Yes, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was a Palestinian activist. We have no reason to believe otherwise. He spent years of his life in Israeli prison - and one year in an Egyptian jail - for his political activism. This, however, gives no credibility to Israel's accusation that al-Mabhouh was a killer of Israelis. This assertion becomes even more problematic when considering that al-Mabhouh's assassination was, according to British media, ordered by accused Israeli war criminals and rightwing politicians.

According to the Sunday Times, Meir Dagan, the current director of Mossad briefed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the assassination plan during a meeting in early January. "The people of Israel trust you. Good luck," Netanyahu reportedly said at the end of this meeting.

It is disgraceful enough that the assassins used 'fraudulent' European passports, as well as credit cards linked to an American bank to carry out their plans. But more upsetting is the fact that this cruel and calculated action has inspired little more than expressions of 'outrage'. Have we become this resigned to Israeli impunity?

What about the sanctity of life, the sovereignty of nations and the respect for international law? Are these immediately disposable when the victim is Palestinian and the location of the crime an Arab country?

Al-Mabhouh has also been callously deprived of his own relevance to the story. We don't really know much about the man aside from what Israeli wants us to know - a senior Hamas operative who was responsible for the abduction and killings of two Israeli soldiers; one of the founders of the militant arm of Hamas, Izz al-Din al-Qassam; the middleman between Hamas in Gaza and al-Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran.

Who has weaved this fascinatingly reductionist account of al-Mabhouh's life in such a short span of time? His family? Hamas? The Palestinian media? No, none of these. The creator of this biography is Israel, the very country that assassinated him. Now that is truly outrageous: the murderer writes and convinces the world of the story of the murder victim. And the media gladly runs with it.

Expectedly, a Palestinian would tell al-Mabhouh's story in entirely different terms. He was born in Jabalia, one of Gaza's poorest and most crowded refugee camps. These key words alone - Gaza, poor, crowded, refugee - helps to unravel the real story of al-Mabhouh. It is the story shared by so many people who still live a life of utter anguish, poverty and resistance in the Gaza Strip - and elsewhere - which is under inhumane siege and successive wars by the world's fourth strongest army. The story is not about abducted occupation soldiers, but about millions of refugees, not about Iran, but about Gaza and Palestine, not about luxury hotels, but about horrifyingly desolate refugee camps.

But Palestinians - like many oppressed peoples around the world - have no right to their own narrative. Their story is negligible, if not wholly irrelevant. Israel commits the murder, Israel offers the explanation, and eventually Israel gets away with both the crime and the lie. Al-Mabhouh's murder might eventually inspire several documentaries that highlight the murderous nature of Palestinian militants, and the unequalled brilliance of Israeli retaliation. Another Steven Spielberg's Munich might already be in the making. The first scene of this would not be al-Mabhouh's family forced to flee their village in Palestinian after untold butchery by Zionist militants in 1948. Instead it might show a dark-skinned, menacing Palestinian slaughtering two helpless Israeli soldiers pleading for their lives.

We are, more or less, told to forget about al-Mabhouh. After all, his name is used along with Hamas and Iran in the same sentence. That should be enough to tell us that his life is dispensable - just like the lives of over 1,400 Palestinians who were killed by the Israeli army in Gaza between December 2008 and January 2009. Israel may well be preparing for yet another attack on the impoverished Strip. The tunnels that represent the lifeline for the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza are being routinely blown up by Israeli warplanes, detonated by dynamites and blocked by an Egyptian steel wall. Gazans cannot be allowed any weapons to defend themselves either. The 'international community' has held many meetings to ensure that no weapons find their way to Gaza. The US in particular is utterly firm regarding this issue - although not at all firm about ensuring that food or medicine reach the Strip. Al-Mabhouh may have been killed due to Israel's belief he was arming the resistance. This partly explains why the 'international community' is not at all moved by the murder. Al-Mabhouh might have been involved in breaking the Western consensus on denying Gaza both food and arms.

The EU is only worried about its link to the story, and not the murder itself. An EU statement issued in Brussels on February 22 condemned the "fact that those involved in this action used fraudulent EU member-states passports." They didn't name Israel though. As the Financial Times resolved, "criticism of Israel was as strongly worded as the EU could manage, given that Germany, Italy and several other countries place great emphasis on close relations with Israel."

One can only imagine what would happen if Hamas decides to strike back, expanding the battleground from Gaza to the rest of the world. Would the EU express disapproval of Hamas' use of fraudulent passport, but then refrain from actually naming the group - due to a fear, say, of upsetting Muslim countries?

No. But when the victim is a Palestinian and the murderers are Israelis - 27 of them so far - it's an entirely different story, and an entirely different concept of justice.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Responsible mainly for intelligence collection and covert operations, including paramilitary activities, it is one of the three institutions in the Israeli Intelligence Community. The other two are known as Aman and Shin Bet tasked for military intelligence and internal security respectively. Together, these three agencies are responsible for a long string of covert operations including assassinations of opponents, spying on friends and foes alike and tracking down and killing the Nazis of the yore.

On January 19, 2010, life was snuffed out of one Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in his hotel room in Dubai. Traveling without bodyguards, he was en route to Bangkok. Allegedly, Mossad was on his spoor from Damascus, tracking him finally to his hotel room in Dubai. A team of at least 27 suspects, carrying fake or fraudulently obtained passports from various nations, seven of which assumed the names of Israeli dual citizens, worked in tandem to carry out the hit. So professional was the hit that for days Mabhouh's death was ascribed to natural causes.

According to a detailed report in The Daily Mail on Sunday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had personally congratulated members of the Mossad team that allegedly killed Mabhouh ahead of their departure to Dubai.

The Mossad normally conducts its tasks flawlessly. Traces of its involvement usually do not surface for years. Not this time, however. The whole exercise, though successful, started stinking to high heavens within days.

UAE, a tiny oil rich emirate in whose city Dubai the hit was carried out, broke the news of the assassination and that forged Irish, British, German, Australian and French passports were used by some of the suspects in the slaying of the Hamas commander. The UAE, an otherwise pacifist country, has bared its teeth at Israel and continues to pull layers off the ugly deed with each passing day.

Israel neither confirms nor denies the killing. Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in the meanwhile, sees no reason to resign over assassination in Dubai, and Prime Minister Netanyahu is unlikely to ask him to, according to a close associate of the Israeli spymaster. World embassies, however, continue to reverberate from the incidence.

The British Embassy in Israel says a special police investigator has been flown in to meet with the dual British-Israeli nationals whose British passports were used in the assassination. Israeli ambassador to London Ron Prosor met the head of Britain's diplomatic service, Peter Ricketts, after being called to a meeting at the Foreign Office. Britain has publicly urged Israel to cooperate fully with its investigation into the apparent use of counterfeit British passports by suspected Israeli assassins.

Ireland followed Britain in summoning its Israeli ambassador to explain how passport details of three Irish citizens were used by an Israeli group of suspected assassins. French Prime Minister Francois Fillon has condemned the assassination of Mabhouh and called for the truth about the killing to be established.

The suspected 27-person hit team also includes three individuals using allegedly fake Australian passports sparking an outrage among Australians. The Israeli ambassador to Australia was promptly sent for and reportedly warned that the Australian government expects Israel's full cooperation in the investigation. The Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith was quoted saying by The Australian newspaper, "I made it crystal clear to the [Israeli ambassador] that if the results of that investigation cause us to come to the conclusion that the abuse of Australian passports was in any way sponsored or condoned by Israeli officials, then Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend."

The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd went a notch higher according to the local news media. He warned, "We will not be silent on this matter.....Any state that has been complicit in use or abuse of the Australian passport system, let alone for the conduct of an assassination, is treating Australia with contempt, and there will therefore be action by the Australian government in response."

With the assured backing of its time tested patron, the United States of America that shoots down UN resolutions even on bad wording for its protégé and for the moment stands silently by, whether or not Israel will heed these warnings is anybody's guess. According to anofficially acknowledged list, despite similar warnings in the past, Mossad's list of accomplished assassinations is rather long. Here are just a few prominent names on that list;

Abdel Wael Zwaiter, a Libyan embassy employee and a PLO representative was killed in Rome on Oct 16, 1972. Ghassan Kanafani a Palestinian writer was killed in Beirut that same year. Wadie Haddad, a PFLP (Polpular Front for Liberation of Israel) commander, was killed in Germany in 1978. Ali Hassan Salameh, a high-ranked PLO leader, was killed in 1979 by a car bomb in Beirut. Zuheir Mohsen, leader of the pro-Syria faction of the PLO, was shot in front of a casino in Cannes in 1979. Yehia El-Mashad , an Egyptian nuclear scientist, was killed by Mossad agents in his room at the Méridien Hotel in Paris in 1980. Mamoun Meraish, a senior PLO official, was shot in his car by Mossad agents from their motorcycle in Athens in 1983. Atef Bseiso, a Palestinian official, was shot several times in the head at point blank range by two Mossad gunmen in his hotel room in Paris in 1992.

Hatikva, Israel's national anthem, inspires millions of Jewish people the world over. Its first four lines read:

As long as deep in the heart, The soul of a Jew yearns, And forward to the East To Zion, an eye looks

Many eyes, some dead some still alive, now look to Zion and its patron to explain how one country can act as an international thug, take another people's land, kill them when they struggle to get a piece of it back, stop at virtually nothing, and, this time, draw five other countries into the bloody games of espionage that it plays and gets not a rap on the knuckles where a sledge hammer is long due.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Feb. 3, the U.S. may, with executive approval, target and kill American terrorist suspects, Inter Press News Service reported.

"We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community," he said.

Blair added that U.S. counterterrorism officials may try to kill U.S. citizens involved in terrorism overseas with "specific permission" from higher up.

In response to questions from the panel's top Republican, Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Blair said, if "we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."

Blair's statement recalls the policies of Soviet Russia's secret police, who often murdered those who fled Stalin's tyranny. Red Army founder Leon Trotsky, for example, was tracked to Mexico by a Soviet agent who killed him with an ice pick.

Blair's remarks followed a Washington Post article reporting that President Barack Obama had embraced President George W. Bush's policy of authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens involved in terrorist activities overseas.

The Post reported: "After the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said.

"The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for example, has to pose 'a continuing and imminent threat' to U.S. persons and interests."

Daphne Eviatar, an attorney with Human Rights First, told Inter Press, "The short answer is that combatants can be targeted and civilians cannot under international law. Their citizenship isn't relevant. But just being a 'suspected terrorist' doesn't necessarily mean they're a combatant."

She added, "The key question, and where there may be serious disagreement, is whether the person targeted is 'directly participating in hostilities.' If not, and they're targeted, it's a war crime."

Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, said, "It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified 'threat.'"

Attorney George Brent Mickum, an American lawyer who has defended a number of Guantanamo Bay detainees, told Inter Press, "I guess my sense is that it's just more fear mongering. They kill somebody and don't need to offer any justification."

"We have killed thousands of innocent civilians while attempting to target alleged operatives," Mickum said. "And let us not forget how frequently our intelligence has been wrong about alleged operatives."

"My clients Bisher al Rawi, Jamil el-Banna, Martin Mubanga, abu Zubaydah, and Shaker Aamer all are alleged to have been operatives based on intel. In every case that intel was incorrect," Mickum told Inter Press. "I don't have any expectation that our intel with respect to alleged American operatives is likely to be any better."

Other experts on international law were outraged, too.

"This extrajudicial execution of human beings constitutes a grave violation of international human rights law and, under certain circumstances, can also constitute a war crime under the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949," said Francis Boyle, University of Illinois professor of international law at Champaign.

"In addition, the extrajudicial execution of U.S. citizens by the United States government also violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandating that no person "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Boyle said, "The U.S. Government has now established a 'death list' for U.S. citizens abroad akin to those established by Latin American dictatorships during their so-called 'dirty wars.'"

He claimed President Bush "reduced the United States of America to a Banana Republic waging a 'dirty war' around the world in gross violation of international law, human rights law, and the laws of war. It is only a matter of time before the United States government will establish a similar 'death list' targeting U.S. citizens living here at home."

Boyle added that, "As someone who used to teach Constitutional law, President Obama knows better."

Boyle, a leading U.S. authority in international law, drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 for the U.S. He is the author of a number of books in his field, including Destroying World Order.

Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told Inter Press, "As with its embrace of the [George W.] Bush approach to indefinite detention, the Obama administration's even greater reliance on targeted extrajudicial killing - including of U.S. citizens - is a tragic legal, moral, and practical mistake."

"Even for those who accept the legitimacy of the death penalty," Pitts continued, "this further undermines the rule of law that is our best weapon in the fight against true terrorists, while completely subverting due process and constitutional rights of U.S. citizens."

Basic reporting for this article came from Inter Press News Service of Rome. Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based columnist who writes on world events. Ross formerly worked for the Chicago Daily News and wire services. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com

In a statement released by the CIA after the attack, the agency stated, referring to the casualties, that "we pledge to them and their families that we will never cease fighting for the cause to which they dedicated their lives--a safer America."

This "noble cause" that the CIA and its agents are vowing to fight until the end did not begin in Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. CIA operations in the country began in the late 1970s.

Washington's public rationale for why the U.S. government must fight in Afghanistan--lack of women's rights, Islamic law, lack of education, and so on--have not always existed in Afghanistan. There is, in fact, a period during which Afghanistan was on a progressive path. In 1978, under the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, women's rights and anti-sexist laws were enacted for the first time in Afghanistan's history. Schools began opening throughout the country and a literacy campaign was initiated. The government functioned on a secular, democratic platform, after a long feudal era.

As Afghanistan was building equality, increasing literacy and education and building a new progressive society, Washington was worried about one thing. The new government wanted independence and would not allow itself to be made a puppet serving the interests of U.S. capitalism. The CIA was promptly dispatched, not for a "safer America," but for a safer region for U.S. companies to exert their dominance.

The CIA's history in Afghanistan begins like this: spending billions of dollars to crush the only progressive period in the country's history.

How did they do this? By heavily funding and fighting alongside the most reactionary religious organizations, who began killing and maiming women not observing the most fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic law, destroying schools and murdering scores of civilians throughout the country. Those CIA-backed forces then took state power, and ruled the country--while still receiving millions of dollars from the CIA. Then, they were overthrown by the CIA in 2001.

The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of the Taliban government in 2001, commanding the war with its operatives on the ground. One of those agents who masterminded the U.S. takeover in 2001, Henry Crumpton, recently spoke out about the CIA tactics used. He and his agents would visit tribal leaders, and offer them this ultimatum: "If you do not cooperate, the chances of your survival are greatly diminished."

If that particular tribal leader refused to assist the invading foreign forces in his country, Crumpton and his team would openly murder him. Crumpton admitted, "And the next day, we'd talk to the tribal leader that was next door. ... Given the incentive that we had set the previous day, he was much more amenable to negotiations in our favor."

The terrorist tactics used by the CIA in Afghanistan make it obvious why their base was targeted.

The CIA has long commanded military operations, from its death squads in Latin America to bloody military coups in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. But there has been a fundamental change in the CIA's military role since 2001.

Now, the CIA is on the front lines in Afghanistan more so than in any other mission. Previously, the CIA primarily commanded U.S. military special operations troops, as well as local militias. The CIA's own paramilitary branch, known as the Special Activities Division, was small and rarely used in lieu of U.S. and foreign troops.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration began the process of militarizing the CIA, which continues today. The Special Activities Division was increased in size and funding. They were given greater authority to clandestinely conduct military operations in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and other countries where U.S. troops are not legally allowed.

Now, instead of commanding U.S. or foreign military units and local reactionary militias, the CIA is increasingly conducting military operations with their own agents. They even operate out of their own firebases scattered all over Afghanistan and Iraq. This constitutes a major change in the structure of the CIA.

The growing trend of privatizing the military can be seen as the CIA militarizes. In addition to increasing their own number of troops, the CIA has also absorbed sectors of the notorious mercenary company known as Blackwater (now known as Xe).

It was recently revealed that the CEO of Blackwater, right-wing evangelical billionaire Eric Prince, works directly for the CIA. Blackwater troops became CIA troops, and have been conducting assassination campaigns and military operations in Pakistan and other countries.

But the CIA's militarization spans beyond commanding their own troops. The CIA established a vast network of secret prisons, where suspects endure vicious illegal torture and absolutely no legal rights.

In addition, the CIA now has its own personal air force, commanding and piloting drones that are now being regularly used all over the world, conducting bombing missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. The Obama administration recently approved even more funds to increase the CIA's drone capabilities, putting bombs and missiles at their fingertips.

The CIA is playing a more direct role in U.S. wars than ever before. The U.S. ruling class wants the so-called "war on terror" to be shifted into the shadows.

The anti-war movement exploded in late 2002, drawing the largest anti-war demonstrations in history against the invasion of Iraq. The anti-war movement during the Vietnam War grew to a point where the U.S. government was forced to abandon its colonial aims in Vietnam. Now, the United States is involved in what is already the longest war in U.S. history, which is growing more unpopular everyday. The occupation of Iraq still has no end in sight. The Pentagon brass has made it clear that we should brace for a long and bloody fight in Afghanistan. Additionally, U.S. imperialism has goals elsewhere in the region.

Capitalism has developed into a global economic system. The United States and a handful of countries in Western Europe have competed with each other to dominate the markets and resources of the rest of the world for the past century. They have also cooperated together in their joint struggle against socialism or against independent non-socialist governments in the developing world.

This has led to the bloodiest century in human history and shows no signs of abating.

One way that the militarization of the CIA benefits the ruling class is that it allows the U.S. government to substitute other forces for those the U.S. military would have deployed. U.S. military operations are much more subject to publicity and scrutiny, but clandestine CIA operations are ambiguous. Working in the shadows allows the government to deny its own role in secret bombings, targeted assassinations and economic sabotage in other countries. The history of the CIA includes the most blatantly criminal military operations, using the most brutal and murderous tactics to overthrow popular, democratically elected governments who do not submit to U.S. corporations, and installing the most reactionary and repressive dictators, from Guatemala, to Iran, to Haiti, to the Congo, and countless others. If U.S. troops deployed to conduct these operations, there would have been even greater public outcry. But they are instead conducted in the shadows, to mask the true nature of the system we live under.

Outright military invasion is often a last resort for the ruling class, when their other methods have failed to achieve their goals of economic domination. With the changing role of the CIA, the extent of the capabilities of conducting covert operations has been stretched to new boundaries. The CIA can now deploy its own soldiers, pilot its own bombing missions and manage its own prison apparatus.

In the news

Yes, the U.S. is still engaged in torture.

12/17/09 Cobain, Guardian, CIA working with Palestinian security agents

Palestinian security agents who have been detaining and allegedly torturing supporters of the Islamist organisation Hamas in the West Bank have been working closely with the CIA, the Guardian has learned.

Less than a year after Barack Obama signed an executive order that prohibited torture and provided for the lawful interrogation of detainees in US custody, evidence is emerging the CIA is co-operating with security agents whose continuing use of torture has been widely documented by human rights groups.

The relationship between the CIA and the two Palestinian agencies involved - Preventive Security Organisation (PSO) and General Intelligence Service (GI) - is said by some western diplomats and other officials in the region to be so close that the American agency appears to be supervising the Palestinians' work.

Insurgent's cheap trick for capturing military drone video.

12/17/09 MacAskill, CNN, US drones hacked by Iraqi insurgents

One of America's most sophisticated weapons in the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the unmanned drone, has been successfully penetrated by insurgents using software available on the internet for $26 (£16).

Insurgents in Iraq intercepted live video feeds from the drones being relayed back to a US controller and revealing potential targets. A US official said the flaw was identified and fixed in the past 12 months.

Here is the 12/17/09 Rachel Maddow show with Noah Schachtman (Danger Room) discussing this. (7 minutes)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Taliban offers to stop al Qaida in Afghanistan. U.S. is silent.

12/17/09 Porter, Asia Times, US silent on Taliban's al-Qaeda offer

he Barack Obama administration is refusing to acknowledge an offer by the leadership of the Taliban in early December to give "legal guarantees" that they will not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries.

The administration's silence on the offer, despite a public statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing skepticism about any Taliban offer to separate itself from al-Qaeda, effectively leaves the door open to negotiating a deal with the Taliban based on such a proposal.

U.S. double agent allegedly planned the Mumbia explosions.

12/16/09 Yusuf, CSM, India: Was Mumbai suspect a double agent for US?

The Indian press is abuzz with news that Indian Home Ministry officials have said they are investigating whether Pakistani-American terror suspect David Coleman Headley was working as a "double agent."

Indian officials reportedly raised questions about Mr. Headley's links with US intelligence agencies - even as another terror suspect accused of involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks was denied bail by a US federal court. These latest and widely-publicized accusations against Headley are expected to put pressure on India's ruling Congress Party, which has emphasized closer ties with the US as part of its foreign policy.

The US has not allowed Indian authorities to interrogate Headley over the Mumbai attacks, much to India's consternation.

Yes, our rights are still under attack as U.S. dissident groups are targeted.

12/16/09 Savage & Shane, NYT, Intelligence Improperly Collected on U.S. Citizens

In February, a Department of Homeland Security intelligence official wrote a "threat assessment" for the police in Wisconsin about a demonstration involving local pro- and anti-abortion rights groups.

That report soon drew internal criticism because the groups "posed no threat to homeland security," according to a department memorandum released on Wednesday in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The agency destroyed all its copies of the report and gave the author remedial training.

That was just one of several cases in the last several years in which the department's intelligence office improperly collected information about American citizens or lawful United States residents, the documents show.

In the world of David Ray Griffin and his cheerleaders, if it is possible to prove that bin Laden is dead, wars would immediately come to an end. Such irrational rationale seems to be the noble driving force behind his most recent book, "Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive?", if it were not for its reliance on excessive speculation and falsehoods.

His intentional substitution of facts with absurd speculations is akin to using falsehoods and can only be described as regretful and heart breaking since it risks discrediting all his other work.

The truth was available to Mr. Griffin and pointed out to him on numerous occasions with communications channels opened to him in case he had doubts, questions, or needed contacts with sources, Mr. Griffin puzzlingly disregarded these resources.

"Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive?" is the title of the book and seems to be the question to be addressed first. For now, I just want to say that I have looked into the possibility of him being dead while doing my own research and found all evidence to be inconclusive.

For that reason, I am going to address the most outrageous falsehoods in Mr. Griffin's book and will address what I consider inconclusive evidence of bin Laden's death later.

Chapter 2 of the book, Two Fake Bin Laden Videos in 2001?, starts early in the book on page 12, and uses dizzying mental gyrations and total disregard for the truth in support of the book's premise; it is the chapter where the most outrageous falsehoods are found. The question mark after 2001 in the chapter's title, a Fox News tactic, does not absolve Mr. Griffin.

The first video he references, "The "October Video" Reported in November 2001", is a video that David Bamber of the London Telegraph wrote about on November 11, 2001. Mr. Bamber reported that he had access to it, supposedly viewed it and got translations of it, Mr. Bamber also reported that the video would be used by Tony Blair's government as the "centerpiece of Britain and America's new evidence against bin Laden". Three days later, on November 14, Mr. Blair failed to present any video and instead relied on quoting excerpts from the translation.

Mr. Griffin's logical explanation for such a failure is the following:

unless the video was a fake and the government decided, between November 11 [the date of Mr. Bamber's report] and 14 [the date of Mr. Blair's excerpts], that the fakery was so obvious that it should [British Government] deny having a copy while merely releasing damning "excerpts."

Before I give you the true story about the video, I need to point out Mr. Griffin's irrational rationale that I spoke of earlier, if the video is an obvious fakery, why would Tony Blair even release fake excerpts?

The true story about the video was given to me by an ex-bureau chief of Al-Jazeera Television Network whose contacts, including personal email and cell phone, I would have gladly shared with Mr. Griffin. The following is the true story according to my conversation with Al-Jazeera about Tony Blair's failed attempt to release video evidence

An attempt in mid November 2001, by Blair failed. An Al-Jazeera bureau chief explained what happened; Blair attempted to release a tape of a Bin Laden interview conducted by Al-Jazeera. The interview was to be comprised of responses to questions by both Al-Jazeera and CNN. When the Al-Jazeera's team reached Bin Laden's hideout to conduct the interview, their questions were tossed out and were informed that Bin Laden had his own set of questions with prepared answers. The news team objected, but feeling threatened, accepted to conduct the interview. Also, Bin Laden put a condition on Al-Jazeera, either Al-Jazeera airs all or none of the interview. Such a condition forced Al-Jazeera to choose none and refused to be intimidated or to act as Bin Laden's mouthpiece.

The most likely scenario is that CNN, who was very unhappy with the decision , informed the American government, and as a consequence, their cohorts, the British, of Al-Jazeera's position prompting British or American intelligence to steal the tape. The quotes from the tape in David Bamber's report of November 11 helped Al-Jazeera recognize the tape as their own and moved to prevent Blair from using it on November 14.

The excerpt is from an article I wrote that Mr. Griffin had access to Bush, Blair, and the Terrorism Shell Game.

The second videotape Mr. Griffin references in the chapter is what he calls "The Video Dated November 9, 2001" but more accurately, the video released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. In many circles, this video is known as either "The Bin Laden Confession Tape", or the "Fatty Bin Laden Tape". It is a tape I spent more than a year authenticating with the help of the person who provided the best translation of the tape to ABC News, a videographer with twenty five years experience, and multitude of technical experts with Al-Jazeera ex-bureau chief helping with the timeline.

Mr. Griffin concludes his analysis of the authenticity of the tape with this statement where he refers to me as "A defender" and promoting Professor Bruce Lawrence's position, based on Dr. Lawrence's "friends" in Homeland Security, that the tape is "bogus".

A defender of the authenticity of this "bin Laden video" has claimed that Lawrence was talking about a later one. Lawrence however, made clear that it was this one to which he was referring, calling it the "bogus smoking-gun tape that came out in November 2001"

I do resent the use of the word claim by Mr. Griffin as I do not claim, I state, and the only way I can defend myself is by sharing with you the email I received from Dr. Lawrence three days after his appearance on the Kevin Barrett show in response to my email critical of his statement on the show and presenting my work on the authenticity of the tape and how it was produced by U.S. and Saudi intelligence

Dear Maher:

When I said that the Nov 01 tape was a fake,
I meant that it did not originate with OBL.
I'd be happy to read your document in Word format.
Thanks,

Bruce Lawrence

This can hardly be described as a claim on my part that Dr. Lawrence back peddled, and his play on words that the tape did not originate with bin Laden is either supportive of my work or, if otherwise, needs to be publicly explained. For the record, Dr. Lawrence has since been unresponsive to all communications requesting that he set the record straight. The following is the work I shared with Dr. Lawrence "Is it high treason or just a simple case of dereliction of duty?" found on page 14 of this linked pdf file.

I do not understand Mr. Griffin defense of Dr. Lawrence as much as I do not understand his back handed slap of my work on the tape since Mr. Griffin stated that he believed in the work to the point he tried to include it in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and apologized by email for his failure to do so. The following are excerpts from those emails

3-17-2007, In any case, I wanted you to know that after I read both Ed's essay and your latest version, I checked to see if I could modify my account of this video in my book somewhat but it was too late. Cordially, DG

4-20-2007, My book was delayed at the printer. But it's now on its way to Amazon.

You'll be unhappy with the OBL part; I modified it a little but it was too late to do very much.
Cordially,
DG

Obviously, Mr. Griffin not only very familiar with the work but a believer. The supposedly limited time he had was used to include in his book what tenacious Ed Haas got the FBI to admit to and which Mr. Griffin managed to quote about eight times.

I can only call this cherry picking, an ugly practice, since he again quotes the FBI's statement to Ed Haas in this book while ignoring Ed Haas's other work that disagrees with him. The following is the statement Mr. Griffin quotes

The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

What Mr. Griffin ignores is an article dealing with the same statement that Ed Haas edited and published on his own website, "Is Bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks?". The following is an excerpt regarding the FBI statement

Ed Haas' later work regarding the authenticity of the "confession tape" caught the FBI saying: "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." Ed also caught the FBI admitting that authentication work on the "confession tape" is in a sealed investigative file.

The FBI would rather say bin Laden is not connected to 9/11 because revealing the results of any tape authentication, a necessary process prior to submitting it in evidence to a Grand Jury, would have also revealed the complicity of U.S. intelligence.

Ed Haas and I collaborated on the article after our appearance on the Kevin Barrett radio show. Even though Ed did the editing and scrutinized the veracity of the content, since I did all the writing, Ed did not put his name to the article despite my insistence.

This cherry picking is not limited to Ed Haas' work, Mr. Griffin did that to Jason Burke of the Observer, he quoted what agreed with him and neglected the fact that Mr. Burke reported specifically on the tape in question; the title says it all

Bin Laden videotape was result of a sting The CIA may have set up the terrorist leader to incriminate himself

The most obvious cherry picking relates to my work which determined that the video tape released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001, while claiming that the video tape was made on November 9, 2001, was actually taped on September 26, 2001, and was the result of a joint sting operation by U.S. and Saudi Intelligence. The full analysis is reported in "The Crime Behind the Criminal Wars" which again Mr. Griffin had access to.

These are the incidents of cherry picking that I know of and have no idea how often it was done in the book. Just the fact that there was cherry picking shows that Mr. Griffin's reasoning is flawed.

Now on the issue of "Dead or Alive" - Based on intelligence sources that Mr. Griffin cites, bin Laden has kidney problems and needs dialysis every three days, this is the line Mr. Griffin accepts and leads him to speculate that bin Laden is dead since dialysis machines that bin Laden procured need electricity which is unavailable in the caves of Afghanistan.

Assuming it is true that bin Laden had kidney problems, severity unknown, to present dialysis as the only effective treatment without considering other treatments that are more effective and readily available is simply disingenuous.

There is an older treatment that bin Laden could have stocked up on. Based on recent medical reports, this older treatment is more effective than dialysis and does not require electricity; the treatment was originally developed for poorer nations such as Pakistan and is called "Peritoneal dialysis".

Conclusion: Bin Laden had another treatment option which was readily available.

Also, if bin Laden survived Tora Bora and made his way to Pakistan, kidney transplants are the earliest of the transplant operations and there is no limit to the number of people who would gladly give him a kidney; it is very possible that bin Laden managed a kidney.

Bin Laden's death based on intelligence reporting his dialysis need and later repeated by heads of state here and there are not reliable sources especially when these individuals have vested interests.

Based on the evidence at hand, when it comes to the issue of bin Laden's death, I refuse to speculate and that is exactly what Mr. Griffin has done.

On the other hand, I am glad to report that Mr. Griffin and I agree on one thing, December 13, 2001 is a very important date, a pivotal date, a date he mentioned in his book more that once; Mr. Griffin, on many occasions, gave December 13 as the almost absolute date bin Laden died. One of Mr. Griffin's arguments supporting the death theory is that it is the date bin Laden went quiet, i.e. no electronic intercepts.

I have a more plausible take on this quietness and it is not death.

December 13 also happens to be the date the Pentagon released the "bin Laden Confession Tape", This is what I wrote on May 9, 2007 about the release

By releasing the tape, a by-product of a sensitive intelligence operation, to justify an illegal policy of aggression to the detriment of America's national security, the Bush administration committed high treason.

When Bin Laden saw himself on TV confessing he realized that the taping was done by a covert camera and realized how close intelligence were to capturing him; Bin Laden would never let anyone that close again.

The release of the tape undermined all future efforts to capture Bin Laden, whether they were conducted by the Bush administration or any future administration.

On December 13, 2001, the promise of "dead or alive" became the biggest lie that the American public and the world would live.

It is no coincidence bin Laden went silent on that date and into deep hiding; it was the only logical reaction to the release of the tape.

The reports of his death followed shorty after, early 2002, by the likes of Karzai, Musharraf, and other heads of state in the region. Mr. Griffin accepts these proclamations at face value and quotes them liberally without scrutiny and never considered the possibility that these heads of state acted in the service of their masters and that such statements were specifically designed to flush bin Laden out.

I don't know who Mr. Griffin's masters are but if I follow the irrational rationale he uses in his book, a rationale endorsed on the first pages by a CIA official, a State Department Counterterrorism official, and a founder of the USMC intelligence center, a rationale based mostly on official sources which include the Pentagon and Homeland Security rather than independent research, I have to conclude that Mr. Griffin's masters reside among those people.

Mr. Griffin's notoriety within the truth movement, coupled with his intentional desregard for the truth, cherry picking, and dubious sources, again, using the irrational rationale used thoughout the book, could I conclude that Mr. Griffin is a mole in the truth movement entrusted to undermine the very truth the movement is looking for?

The net effect of the book is not the naïve attempt to stop the war in Afghanistan. Instead, the book propagates falsehoods within the truth movement and diverts attention from the evidence that could be duplicated by any other independent investigator, evidence that would stand in court and point to the fact that George W. Bush committed treason, murder, and high crimes against humanity.

Prosecuting Bush is the only we we can stop more deaths, American, Afghan, and even Iraqi, and the only way to stop Obama from committing more war crimes.

Maher Osseiran is an Arab-American, peace activist, and a member of Al-Awda, an organization advocating the right of return of the Palestinians to their ancestral land. He can be reached at maher@mydemocracy.net

In a Court filing late Friday night, the Obama Administration attempted to dress up in new clothes its embrace of one of the worst Bush Administration positions--that courts cannot be allowed to review the National Security Agency's massive, well-documented program of warrantless surveillance. In doing so it demonstrated that it will not willingly set limits on its own power and reinforced the need for Congress to step in and reform the so-called 'state secrets' privilege. (Kevin Bankston, "As Congress Considers State Secrets Reform, Obama Admin Tries to Shut Down Yet Another Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuit," Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 2, 2009)

First, what is being Hooverised or McCarthyised? For the answer, let us first have a look at what an intelligence agency is supposed to be doing for its masters.

An intelligence agency is a governmental agency that is dedicated to information gathering for purposes of national security and defense. They do this by means of espionage, communication interception, cryptanalysis, cooperation with other institutions, and assessment of public sources. The process is also known as intelligence analysis. Briefly put, intelligence agencies can provide the following services for their governments.

- provide analysis in areas relevant to national security;

- give early warning of approaching crises;

- serve national and international crisis management by helping to detect the intentions of current or potential opponents;

- aide national defense planning and military operations;

- protect secrets, both of their own sources and activities, and those of other state agencies;

- launch defensive activities such as counter-espionage or counter-terrorism when required; and

- act covertly, if need be, to influence the outcome of events in favor of national interests.

As can be clearly seen in the underlined portions, a potential does exist in the above mentioned mandates for certain actors to stretch the intangible borders of these functions to far supersede the original. These actors could be weak governments wanting to stay on by hook or by crook, or overzealous individuals occupying key appointments either in these agencies or the departments to which these are directly responsible, who start imagining themselves as the state itself rather than minions of the state.

Allow me to make the point by two examples.

John Edgar Hoover was the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States. Appointed director of the Bureau of Investigation -- predecessor to the FBI -- in 1924, he was instrumental in founding the FBI in 1935, where he remained director until his death in 1972. Hoover is credited with building the FBI into a large and efficient crime-fighting agency, and with instituting a number of modern innovations to police technology, such as a centralized fingerprint file and forensic laboratories. Being the father of this all powerful and efficient organization soon went to Hoover's head. He became increasingly high-handed. He routinely started exceeding the jurisdiction of the FBI by using it to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders, and to use illegal methods to collect evidence.

In fact, so powerful did Hoover become as a chief of FBI that despite Presidents Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson each considering dismissing Hoover as FBI Director, none dared do it. They all concluded that the political fallout of doing so would be rather unacceptable. Hoover was reportedly maintaining files on all of them. Only his death in 1972 from the effects of high blood pressure could end his 37 year long iron grip on the FBI and the American governments. It is because of Hoover's long and notorious reign that FBI directors are now limited to 10-year terms.

When confronted, Hoover and his sympathizers would always contend that he was doing what he was doing only for national security and the larger national interest.

Likewise, Joseph Raymond McCarthy was an American politician who served as a Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion in the United States. He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere. In the American milieu of the time, these accusations received wide publicity and broad acceptance, increasing his approval rating and gaining him a powerful national following.

In a Lincoln Day speech to the Republican Women's Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, McCarthy is usually quoted to have said: "The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 57--a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."

Consequently, in the post 2nd World War era, many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of hostile investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. By the mid-50s, McCarthy's dogged witch hunting of prominent politicians, government officials and public figures had reached such pernicious lengths that the term 'McCarthyism', coined a month after his Wheeling speech, gained almost a world wide acceptance in English lexicon.

Originally, 'McCarthyism' was meant to explain the politically motivated practice of making accusations of betrayal, sedition, or treason without proper regard for evidence. In time however, 'McCarthyism' took on a broader meaning describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

McCarthy's many excesses finally brought him to a Senate condemnation vote On December 2, 1954. He was condemned by a vote of 67 to 22. Unable to live with the ignominy, McCarthy died of a wasted liver due to increased alcoholism on May 2, 1957, at the age of just 48.

Just like in Hoover's case, McCarthy and his supporters too always maintained that his actions were only in the interest of national security and to ward off an impending national crisis.

So whether over the years the ISI has Hooverised or McCarthyised or a bit of both is left to the reader's judgment. The scribe, however, stands in total agreement with Stendhal, that most original of French writers of the 19th century, who once said;

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same."

The irony is that the sheep are usually convinced, singing all the way to the slaughterhouse.

Nearly five years have passed since Arafat died. During those years, a number of high-ranking Palestinian leaders, especially from the Hamas movement, have been assassinated by Israel in various and consistently gory methods. Among Palestinians, Arafat is referred to like all those killed by Israel, as a "martyr", an indication of the widespread belief that his death was hardly the result of natural causes.

If Arafat was indeed killed and since his death was not caused by an Israeli airstrike or an assassin's bullet, a key question has been lingering, giving rise to all sorts of answers -- who killed Arafat and how?

Israelis made little secret of their desire to see Arafat dead. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expressed regret in a newspaper interview on Feb. 1, 2002 that he hadn't killed Arafat decades earlier when he had had the chance. Sharon told Israeli newspaper Maariv that he should have "eliminated" Arafat during the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. "Do you regret it (not killing Arafat)?" he was asked. "Certainly, yes," he replied.

On the day of Arafat's death, BBC news carried comments by then Israeli opposition leader Shimon Peres, saying it is "good that the world is rid of him...The sun is shining in the Middle East." Held hostage in his bullet-riddled West Bank office for years, Arafat represented an international embarrassment for Israel. He was not "moderate" enough to concede all Palestinian rights, but 'moderate' enough to maintain an aura of international attention and support among Arab, Muslim, European and other nations.

Still, in the minds of some, Arafat was determined, and often declared to represent an 'obstacle'. The PA's truly "moderate" camp disliked him for his tireless compromises aimed at preventing factional infighting, thus blocking their attempts at dominating Palestinian society. Israel despised him for numerous reasons, not least his refusal to "concede" issues of paramount importance, such as refugees and Jerusalem. The Bush administration took every opportunity to discredit, discount and insult him, constantly propping up an "alternative" leadership, namely, Mahmoud Abbas, Mohammed Dahlan and others.

Strangely enough, even Abbas and other high-ranking PA officials refer to Arafat as a "martyr," especially whenever they need to capitalize on his legacy among low-ranking Fatah members and ordinary Palestinians. But the story was meant to end here, with Abbas and Dahlan, carrying the torch of Arafat the "martyr" as they continue with their rhetoric-based "revolution" to liberate Palestine. That was the case until the second highest-ranking Fatah member and one of the PLO's most visible leaders, Farouk Qaddoumi, went public with a document that contained some unanticipated surprises: that Abbas and Dahlan, along with Sharon, US Undersecretary of State William Burns, and others jointly plotted the assassination of Arafat. Qaddoumi's document contained the minutes of that meeting, in 2004.

Qaddoumi broke the news in a press conference in Amman, Jordan on July 12, 2009, asserting that Arafat had entrusted him with the minutes of that secret meeting involving top Israeli, Palestinian and American leaders and officials. The plot, according to Qaddoumi included the assassination of other Palestinian leaders, some of them have indeed been assassinated since while others are still alive, thanks to the failure of Israeli missiles and car bombs.

Expectedly, the Ramallah-based Fatah leaders launched fierce verbal attacks against Qaddoumi, questioning his objectives, timing and even his sanity. Abbas accused Qaddoumi of wanting to torpedo the Fatah faction's long-delayed congress, scheduled to convene in Bethlehem on Aug. 4. "He (Qaddoumi) knows full well that this information is false; he has released it to undermine the convention but we are continuing with the preparations," Abbas said. Qaddoumi had in fact criticized the convention of a supposedly 'revolutionary' movement held with Israeli consent, if not support.

The fact is, we may never know the authenticity of Qaddoumi's report without an independent investigation or irrefutable evidence. However, just as with Arafat's death, conclusive evidence is not always required for the public to formulate an opinion. Considering Israel's threats to Arafat, Palestinians have no reason to believe that Israel did not kill him. Similarly, ordinary Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, have little reason to trust that corrupt Palestinians were not involved in Arafat's death. A clique of the Palestinian elite have made it clear that their personal interests surpass those of the Palestinian people; Dahlan openly advocated the toppling of an elected government in Gaza as the Ramallah-based "revolutionary" movement, was dispatching US-armed and trained Palestinian fighters to crack down on Israel's enemies in various West Bank towns.

As bizarre as all of this may sound, it is at least enough to explain why Palestinians are willing to believe the recent statements made by Qaddoumi, a respected figure among all Palestinian factions. True, Qaddoumi's accusations have yet to be authenticated by an independent investigation, but they are made in a fractious, if not peculiar political context that makes them most plausible and, in a sense, that is the real tragedy.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Increasingly, Iraq has segregated into ethnic and sectarian regions. This has largely been a response to the tremendous levels of violence and the dislocation it has forced. Regardless, the effect has been increasing segregation. Since before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the independent Kurdish region in northern Iraq has been a major ally of the United States. Turkey is also an ally of the United States - though that relationship has had its ups and downs. Since the United States is the primary standing army in Iraq, one of the responsibilities is to protect Iraq's borders and sovereignty. The U.S. response to the repeated incursions and military strikes by Turkey into the Kurdish region raises questions and issues.

As the situation heated up in December 2007 and Turkey began an official over-the-border military response into Iraq, it was reported that the United States approved those attacks. This news was quickly denied any such approval. However, given that the incursions have continued over the ongoing vocal opposition of the Iraqi government, it is clear that the U.S. has at least agreed to look the other way.

Perhaps I am a bit paranoid, but one must ask why the U.S. has not controlled the PKK itself and set up to stop the repeated Turkish strikes into Iraq. There could be bargains within bargains going on here. In relationship to Iraq, the U.S. may be tacitly supporting the incursions to apply pressure to both the Kurds and the Iraqi government to sign the Production Sharing Agreements which all Iraqi partners have resisted. However, accessing and controlling the petroleum resources of northern Iraq could also be accomplished via annexation of the Kurdish region by Turkey.

Turkey now has its oil and gas pipeline (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan). See map below and related article.

Picture is from the EIA Azerbaijan Country Analysis

Now Turkey is reaching out to India to negotiate oil and gas provision. The plan calls for tapping the pipeline and shipping via super tankers via Israel (oh that is interesting as well) to India which currently imports nearly 70% of its oil and gas supply. This relationship between Turkey and India might find high approval from the U.S. as it is in U.S. interests to support India as a neighbor and competitor to China (should China get to fractious or powerful). Such a speculation is supported to some extent by the U.S. provision and support of nuclear technology for India.

The question remains whether protection of the Kurds and Iraq from Turkish incursions is even on the table to get the PSA control of Iraq's oil, or if this is a "back-up plan," or both.

Apparently, I was not the only one who thought this whole event stunk of subterfuge. Seymour Hersh has a report in the February 11, 2008 New Yorker titled "A Strike in the Dark" in which he traces his way through his contacts and informants to figure out exactly what was going on with this mysterious attack. Interestingly, he comes to virtually the same conclusion that I did.

My conclusion: "What may be clear (and likely the strike did occur) is that either Israel or the U.S. engaged in a preemptive strike inside Syria, and that they overflew Turkish airspace in this unannounced raid. It also seems very possible that this was a test run of a combined U.S. - Israeli mission for facilities inside Iran. Or as likely, a very direct message to Iran that they could be next." (11/07/07)

Hersh's conclusion: " "He [a U.S. national security official] was telling the Chinese leadership that they'd better warn Iran that we can't hold back Israel, and that the Iranians should look at Syria and see what's coming next if diplomacy fails," the person familiar with the discussion said. "His message was that the Syrian attack was in part aimed at Iran."

The Bush administration's desire to strike Iran has been reported by many. Thus far, the Administration has not been able to generate either the public or political support to do so. The time is rapidly approaching when the reins of leadership will pass to another, and there may some despair that this last great dream of U.S. empire will be put on hold. Laura Rozen writes in Mother Jones:

While their numbers were strong, the hawks this year appeared less confident about their influence on Washington's foreign policy, and resentful of an American bureaucracy perceived by many attendees as having hijacked Iran policy from the weakening grasp of the White House. "It's close to zero percent chance that the Bush administration will authorize military action against Iran before leaving office," Bolton told the conference. "No one should be under any illusions about the United States' part in the Iranian situation in the coming year."

Podhoretz, for his part, agreed: "Unless Bush realizes or fulfills my fading hope of air strikes, it is undoubtedly up to Israel to prevent" Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Bolton, like Podhoretz, urged Israeli policymakers to prepare to take matters into their own hands, saying "Israel should be willing to see themselves as a possible last resort." Though his call for Israel to prepare to strike Iran on its own-as well as his outspoken exasperation with the administration he until recently served-were met with chuckles from the Herzliya audience, the prospect of Israel ultimately choosing to act unilaterally came up again and again.

This seems a clear signal to everyone that the desire to strike Iran is still there, but temporarily thwarted. Therefore it is on to Plan B. Namely that Israel should launch a preemptive strike against Iran. Such a strike would almost certainly provoke some form of retaliation.

It is difficult to imagine that retaliatory strike against Israel would not draw a U.S. military response. It makes little difference if such events unfold under Bush, or the next President of the United States - be he or she Republican or Democrat. The United States has long and vested interests in Israel which have been nurtured and supported (even in the face of proposed UN sanctions against Israel) through administrations of both parties. It is highly unlikely that Israel has much concern that the United States would not come to its "defense" regardless of the legality or wisdom of Israel's "independent" actions.

Israel remains the "wild card" for the Bush administration's (and neo-con and conservative) dream of bringing Iran once more under U.S. control. All the calling on the ghost of Reagan by the Republicans is not pure posturing. Reagan too was very interested in Iran (remember Iran-Contra?). It is also reported that Bush has benefited from Reagan's lessons from the affair. This is not to mention the strategy used by Reagan to steal the Presidency on the back of the American hostage situation in Iran (see The 1980 Election: Stealing an Election the CIA Way).

However, even before Reagan the U.S. had a special interest in Iran. That "interest" was two-fold. The public reason was to control Iran to stop Soviet expansion (the war against communism or the so-called "Cold War"). The underlying issue was controlling Iran's oil reserves. Does this sound hauntingly familiar? At the heart of the neoconservative vision is not simply creating a global empire under the flag of the United States, but controlling global resources - particularly global oil reserves. It also fits nicely with a profit agenda for "energy" companies and the war "industries" - among numerous other corporate benefactors. It is unlikely that the Democratic elite are any less wedded to this set of "interests" than the Republicans are.

The message to Iran sent purportedly by Israel was and is clear - "We will get you back under our influence one way or another." The other message is "The threat does not pass with a changing of the guard in Washington, D.C."

It appears that the government of Burma (Myanmar) were reacting to a "suggestion" by the International Monetary Fund, that they needed to phase out the state subsidizing of oil prices. Myanmar is a member nation of the IMF. This makes one wonder at the seeming naivity of this statement by Head:

Like so many decisions made by the reclusive generals, the sudden hike in fuel prices is hard to fathom.

The IMF had advised weaning the population off subsidised fuel, because with rising world oil prices it was becoming an unsustainable burden for Burma, which although rich in natural gas, relies on imports for almost all of its refined petrol and diesel.

But it is unlikely the IMF would have supported such a dramatic, and unannounced price rise.

The IMF indicated in 1998 that Myanmar was an HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Country). That debt was to the World Bank. The current information on Myanmar at the World Bank site states:

The World Bank has approved no new lending for Myanmar since 1987, and has no plans to resume its program. The country is currently in arrears to the World Bank, and has failed to enact economic and other reforms.

Myanmar remains a member of the World Bank. The World Bank continues to track data about the country and also remains in contact with the United Nations and other development partners regarding Myanmar. And the Bank also accompanies officials from the International Monetary Fund on their annual visits to assess the country's economic situation.

In 1998, then Junta Finance Minister for Myanmar reported to the IMF on the governments efforts to apparently meet the demands of structural adjustment reforms to acquire aid from both the IMF and the World Bank:

Let me now touch on some features of Myanmar's economic development. Since the latter part of 1988, streamlining of foreign trade procedures and liberalization of both internal and external trade had been introduced. Foreign investors are allowed to invest in Myanmar and foreign bankers are permitted to open their representative offices. Myanmar has been participating in regional cooperation programmes and cooperating with both developed and developing countries for its technological advancement. Rural and border areas development activities are being implemented to alleviate poverty and also to reduce gaps in differences between rural and urban populations.

...

Myanmar is the land with rich natural resources to be tapped for development purposes. Unfortunately, multilateral financial assistance to Myanmar have been unfairly suspended since 1988. Myanmar has been a legitimate member of the Bank and the Fund since 1952. As a legitimate member, Myanmar is fully eligible for the Bank's development assistance. However, the Bank has neglected Myanmar's development efforts and it has failed to assist Myanmar for the past eleven years. However, we have cooperated with the Bank and the Fund and we have been servicing our outstanding payments to the Bank regularly, up to the end of 1997.

In 2003, further economic sanctions were placed on the country, and were protested by Major General Hla Tun - Governor for the Bank of Myanmar. Each year, Mayanmar has reported to the IMF its step by step progress towards the "adjustments" apparently being demanded by the World Bank and the IMF, and has made a plea for economic support. Since the same plea is repeated year after yer (up through 2006), The IMF and World Bank have refused to raise restrictions on lending, or easing the debt burden of Burma.

This is not to excuse the brutality and repression of the Junta government of Burma. However, it is important to acknowledge that the economic situation in Burma is not due simply to the "chronic mismanagement" of the government which is one of the primary issues pointed to by Jonathan Head.

There is of course another aspect of the story. In the process of its structural adjustment, a few in the Junta have pocketed significant amounts of money. The business deals and corruption have siphoned off significant amounts of the wealth of Burma. The elite lives in opulence; the government sequestered itself deep in the forests establishing a new capital. The details of corporations involved are discussed in a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) titled "Burma: Foreign Investment Finances Regime."

According to HRW, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), allocates only a fraction of the available resources to social programs (for example health and education). This is consistent with the typical structural adjustment program regime which requires significant decreases in spending on social infrastructure - though HRW does not discuss this. Also typical of structural adjustment, massive amounts of the economic resources have been redirected to the military. It is estimated that 50% of the Burma's funds are designated for the military.

Burma has significant natural gas reserves which have created strong trade relations with both India and China, and there are significant hardwood exports to China as well. This gives China and India (among others) some degree of influence with the Junta. However, it is also likely that the Junta elite are directly beneffiting from these relationships. Whether China and India would do more than "request" the Junta back away from its brutal repression is questionable. After all, their agreements are with the current government. It is not surprising given the dramatically increasing demand for natural gas to fuel the growth in China and India, they (and Russia) have been very active in helping finance the development of Burma's natural gas reserves. Also involved have been major petrochemical companies. According to HRW:

At present the SPDC receives the bulk of its gas money from the onshore "Yadana" and "Yetagun" gas fields. The Yadana consortium is led by Total of France and includes UNOCAL (now Chevron) of the United States and Thailand's state-controlled PTT Exploration and Production Co Ltd (PTTEP). The Yetagun consortium, led by Malaysia's state-owned Petronas, includes Japan's Nippon Oil as well as PTTEP. PTTEP, a subsidiary of the largely state-owned PTT Public Co Ltd (PTT) of Thailand, buys the gas for export to Thailand. Major offshore natural gas projects are under development. A consortium of South Korean and Indian firms, in partnership with the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, has made a large gas find off the coast of Arakan State in western Burma. Known as the "Shwe" gas project, it is expected to produce massive revenues once it is in production. Estimates of the gas yield of the Shwe deposits range between US$37 to US$52 billion, and could lead to a total gain in revenues to the junta or future Burmese governments of US$12 to US$17 billion over 20 years. The Shwe gas consortium is composed of the South Korean company Daewoo International, state-owned companies from India and South Korea, and the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise. Some of the foreign partners also have separate deals with the Burmese government entity for other concessions. On September 24, for example, India's state-controlled Oil and Natural Gas Co (ONGC), whose subsidiary ONGC Videsh is a partner in the Shwe consortium, signed a deal with Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise to explore for gas in three more offshore blocks. Under the deal, Oil and Natural Gas Co pledged to invest US$150 million through ONGC Videsh. India's Office of the President holds nearly 75 percent of the shares in Oil and Natural Gas Co. India's minister for oil, Murli Deora, traveled to the Burmese capital last week to sign the agreement as thousands of protesters in Burma took to the streets to call for political freedom, an end to the SPDC's abuses, and economic improvements.

India, China and Russia have also provided military support to the Junta according to a separate report from HRW.

The money gathering in the pockets of the Burma elite are certainly being kept outside of Burma. Tom Malinowski of HRW testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 3, 2007. The transcript is not yet available though the hearing was broadcast on C-Span. Malinowski testified that the strongest international bank relations of the Burma elite has been with Singapore, though certainly they have other international finance connections. He recommended that targeted sanctions freezing the international accounts of the Junta and others might be most effective in pressuring the government to release the political prisoners and relax their response to the protests. This seems like a most reasonable response as broader sanctions against the country would only cause more damage to the population. The Burmese military is a huge organization - second only to China in number of forces. Given the record of the ruling Junta, they would not hesitate to further mobilize against the population.

But there is perhaps a deeper and darker link to U.S. interests in Burma, and why for 40 years the U.S. has shown little concern for the people of Burma. That goes to the Vietnam war. Burma is part of the "Golden Triangle" - the rich opium producing region of Asia. In fact, until recently, Burma was second only Afghanistan in opium production. The French utilized the opium production and support of war lords to finance their covert networks, and when the U.S. stepped into France's shoes they inherited that lucrative network (Alfred McCoy). The CIA utilized the opium trade, and the network connected to it, in the Golden Triangle to finance covert operations in Laos and Cambodia (the secret wars). They also used it to help fund anti-communitist armies of people such as the Hmong (Djedje and Korff).

Of course that is ancient history (perhaps).

Part of the Burma Junta's efforts with the IMF and World Bank has recently been anti-drug activities including the elimination of opium production. If a March 7, 2006 Reuters report - War on opium gives Golden Triangle a different hue - is accurate, that war on opium has been largely successful. Of course, that success might be part of the deteriorating economic situation of the people of Burma. Much of the population of Burma lives by agriculture, and there is no more lucrative crop than opium. Look to Afghanistan as a companion example.

It seems odd that the U.S. is taking official attention to the most recent protests and Junta response in Burma. For 40 years the U.S. has largely looked the other way. Similarly, the U.S. continued to work with the Taleban government of Afghanistan despite its repression and abuses - until they also successfully drastically reduced opium production. Perhaps it is just coincidence, and of course both situations are more complex than this.

Regardless, it is well past time to ease the conditions of the people of Burma. It is well past time for us to speak out to end the repression and the resulting displacement of millions of Burmese. It is also time to demand debt relief for Burma. Like all such burdens, it benefits interests outside of Burma while crushing the people of Burma.

Information and Support Efforts
Free Burma!

Global Voices

Witness (Real Media video from Witness)

Of Related Interest
Christopher Wren. 5/11/98. NY Times. Road to Riches Starts In the Golden Triangle

Kieran Cooke. BBC. 12/06/2003. Drug tourism in the Golden Triangle.

CNN. 9/30/07. A look at Myanmar's insular military leadership.

CNN. 10/04/07. Myanmar troops launch nighttime roundups to intimidate activists.

In the article, Hersch cites a former intelligence officer in saying "Negroponte said, 'No way. I'm not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. running operations off the books, with no finding.'" Too dirty for Negroponte? Heck, I thought that was why the Bush administration brought all those guys from Iran-Contra back into government - for their "special" skills.

Wolf Blitzer interviewed Hersch on the Situation Room, and asked him about Negroponte. In response, Hersch laid out the current shenanigans and stated that Negroponte was "not in tune with Cheney" and that he was "too ethical for some of the operations the Pentagon wants to run." [See the transcript at TruthOut. Below is also the YouTube clip of the interview.]

It is truly a stunning statement that Negroponte is too ethical for the current operation. It is widely reported that Negroponte oversaw the Salvadoran death squads, as well as similar police activities in Honduras during his tenure as US Ambassador (Wa. Post, 2005; Wikipedia; DemocracyNow, 2004). Perhaps it is a case of "once burned, twice shy."

Regardless, the likelihood that the US is engaged in the covert operation Hersch lays out gives a whole new importance to determine what happened to the missing billions in Iraq. The $8 billion plus shipped out on pallets comes to mind. However, there is more than that "missing." All of that free floating cash that was handed out in stacks of unaccounted for $100 bills would be prime pickings for funding a huge black op - or several.

Blitzer also asked Hersch what he feared most. His response? "George Bush."

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRp_vD3URm8

According to the Gulf News article:

Tensions between Iran and Iraq have escalated in recent weeks to the extent that threats of military action have been made, a senior member of Iraq's security forces said.

General Nazim Mohammad, chief of Iraq's Border Police in Muntheria, told Gulf News he had personally told his Iranian counterparts their soldiers would be shot if they strayed too close to Iraqi fortifications.

Why is this bizarre? Well, as far as I know, Iraq has virtually no "army." The U.S. disbanded the army. The U.S. is (for all intents and purposes) the Iraqi army. While there is an Iraqi government in place, they have no control over US forces. The U.S. is building and training an Iraqi "security force."

The U.S. (and Israel) have been threatening Iran on their "nuclear program." Bush has bad mouthed the Iran elections (Wa. Post, 6/17/05).

The use of "proxies" is nothing new in U.S. (and Russian) warfare. That is where the Al Qaida came from (U.S. proxy in the conflict with the then U.S.S.R.). And, the U.S. armed Saddam Hussein (including chemical weapons) in the Iraq-Iran war. But this recent report turns the proxy concept inside out and upside down.

In this case, rather than the U.S. arming a group (or government) to fight in its stead, we have a proxy government for the U.S. threatening hostilities against another nation using U.S. forces. While I imagine the spin machine thinks that having Iraq do the "threatening" rather than the U.S. somehow improves "legitimacy" (and perhaps gives the impression of the Iraqi government's "autonomy"), the deceit is so blatant it is insulting.

Now this would be an interesting twist. Since Israel has been threatening to preemptively bomb Iran, and Israel is a long term enemy of Iraq, that "Iraq" and Israel could become "allies" in attacking Iran. Now that would be an interesting "message" to send to the so-called "Arab" world. Headlines ... "Israel Joins Iraq In Putting Down Iranian Power Grab". After all, Iraq is much closer than Israel to Iran's (alleged) nuclear arsenal.

There are other similarities between these deaths than that they all shot themselves in the head - shooting yourself twice in the head seems ... difficult.

Webb was reportedly working on a new book and it was close to publication. It was reportedly based on information he had not published in "Dark Alliance" (Was Gary Webb 'Suicided' To Kill New Book?). [See also: Evidence Begins To Indicate Gary Webb Was Murdered, GARY WEBB - Pulitzer Prize Winner, Author of Dark Alliance CIA-Drug Series Dead of Reported Suicide)

Hunter S. Thompson was working on a story about the World Trade Center collapse at the time of his death. He reportedly felt that the WTC collapse was an "inside job." The original reports were that Thompson was on the phone with his wife at the time he died. Later reports are that he was sitting at his typewriter.

Yury Kravchenko's suicide is reportedly linked to an investigation into the murder of Ukranian journalist Georhiy Gongadze who focused on corruption in Ukraine. Kravchenko died hours before he was to testify on the 2000 killing, and reportedly left a note blaming former President Leonid Kuchma for the journalist's murder. (Related story Ex-president in storm over killing). Interestingly, this sounds similar in some ways to the reported suicide of David Kelly.

David Kelly was also linked to an investigation. This one was on what British Intelligence knew about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He too was due to testify.(David Kelly; The Murder of David Kelly; Dr Kelly's Final Hours Did Not Indicate Suicide)

All four men are linked to information - information that many might consider "sensitive". Two were journalists, one linked to an investigation of the murder of an investigative journalist, and one the source of information regarding information given to an investigative journalist. Perhaps it begs the question, but what was the information that died with them? What was in Gary Webb's new manuscript (and where is it)? What information did Thompson uncover about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings? What did Kravchenko know about the death of Gongadze? What else did Kelly know about the "sexed up" Iraq information? We will likely never know as what they knew apparently died with them.

According to DARPA, the HAARP program plans include "Conduct(ing) advanced ionosphere and radio science research and analysis of applications including space-based asset protection and phenomena related to its implementation. Therefore, it is no surprise that they are testing HAARP, though reporting about it at Nature.com is a bit of a surprise.

As noted in the quote above, the goal of HAARP is to protect "space-based" assets. I doubt that pretty lights in the sky are going to do that, and the DARPA article reflects the aim of weapons capability:

A recent study completed by an Air Force/Navy Panel also points to additional high-value functions that can potentially be accomplished with the a 3.6 MW capability, in particular, the exploration and refinement of scientific principles that could lead to the development and deployment of a system to provide protection for space-based assets from emergent asymmetric threats.

Since the particle changes reported in the Nature.com report are similar to ion disruption by solar flares, then being able to turn the particles "on and off" as stated in the report presents interesting possibilities of jamming or disrupting all kinds of communication. Such a technology would seem to have defensive possibilities, but offense is rarely far behind.

According to the research report they were using the 960-kW transmitter array at the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility near Gakona, Alaska (62.4° N, 145.15° W). The HAARP transmitter was run in a 15-s cycle alternating between 7.5 s of full power and 7.5 s off. " So we know that there are various wattage transmitters available, and we know that the 960Kw transmitter is not the "big gun" mentioned by DARPA that comes in at 3.6Mw.

The question just begs to be asked about what the potential effects of charging and discharging various levels of the ionosphere might have. What happens if you change the reflectivity (or absorptive capacity) of various layers of the atmosphere? Might it affect solar radiation reaching the Earth? Might it have the capability of intensifying other types of radiation (say laser or microwave)? I haven't a clue, but it does make me nervous that they are playing with the protective envelope of the planet.

p.s. I wrote a piece on HAARP in December 2003 with more explanation about HAARP and related links if you want to dig a bit deeper.