Momentary Zen

Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

D.C. Appellate Court throws out Bush suit against DOJ to block Fitzgerald indictments

by Tom Flocco

Washington, DC—October 24, 2005—www.TomFlocco.com—Earlier today the District of Columbia Appellate Court threw out a Bush administration suit against its own Justice Department, attempting to block the issuance of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s indictments against White House officials.

The White House’s initial attempt to obstruct justice and have the indictments quashed and sealed was dismissed by the D.C. District Court late Friday afternoon, according to a sequence of events based on information in the form of data from intelligence field reports.

On Friday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez refused to sign for and issue the indictments against himself and his colleagues, which would have made them immediately public.

Fitzgerald reportedly appeared with Miers and Rice that same day before the D.C. District Court.

The indictments included both President Bush and Vice President Cheney, confirming our exclusive August 2, 2005 Bush-Cheney indictment story at TomFlocco.com.

According to intelligence field reports, the appellate court judges reportedly laughed at Bush’s White House counsel and former personal attorney Harriet Miers and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying “you can’t do this.”

The last ditch attempts by the White House to prevent the release of the indictments and their criminal contents were led by Miers and Rice, since Gonzalez has reportedly been indicted in an additional count for refusing to issue the original indictments as Bush’s attorney general.

This, also according to intelligence sources with intimate knowledge of the facts and the events who spoke with national security expert Thomas Heneghan (www.stewwebb.com).

Importantly, the dismissals by both the district and appellate courts will likely preclude an additional appeal by the Bush administration to the United States Supreme Court, since two consecutive reversals ordinarily result in the high court deciding not to hear the case and grant relief.

This would avoid another 5-4 Supreme Court split decision similar to the controversial Bush-Gore 2000 election recount litigation which has divided the country for five years.

Miers and Rice also reportedly attempted to have the courts place a gag order on Fitzgerald and the grand jury in another attempt to obstruct justice and prevent the criminal and far-reaching contents of the indictments from becoming public.

According to the intelligence sources, there are now 28 indictments to be issued in Fitzgerald’s first round—not 22—a fact that was not previously known up to the present time.

The number may have changed as a result of new information coming to light in recent days or a decision to add additional indicted officials to the first round for other reasons.

An indication of the far-reaching and expanded nature of Fitzgerald’s probes of White House crime families and his independent authority to do so is found in the December 30, 2003 letter from Acting Attorney General James Comey to Fitzgerald in which Comey said “I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity; and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.”

Comey was even more specific in another letter to Fitzgerald on February 6, 2004 when he said that Fitzgerald’s authority “is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigation and/or prosecuted…”

Developing hard……………
www.tomflocco.com

Previous related stories about Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury investigations of White House crime families:

Bush-Cheney CIA/Plame case indictments released this morning
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/CiaPlameCaseIndictments.htm

U.S. intelligence reports Miers as 'deep-cover' foreign operative
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/UsIntellReportsMiers.htm

CIA, French intelligence kill 4, capture 5 Israelis in NY subway attack
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/CiaFrenchIntell.htm

9-11 crash victim Barbara Olson arrested in Europe
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/OlsenArrested.htm

Who killed John-John?
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/PurgeTheEvil.htm

Cash payoffs, bonds and murder linked to White House 911 finance
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FinancialTerrorism.htm

BUSH AND CHENEY INDICTED
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/BushCheneyIndicted.htm

Bush—Cheney CIA/Plame case indictments released this morning

Bush orders Fitzgerald fired and espionage indictments quashed

by Tom Flocco

Washington, DC—October 21, 2005—12:00 EST—TomFlocco.com exclusive—
Today Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald handed over 22 indictments to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, accusing President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney and others of espionage, obstruction of justice, perjury and a variety of other charges in the matter of the CIA/Valerie Plame leak-gate case.

According to intelligence sources who spoke with federal whistleblowers Thomas Heneghan and Stewart Webb, Bush then ordered Gonzalez to fire Fitzgerald and have the indictments quashed and sealed.

Gonzalez refused to release the indictments which have been handed down by the grand jury and ordered served by a judge, subjecting the Attorney General to additional charges of obstruction of justice, the sources said.

The indictments confirm our original “Bush-Cheney indicted” report on August 2, 2005.

Gonzalez was Bush’s former personal White House counsel before receiving a presidential appointment as U.S. Attorney General.

The move is reminiscent of the “Saturday night massacre” when President Nixon fired Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in an attempt to save his presidency and obstruct justice.

Intelligence sources added that Bush tried to delay publicity about his attempt to fire Fitzgerald and quash the indictments this afternoon by ordering a diversion regarding a “Capitol Hill police attempt to disrupt a suspicious package in a car near the U.S. Capitol.”

The move to distract attention from the indictments occurred not long after the receipt of process by Gonzalez, according to intelligence sources with knowledge of the events.

While Gonzalez received the service of indictments, Bush was in California this morning and was scheduled to speak at the dedication of the new Air Force One pavilion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California.

It can be assumed that Bush’s orders for Gonzalez to refuse receipt of process and fire the prosecutor in the CIA leak case were discussed over the telephone since Bush was to speak at the Reagan Library just a few hours after the indictments were served.

Bush should have finished his speech at approximately 2:30 pm Eastern time, and it is probable that presidential strategy sessions regarding how to prevent the indictments and their criminal contents from becoming public have already commenced.

It is open to conjecture whether Bush could be arrested in California before even returning to Washington, given the criminal nature of the indictments.

An attempt to quash indictments and to fire Fitzgerald may also cause a constitutional crisis if Bush and Gonzalez continue to obstruct justice and defy U.S. law and constitutional legal process.

Intelligence sources told TomFlocco.com that the military or U.S. marshals should arrest Bush, Gonzalez, Cheney and others immediately for their criminal acts in keeping explosive espionage, obstruction and perjury indictments hidden from the American people, all of which affects U.S. national security.

Developing………………
www.tomflocco.com

Monday, October 24, 2005

Iraq: Restore public health system for malnourished children

BAGHDAD, 25 May 2003 - UNICEF recently conducted a rapid assessment survey to determine the current rate of malnutrition among children under the age of five, with the results being released 10 days ago.

The results showed that acute malnutrition among children had almost doubled since before the war, jumping from 4 per cent to 7.7 per cent. Children who are acutely malnourished are literally wasting away, and for severe cases their condition can be fatal. Acute malnutrition sets in very fast and is a strong indicator of the overall health of children.

Prior to the war, UNICEF supported a network of 3,000 Community Child Care Units or CCCUs, staffed by roughly 13,000 volunteers. CCCUs were set up to screen children for malnutrition in order to catch children in the early stages and to assist their recovery.

When a child was found to be malnourished, they were sent to the local Primary Health Care Centre (PHC) for treatment and received High Protein Biscuits to aid in their recuperation. Severely malnourished children were referred to Nutritional Rehabilitation Centres (NRCs) established in 63 hospitals countrywide for more intensive treatments. The CCCU network screened 1.2 million children last year.

Unfortunately, this system collapsed with the onset of the fighting. UNICEF is now working hard to re-establish the entire network in order to reach all children suffering from malnutrition and to provide families with vital information on how to prevent malnutrition, diarrhea and other diseases that pose a threat to children's health and wellbeing.

UNICEF and the Iraqi Nutritional Research Institute are currently undertaking a massive investigation of all CCCUs, PHCs and NRCs to assess damages caused by the war and looting and to find out what their urgent staffing and supply needs are. The assessment will be completed by tomorrow 26 May 2003, and we expect the final report within the week.

We will then begin a process of reactivating the system, fixing the infrastructure, supplying the centres, and training new volunteers.

So far, we have managed to reactivate the network in Umm Qasr, and we have 100 of the 300 CCCUs now screening children in Baghdad.

Until the entire system is functional again, which we hope will be soon, UNICEF has been ensuring that PHCs have a steady supply of High Protein Biscuits and Therapeutic Milk to assist children suffering from malnutrition.

In the past couple of weeks we have delivered 112,000 kilos of biscuits to assist the recovery of 56,000 malnourished children.

***

For further information, please contact:

For more information on UNICEF activities in the areas of child Health, Nutrition, Water, Education, Sanitation and Child Protection, please contact:

Geoffrey Keele, UNICEF Iraq, (Sat.) 873-762-86-9918, (Th.) 882-165-420-1806, gkeele@unicef.org 1

Gordon Weiss, UNICEF New York, 212 326 7426, gweiss@unicef.org

Making a killing

The American government is hiring private security firms to stabilise Iraq — and paying them a fortune to do it. But many of them are unregulated and operate outside the law. Jon Swain joins the hired guns on the streets of Baghdad — and assesses the real cost of privatising war

By Jon Swain

10/23/04 "
The Times" -- -- To the men who patrol it every day, the stretch of highway from the international airport to downtown Baghdad is the most dangerous street in the most dangerous city on Earth. Nothing reflects the perils of Iraq's brutal insurgency more powerfully than a journey along this treacherous stretch of road to the centre of the capital.

In one four-month period earlier this year it was the scene of 150 attacks. The US Army is forced to move people along it at night in steel-clad buses, with no lights, escorted by armoured Humvees and with helicopter gunships clattering overhead to reduce the chances of suicide bombers or sniper fire killing them.

I last made the eight-mile journey more than a year ago. It was when there were suicide bombings and roadside explosives, but before kidnappings and throat-cutting made the capital of Iraq a world of horrors. It was possible then to roam the streets relatively freely, to travel unprotected in an ordinary car with Ali, my brave Iraqi colleague, and to enjoy a bottle of red wine and traditionally cooked mazgouf fish from the Tigris river in a pavement cafe.

Now, on my return visit, I eye the streets through the bulletproof glass of a purpose-built, heavily armoured white Land Cruiser, a reinforced steel box. It is preceded and followed by two more armoured Land Cruisers (known as gunships) equipped with light machineguns.

Next to me in the back seat is a man with a tanned, confident face and intense eyes staring out of the window. He is cradling an American M4 automatic rifle, has a Glock handgun strapped to his hip and is constantly looking for any suspicious activity.

My companion is Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Spicer, former Scots Guards officer and Falklands war veteran. Spicer, who is 53, made national headlines in 1998 when his private military company Sandline International was accused of breaking UN sanctions and selling arms to Sierra Leone. He was labelled a notorious mercenary by the press and the Establishment. They sought to turn him into an outcast. In the end, Spicer believes he was vindicated by a parliamentary inquiry that found that Foreign Office officials had known in advance about the arms shipment. Today his involvement in murky wars in Africa is history. Sandline is defunct. Spicer now heads Aegis Defence Services, created in 2002, a powerful British risk-management and private security company, or PSC. Its London headquarters are almost bang next door to New Scotland Yard; it has a former chief of the general staff on its board and has landed a whopping contract with the American government to run security operations to aid American authorities in stabilising Iraq. In a significant development for the future, the UN also hired Aegis to run security for this month's referendum and end-of-year elections. Spicer has hired nearly 200 expatriate bodyguards and 1,000 Iraqis for the task. That the security of UN staff organising Iraq's critical elections should be put in the hands of a PSC is a highly significant development. Formerly, many UN officials equated them with mercenaries. Iraq has forced a UN change of heart. Spicer believes there is a template here for future UN-PSC co-operation in world trouble spots.

Aegis, together with the more than 50 foreign security companies licensed to operate in Iraq, is the new face of warfare. For as the western world's armed forces have shrunk from government defence cuts in the post-cold-war era, the business of war has been progressively privatised. Nowhere more than by America in Iraq, where the overstretched US military has had to hand over tasks it would normally perform itself to these PSCs.

Historically, there is nothing new about the military's use of private contractors. But Iraq has seen the subcontracting-out of war on an unprecedented scale. Whereas in the first Gulf war there was one private contractor serving on the ground for every 50 American soldiers, it is estimated that there is now one contractor for fewer than 10 servicemen, probably saving the Americans the cost of fielding an entire extra division, according to Spicer.

The truth is that the US can no longer manage a war like Iraq without private contractors. Its military has shrunk from 2.1m to 1.4m since the end of the cold war, creating a severe shortage of manpower in wartime.

The American forte in warfare is firepower. But in Iraq, the tradition of fighting through the massive deployment of troops and armour which had applied since the second world war went out of the window. The American defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, argued for "invasion lite" where air power, information dominance and speed would favour a small, agile force packing a big punch.

He was proved right with his "shock and awe" campaign. A small American force quickly overwhelmed the Iraqi army and captured Baghdad. But the 140,000 uniformed American troops who remain behind have proved insufficient and inadequate to deal with the explosive complexity of the post-invasion period. The Americans have found using PSCs is convenient, affordable and apparently effective.

The threats these foreign security companies are asked to meet, however, provide a grim summary of the dangers American and British forces still face 2½ years after President Bush declared the main fighting in Iraq over. A typical PSC contract says they have to be prepared to deal with all manner of dangers: vehicles containing explosive devices, improvised explosives planted on roads, direct fire and ground assaults by upwards of 12 personnel with military rifles, machineguns and rocket-propelled grenades, indirect fire by mortars and rockets, individual suicide bombers, and employment of other weapons of mass destruction in an unconventional warfare setting.

These PSCs saturate the highways of war-torn Iraq, their armoured Land Cruisers and Chevrolet Suburbans packed with armed men brandishing rifles to clear traffic in which a suicide bomber may be lurking out of their way. They are doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the world: escorting convoys, guarding diplomats and officials, and protecting infrastructure from attack.

The companies employ as many as 25,000 armed foreigners and Iraqi civilians; many are special-forces veterans from the British and American armies. They also recruit many soldiers from South Africa and ex-Gurkhas.

"The ex-paras are almost invariably Scottish and have a lot of attitude. The marines tend to think a bit more about things. The guards are always on time and always smart. The [Royal] Green Jackets have always got something to say," says Spicer of his men.

These hired guns, easily distinguishable by their sweptback sunglasses, muscled and tattooed bodies, operate like a shadow army. They live in barracks. They eat in mess halls. They enjoy all the ennui and excitement of soldiers in a combat zone. And every day they put their lives on the line, facing ambushes and booby traps, risking injury and the prospect of a violent death in excruciating desert heat, far from their loved ones. Scores have been killed, hundreds wounded. Despite the high risks, they are in a very privileged and special position. One big advantage they have over the uniformed soldiers in the British or American forces in Iraq is that they are paid a fortune, easily more than US$1,000 a day, two to four times what they would earn as a regular soldier. Many of their "top guns" earn more than a British major-general. "I earn more in a year here than I could earn in 3½ years in the army," says a former corporal. "And the job is more interesting."

These hired guns are not ashamed to admit the primary reason they are flocking to Iraq is for the money. It is a point of etiquette, however, that these men do not like to be referred to as mercenaries. "I am no dog of war," says an SAS veteran named Ken, who left the regiment and works for Spicer in Baghdad, running his company's military training programmes.

There are complaints that security companies are poaching highly trained American and British special-forces soldiers with these huge salaries. The Pentagon has responded by offering $150,000 cash bonuses for special-forces soldiers to re-enlist. The British have yet to react to the threat. The British Army likes to claim that Britain, with 8,500 men, has the second largest contingent in Iraq after the Americans. Clearly this is false. That distinction has to go to these PSCs; their security forces outnumber the British by a factor of 2½ to 1, and they have suffered more casualties. More than 300 private contractors and security men have been killed.

Questions are now being asked inside and outside the military about the virtues of allowing a shadow army to operate in Iraq that is largely unregulated and beyond the law. The system is also under scrutiny as a result of several shooting incidents in which civilians were killed or wounded. "It's the Wild West," says Peter Singer, a former Pentagon official and expert on the private military industry who is now a foreign-policy fellow at the Brookings Institution think-tank in Washington and a critic of privatising war.

Spicer believes, however, that without this force of private security men protecting contractors, the reconstruction of Iraq could not happen. Therefore, the PSCs are making a vital contribution to American and British attempts to stabilise the country.

There are certainly cowboys. "There are those who think that it is all about steroids and weapons, wearing cut-off T-shirts with large technicals and heavy calibrated weapons," said one American officer who deplores the fact that his country has allowed foreign civilians who are not subject to American or Iraqi law to carry weapons in Iraq.

"These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force," Brigadier General Karl Horst has said. Horst is the deputy commander of the American 3rd Infantry Division, which is responsible for security in and around Baghdad. "They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place."

The private security men I met travelling with Spicer around Iraq, however, are a conscientious breed determined to perform well, with responsibilities they take very seriously indeed.

Every "shooter" has to have a weapons-authorisation card. There are strict rules of engagement, akin to those enforced by the British Army. There is instant dismissal for serious breaches of discipline, such as disobeying orders, a negligent discharge of a firearm, drink, drugs, theft and bad driving. The risks of an accident are so high that huge emphasis is put on driving skills. "We have fired warning shots and shot into the engine block of a potential suicide bomber driving his car at us, but not on many occasions," says Andrew Josceline, a former colonel in the Scots Guards who runs Aegis's Iraq operations. "When that happens we have a boardroom inquiry. There are other PSCs that have a different approach. Ours has always been a bit typically British, understated."

Like soldiers in every war zone, the men I met like to turn the daily terror they face into humour. Women, or the absence of them, feature large in their thoughts. Thursday nights, when they meet up for a Gurkha curry or South African brai (barbecue), are loud and raucous.

One bodyguard, a former soldier in the RAF regiment, has decorated his spartan billet with furs, oriental rugs and seductive soft lighting. "That Frank has more patter than Gandhi's flip-flops," said a colleague envious at the friendship Frank had struck up with a pretty American girl, a dentist in the US Marines.

Mark, 36, from London, who spent seven years in the army, is getting divorced. "I spend my 90 days' leave building a relationship with my little boy. It's dangerous work but I can save real money in Iraq," he says.

Nick, a South African, lives in Belfast with his new wife and one-year-old daughter. Before he came to Iraq he had been working as a bodyguard in London and France for an Abu Dhabi princess. He got bored taking her round Harrods and contacted Aegis. Now, as a security-team leader with Aegis for 11 months, he says: "We have been shot at but survived. We must be doing something right because other companies get attacked all the time and have men killed."

After the deaths of a number of hired guns, there is an inevitable demand for more powerful weapons to travel in very dangerous areas. Aegis has just taken delivery of three Revas, fearsome South African-designed troop carriers with a machinegun mounted on a swivel turret on the roof. They have made the security teams appear to the Iraqis more like combat soldiers, but they will save lives.

The $293m Pentagon contract Aegis was awarded in May last year, which runs until 2007, evolved out of an atrocity that shook America: the lynching of four American private security contractors escorting a supply convoy to Falluja, west of Baghdad. The gruesome pictures of two of their charred bodies hanging from a bridge reminded the American public of the shocking lynching of soldiers in Mogadishu and forced the US Marines — who did not even know the contractors were in their area — to attack the city to hunt the killers. Hundreds of Iraqis and dozens of marines were killed and large parts of Falluja were razed.

The killings of the Americans made the US military realise it had to solve a serious co-ordination problem with the legion of foreign security contractors flourishing in Iraq.

It had also become imperative for it to make the work of American government agencies and reconstruction firms in Iraq safer. The Bush administration's plan to stabilise Iraq by funding a $24 billion reconstruction programme was foundering as insurgents targeted the infrastructure and anyone involved in protecting it or working for the US or Iraqi government.

As a result, the Pentagon tendered to the private sector to set up a system to co-ordinate and track all the private security forces operating in Iraq. Spicer came up with a remedy that the Pentagon liked. He devised the idea of a computerised control centre in Baghdad called the ROC (Reconstruction Operations Centre) plugged directly into the US military, which would use Tapestry, a civilianised version of Blue Force, the American military satellite system, to track every convoy and private security team moving through the country. He is contracted to provide protective and preventive security using qualified personnel with experience in anti-terrorism operations, to supply escorts and close personal protection to those involved in reconstruction work and — perhaps most innovatively for a security company — to run a "hearts and minds" campaign among Iraqis.

Against intense American competition, Spicer secured the largest contract yet awarded by the Bush administration to any British firm involved in Iraq. His enemies fought to get the contract annulled by dredging up his Sandline past and highlighting his vigorous defence of two Scots Guardsmen convicted of murder after shooting a Catholic teenager in Northern Ireland in 1992. They claimed he should be disqualified on humanitarian grounds. The Pentagon stood by Spicer, saying this had no bearing on his "integrity and business ethics".

But the Iraq to which Spicer has returned seems to be sliding inexorably towards civil war. In the past 21/2 years, it has gone from being a sanctions-wrecked country under the evil domination of Saddam Hussein to the global centre of suicide terrorism. In September, more than 1,000 people were killed in one of the bloodiest months since the American invasion.

Spicer has come back to Baghdad to inspect his company's operations, meet with American generals and talk to his men. "We are not trying to fight a war," he says as we begin the dangerous drive into the city along the notoriously perilous airport road. "There are others equipped and paid to do that. We can fight if necessary, but our whole ethos if we are attacked is to return fire and back off. We are not war-fighting people. If we are escorting a client, our job is to run."

Our three Land Cruisers travel in the form of a protective "bubble", keeping a distance from all traffic — especially American military convoys, the most frequent targets of insurgents. We all wear bulletproof vests. There is a hush of expectancy as we set off. We are linked by Tapestry to the ROC, which is receiving up-to-the-minute information about our location. If we are attacked, a panic button inside our vehicle will be pressed, signalling the alarm. Armed crews in our Land Cruiser and the two accompanying vehicles — one in front and one behind equipped with a Minimi light machinegun — will then spring into action.

The idea is that they will manoeuvre to provide protection, covering fire and our eventual extraction to safety, while an American quick-reaction force (QRF), alerted by the ROC, mounts a rescue operation. Tapestry has saved many contractors' lives and helped prevent a repeat of the grisly Falluja killings. Most thinking foreigners working in Iraq, diplomats and private contractors, now subscribe to it.

Our route into the city takes us past a hauntingly personal spot. Each of us knows people killed on this road by suicide bombers. Mine was Marla Ruzicka, a humanitarian worker and close personal friend. Spicer's was Alan Parkin, a member of his staff, a former para and 44-year-old father of three. Parkin was Aegis's first fatality. At his funeral, Spicer called him "a soldier through and throughÉ who believed he was doing something worthwhile".

Some security teams do what is known as the Baghdad shuffle, swivelling from side to side watching for potential attackers. Spicer's team has more sophisticated countermeasures to hand, which it asked me not to disclose.

We hit 90mph on the highway. Then we catch up with a plodding American military supply convoy and hang back. At the end is a Humvee with a machinegunner whose job is to keep the traffic 100 yards back. It bears a sign warning motorists: "Danger. Stay back. Deadly force is authorised." Reaching an Iraqi police post, we are finally through to the Green Zone. This heavily fortified four-square-mile area of villas and palaces in the heart of Baghdad was once the preserve of Saddam and his favourites. When they captured the city in April 2003, the Americans installed their occupation government, creating a surreal Little America, with Burger Kings, a PX and even a discotheque called Thousand and One Nights. It was full of redneck construction workers from Kellogg, Brown & Root wearing cowboy boots and Stetsons, who danced the Texan two-step.

"You could drink as much as you liked and it was really quite wild," said a habitué.

But an insurgent rocket soon shut the disco with a bang, and the Green Zone has become a kind of prison where the concrete walls and checkpoints protect but also isolate the Americans from the very people they say they have liberated and are trying to befriend. No sensible American strays outside its walls without armed bodyguards.

Even this heart of the American and Iraqi administrations is not safe from attack, however, despite the massive security. Suicide bombers have infiltrated several times. Guerrillas lob in mortars and attack it with rockets.

We disembark at the Aegis compound. Outside, the streets shimmer with a white glare and the sun burns with a diamond brilliance. Inside, protected by patrols of former Gurkhas, alsatian attack dogs and spaniel sniffer dogs, is the ROC, the command centre, manned round the clock. Here a giant video screen, straight out of a Star Wars set, displays the location of any ambushes and suicide attacks.

The favourite time of day for suicide bombers to strike in Baghdad is around eight in the morning, when the streets are full of people. There is a dull crump that shakes the windows and billows of black smoke rise into the sky.

On Spicer's last morning before returning to Britain, three bombs go off at this time in quick succession, killing and wounding nearly 200 people. But by then we have travelled 600 miles, from the capital down to the relative quiet of the British sector in Basra and back to the volatile Sunni triangle around Baghdad, the heart of the insurgency.

On our journey we have encountered a roadside bomb that has to be defused by American troops. Spicer has met American generals to discuss his Iraq operation, given rallying talks to his men and visited schools and orphanages that his company is supporting through its own charitable foundation.

Within days of returning to Britain, he learns that roadside bombs have badly wounded two more of his men.

And me? I have seen enough to convince me that this war is not winnable. Comparisons with Vietnam are too pat. But I have just read a bleak assessment in The Washington Post by Henry Kissinger, the hawkish former American secretary of state and President Nixon's national security adviser during Vietnam, warning that Iraq is messier now and more dangerous than Vietnam ever was.

Kissinger reminds us of the axiom that guerrillas win if they do not lose. So a stalemate or an early US withdrawal is unacceptable. He believes that victory over the insurgency is America's only meaningful exit strategy.

But how can it be achieved? I covered the Vietnam war and see today's suicide bombers in Iraq as the equivalent of the Vietcong who mounted commando raids on American airfields and crawled through barbed wire at US combat bases, with explosives tied to their bodies, through a terrible hail of fire. The Iraqi insurgents' vicious bombing of crowded market places — intended to cause the most horrific civilian casualties — do not make them the Vietcong's moral equivalent. But like the Vietcong, they are convinced that their goal is worth dying for. And the US Army's determination to equate the number of dead insurgents as a yardstick of success is meaningless, just as the famous Vietnam body counts were. For as fast as the Americans kill them, more committed insurgents step forward to take their place.

This, then, is the essence of this terrible war, a seemingly inexhaustible supply of Iraqis willing to die. Firepower alone cannot stop them. But from the US administration's point of view at least, outsourcing the war to PSCs saves the army a division of troops and probably keeps down the number of army bodybags going home.

When the Americans will finally leave Iraq is anybody's guess. It will certainly not be any time soon. But when it is, the betting is that Spicer will still be around in Baghdad to turn out the lights.

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Another Iraq war legacy: badly wounded US troops


By: Will Dunham

Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:40 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Army Sgt. Joey Bozik remembers coming out of a coma at Walter Reed Army Medical Center not fully understanding why he was there.

"I knew something had happened to me, I just didn't know what," Bozik said.

He first inquired about his family, then about himself.

"I had an above-the-knee amputation of my right leg and a below-the-knee amputation on my left leg. I had a below-the-elbow amputation on my right arm. And on my left hand, my thumb and pinkie were fractured and the metacarpals in my hand were fractured and I fractured my wrist," Bozik said.

The human toll for the U.S. military in the Iraq war is not limited to the nearly 2,000 troops deaths since the March 2003 invasion. More than 15,220 also have been wounded in combat, including more than 7,100 injured too badly to return to duty, the Pentagon said. Thousands more have been hurt in incidents unrelated to combat.

Bozik, a 27-year-old from Wilmington, North Carolina, recounted what happened to him, as he used his left hand and a prosthetic right hand to pedal a stationary hand bike in the physical therapy room at Walter Reed. His 25-year-old wife, Jayme, stood watchfully behind.

On October 27, 2004, Bozik was in the front passenger seat in a vehicle on patrol south of Baghdad, checking for insurgent roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Coming down a highway overpass, his driver steered the truck more widely than the two vehicles in front.

It rolled over an anti-tank mine with two mortar rounds attached. The explosion blew two other soldiers free of the vehicle. But Bozik was trapped inside.

Military doctors say U.S. troops are surviving wounds in Iraq that would have been fatal in previous wars due to advances in medical care and body armor.

Military statistics showed that while 23 percent of U.S. troops wounded in combat in World War Two died and 17 percent in the Vietnam War, 9 percent of those wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan died. Without the advances since Vietnam, the U.S. death toll in Iraq would be nearly double the current total.

But military doctors said some troops who may have died in previous wars are surviving, but with grievous injuries such as multiple limb amputations. More than 300 troops have undergone at least one limb amputation. By far the single biggest cause of combat wounds are blasts from IEDs.

'A MIRACLE'

"We look at patients oftentimes and feel like it's a miracle that they're alive," said Lt. Col. Paul Pasquina, chief of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Walter Reed, which has treated more than 4,400 troops hurt in Iraq.

"Someone who loses one limb is a challenge to get back to a meaningful, functional lifestyle," Pasquina said. "But somebody who loses three limbs, on top of other types of soft tissue wounds, fractures, head injury, spinal-cord injury, paralysis...?"

Pasquina and Lt. Col. Warren Dorlac, chief of trauma surgery and critical care at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany cited several factors for why a larger percentage of wounded U.S. troops were surviving:

-- advances in body armor, with torso armor better protecting the chest and abdomen, heart and lungs and helmets better protecting the brain;

-- better trained and prepared battlefield medics;

-- improved in-country surgical capabilities allowing patients to be stabilized so they can be quickly flown out of Iraq.

Moving patients to U.S. hospitals usually took 45 days during the Vietnam War, but has been reduced to as little as 36 hours now. Most troops flown out of Iraq are then treated at Landstuhl before being sent along to facilities in the United States including Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas or Walter Reed in Washington.

For the first anniversary of the blast that wounded him, Bozik and his wife are planning a celebration with friends.

"We'll call it my 'life-day,'" Bozik said, wearing red shorts and a white T-shirt with an athletic gear manufacturer's slogan, "Just Do It."

"He's always got that positive attitude," his wife said.

"The way I look at it is I've been given a second chance on life," Bozik said. "Everybody always wants to know what the meaning of life is. I'm not saying I have the answer. But I can tell you one thing, I have a better understanding of what life's about."

Video- U.S. Faces Grim Milestone In Iraq

U.S. Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq

CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence Personnel Implicated

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org


10/24/05 "ACLU" -- -- NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.

“There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal that has rocked our military.”

The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “OGA” (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.

According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by “strangulation,” “asphyxiation” and “blunt force injuries.” An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” were attributed to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.”

While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today’s documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too.

The records reveal the following facts:

A 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was “undetermined” although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Notes say he “struggled/ interrogated/ died sleeping.” Some facts relating to this case have been previously reported. (In April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of “environmental manipulation” as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. Although Lt. Gen. Sanchez later rescinded the September 2003 techniques, he authorized “changes in environmental quality” in October 2003.)

An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by “OGA.” He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint.” (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)

A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists “asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression” as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object. New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by MI, died during interrogation.”

A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and “OGA.” A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was “blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration.” New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation.”

An Afghan civilian died from “multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities” on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)

A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)
The ACLU has previously released autopsy reports for two detainees who were tortured by U.S. forces in Bagram, Afghanistan, believed to be Mullah Habibullah and an Afghan man known as Dilawar.

“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”

The documents were released by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

As part of the FOIA lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge recently ordered the Defense Department to turn over photographs and videotapes depicting the abuse of prisoners held by the United States at Abu Ghraib. That decision has been stayed until October 26. There is a strong chance that the government will appeal the decision and the stay will remain in place.

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

To date, more than 77,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia.

The documents released today are available online at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

Friday, October 21, 2005

Congress Set to Pass Law Eliminating Liability For Vaccine Injuries

Print This Story Email This Story Save this Link View PR Newswire's RSS Feed
http://www.nvic.org
    WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Vaccine Information
Center (NVIC) is calling the "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug
Development Act of 2005"(S. 1873), which passed out of the U.S. Senate HELP
Committee one day after it was introduced "a drug company stockholder's dream
and a consumer's worst nightmare." The proposed legislation will strip
Americans of the right to a trial by jury if harmed by an experimental or
licensed drug or vaccine that they are forced by government to take whenever
federal health officials declare a public health emergency.
The legislation's architect, Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman of the
HELP Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness, told the
full HELP Committee yesterday that the legislation "creates a true
partnership" between the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry and
academia to walk the drug companies "through the Valley of Death" in bringing
a new vaccine or drug to market. Burr said it will give the Department of
Health and Human Services "additional authority and resources to partner with
the private sector to rapidly develop drugs and vaccines." The Burr bill gives
the Secretary of DHHS the sole authority to decide whether a manufacturer
violated laws mandating drug safety and bans citizens from challenging his
decision in the civil court system.
The bill establishes the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Agency (BARDA), as the single point of authority within the government for the
advanced research and development of drugs and vaccines in response to
bioterrorism and natural disease outbreaks such as the flu. BARDA will operate
in secret, exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, insuring that no evidence of injuries or deaths caused by drugs
and vaccines labeled as "countermeasures" will become public.
Nicknamed "Bioshield Two," the legislation is being pushed rapidly through
Congress without time for voters to make their voices heard by their elected
representatives. Co-sponsored by Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
(R-TN), Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Mike
Enzi (R-WY), and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH), the
legislation will eliminate both regulatory and legal safeguards applied to
vaccines as well as take away the right of children and adults harmed by
vaccines and drugs to present their case in front of a jury in a civil court
of law.
"It is a sad day for this nation when Congress is frightened and bullied
into allowing one profit making industry to destroy the seventh Amendment to
the Constitution guaranteeing citizens their day in court in front of a jury
of their peers," said Barbara Loe Fisher, president of NVIC. "This proposed
legislation, like the power and money grab by federal health officials and
industry in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Project Bioshield Act of
2004, is an unconstitutional attempt by some in Congress to give a taxpayer-
funded handout to pharmaceutical companies for drugs and vaccines the
government can force all citizens to use while absolving everyone connected
from any responsibility for injuries and deaths which occur. It means that, if
an American is injured by an experimental flu or anthrax vaccine he or she is
mandated to take, that citizen will be banned from exercising the
Constitutional right to a jury trial even if it is revealed that the vaccine
maker engaged in criminal fraud and negligence in the manufacture of the
vaccine."
The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is legally responsible for
regulating the pharmaceutical industry and ensuring that drugs and vaccines
released to the public are safe and effective. Drug companies marketing
painkillers, like Vioxx, and anti-depressants, which have resulted in the
deaths and injuries of thousands of children and adults, are being held
accountable in civil court while the FDA has come under intense criticism for
withholding information about the drugs' dangers from the public. Since 1986,
vaccine makers have been protected from most liability in civil court through
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in which Congress created a federal
vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) that offers vaccine victims an
alternative to the court system. Even though the program has awarded nearly $2
billion to victims of mandated vaccines, two out of three plaintiffs are
turned away.
"The drug companies and doctors got all the liability protection they
needed in 1986 but they are greedy and want more," said Fisher. "And the
federal health agencies want more power to force citizens to use vaccines
without having to worry about properly regulating them. If the Burr bill
passes, all economic incentives to insure mandated vaccines are safe will be
removed and the American people are facing a future where government can force
them to take poorly regulated experimental drugs and vaccines labeled as
"countermeasures" or go to jail. The only recourse for citizens will be to
strike down mandatory vaccination laws so vaccines will be subject to the law
of supply and demand in the marketplace. The health care consumer's cry will
be: No liability? No mandates."

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) was founded by parents of
vaccine injured children in 1982 and co-founders worked with Congress on the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. For more information, go to
http://www.nvic.org./


SOURCE National Vaccine Information Center
Web Site: http://www.nvic.org

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

The Abortion Debate

The Abortion Debate No One Wants to Have
Prenatal testing is making your right to abort a disabled child more like "your duty" to abort a disabled child.

By Patricia E. Bauer
Tuesday, October 18, 2005; A25

SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- If it's unacceptable for William Bennett to link abortion even conversationally with a whole class of people (and, of course, it is), why then do we as a society view abortion as justified and unremarkable in the case of another class of people: children with disabilities?

I have struggled with this question almost since our daughter Margaret was born, since she opened her big blue eyes and we got our first inkling that there was a full-fledged person behind them.

Whenever I am out with Margaret, I'm conscious that she represents a group whose ranks are shrinking because of the wide availability of prenatal testing and abortion. I don't know how many pregnancies are terminated because of prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome, but some studies estimate 80 to 90 percent.

Imagine. As Margaret bounces through life, especially out here in the land of the perfect body, I see the way people look at her: curious, surprised, sometimes wary, occasionally disapproving or alarmed. I know that most women of childbearing age that we may encounter have judged her and her cohort, and have found their lives to be not worth living.

To them, Margaret falls into the category of avoidable human suffering. At best, a tragic mistake. At worst, a living embodiment of the pro-life movement. Less than human. A drain on society. That someone I love is regarded this way is unspeakably painful to me.

This view is probably particularly pronounced here in blue-state California, but I keep finding it everywhere, from academia on down. At a dinner party not long ago, I was seated next to the director of an Ivy League ethics program. In answer to another guest's question, he said he believes that prospective parents have a moral obligation to undergo prenatal testing and to terminate their pregnancy to avoid bringing forth a child with a disability, because it was immoral to subject a child to the kind of suffering he or she would have to endure. (When I started to pipe up about our family's experience, he smiled politely and turned to the lady on his left.)

Margaret does not view her life as unremitting human suffering (although she is angry that I haven't bought her an iPod). She's consumed with more important things, like the performance of the Boston Red Sox in the playoffs and the dance she's going to this weekend. Oh sure, she wishes she could learn faster and had better math skills. So do I. But it doesn't ruin our day, much less our lives. It's the negative social attitudes that cause us to suffer.

Many young women, upon meeting us, have asked whether I had "the test." I interpret the question as a get-home-free card. If I say no, they figure, that means I'm a victim of circumstance, and therefore not implicitly repudiating the decision they may make to abort if they think there are disabilities involved. If yes, then it means I'm a right-wing antiabortion nut whose choices aren't relevant to their lives.

Either way, they win.

In ancient Greece, babies with disabilities were left out in the elements to die. We in America rely on prenatal genetic testing to make our selections in private, but the effect on society is the same.

Margaret's old pediatrician tells me that years ago he used to have a steady stream of patients with Down syndrome. Not anymore. Where did they go, I wonder. On the west side of L.A., they aren't being born anymore, he says.

The irony is that we live in a time when medical advances are profoundly changing what it means to live with disabilities. Years ago, people with Down syndrome often were housed in institutions. Many were in poor health, had limited self-care and social skills, couldn't read, and died young. It was thought that all their problems were unavoidable, caused by their genetic anomaly.

Now it seems clear that these people were limited at least as much by institutionalization, low expectations, lack of education and poor health care as by their DNA. Today people with Down syndrome are living much longer and healthier lives than they did even 20 years ago. Buoyed by the educational reforms of the past quarter-century, they are increasingly finishing high school, living more independently and holding jobs.

That's the rational pitch; here's the emotional one. Margaret is a person and a member of our family. She has my husband's eyes, my hair and my mother-in-law's sense of humor. We love and admire her because of who she is -- feisty and zesty and full of life -- not in spite of it. She enriches our lives. If we might not have chosen to welcome her into our family, given the choice, then that is a statement more about our ignorance than about her inherent worth.

What I don't understand is how we as a society can tacitly write off a whole group of people as having no value. I'd like to think that it's time to put that particular piece of baggage on the table and talk about it, but I'm not optimistic. People want what they want: a perfect baby, a perfect life. To which I say: Good luck. Or maybe, dream on.

And here's one more piece of un-discussable baggage: This question is a small but nonetheless significant part of what's driving the abortion discussion in this country. I have to think that there are many pro-choicers who, while paying obeisance to the rights of people with disabilities, want at the same time to preserve their right to ensure that no one with disabilities will be born into their own families. The abortion debate is not just about a woman's right to choose whether to have a baby; it's also about a woman's right to choose which baby she wants to have.

The writer is a former Post reporter and bureau chief. Her daughter, Margaret, is a student in the post-secondary program at the Riverview School in East Sandwich, Mass., from which Margaret received her high school diploma in 2004. She also takes classes at Cape Cod Community College.

Eminent Domain in N.J. - Now They Just Steal Land

Newsmax | October 18 2005

Carol Segal has a problem: He wants to build townhouses on the six acres of land he owns in New Jersey's Union Township and has contracted with a developer to build 100 townhouses there.

But the township government wants to develop the property themselves, and - incredibly - they have voted to take his land through the eminent domain process and let a local developer with political connections do the job.

"They want to steal my land," Segal told the Newark Star-Ledger. "What right do they have when I intend to do the exact same thing they want to do with my property?"

According to the Star-Ledger, Segal, a 65-year-old retired electrical engineer, has spent about $1.5 million to acquire the property over the past 10 years and has been dickering with township officials over the past five years about his development plans. He claims negotiations fell apart after he refused to use the developers that township officials wanted him to use.

At that point, on May 24, the five-member township committee voted unanimously to authorize the municipality to seize Segal's land through eminent domain and name its own developer, AMJM Development, paving the way for the developer to build 90 or so townhouses on Segal's land, according to the Star Ledger.

After that vote, Segal sued the township, and on Sept. 7 a Superior Court judge in Union County issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the township from hiring its own developer. Six days later, the township committee unanimously voted to start negotiating - but not sign a contract - with AMJM Development.

In the meantime, Segal signed a contract last week to sell his property to Centex Homes for about $13 million, contingent upon local approval. The Star-Ledger described Centex as a nationally known developer with projects in New Jersey's Middlesex, Morris and Monmouth counties. Centex plans to build 100 townhouses on Segal's property, and expects to earn some $15 million to $20 million, Segal told the newspaper.

Township Mayor Joseph Florio and Deputy Mayor Peter Capodice, both members of the township committee, told the Star Ledger they were unaware of Segal's involvement with Centex when they voted Sept. 13 to negotiate with the Mauti family, who own AMJM Development. But a proposal Centex submitted to the township committee on Sept. 1 said the company "has been in negotiations with (Segal) for quite some time."

When the item came up at the Sept. 13 meeting, the committee did not allow Segal's attorney to speak before the vote was taken.

Florio and Capodice told the newspaper they preferred AMJM because it is a local company. "I've never heard of Centex," Capodice said. "They're not Union County people."

This is where it gets sticky. Segal charges that last May 21, Albert G. Mauti Jr. and his cousin Joseph hosted a fundraiser for Assemblyman Joseph Cryan at the Westmount Country Club in Passaic County. The two developers and family members picked up the $10,400 dinner tab, donated another $8,000 and raised more than $70,000 that night for Cryan, a powerful Union County Democrat, according to state election records. Three days later, the township officials -- all Democrats -- introduced their eminent domain land grab.

According to the Star-Ledger, Cryan, 44, is "a rising star in state Democratic politics." While he holds no official position in Union Township government, he has been chairman of the local Democratic Party since 1995. He told the newspaper there was no connection between the fundraiser and the committee's vote and described the Mautis simply as "good friends," insisting moreover that he had nothing to do with shaping the township's redevelopment plan.

"My involvement is zero," Cryan told the Star-Ledger. He said he met with Segal no more than five times, and it was always at his legislative office. All discussions, he said, were initiated by Segal, and insisted that at no time did he recommend developers.

He added that his message to Segal was, "I can't help you. I don't make those decisions; the governing body does." His claim was disputed by Union County GOP Chairman Philip Morin, who told the Star-Ledger "Joe Cryan is intimately involved in even the most mundane decisions in Union Township."

Moreover, both Florio and Capodice admitted to the Star-Ledger that they have discussed the development project with Cryan, but neither could recall whether he expressed an opinion on the matter. Cryan said his discussions with committee members about the property are best characterized as him asking about the project's status.

Cryan's name also surfaced in connection with a change of language in the first draft of the development proposal for Segal's property, submitted in January, which directed officials "to work with any property owner within the redevelopment area."

The Star-Ledger reports that this language was removed from the final plan introduced May 24, which authorizes the township to choose its own developer. Florio and Capodice said they don't know why the language was changed; but both versions were written by an outside engineering firm hired by the township, T&M Associates of Middletown, which contributed $1,000 to Cryan at the May fundraiser.

Stanley Slachetka, the T&M employee who wrote the plans, declined comment to the Star-Ledger. Segal told the newspaper the township first expressed interest in his property in 2000, when committee member Anthony Terrezza called to set up a meeting - the first of many over the years. Segal said that at times he met with Terrezza and Cryan together, other times separately.

During the meetings, Segal said, the two politicians would recommend people to either buy the land or develop it in partnership.

"They made it clear I needed them to get it done," Segal told the newspaper, adding that he didn't like the deals they offered, and said he told them he wanted to develop the land himself. Around April, Segal said, the meetings stopped.

"At first, I thought we were working together," Segal said. "Now I realize they were trying to steal my land the whole time."

Terrezza did not return the Star-Ledger's calls for comment - nor did Committee members Brenda Restivo and Clifton People Jr.

Albert Mauti, a Staten Island resident, also denied any connection between the country club fundraiser and the committee vote; he claims he was simply supporting a local politician he likes and admires. His development plan, he said, "has nothing to do with Joe Cryan" he told the Star Ledger. But Mauti originally had told the newspaper that he never spoke to Cryan about the development.

When pressed, however, he said he may have but doesn't recall. But Cryan said he did speak to Mauti about the project, but it was just him inquiring how Mauti was progressing.

Despite the ordinance taking the property from Segal, Cryan did admit that he disagreed with the township's attempt to use eminent domain in this case: "It would be hugely unfair if they go in and use eminent domain to take his property," he said.

More Highly Credible Whistle Blowers Identifying Global 'Al-Qaeda' Terrorism as State Controlled

Looking back at the Bali bombing and new whistleblowers

Paul Joseph Watson | October 18 2005

During an interview for an Australian documentary, former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid unequivocally fingered the Indonesian authorities as the true culprits behind the 2002 Bali bombings.

Wahid said the authorities were acting at the behest of Western intelligence agencies.

Other sources used for the documentary were adamant that there were no Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups in existence that were not controlled by intelligence agencies.

Indonesia has become renowned for rampant corruption and state involvement in terrorist atrocities. Sources told the film makers that government connected establishment figures are carrying out an agenda of depopulation in the targeted areas by lowering the value of property and resources, then buying it on the cheap.

The United States government had advance knowledge of the October 12 2002 Bali bombing. They passed that knowledge on to the Taiwanese government and told them to keep the information top secret.

Hours before the bombing took place, the US withdrew all its administrative staff and diplomats from Indonesia, citing a 'security threat'. The British government also received the same warning but this wasn't passed on to any relevant authority or the hundreds of victims carelessly making their way to a beach party.

The plastic explosives used in the attack were of military origin and were used primarily by the US military.

Immediately after the bombing, the FBI, the Australian Secret Service and British secret police swooped in to the bomb site and ruthlessly took charge of the investigation, much to the anger of the Indonesian authorities and the Balinese police.

Why were they so eager to take control? Were they attempting to cover their tracks and lead the other unwitting investigators away from any other conclusion but that the bombing was carried out by suicide bombers?

The very organization blamed by the authorities for the bombing responded by saying the attack was the work of the CIA, Mossad and Australian Secret Service.

Back in July we released an article which called for, "all governments who still operate outside of the control of the Globalists to come forward and join humanity in unveiling the real terrorists who are attempting to deform the world into a prison planet."

This was a plea for all credible whistleblowers, and especially those within government, to shine a spotlight on the true face of terrorism,

"We are calling on all whistleblowers to reveal themselves now and stand with us in the corner of truth and the future of this species. These bastards are indiscriminate killers and withholding information only paints a bigger target on your forehead. Your words need to be heard."

"On a governmental level the challenge is here before you. Either scream from the rooftops about government orchestrated terrorism or sit back and watch your country become a victim of it as it is wrestled away from your hands and placed in the domain of a black and cancerous global dictatorship."

Since this article the crescendo if credible individuals blowing the whistle on government sponsored terror has increased.

After British SAS officers were caught dressed in Arab garb, shooting at police and, according to some sources, allegedly driving a car filled to the brim with explosives, the Iranian government came out and accused the US and Britain of staging car bombings in Iraq and also being behind bombings in Iran in an attempt to destabilize the government.

Meanwhile, in the US, the so-called threat to attack the New York Subway was admitted to be a hoax. This of course was only released after Mayor Bloomberg's approval ratings had increased and sufficient attention had been distracted away from the imminent indictments of top Bush administration officials.

The Globalists are reeling and exposure of government sponsored terror has them on the ropes. Some developments might even tempt us to speculate that they have backed off using terror to attempt further seizures of power. The Globalists are like junkies, every terror attack has less and less of a fear impact on the general public. Therefore the attacks need to increase in scale to have any real impact. However, increasing the scale only increases the size of the Globalists' dirty fingerprints all over the crime. They are frozen by the fear of being caught.

Is the move to push Bird Flu as the new boogeyman a shift away from the terror paradigm? It is possible but we should never underestimate the audacity of the Globalists.

The end goal remains the same. The complete militarization of America, the confiscation of every citizen's firearms, and the brutal desecration of liberty as we know it.

White House was worried about rogue CIA group: reporter

AFP | October 18 2005

A new account of the CIA leak scandal rocking the White House suggests top US presidential aides were seriously concerned about a dissident faction inside the US spy agency that appeared to work even behind the back of the CIA director to debunk the notion Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The first-hand account, delivered yesterday by Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter at the center of the leak story, cast a new light on the byzantine world of Washington politics rife with political intrigue, backstabbing and career-ruining retribution for expressing an opposing view.

Miller spent 58 days in jail earlier this year for refusing to talk to a special prosecutor about her three 2003 interviews with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, whose name is often mentioned in connection with the illegal leaking to the media of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Her name was first disclosed in July 2003 by conservative columnist Robert Novak following her husband Joseph Wilson's mission to Niger the previous year, during which the former US ambassador to that African nation tried to verify reports that Iraq was secretly trying to purchase uranium ore there.

After failing to find any evidence of that, Wilson wrote a newspaper article, in which he accused the Bush administration of "exaggerating the Iraqi threat" in order to justify the war.

Miller said the article "appeared to have agitated Mr. Libby," who referred to Wilson as a "clandestine guy."

He added that the CIA "took it upon itself to try and figure out more" about the uranium allegations without informing either the White House or its own director, the journalist recalled.

All in all, Libby was concerned the CIA was engaged in a "perverted war" over the war in Iraq and resorted to "selective leaking" of information to drive its point home, according to the report.

He believed the CIA was "backpedaling on the intelligence leading to war," Miller said

Senior military torture investigator found dead in Iraq

London Independent | October 17 2005

By Kim Sengupta

A senior British military police officer in Iraq involved in the investigation of alleged abuse of Iraqi civilians by soldiers has been found dead at a camp in Basra.

The body of Captain Ken Masters, the commander of 61 Section of the Special Investigations Branch (SIB), was found in his bed at the airport at the weekend. The death is being investigated by the SIB.

Defence sources said the death was "not due to hostile action and also not due to natural causes".

However, it is believed that investigators have not found a suicide note, nor firearms related to the incident. Capt Masters was not receiving any medical or psychological treatment.

Friends and colleagues of Captain Masters, who was married with two children, said that his death had come as a "total surprise".

After his body was found early on Saturday evening a siren sounded over Basra camp, flares were fired in the air, and all military personnel were confined to barracks .

Despite being of middle-rank, Captain Masters was in charge of all serious incidents involving the British military in Iraq.
It was not immediately known which particular cases he had been personally involved in investigating. The British military is, however, looking into several dozen cases.

Seven members of the Parachute Regiment are on trial for the murder of an Iraqi teenager, Nadhem Abdullah.

Several Fusiliers have been convicted at a court martial in Osnabrück, Germany, of abusing civilians and photographing the acts.

Some soldiers have been charged in relation to the death of a hotel receptionist, Baha Musa.

A spokesman for the British forces in Basra said: "The commanding officer of 61 Section, Special Investigations Branch, Capt Ken Masters, was found dead last night at a military establishment in Iraq.

"The matter is now under investigation and until this is completed it will be inappropriate for me to make any further comment. It was not due to any hostile action. It was not down to natural causes."

A military source said "This has come as shock to us. Ken was not suffering from depression or anything that indicated that he would take his own life."

Monday, October 17, 2005

British Terrorism in Iraq

Al Zarqawi and his “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” are inventions of the occupying forces


September 30, 2005


It had been long known to the Iraqis, to the Arabs, and to all Moslems in countries bordering Iraq that the majority of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, especially car bombing, are perpetrated by covert British, American, and Israeli operatives. It is also well known to them that the terrorist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and his “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” are just inventions of the coalition forces to justify their existence. More and more evidences are coming out of Iraq to support this fact. The arrest of two undercover British SAS operatives last week, disguised as Arabs trying to plant a car bomb in the middle of Basra during the Karbala Festival, which draws as many as 3 million pilgrims to the city, is just the latest of such revelations.

In previous article - “American Terror Strategy in Iraq”, published first week of last August) I wrote about the American covert terrorist activity in Iraq aimed at inciting civil war and alienating Iraqi resistance. The good citizens of Great Britain and US, including their troops fighting in Iraq, would not believe that their governments would do such terrible acts. After all these two countries are sacrificing the lives of their young troops to liberate Iraqis and not to murder them. The article was criticized harshly by American troops, who served in Iraq, and claimed that they were helping Iraqis re-building their lives. Yet many other Americans and Britons – troops as well as independent reporters – speak loudly about the African, Latin American, American and British mercenaries operating in Iraq and are paid thousands more than the regular troops to perpetrate the terror attacks. British and American leaders had lied their troops into the war in Iraq. Studying history one discovers a long history of these leaders deceiving their people and leading them to terrorize other countries.

The two British operatives, arrested by Basra police and later freed by a British military operation, were identified by the BBC as “members of the SAS elite special forces”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/424614.stm ).

They were disguised by wigs and Arab dress. Iraqi sources reported that the Iraqi police were watching the two, and when they tried to approach them they shot two policemen and tried to escape the scene. The Iraqi police chased and captured them, to discover large amount of explosives planted in the car, which apparently was planned to be remotely detonated in the busy market of Basra. The SAS involvement in Iraq was discovered on the 30th of January 2005 when an RAF Hercules plane crashed near Baghdad killing then British servicemen after dropping off fifty SAS members north of Baghdad to fight Iraqi guerillas.

SAS (Special Air Service) is a secret regiment in the British Army. It was formed in 1941 to conduct raids behind the German lines in North Africa. At the present it forms part of the United Kingdom Special Forces alongside the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. The role of the SAS includes intelligence gathering, behind enemy lines target attacks, counter revolutionary warfare, guarding of senior British dignitaries, conducting military missions without official British Government involvement, training special forces of other nationalities, and counter-terrorism operations.

The SAS conducted many military missions throughout the world. From 1958 – 1959 they fought the anti-sultan rebels in Jebel Akhdar in Oman. They also fought against another insurrection in Dhofar, Oman in 1970 - 1977. They fought Indonesian-supported guerillas during the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation in Borneo in 1963 – 1966. They operated in Aden in 1964 – 1967 before the withdrawal of the British troops. During the Falklands War in 1982 SAS were involved in covert operation in San Carlos before the landing of the main British forces. In the Gulf War of 1991 they were deployed deep behind the Iraqi army lines to destroy Scud missiles launchers and to gather intelligence. It was also reported that they had set fires to the Kuwaiti oil wells.

Some of the SAS had helped Afghani fighters during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s. They also had special training camp in Scotland to train them on shooting down Russian Helicopters.

The SAS was deeply involved in the British conflict in Northern Ireland since its start in 1969. At the beginning they operated openly in their own uniform, and later on they planted moles in the IRA, who were involved in terror bombing. The well known August 15th, 1998 Omagh bombing attack, which killed 29 civilians was done by an SAS double agent as reported by Sunday Herald (http://www.sundayherald.com/17827 ).

The Paper also reported the confession of another SAS member, who operated as an IRA mole from 1981 to 1994 while on full British army pay. He helped to develop a new type of bomb activated by photographic flashes to overcome the problem of IRA remote-control devices being signal jammed by army radio units.
(http://www.sundayherald.com/print25646 ).

Another mole, known by his codename “Stakeknife”, was still active in December of 2002 as one of Belfast’s leading provisionals. His military commander “allowed him to carry out large numbers of terrorist murders in order to protect his cover within the IRA”.
(http://www.sundayherald.com/29997 ).

In late 2002 the paper reported reliable evidence that the British army had used its moles in terrorist organizations to “carry out proxy assassinations”, such as the case of the human rights activist Pat Finucane, who was murdered in 1989 by the Protestant Ulster Defense Association (UDA). The mole supplied the UDA with necessary information to assassinate Finucane. (http://sundayherald.com/29997 ).

Car bombings in Iraq started few months after the occupation. The first attacks were directed against the U.N. Headquarters in Iraq prompting the U.N. to withdraw its employees. The Red Cross and the Jordanian Embassy were also initially targeted. Later on car bombing targeted several mosques and religious leaders, and lately the fragile Iraqi Police became the main target. Oddly enough the common denominator in these attacks is that they targeted exclusively Iraqis rather than the occupying forces. It does not make any sense for Al-Qaeda and Al-Zarqawi, allegedly came to Iraq to fight Americans, to attack Iraqi civilians and Iraqi police. In doing so the occupying forces find excuses to stay longer in Iraq. As Bush and Blair continue to remark that since the Iraqi Forces are very week and could not defend the Iraqi against terrorist, it is imperative for the British/American troops to stay in Iraq in order to fight terrorists and help Iraqis defend themselves.

There is a common belief that these car bombings are orchestrated by foreign forces (Americans, British, and Israelis) in Iraq to spread chaos. Imad Khadduri, the Iraqi-exile physicist, reported of Arab drivers discovering bombs planted in their cars after being stopped and interrogated at an American checkpoint. Baghdad Burning blog reported in May 2005 of eyewitnesses to American patrols planting bombs in Ma’moun area in west Baghdad. Abdel Hadi Al-Daraji, Al-Sadr’s top official in Sadr City, accused Britain of plotting to start an ethnic war by carrying out car bombings targeting Shia civilians and then blaming the attack on Sunni Arabs. He said: “Everyone knows the occupiers’ agenda. They are in bed with the Mossad (the Israeli secret service) and their intention is to keep Iraq an unstable battlefield so they can exploit their interests in Iraq”. Sheik Hassan Al-Zarqani, a spokesman for Mahdi Army militia described the two British SAS operatives as terrorists. He stated that the Iraq police found weapons, explosives and remote control detonators in their car. He explained “We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets”. The quick fierce action of the British army to release the two SAS operatives before being interrogated tends to support the view that this incident has deeper implications beyond what appears on the surface.

The general attitude of many Iraqis could be summarized in a statement made by a Shiite man. He said: “I believe it is the Americans who are doing this, pretending it is Sunnis, so there will be a civil war and they can control our wealth.” International reporters, such as the American journalists Dahr Jamail and Juan Cole, started viewing car bombings through the Iraqi point of view.

When asking the important question of who benefits from these car bombings, we discover that the only beneficiaries are the occupying forces. Blaming car bombings on Iraqi resistance the Americans are trying to drive a wedge between the resistance and the sympathetic Iraqis. By bombing Shiite mosques in one day and Sunni mosques in another they are trying to incite hatred between the two religious factions. Civil war and division of Iraq is the ultimate goal of the occupation. Bush’s and Blair’s speeches are geared towards planting seeds of religious conflict. Corporate-owned media on both sides of the Atlantic seem to cultivate these seeds and repeatedly report that car bombing attacks causing casualties among Iraqi civilians are pushing Iraq towards a civil war between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. To incite more religious hatred between the groups the corporate media report of “alarming ethnic cleansing” of Shiites in the predominantly Sunni Baghdad neighborhoods. To exacerbate the situation the American army has been deploying Kurdish Peshmerga troops and Shiite militias in their attacks on Iraqi cities, lately in Tal Afar and Ramadi, killing Sunnis and destroying their houses in a manner designed to inflame ethnic hatred.

The policy is to divide in order to conquer, and the ultimate plan is to partition Iraq into three warring three ethnic sections; Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish. Such division entails civil war and ethnic cleansing on a massive scale to weaken any merging Iraqi government, so that it could not demand the withdrawal of the occupying forces. The division of the Yugoslav Federation in the 1990s into smaller weaker states has been taken as a model to slice Iraq. This plan falls perfectly within the Israeli strategic goal, proposed in 1982, of dividing Iraq, the strongest Arab nation, into three warring ethnic states. The same policy can be seen In Israel’s attempt to incite civil war between PA on one side and the other Palestinian factions on the other side.