicle and an off-duty soldier shooting the driver in the head several times at point-blank range.
Local television reported that four people had died in the rampage, although rescue services put the number at three. Israel Radio said one of the victims was a woman who had been driving a Toyota. Israel's national rescue service said at least 45 people were wounded.
TV pictures showed a single-decker bus lying on its side on the busy Jaffa Road, near the city's old central bus station and the headquarters of the Israel Broadcasting Authority. Another bus was heavily damaged, half a dozen cars were flattened and the entire front section of a van was crushed.
A police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld, said: "A suspect driving a tractor ran over a number of vehicles and Israelis in the street, on Jaffa Road. Israeli police arrived at the scene. Many people were injured." He described the attack as a terrorist incident.
The driver of the overturned bus, Assaf Nadav, said: "I saw a bulldozer coming towards me and initially there was a small bang on the left side. I opened the window to tell him to watch his driving. He looked me in the eye and drove towards the bus and then lifted it and turned it on its side."
He said his number 13 bus was full and some of the passengers were standing. After it was flipped over, a policewoman broke the back window and people streamed out.
Asked to describe what it had been like inside the bus, Assaf replied: "Screaming would be too mild a word."
Rory McCarthy reports from the scene
Three organisations claimed responsibility for the attack: the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, which is affiliated with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas; the Galilee Freedom Battalion, which is suspected of being affiliated with Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas; and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a fringe left-wing militant group.
However, the Israeli police chief, Dudi Cohen, said the attacker appeared to have been acting alone. "It looks as if it was a spontaneous act," he said.
Cohen said the attacker was a father of two. Local TV, citing police, reported that he was in his 30s and had worked for a construction contractor as a bulldozer driver.
Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is maintaining a fragile ceasefire with Israel, said it did not carry out the attack but praised it nevertheless.
"We consider it as a natural reaction to the daily aggression and crimes committed against our people in the West Bank and all over the occupied lands," said a spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri.
An aide to Abbas, Saeb Erekat, condemned the violence. "We condemn any attacks that target civilians, whether Israelis or Palestinians, and President Abbas has been consistent in his position to condemn any attacks, including the one in west Jerusalem, that targeted civilians," he said.
Hundreds of people fled through the streets in panic as medics treated the wounded. Hen Shimon, a 19-year-old soldier, said the whole scene was a "nightmare."
"I just got off the bus and I saw the tractor driving and knocking everything down in his path," she said. "Everything he saw he rammed. He had a gun and started shooting at a police officer."
"I saw the bulldozer smash the car with its shovel. He smashed the guy sitting in the driver's seat," Yaakov Ashkenazi, an 18-year-old seminary student, told the Associated Press.
Another witness, Yosef Spielman, said the bulldozer picked up a car "like a toy". "I was shocked. I saw a guy going crazy," he said. "All the people were running. They had no chance."
Sixteen-year-old Eyal Lang Ben-Hur said he was in the second damaged bus. The driver yelled out "Get out of the vehicle! Everyone out!" and people fled in a panic before the bus was hit, he said.
The mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lupolianski, said his daughter was on one of the buses rammed by the attacker, but was not injured. "To our regret, the attackers do not cease coming up with new ways to strike at the heart of the Jewish people here in Jerusalem," he said.
The last attack by an Arab in west Jerusalem was in March, when a gunman killed eight students at a religious school before he was shot dead.
Today's rampage occurred in an area of Jerusalem where a new train system is being built. The project has turned many parts of the city into a construction zone.
SOURCE: London Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
