spionage

Russischer Ex-Agent Litwinenko in London gestorben

Drei Wochen nach dem mutmasslichen Giftanschlag ist der russische Ex-Agent Alexander Litwinenko gestorben.

David Stringer – Litwinenko starb gestern Abend auf der Intensivstation der Londoner Universitätsklinik an einem Herzversagen, wie das Krankenhaus mitteilte. Die Londoner Polizei teilte mit, es werde wegen unbekannter Todesursache ermittelt. Die Ärzte konnten bis zuletzt nicht klären, womit und wie Litwinenko möglicherweise vergiftet wurde.

«Die Bastarde haben mich gekriegt»
Litwinenko selbst erklärte, er sei am 1. November vergiftet worden, als er zum Mord an der Kremlkritikerin und Journalistin Anna Politkowskaja recherchierte. Sein Haar fiel aus, seine Kehle schwoll an und sein Immun- und Nervensystem wurde schwer geschädigt.

Nur wenige Stunden bevor er gestern das Bewusstsein verlor erklärte Litwinenko in einem Interview mit der Zeitung «The Times», er sei vom Kreml zum Schweigen gebracht worden. «Ich will überleben, nur um es ihnen zu zeigen», erklärte Litwinenko. «Die Bastarde haben mich gekriegt, aber sie werden nicht jeden kriegen.»

Litwinenkos Freund Andrei Nekrasow sagte der Nachrichtenagentur AP, seine Frau Marina, sein Vater Walter und sein zehnjähriger Sohn Anatoli seien in den letzten Stunden bei ihm gewesen. «Ich kann es nicht anders sagen: sie haben wieder einen von uns erschlagen. Es war ein unglaublich professioneller und zugleich sadistischer Mord», sagte Nekrasow. «Sie haben ihn aus Hass ermordet, aus Rachsucht. Es gibt einen Machtkampf in Moskau und er wurde ein Opfer davon.»

Russischer Auslandsgeheimdienst weist Vorwurf zurück

Litwinenko war ein ausgesprochener Kremlkritiker. Er war nach einem Treffen mit einem italienischen Sicherheitsexperten in einem Londoner Sushi-Restaurant Anfang November erkrankt. Seine Freunde haben die russische Regierung beschuldigt, einen Giftanschlag veranlasst zu haben. Der russische Auslandsgeheimdienst hat den Vorwurf scharf zurückgewiesen. «Litwinenko ist nicht die Art Person, für die wir bilaterale Beziehungen aufs Spiel setzen würden», zitierte die Nachrichtenagentur Interfax einen Geheimdienstsprecher.

Ratlose Ärzte
Die Ärzte haben nach eigenen Angaben keine Hinweis darauf, warum sich der Gesundheitszustand Litwinenkos so dramatisch verschlechterte. Der Chefarzt der Intensivstation am Londoner Universitätsklinikum, Geoff Bellingan, erklärte, die Mediziner seien überzeugt, dass Litwinenko nicht mit einem Schwermetall wie Thallium vergiftet wurde. Auch eine radioaktive Substanz sei allem Anschein nach nicht die Ursache seines Leidens. Der Chefarzt wies ferner Spekulationen zurück, dass Fremdkörper im Darm des Patienten für dessen schlechten Zustand verantwortlich sein könnten.

Die BBC hatte unter Berufung auf Krankenhauskreise berichtet, aus Röntgenaufnahmen gehe hervor, dass Litwinenko drei Gegenstände dichter Struktur verschluckt habe. Bellingan erklärte dagegen, die vermeintlichen Fremdkörper auf den Röntgenbildern seien in Wahrheit Flecke, die von der Behandlung des Patienten mit Preussisch-Blau herrührten. Diese Farbstoffsubstanz wird in der Medizin häufig als Mittel zur Bindung von Giften wie Thallium und Cäsium eingesetzt.

Oberst im Geheimdienst
Litwinenko trat zu Sowjetzeiten dem Geheimdienst KGB bei und stieg bei dessen Nachfolgeorganisation, dem russischen Inlandsgeheimdienst FSB, zum Oberst auf. Im November 2000 floh er aus Russland und bat in Grossbritannien um Asyl. Zwei Jahre zuvor hatte er seine Vorgesetzten beim FSB öffentlich beschuldigt, ihm die Tötung des russischen Milliardärs Boris Beresowski befohlen zu haben, der damals zum Machtzirkel des Kremls gehörte. Ausserdem beschuldigte Litvinenko FSB-Beamte, 1999 Bombenanschläge auf Wohnhäuser in Russland koordiniert zu haben. Diese kosteten rund 300 Menschen das Leben und lösten den zweiten Tschetschenien-Krieg aus.

vermischtes

Drogen-Bericht 2006: Illegale Drogen immer billiger

Brüssel – Der Schwarzmarktpreis für Heroin, Kokain und andere illegale Drogen in Europa ist nach Erkenntnissen der EU-Drogenbeobachtungsstelle (EBDD) deutlich gefallen.

Zwischen 1999 und 2004 sei zum Beispiel braunes Heroin ganze 45 Prozent und Kokain 22 Prozent billiger geworden. Der Strassenverkaufspreis für Ecstasy sei sogar um bis zu 47 Prozent, der von Cannabis um bis zu 19 Prozent zurückgegangen.

Der EBDD-Vorsitzende Marcel Reimen schränkte ein, der Preis allein sei nicht ausschlaggebend für den Drogenkonsum – noch lasse sich daher kein direkter Zusammenhang zwischen Preis und Nachfrage erkennen.

Trotz des Preistrends nach unten gibt es der EBDD zufolge zwischen den europäischen Ländern noch immer erhebliche Unterschiede. In der Türkei beispielsweise koste braunes Heroin – die am häufigsten gehandelte Heroinsorte – 12 Euro (gut 19 Franken) je Gramm, in Schweden dagegen 114 Euro.

Und während Drogenkonsumenten in Belgien für ein Gramm Kokain 41 Euro zahlten, liege der Preis für diese Menge in Rumänien bei mehr als hundert Euro.

Es handelt sich um die erste europaweite Erhebung zur Preisentwicklung bei illegalen Drogen, die Preise wurden inflationsbereinigt. In den EBDD-Drogenbericht fliessen Daten aus den 25 EU-Ländern, aber auch aus Norwegen, Rumänien, Bulgarien und der Türkei ein.

Laut EBDD wird der Drogenpreis von diversen Faktoren bestimmt – etwa auch davon, wie rein die Substanzen sind oder wie hoch ihr Angebot am Markt. Die einzelnen Länder erfassten die Daten auf unterschiedliche Weise.

Insgesamt liege der Schluss nahe, dass die Preise nicht erst in den erfassten fünf Jahren, sondern bereits seit über einem Jahrzehnt gesunken seien. Ecstasy and Kokain etwa seien heute offenbar in manchen Ländern auch billiger als noch Ende der 80er und Anfang der 90er Jahre.

Krieg

Rekordzahl an Todesopfern im Irak

Bagdad – Im Irak sind im vergangenen Oktober 3709 Zivilisten getötet worden – mehr Menschen als in jedem anderen Monat seit dem Einmarsch der US-geführten Gruppen im März 2003. Hunderttausende Einwohner sind auf der Flucht, berichtete die UNO.

Demnach kamen im abgelaufenen Monat bei der Gewalt zwischen den Religionsgruppen und zwischen Aufständischen und Soldaten 3709 Zivilisten ums Leben. Bislang galt der Juli mit 3590 Todesopfern als Monat mit den meisten Opfern. Im September war ihre Zahl nur leicht darunter geblieben.

Die Uno stützt ihre Zahlen auf Angaben des irakischen Gesundheitsministeriums. Dem Bericht zufolge verursacht die sich verschlechternde Sicherheitslage zugleich eine beispiellose Fluchtbewegung innerhalb des Landes.

420’000 Menschen geflohen
Seit Beginn der US-Invasion hätten zwei Millionen Iraker ihre Wohnorte verlassen, hiess es. Allein seit Februar seien knapp 420’000 Menschen geflüchtet. Damals löste ein Anschlag auf eine schiitische Moschee in Samarra eine Welle von Gewalt zwischen Sunniten und Schiiten aus.

Zudem fliehen den Angaben zufolge monatlich fast 100’000 Iraker in die Nachbarländer Syrien und Jordanien. Seit dem Einmarsch der amerikanischen Truppen hätten 1,6 Millionen Iraker ihr Heimatland verlassen. «Ganze Wohnviertel sind betroffen», hiess es in dem Bericht.

Die Uno legen ihren Bericht zur Menschenrechtslage alle zwei Monate vor. Ihrer Einschätzung zufolge sind inzwischen religiös motivierte Anschläge die Hauptquelle der anhaltenden Gewalt.

11.000 tote US-Soldaten durch abgereichertes Uran
650 000 Iraker durch Kriegsfolgen gestorben

terror

UNO: Hariri-Ermittlungen werden auf Mordfall Gemayel ausgeweitet

New York – Die UNO wird Libanon auch bei der Aufklärung des Mordanschlags auf Industrieminister Pierre Gemayel helfen. Der UNO-Sicherheitsrat billigte am Mittwoch einstimmig eine entsprechende Anfrage der libanesischen Regierung.


Der Politiker Gemayel wurde erschossen

Damit wird die UNO-Untersuchung zum Mord an dem früheren libanesischen Regierungschef Rafik el Hariri auf das Gemayel-Attentat ausgeweitet. Hariri und Gemayel waren beide Syrien-Kritiker.

Die UNO untersucht bereits 14 mutmasslich politische Morde im Libanon aus der Zeit nach dem Hariri-Anschlag im Februar 2005. Dem belgischen UNO-Ermittlungsleiter Serge Brammertz zufolge gibt es Hinweise auf Verbindungen zwischen den nun 15 Fällen. Syrien bestreitet Vorwürfe, in die Taten verwickelt zu sein.

Der christliche Politiker Gemayel war am Dienstag in einem Beiruter Christenviertel erschossen worden. Der Sohn des früheren Präsidenten Amin Gemayel ist innerhalb von zwei Jahren der sechste anti-syrische Politiker, der Opfer eines Anschlags wurde. Auf Anordnung der libanesischen Regierung begann am Mittwoch eine dreitägige Staatstrauer.

Am Tag nach der Ermordung Gemayels kam UNO-Generalsekretär Kofi Annan in New York mit Libanons Tarek Mitri zum Gespräch zusammen. Annan bezeichnet die Lage in Libanon als „äusserst heikel und sehr zerbrechlich“.

Er sei „extrem besorgt“, sagte der UNO-Chef. Die internationale Gemeinschaft solle alles unternehmen, um der Bevölkerung und der Regierung in Beirut zu helfen.

An der Planung des Attentates, bei dem im Februar 2005 in Beirut Hariri und 22 weitere Menschen getötet worden waren, sollen ersten Erkenntnissen zufolge syrische Geheimdienstoffiziere und Sicherheitsleute beteiligt gewesen sein.

Der ermordete libanesische Industrieminister Pierre Gemayel wird heute in Beirut beigesetzt. Zur Beerdigung des christlichen Politikers werden am Mittag tausende Anhänger der anti-syrischen Bewegung erwartet. Sie machen die Führung in Damaskus für die Bluttat verantwortlich.

Weitere Artikel zum Fall Hariri & Gemayel

spionage

Iran: The Next War

James Bamford – Even before the bombs fell on Baghdad, a group of senior Pentagon officials were plotting to invade another country. Their covert campaign once again relied on false intelligence and shady allies. But this time, the target was Iran.

I. The Israeli Connection
A few blocks off Pennsylvania Avenue, the FBI’s eight-story Washington field office exudes all the charm of a maximum-security prison. Its curved roof is made of thick stainless steel, the bottom three floors are wrapped in granite and limestone, hydraulic bollards protect the ramp to the four-floor garage, and bulletproof security booths guard the entrance to the narrow lobby. On the fourth floor, like a tomb within a tomb, lies the most secret room in the $100 million concrete fortress—out-of-bounds even for special agents without an escort. Here, in the Language Services Section, hundreds of linguists in padded earphones sit elbow-to-elbow in long rows, tapping computer keyboards as they eavesdrop on the phone lines of foreign embassies and other high-priority targets in the nation’s capital.


Illustration by Matt Mahurin

At the far end of that room, on the morning of February 12th, 2003, a small group of eavesdroppers were listening intently for evidence of a treacherous crime. At the very moment that American forces were massing for an invasion of Iraq, there were indications that a rogue group of senior Pentagon officials were already conspiring to push the United States into another war—this time with Iran.

A few miles away, FBI agents watched as Larry Franklin, an Iran expert and career employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, drove up to the Ritz-Carlton hotel across the Potomac from Washington.

A trim man of fifty-six, with a tangle of blond hair speckled gray, Franklin had left his modest home in Kearneysville, West Virginia, shortly before dawn that morning to make the eighty-mile commute to his job at the Pentagon. Since 2002, he had been working in the Office of Special Plans, a crowded warren of blue cubicles on the building’s fifth floor. A secretive unit responsible for long-term planning and propaganda for the invasion of Iraq, the office’s staffers referred to themselves as „the cabal.“

They reported to Douglas Feith, the third-most-powerful official in the Defense Department, helping to concoct the fraudulent intelligence reports that were driving America to war in Iraq.

Just two weeks before, in his State of the Union address, President Bush had begun laying the groundwork for the invasion, falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had the means to produce tens of thousands of biological and chemical weapons, including anthrax, botulinum toxin, sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. But an attack on Iraq would require something that alarmed Franklin and other neoconservatives almost as much as weapons of mass destruction: detente with Iran. As political columnist David Broder reported in The Washington Post, moderates in the Bush administration were „covertly negotiating for Iran to stay quiet and offer help to refugees when we go into Iraq.“

Franklin—a devout neoconservative who had been brought into Feith’s office because of his political beliefs—was hoping to undermine those talks. As FBI agents looked on, Franklin entered the restaurant at the Ritz and joined two other Americans who were also looking for ways to push the U.S. into a war with Iran. One was Steven Rosen, one of the most influential lobbyists in Washington. Sixty years old and nearly bald, with dark eyebrows and a seemingly permanent frown, Rosen was director of foreign-policy issues at Israel’s powerful lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Seated next to Rosen was AIPAC’s Iran expert, Keith Weissman. He and Rosen had been working together closely for a decade to pressure U.S. officials and members of Congress to turn up the heat on Tehran.

Over breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton, Franklin told the two lobbyists about a draft of a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive that dealt with U.S. policy on Iran. Crafted by Michael Rubin, the desk officer for Iraq and Iran in Feith’s office, the document called, in essence, for regime change in Iran. In the Pentagon’s view, according to one senior official there at the time, Iran was nothing but „a house of cards ready to be pushed over the precipice.“ So far, though, the White House had rejected the Pentagon’s plan, favoring the State Department’s more moderate position of diplomacy. Now, unwilling to play by the rules any longer, Franklin was taking the extraordinary—and illegal—step of passing on highly classified information to lobbyists for a foreign state. Unable to win the internal battle over Iran being waged within the administration, a member of Feith’s secret unit in the Pentagon was effectively resorting to treason, recruiting AIPAC to use its enormous influence to pressure the president into adopting the draft directive and wage war against Iran.

It was a role that AIPAC was eager to play. Rosen, recognizing that Franklin could serve as a useful spy, immediately began plotting ways to plant him in the White House—specifically in the National Security Council, the epicenter of intelligence and national-security policy. By working there, Rosen told Franklin a few days later, he would be „by the elbow of the president.“

Knowing that such a maneuver was well within AIPAC’s capabilities, Franklin asked Rosen to „put in a good word“ for him. Rosen agreed. „I’ll do what I can,“ he said, adding that the breakfast meeting had been a real „eye-opener.“

Working together, the two men hoped to sell the United States on yet another bloody war. A few miles away, digital recorders at the FBI’s Language Services Section captured every word.

II. The Guru and the Exile
In recent weeks, the attacks by Hezbollah on Israel have given neoconservatives in the Bush administration the pretext they were seeking to launch what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls „World War III.“ Denouncing the bombings as „Iran’s proxy war,“ William Kristol of The Weekly Standard is urging the Pentagon to counter „this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.“ According to Joseph Cirincione, an arms expert and the author of Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Threats, „The neoconservatives are now hoping to use the Israeli-Lebanon conflict as the trigger to launch a U.S. war against Syria, Iran or both.“

But the Bush administration’s hostility toward Iran is not simply an outgrowth of the current crisis. War with Iran has been in the works for the past five years, shaped in almost complete secrecy by a small group of senior Pentagon officials attached to the Office of Special Plans. The man who created the OSP was Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy. A former Middle East specialist on the National Security Council in the Reagan administration, Feith had long urged Israel to secure its borders in the Middle East by attacking Iraq and Iran. After Bush’s election, Feith went to work to make that vision a reality, putting together a team of neoconservative hawks determined to drive the U.S. to attack Tehran. Before Bush had been in office a year, Feith’s team had arranged a covert meeting in Rome with a group of Iranians to discuss their clandestine help.

The meeting was arranged by Michael Ledeen, a member of the cabal brought aboard by Feith because of his connections in Iran. Described by The Jerusalem Post as „Washington’s neoconservative guru,“ Ledeen grew up in California during the 1940s. His father designed the air-conditioning system for Walt Disney Studios, and Ledeen spent much of his early life surrounded by a world of fantasy. „All through my childhood we were an adjunct of the Disney universe,“ he once recalled. „According to family legend, my mother was the model for Snow White, and we have a picture of her that does indeed look just like the movie character.“

In 1977, after earning a Ph.D. in history and philosophy and teaching in Rome for two years, Ledeen became the first executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a pro-Israel pressure group that served as a flagship of the neoconservative movement. A few years later, after Reagan was elected, Ledeen had become prominent enough to earn a spot as a consultant to the National Security Council alongside Feith.

There he played a central role in the worst scandal of Reagan’s presidency: the covert deal to provide arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages being held in Lebanon. Ledeen served as the administration’s intermediary with Israel in the illegal-arms deal. In 1985, he met with Manucher Ghorbanifar, a one-time Iranian carpet salesman who was widely believed to be an Israeli agent. The CIA considered Ghorbanifar a dangerous con man and had issued a „burn notice“ recommending that no U.S. agency have any dealings with him. Unfazed, Ledeen called Ghorbanifar „one of the most honest, educated, honorable men I have ever known.“

The two men brokered the arms exchange—a transaction that would result in the indictment of fourteen senior officials in the Reagan administration.

„It was awful—you know, bad things happened,“ Ledeen says now. „When Iran-Contra was over, I said, Boy, I’m never going to touch Iran again.“But in 2001, soon after he arrived at the Pentagon, Ledeen once again met with Ghorbanifar. This time, instead of selling missiles to the Iranian regime, the two men were exploring how best to topple it.

„The meeting in Rome came about because my friend Manucher Ghorbanifar called me up,“ Ledeen says. Stout and balding, with a scruffy white beard, Ledeen is sitting in the living room of his white-brick home in Chevy Chase, Maryland, smoking a Dominican cigar. His Airedale terrier, Thurber, roams the room protectively. In his first extensive interview about the covert Pentagon operation, Ledeen makes no secret of his desire to topple the government in Tehran. „I want to bring down the regime,“ he says. „I want the regime gone. It’s a country that is fanatically devoted to our destruction.“

When Ghorbanifar called Ledeen in the fall of 2001, he claimed, as he often does, to have explosive intelligence that was vital to U.S. interests. „There are Iranians who have firsthand information about Iranian plans to kill Americans in Afghanistan,“ he told Ledeen. „Does anyone want to hear about it?“

Ledeen took the information to Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser at the White House. „I know you’re going to throw me out of the office,“ Ledeen told him, „and if I were you I would throw me out of the office too. But I promised that I would give you this option. Ghorbanifar has called me. He said these people are willing to come. Do you want anybody to go and talk to them?“

Hadley was interested. So was Zalmay Khalilzad, then the point man on Near East issues for the National Security Council and now the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. „I think we have to do this, we have to hear this,“ Hadley said. Ledeen had the green light: As he puts it, „Every element of the American government knew this was going to happen in advance.“

III. The Meeting in Rome
Weeks later, in December, a plane carrying Ledeen traveled to Rome with two other members of Feith’s secret Pentagon unit: Larry“>Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi dissident whose discredited intelligence helped drive the Bush administration to invade Baghdad. According to UPI, Rhode himself was later observed by CIA operatives passing „mind-boggling“ intelligence to Israel, including sensitive information about U.S. military deployments in Iraq.

Completing the rogues‘ gallery that assembled in Rome that day was the man who helped Ledeen arrange the meeting: Nicolò“>uranium from West Africa—a key piece of false intelligence that Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

To hide the shadowy rendezvous in Rome, Pollari provided a well-protected safe house near the noisy espresso bars and busy trattorias that surround the Piazza di Spagna in central Rome. „It was in a private apartment,“ Ledeen recalls. „It was fucking freezing—it was unheated.“ The Pentagon operatives and the men from Iran sat at a dining-room table strewn with demitasse cups of blackish coffee, ashtrays littered with crushed cigarette butts and detailed maps of Iran, Iraq and Syria. „They gave us information about the location and plans of Iranian terrorists who were going to kill Americans,“ Ledeen says.

Ledeen insists the intelligence was on the mark. „It was true,“ he says. „The information was accurate.“ Not according to his boss. „There wasn’t anything there that was of substance or of value that needed to be pursued further,“ Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld later conceded. „It went nowhere.“

The men then turned their attention to their larger goal: regime change in Iran. Ghorbanifar suggested funding the overthrow of the Iranian government using hundreds of millions of dollars in cash supposedly hidden by Saddam Hussein. He even hinted that Saddam was hiding in Iran.

Ledeen, Franklin and Rhode were taking a page from Feith’s playbook on Iraq: They needed a front group of exiles and dissidents to call for the overthrow of Iran. According to sources familiar with the meeting, the Americans discussed joining forces with the Mujahedin-e Khalq, an anti-Iranian guerrilla army operating out of Iraq.

There was only one small problem: The MEK had been certified by the State Department as a terrorist organization. In fact, the White House was in the midst of negotiations with Tehran, which was offering to extradite five members of Al Qaeda thought to be of high intelligence value in return for Washington’s promise to drop all support for the MEK.

Ledeen denies any dealings with the group. „I wouldn’t get within a hundred miles of the MEK,“ he says. „They have no following, no legitimacy.“ But neoconservatives were eager to undermine any deal that involved cooperating with Iran. To the neocons, the value of the MEK as a weapon against Tehran greatly outweighed any benefit that might be derived from interrogating the Al Qaeda operatives—even though they might provide intelligence on future terrorist attacks, as well as clues to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

Ledeen and his Pentagon cabal were not the only American officials to whom Ghorbanifar tried to funnel false intelligence on Iran. Last year, Rep. Curt Weldon, a Republican from Pennsylvania, claimed he had intelligence—from an „impeccable clandestine source“ he code-named „Ali“—that the Iranian government was plotting to launch attacks against the United States. But when the CIA investigated the allegations, it turned out that Ali was Fereidoun Mahdavi, an Iranian exile who was serving as a frontman for Ghorbanifar and trying to shake down the CIA for $150,000. „He is a fabricator,“ said Bill Murray, the former CIA station chief in Paris. Weldon was furious: The agency had dismissed Ali, he insisted, „because they want to avoid, at all costs, drawing the United States into a war with Iran.“

After the Rome rendezvous, Ledeen and Ghorbanifar continued to meet several times a year, often for a day or two at a time. Rhode also met with Ghorbanifar in Paris, and the Iranian phoned or faxed his Pentagon contacts almost every day. At one point Ledeen notified the Pentagon that Ghorbanifar knew of highly enriched uranium being moved from Iraq to Iran. At another point, in 2003, he claimed that Tehran was only a few months away from exploding a nuclear bomb—even though international experts estimate that Iran is years away from developing nuclear weapons. But the accuracy of the reports wasn’t important—what mattered was their value in drumming up support for war. It was Iraq all over again.

IV. On the Trail of Mr. X
Such covert efforts by Feith’s team in the Pentagon started to have the desired effect. In November 2003, Rumsfeld approved a plan known as CONPLAN“>Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force. „We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes in half a day or less.“

But as the Pentagon moved the country closer to war with Iran, the FBI was expanding its investigation of AIPAC and its role in the plot. David Szady, then the bureau’s top spy-catcher, had become convinced that at least one American citizen working inside the U.S. government was spying for Israel. „It’s no longer just our traditional adversaries who want to steal our secrets, but sometimes even our allies,“ Szady declared. „The threat is incredibly serious.“ To locate the spy sometimes referred to as Mr. X, agents working for Szady began focusing on a small group of neoconservatives in the Pentagon—including Feith, Ledeen and Rhode.

The FBI also had its sights on Larry Franklin, who continued to hold clandestine meetings with Rosen at AIPAC. Apparently nervous that the FBI might be on to them, the two men started taking precautions. On March 10th, 2003, barely a week before the invasion of Iraq, Rosen met Franklin in Washington’s cavernous Union Station. The pair met at one restaurant, then they hustled to another, and finally they ended up in a third—this one totally empty. As an added precaution, Franklin also began sending faxes to Rosen’s home instead of to his AIPAC offices.

A few days later, Rosen and Weissman passed on to Israeli-embassy officials details about the draft of the top-secret presidential directive on Iran, saying they had received the document from a „friend of ours in the Pentagon.“ They also relayed to the Israelis details about internal Bush-administration discussions on Iran. Then, two days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Rosen leaked the information to the press with the comment „I’m not supposed to know this.“ The Washington Post eventually published the story under the headline „Pressure Builds for President to Declare Strategy on Iran,“ crediting the classified information to „well-placed sources.“ The story mentioned Ledeen, who helped found the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, a pressure group dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, but gave no indication that the leak had come from someone with a definite agenda for planting the information.

That June, Weissman called Franklin and left a message that he and Rosen wanted to meet with him again and talk about „our favorite country.“ The meeting took place in the Tivoli Restaurant, a dimly lit establishment two floors above the metro station in Arlington that was frequently used by intelligence types for quiet rendezvous. Over lunch in the mirrored dining room, the three men discussed the Post article, and Rosen acknowledged „the constraints“ Franklin was under to meet with them. But the Pentagon official placed himself fully at AIPAC’s disposal. „You set the agenda,“ Franklin told Rosen.

In addition to meeting Rosen and Weissman, Franklin was also getting together regularly with Naor“>Judith Miller.

At one point, Gilon suggested that Franklin meet with Uzi Arad, Mossad’s former director of intelligence and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s foreign-policy adviser. A week later, Franklin had lunch in the Pentagon cafeteria with the former top Israeli spy.

V. Iran’s Double Agent
Larry Franklin, it turns out, wasn’t the only person involved in the Pentagon’s covert operation who was exchanging state secrets with other governments. As the FBI monitored Franklin and his clandestine dealings with AIPAC, it was also investigating another explosive case of espionage linked to Feith’s office and Iran. This one focused on Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, the militant anti-Saddam opposition group that had worked for more than a decade to pressure the U.S. into invading Iraq.

For years, the National Security Agency had possessed the codes used by Iran to encrypt its diplomatic messages, enabling the U.S. government to eavesdrop on virtually every communication between Tehran and its embassies. After the U.S. invaded Baghdad, the NSA used the codes to listen in on details of Iran’s covert operations inside Iraq. But in 2004, the agency intercepted a series of urgent messages from the Iranian embassy in Baghdad. Intelligence officials at the embassy had discovered the massive security breach—tipped off by someone familiar with the U.S. code-breaking operation.

The blow to intelligence-gathering could not have come at a worse time. The Bush administration suspected that the Shiite government in Iran was aiding Shiite insurgents in Iraq, who were killing U.S. soldiers. The administration was also worried that Tehran was secretly developing nuclear weapons. Now, crucial intelligence that might have shed light on those operations had been cut off, potentially endangering American lives.

On May 20th, shortly after the discovery of the leak, Iraqi police backed by American soldiers raided Chalabi’s home and offices in Baghdad. The FBI suspected that Chalabi, a Shiite who had a luxurious villa in Tehran and was close to senior Iranian officials, was actually working as a spy for the Shiite government of Iran. Getting the U.S. to invade Iraq was apparently part of a plan to install a pro-Iranian Shiite government in Baghdad, with Chalabi in charge. The bureau also suspected that Chalabi’s intelligence chief had furnished Iran with highly classified information on U.S. troop movements, top-secret communications, plans of the provisional government and other closely guarded material on U.S. operations in Iraq. On the night of the raid, The CBS Evening News carried an exclusive report by correspondent Lesley Stahlthat the U.S. government had „rock-solid“ evidence that Chalabi had been passing extremely sensitive intelligence to Iran—evidence so sensitive that it could „get Americans killed.“


Chalabi behind the first Lady

The revelation shocked Franklin and other members of Feith’s office. If true, the allegations meant that they had just launched a war to put into power an agent of their mortal enemy, Iran. Their man—the dissident leader who sat behind the first lady in the president’s box during the State of the Union address in which Bush prepared the country for war—appeared to have been working for Iran all along.

Franklin needed to control the damage, and fast. He was one of the very few in the government who knew that it was the NSA code-breaking information that Chalabi was suspected of passing to Iran, and that there was absolute proof that Chalabi had met with a covert Iranian agent involved in operations against the U.S. To protect those in the Pentagon working for regime change in Tehran, Franklin needed to get out a simple message: We didn’t know about Chalabi’s secret dealings with Iran.

Franklin decided to leak the information to a friendly contact in the media: Adam Ciralsky, a CBS producer who had been fired from the CIA, allegedly for his close ties to Israel. On May 21st, the day after CBS broadcast its exclusive report on Chalabi, Franklin phoned Ciralsky and fed him the information. As the two men talked, eavesdroppers at the FBI’s Washington field office recorded the conversation.

That night, Stahl followed up her original report with „new details“—the information leaked earlier that day by Franklin. She began, however, by making clear that she would not divulge the most explosive detail of all: the fact that Chalabi had wrecked the NSA’s ability to eavesdrop on Iran. „Senior intelligence officials were stressing today that the information Ahmed Chalabi is alleged to have passed on to Iran is so seriously sensitive that the result of full disclosure would be highly damaging to U.S. security,“ Stahl said. „Because of that, we are not reporting the details of what exactly Chalabi is said to have compromised, at the request of U.S. officials at the highest levels. The information involves secrets that were held by only a handful of very senior intelligence officials.“ Thanks to the pressure from the administration, the public was prevented from learning the most damaging aspect of Chalabi’s treachery.

Then Stahl moved on to Franklin’s central message. „Meanwhile,“ she said, „we have been told that grave concerns about the true nature of Chalabi’s relationship with Iran started after the U.S. obtained, quote, undeniable intelligence‘ that Chalabi met with a senior Iranian intelligence officer, a, quote, nefarious figure from the dark side of the regime, an individual with a direct hand in covert operations against the United States.‘ Chalabi never reported this meeting to anyone in the U.S. government, including his friends and sponsors.“ In short, the Pentagon—and Feith’s office in particular—was blameless.

VI. The Cabal’s Triumph
Soon after the broadcast, David Szady’s team at the FBI decided to wrap up its investigation before Franklin leaked any more information. Agents quietly confronted Franklin with the taped phone call and pressured him to cooperate in a sting operation directed at AIPAC and members of Feith’s team in the Pentagon. Franklin, facing a long prison sentence, agreed. On August 4th, 2005, Rosen and Weissman were indicted, and on January 20th, 2006, Franklin, who had earlier pleaded guilty, was sentenced to twelve years and seven months in prison. In an attempt to reduce his sentence, he agreed to testify against the former AIPAC officials. The case is set to go to trial this fall.

So far, however, Franklin is the only member of Feith’s team to face charges. The continuing lack of indictments demonstrates how frighteningly easy it is for a small group of government officials to join forces with agents of foreign powers—whether it is AIPAC or the MEK or the INC—to sell the country on a disastrous war.

The most glaring unindicted co-conspirator is Ahmed Chalabi. Even top-ranking Republicans suspect him of double dealing: „I wouldn’t be surprised if he told Iranians facts, issues, whatever, that we did not want them to know,“ said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., who chairs the House subcommittee on national security. Yet the FBI has been unable to so much as question Chalabi as part of its ongoing espionage case. Last November, when Chalabi returned to the United States for a series of speeches and media events, the FBI tried to interview him. But because he was under State Department protection during his visit, sources in the Justice Department say, the bureau’s request was flatly denied.

„Chalabi’s running around saying, “I have nothing to hide, “ says one senior FBI official. „Yet he’s using our State Department to keep us from him at the same time. And we’ve got to keep our mouth shut.“

In the end, the work of Franklin and the other members of Feith’s secret office had the desired effect. Working behind the scenes, the members of the Office of Special Plans succeeded in setting the United States on the path to all-out war with Iran. Indeed, since Bush was re-elected to a second term, he has made no secret of his desire to see Tehran fall. In a victory speech of sorts on Inauguration Day in January 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney warned bluntly that Iran was „right at the top“ of the administration’s list of „trouble spots“—and that Israel „might well decide to act first“ by attacking Iran. The Israelis, Cheney added in an obvious swipe at moderates in the State Department, would „let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward.“

Over the past six months, the administration has adopted almost all of the hard-line stance advocated by the war cabal in the Pentagon. In May, Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, appeared before AIPAC’s annual conference and warned that Iran „must be made aware that if it continues down the path of international isolation, there will be tangible and painful consequences.“ To back up the tough talk, the State Department is spending $66 million to promote political change inside Iran—funding the same kind of dissident groups that helped drive the U.S. to war in Iraq. „We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran,“ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared.

In addition, the State Department recently beefed up its Iran Desk from two people to ten, hired more Farsi speakers and set up eight intelligence units in foreign countries to focus on Iran. The administration’s National Security Strategy—the official policy document that sets out U.S. strategic priorities—now calls Iran the „single country“ that most threatens U.S. interests.

The shift in official policy has thrilled former members of the cabal. To them, the war in Lebanon represents the final step in their plan to turn Iran into the next Iraq. Ledeen, writing in the National Review on July 13th, could hardly restrain himself. „Faster, please,“ he urged the White House, arguing that the war should now be taken over by the U.S. military and expanded across the entire region. „The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus, and they are not going to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can accomplish it,“ he concluded. „There is no other way.“

James Bamford is the author of A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies. His story for RS on consultant John Rendon, „The Man Who Sold the War“ [RS 988], won the 2006 National Magazine Award for reporting. And he wrote the classic „Puzzle Palace“ on the NSA.

This article was published @ RollingStone

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

terror

Libanesischer Minister ermordet

Beirut – Der christlich-libanesische Politiker und Industrieminister Pierre Gemayel ist in Beirut einem Mordanschlag zum Opfer gefallen. Er war der Sohn des ehemaligen Präsidenten Amine Gemayel.

Das Attentat auf den prominenten Politiker hat die politische Krise im Libanon dramatisch verschärft. Er ist bereits der fünfte Politiker oder Intellektuelle aus dem antisyrischen Lager, der in den vergangenen zwei Jahren ermordet wurde.

Der 34-jährige Gemajel war nach Berichten von Augenzeugen mit seinem Auto in der Beiruter Vorstadt Jdeideh unterwegs – in diesem christlichen Wohngebiet am Nordrand der libanesischen Hauptstadt lag auch der Wahlkreis des Politikers. Sein Auto wurde von einem anderen Fahrzeug gerammt. Der Täter stieg aus und erschoss den Politiker aus kurzer Distanz. Gemajel wurde in ein Krankenhaus gebracht, wo nur noch sein Tod festgestellt werden konnte, wie die christliche Phalange-Partei mitteilte.

Sorge vor einer Eskalation
Das Attentatsopfer war der Sohn des ehemaligen Präsidenten Amin Gemajel, der von 1982 bis 1988 amtierte. Sein Grossvater Pierre Gemajel führte die Phalange im Bürgerkrieg von 1975 bis 1990.

Politische Beobachter erwarten, dass das Attentat die politischen Spannungen im Libanon weiter verschärfen wird. Die Phalange-Partei gehört der antisyrischen Parlamentsmehrheit an, die in den vergangenen Tagen einen erbitterten Machtkampf mit der prosyrischen Hizbollah führte. Diese hat mit dem Sturz der Regierung gedroht, falls sie kein grösseres Mitspracherecht im Kabinett erhält.

Hariri verdächtigt Syrien
Der politische Führer der antisyrischen Mehrheit, Saad Hariri, brach nach der Nachricht vom Attentat auf Gemajel eine Pressekonferenz ab. Er würdigte Gemajel als guten Freund und sagte den Tränen nahe, es werde alles getan, um die Täter zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen.

Hariri, der Sohn im Februar 2005 ermordeten Politikers Rafik Hariri, machte die Regierung in Damaskus für die Tat verantwortlich: «Wir glauben, dass die Hand Syriens dabei war.» Auch die syrische Regierung verurteilte jedoch das Attentat und sprach von einem abscheulichen Verbrechen, das Frieden und Stabilität im Libanon gefährde.

Sondertribunal zu Hariri-Mord

Der Weltsicherheitsrat hat einstimmig die Ermordung des libanesischen Industrieministers Pierre Gemajel verurteilt. Zugleich billigte das höchste Entscheidungsgremium der Vereinten Nationen in New York eine Vereinbarung mit dem Libanon über die Einsetzung eines UN-Tribunals zur Untersuchung des Attentats auf den früheren libanesischen Ministerpräsidenten Rafik Hariri im Februar 2005. Der Mordanschlag auf Gemajel löste international Besorgnis aus.

US-Präsident George W. Bush warf Syrien und dem Iran vor, die demokratisch gewählte Regierung Sinioras untergraben zu wollen. Staatssekretär Nicholas Burns sagte, eine Spaltung des Libanons dürfe nicht zugelassen werden.

Der britische Premierminister Tony Blair forderte, es müsse alles getan werden, um die Demokratie im Libanon zu schützen. Der französische Staatspräsident Jacques Chirac zeigte sich bestürzt. Auch der EU-Aussenbeauftragte Javier Solana verurteilte die Tat. Der Libanon müsse «für seinen Willen, in Frieden und Unabhängigkeit zu leben, erneut einen hohen Tribut zahlen», sagte Solana.

Gemayel wird am Donnerstag beigesetzt. Das anti-syrische Bündnis rief seine Anhänger auf, am Tag der Beerdigung friedlich zu demonstrieren. Die Behörden ordneten eine dreitägige Staatstrauer an.

spionage

The highjacking of a Nation

Part 1: The Foreign Agent Factor

Sibel Edmonds – In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned that America must be constantly awake against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence…since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that come in the form of financial gain and positions of power.

Foreign governments and foreign-owned private interests have long sought to influence U.S. public policy. Several have accomplished this goal; those who are able and willing to pay what it takes. Those who buy themselves a few strategic middlemen, commonly known as pimps, while in DC circles referred to as foreign registered agents and lobbyists, who facilitate and bring about desired transactions. These successful foreign entities have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying influence in Washington DC. They have the required recipe down pat: get yourself a few ‘Dime a Dozen Generals,’ bid high in the ‘former statesmen lobby auction’, and put in your pocket one or two ‘ex-congressmen turned lobbyists’ who know the ropes when it comes to pocketing a few dozen who still serve.

The most important facet of this influence to consider is what happens when the active and powerful foreign entities’ objectives are in direct conflict with our nation’s objectives and its interests and security; and when this is the case, who pays the ultimate price and how. There is no need for assumptions of hypothetical situations to answer these questions, since throughout recent history we have repeatedly faced the dire consequences of the highjacking of our foreign and domestic policies by these so-called foreign agents of foreign influence.

Let’s illustrate this with the most important recent case, the catastrophe endured by our people; the September Eleven terrorist attacks. Let’s observe how certain foreign interests, combined with their U.S. agents and benefactors, overrode the interests and security of the entire nation; how thousands of victims and their loved ones were kicked aside to serve the interests of a few; foreign influence and its agents.

Senator Graham’s Revelation
It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship.

In his book, „Intelligence Matters,“ Senator Bob Graham made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry’s final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Here is an excerpt from Senator Graham’s statement from the July 24, 2003 congressional record on the classified 27 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11: “The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured [sic]….The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives.”

In his book Graham reveals, “Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.” He then cites another case, “We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with two of the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”

The most explosive revelation in Graham’s book is the following statement with regard to the administration’s attitude on page 216: “It was as if the President’s loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America’s safety.” Further, he states that he asked the FBI to undertake a review of the Riggs Bank records on the terrorists’ money trail, to look at other Saudi companies with ties to al-Qaeda, to plan for monitoring suspect Saudi interests in the United States; however, Graham adds: “To my knowledge, none of these investigations have been completed…Nor do we know anything else about what I believe to be a state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely undamaged, within the United States.”

What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed ‘secrecy and classification’, is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages is not about protecting ‘U.S. national security, methods of intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,’ but to protect certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be identified.

In covering up Saudi Arabia’s direct role in supporting Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission goes even a few steps further than the congress and the Executive Branch. The report claims „there is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11.“ Their report ignores all the information provided by government officials to Congress, as well as volumes of published reports and investigations by other nations, regarding Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al Qaeda. It completely disregards the terrorist lists of the Treasury and State Departments, which have catalogued the Saudi government’s decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Why in the world would the United States government go so far to protect Saudi Arabia in the face of what itself declares to be the biggest security threat facing our nation and the world today?

Why is the United States willing to set aside its own security and interests in order to advance the interests of another state?

How can a government that’s been intent upon using the terrorist attacks to carry out many unjustifiable atrocities, prevent bringing to justice those who’ve been established as being directly responsible for it?

More importantly, how is this done in a nation that prides itself as one that operates under governance of the people, by the people, for the people?

How did our government bodies, those involved in drafting and implementing our nation’s policies, evolve into this foreign influence-peddling operation?

In order to answer these questions one must first establish who stands to lose and who stands to gain by protecting Saudi Arabia from being exposed and facing consequences of its involvement in terrorist networks activities. In addition to identifying the nations in question, we must identify the interests as well as the actors; their agents. Let’s look at Saudi Arabia as one of the successful foreign nations that have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying and peddling influence in Washington DC, and identify its hired ‘agents’ and ‘agents by default.’

Foreign Agents by Default

Although when it comes to our complex diplomatic threading with Saudi Arabia the easiest answer appears to be the ‘oil factor,’ upon further inspection the Saudi’s influence and role extends into other areas, such as the Military Industrial Complex and the too familiar Lobbying Games.

According to the report published by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Saudi Arabia is America’s top customer. Since 1990 the U.S. government, through the Pentagon’s arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department’s direct commercial sales program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-paying customer; a compulsive buyer of our weaponry. The list of U.S. sellers includes almost all the major players such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.

The report by FAS establishes that despite the show of U.S. support demonstrated by this astounding quantity of arms sales, Saudi Arabia’s human rights record is extremely poor; see the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report. Saudi Arabia’s position as a strategic Gulf ally has blinded U.S. officials into approving a level and quality of arms exports that should never have been allowed to a non-democratic country with such a poor human rights record.

Further, there are indications of Saudi’s active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. According to Mohammed Khilewi, first secretary at the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from China, supported Pakistan’s nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S. government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia’s case, considering the fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any developing country.

The Military Industrial Complex certainly seems to be a winner in having the congressional report pertaining to the Saudi government’s role in supporting the 9/11 terrorist activities being classified. The exposure would have meant grounds for U.S. sanctions and retributions; it would have risked the loss of billions of dollars in revenue from its ‘top customer.’ These companies don’t even have to officially register as foreign agents; after all, their strong loyalty and unbreakable bond with foreign elements exists by default; it is called mutual benefit. They are ‘Foreign Agents by Default.’

This holds true for other parties and players involved within the MIC network; the contractors and the investors. Let’s look at one of these famous and influential players; another foreign agent even if only by default; a man who defended the Saudis against a lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victims’ family members; a man who happens to be the senior counsel for the Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is the nation’s 10th largest defense contractor with ties to the Saudi Royal Family, Enron, Global Crossing, among others; James Baker; Papa Bush’s Secretary of State. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Baker was reportedly at a Carlyle investor conference with members of the Bin Laden family in the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC, while Bush Sr. was on the payroll of the Carlyle group.

The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC based private equity firm that employs numerous former high-ranking government officials with ties to both political parties, was the ninth largest Pentagon contractor between 1998 and 2003, an ongoing Center for Public Integrity investigation into Department of Defense contracts found. According to this report, overall, six private investment firms, including Carlyle, received nearly $14 billion in Pentagon deals between 1998 and 2003. Considering the fact that Saudi Arabia is the top buyer of the U.S. weapons industry, Carlyle’s investment and its stake, and of course Jimmy Baker’s far reaching influence within the Pentagon and congress, everything seems to come together and fit perfectly to shield this foreign interest no matter the price to be paid by the American public.

The political action committees (PACs) of the biggest defense companies have given $14.2 million directly to federal candidates since Clinton’s first presidential bid, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In 1997 alone the defense industry spent $49.5 million to lobby the nation’s decision-makers.

Between 1998 and 2004, for the six-year period, Boeing Company spent more than $57 million in lobbying. For the same period of time, Lockheed Martin poured over $55 million into lobbying activities. Northrop Grumman exceeded both by investing $83 million in lobbying, and based on a report issued by POGO, it contributed over $4 million to individuals and PACs.

With ‘dime a dozen’ generals on their boards of directors, numerous high-powered ex congressmen and senators at their disposal in the ‘K Street Lobby Quarter,’ tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations, and billions of dollars at stake, the Military Industrial Complex surely had all the incentives to act just as foreign agents would, and fight for their highly valued client; the Saudi Government. They appear to have had all the reasons to ensure that the report would not see the light of the day; no matter what the effect on the country, its security, and its interests.

K Street Lobby Quarter
The fact that Saudi Arabia pours large sums into lobbying firms and public relations companies with close ties to congress does not come as a big surprise. The FARA database under the DOJ website lists Qorvis Communications as one of Saudi Arabia’s registered foreign agents. In 2003, for only a six months period, Qorvis received more than $11 million from the Saudi government. Another firm, Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosenthal LLP, another registered foreign agent, received more than $840,000 for the same six-month period, and the list goes on. Just for this six month period the government of Saudi Arabia paid a total of more than $14 million to 13 lobbying and public relations companies; all registered as foreign agents.

Why do the Saudis spend nearly $20 million per year in lobbying activities in the U.S. via their hired agents? What kind of return on investment are they getting out of the United States Congress?

Let’s take Loeffler’s group and examine its value for the Saudi government, since it was paid over $3 million in three years between 2003 and 2005. The firm was founded by former Republican Congressman Tom Loeffler of Texas. Loeffler served in the Republican Leadership as Deputy Whip, and as Chief Deputy Whip during his third and fourth term.

He was a member of the powerful Appropriations Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Budget Committee. In the two Bush campaigns for governor, Loeffler, who contributed $141,000, was the largest donor. In 1998, he served as national co-chair of the Republican National Committee’s „Team 100“ program for donors of $100,000 or more, and afterwards held the same title during George W. Bush’s presidential campaign. Loeffler’s generosity extends to the members of congress as well. In 6 years, he has given more than $185,000 to members of congress, 97% of it going to only Republican members. During the same six-year period, Loeffler’s firm received more than $18 million in lobbying fees.

The firm’s managing director happens to be William L. Ball. Ball served as Chief of Staff to Senators John Tower (R-TX) and Herman Talmadge (D-GA). In 1985, he joined the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. Later he was assigned to the White House to serve President Reagan as his chief liaison to the Congress. Wallace Henderson is also a Partner; he was Chief Counsel and Chief of Staff to Representative W. J. Tauzin (R-LA), Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator John Breaux (D-LA).

By having foreign agents such as the Loeffler Group, in addition to their foreign agents by default, the MIC, the Saudis seem to have all their bases covered. Former secretaries and deputy secretaries with open access to the current ones, former congressmen and senators who used to be positioned on strategically valuable committees and know the rules of the congressional game, and millions of dollars available to be spent and channeled and re-channeled to various PACs go a long way toward ensuring results. Money counts. Money is needed to bring in votes.

Professional skills and discretion are required to get this money to various final destinations. The registered foreign agents, the lobby groups, are geared for this task. The client is happy in the end; so are the foreign agents and the congressional actors.

Other Savvy Nations
Of course, the sanction and legitimization of far reaching foreign influence and strongholds in the U.S., despite the many dire consequences endured by its citizens, is not limited to the government of Saudi Arabia. Numerous well-documented cases can be cited for others such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Israel, to name a few.

I won’t get into the details and history of my own case, where the government invoked the state secrets privilege to gag my case and the congress in order to ‘protect certain sensitive diplomatic relations.’ The country, the foreign influence, in this case was the Republic of Turkey. The U.S. government did so despite the far reaching consequences of burying the facts involved, and disregarded the interests and security of the nation; all to protect a quasi ally engaged in numerous illegitimate activities within the global terrorist networks, nuclear black-market and narcotics activities; an ally who happens to be another compulsive and loyal buyer of the Military Industrial Complex; an ally who happens to be another savvy player in recruiting top U.S. players as its foreign agents and spending million of dollars per year to the lobbying groups headed by many ‘formers.’

Turkey’s agent list includes generals such as Joseph Ralston and Brent Scowcroft, former statesmen such as William Cohen and Marc Grossman, and of course famous ex-congressmen such as Bob Livingston and Stephen Solarz. Turkey too seems to have all its bases covered.

Another well-known and documented case involves Pakistan. Over two decades ago Richard Barlow, an intelligence analyst working for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney issued a startling report. After reviewing classified information from field agents, he had determined that Pakistan, despite official denials, had built a nuclear bomb. In the March 29, 1993 issue of New Yorker, Seymour Hersh noted that “even as Barlow began his digging, some senior State Department officials were worried that too much investigation would create what Barlow called embarrassment for Pakistan.

Barlow’s conclusion was politically inconvenient. A finding that Pakistan possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a congressionally mandated cutoff of aid to the country, and it would have killed a $1.4-billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad. A few months later a Pentagon official downplayed Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities in his testimony to Congress. When Barlow protested to his superiors, he was fired. A few years later, the Executive Branch would slap Barlow with the State Secrets Privilege.

As we all now know, Pakistan provided direct nuclear assistance to Iran and Libya. During the Cold War, the U.S. put up with Pakistani lies and deception about their nuclear activities, it did not enforce its restrictions on Pakistan’s nuclear program when it counted, and as a result Pakistan ended up with a U.S.-made nuclear weapons system. Yet again, after 9/11, the Bush administration issued a waiver ending the implementation of almost all sanctions on Pakistan because of the perceived need for Pakistani assistance in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who ironically were brought to power by direct U.S. support in the 1980s in the first place.

Weiss, in the May-June 2004 issue of the Bulletin states: “We are essentially back where we were with Pakistan in the 1980s. It is apparent that it has engaged in dangerous nuclear mischief with North Korea, Iran, and Libya (and perhaps others), but thus far without consequences to its relationship with the United States because of other, overriding foreign policy considerations–not the Cold War this time, but the war on terrorism.” He continues: “But now there is a major political difference. It was one thing for Pakistan, a country with which the United States has had good relations generally, to follow India and produce the bomb for itself. It is quite another for Pakistan to help two-thirds of the „axis of evil” to get the bomb as well.”

FARA & LDA
An agent of a ‘foreign principal’ is defined as any individual or organization which acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a foreign principal, or whose activities are directed by a foreign principal who engages in political activities, or acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal, or solicits or dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign principal, or represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government.

In 1938, in response to the large number of German propaganda agents in the pre-WWII U.S., Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was established to insure that the American public and its lawmakers know the source of propaganda intended to sway public opinion, policy, and laws. The Act requires every agent of a foreign principal to register with the Department of Justice and file forms outlining its agreements with, income from, and expenditures on behalf of the foreign principal. Any agent testifying before a committee of Congress must furnish the committee with a copy of his most recent registration statement. The agent must keep records of all his activities and permit the Attorney General to inspect them. However, as is the case with many laws, the Act is filled with exemptions and loopholes that allow minimization of, and in some cases complete escape from, warranted scrutiny.

There are a number of exemptions. For example, persons whose activities are of a purely commercial nature or of a religious, academic, and charitable nature are exempt. Any agent who is engaged in lobbying activities and is registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) is exempt. The LDA of 1995 was passed after decades of effort to make the regulation and disclosure of lobbying the federal government more effective.

However, LDA also has serious and important loopholes and limitations that can be summed up as: Inadequate Disclosure, Inadequate Enforcement, and Inadequate Regulation of Conduct. The recent congressional scandals make this point very clear.
In addition, neither act deals with an important issue: Conflict of Interest. Many of these agents, with their loyalty to the foreign hand that feeds them, end up being appointed to various positions, commissions and special envoys by our government.

Recall Kissinger and his appointment to head the 9/11 Commission, and of course the recent revelation by Woodward on his advisory position to the current White House. Take a look at Jimmy Baker’s current appointment on the Iraq commission. Same goes for the father of all the ‘dime a dozen generals’, Brent Scowcroft, and one of his new protégés, General Joseph Ralston. In short, neither FARA nor LDA creates meaningful oversight, control, or enforcement; neither deals with conflict of interest issues, and neither provides any deterrence or consequences for unethical or illegal conduct.

It used to be congressional ‘pork projects’ and ‘corporate influence’ that raised eyebrows now and then; here and there. Gone are those days. Today the unrestricted and uncontrollable money game and influence peddling tricks within the major decision-making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government have reached new heights; yet, no raised eyebrows are registered. Sadly, today, a new version of ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ would have to be produced as a documentary.

The other day I received a request to sign on to a petition put forth by a group of 9/11 family members urging the congress to reopen the investigations of 9/11 and declassify the infamous 27-pages which deal with foreign governments, U.S. allies, that provided support for those who carried out the attacks on our nation. My heart goes out to them. I do sympathize with them. I am known to take on similar propositions and methods of activism myself. However, looking at the realities, seeing what it takes to get things done in Washington, realizing how this beast works in the Real Sin City, I would encourage them to look at the root cause, rather than the symptoms. There are only two ways I can see that can bring about what they have been fighting for and what the majority of us desire to see in terms of bringing about Truth, Oversight, and Accountability; Justice.

The family members, and their supporters, us, either have to tackle the major cause; the corruption of our government officials via unrestricted and undisciplined ‘revolving doors’ and ‘foreign influence & lobby’ practices, and push for expedient meaningful reforms by the new ambitious congress, and have them prove to us their worth. Or, they may as well give up their long-held integrity, go bid high for one or two former statesmen, hire a few dime a dozen generals, and buy themselves a couple of ex-congressmen turned lobbyists; that will do the job.

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

terror

The Threat of “American Hiroshima” and the Radical Islam

Hamid Mir – Nobody can deny that there are more than 6300 terrorist attacks after 9/11 all over the world in which Muslims were involved. It does not mean that all the Muslims are terrorists.

The fact is that in all these 6300 terrorist attacks more Muslims were killed than non-Muslims. In most of the cases attackers and victims were all Muslims. Dargai is the recent example where one Muslim suicide bomber killed more than 43 Pakistan Army soldiers. All of them were Muslims. The tragedy of Dargai indicates that Islamic radicals are becoming a threat not only for non-Muslim invaders in Muslim countries, but they have become a threat for the Muslim allies of the West in the war against terror inside the Muslim countries.

Islam is a solution and extremism is a problem
However the Muslim allies of the West, like General Pervaiz Musharraf, are very unlucky. On one side, their friends like George W. Bush have always praised their efforts in the war against terror, but on the other side Western writers like Robert Spencer are creating an impression that the real problem is not radical Islamism: but Islam as such. Robert Spencer claimed that Islam is a violent religion, which orders Muslims to kill all the Jews and Christians, he is also alleging that the Holy Quran allows Muslims to lie and so Muslims should change the Quran. Robert Spencer is wrong. Islam allows Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women, without changing their religion. What does it mean? Islam is a tolerant religion. Robert Spencer cannot deny the fact that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself struck a peace-deal with Jews of Medina, if our Prophet could have a peace-deal with Jews, we can also have a peace deal with Jews and Christians.

I don’t understand why some Western writers are trying to impose a radical form of Islam on all the Muslims.I am not a Muslim scholar, but – for me – Islam is very simple, and according to my understanding, Islam is not violent, it is peaceful. Islam says that the blood of an innocent non-Muslim is equal to the blood of a Muslim. The Quran speaks for truth, there is no permission in the Quran for lying. Robert Spencer cannot malign Islam with wrong facts and figures. He cannot mix-up real Islam with extremism.

Islam is a solution and extremism is a problem, so Islam and extremism are two different things. I believe that the presence of the Muslims and existence of Mosques in America and the West provides the biggest security for the American non-Muslims. That is the reason Al Qaeda wants Muslims to leave America, because if there were another attack in America, bigger than 9/11, a lot of Muslims would also be killed and that attack could give a bad name to Al Qaeda. I think that there was no big terrorist attack inside America after 9/11, primarily because of millions of Muslims living there, and in spite of the fact that Al Qaeda wants them to leave America, they are not leaving.

There are several other reasons for a delay of the WMD attack, called “American Hiroshima” and announced by Al Qaeda, but one important reason is that millions of Muslims are still present in America.

How I got in touch with Osama bin Ladin
Before going into the details of the al-Qaeda-conceived “American Hiroshima” plan, I would like to tell you something about Osama bin Ladin. A number of people around me are interested in one simple question: how I got in touch with the most wanted person in the world? I still believe that it was one of my columns, written against the Taliban, which put me face to face with Osama bin Ladin. I remember that only a few days after the capture of Kabul by the Taliban militia in September 1996, I was traveling with the then Prime Minister of Pakistan Ms. Benazir Bhutto to cover her visit to Britain and the United States.


I raised a question: If the US thinks that Osama is a terrorist, then why it is supporting the Taliban, who are protecting Osama?”

She delivered a lecture on the situation in the South Asia at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, in London. In her speech she supported the Taliban. The Student Militia (the Taliban) captured Kabul on 26th of September and, on the 30th of September 1996, Ms. Benazir Bhutto was trying to convince her Western audience in London that the Taliban phenomenon was indigenous and that Pakistan was not covertly supporting them. When she finished her lecture, a Pakistani human-rights activist, Asma Jahangir, stood up and asked: “The Taliban are closing down schools for girls in Afghanistan and you are supporting them, how can you claim to be a champion of women’s rights?”

After coming back to Pakistan, I wrote a column (on 8th October 1996), in an Urdu “Daily Pakistan”, entitled: “Why the US is supporting the Taliban?” I quoted three British newspapers in my column: the Observer, the Sunday Times and the Independent that had clearly accused in their reports that Americans were secretly supporting the Taliban, who were also protecting Osama bin Ladin. Tim Mac Grick filed a report from Kabul, published on 6th October 1996 in the Independent. The report said that both the US and Pakistan were supporting a group, which was involved in human-rights violations in Afghanistan. Referring to the report in my column, I raised a question: “If the US thinks that Osama is a terrorist, then why it is supporting the Taliban, who are protecting Osama?”

My hard-hitting column on the Taliban was published in a paper which was very popular in the Pushtoon-dominated North West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan. A few days after that, some Taliban officials contacted me and expressed their desire that I should meet their leader Mullah Mohammad Omar in Kandahar. I was not interested to meet Mullah Omar at that time, because the political situation in Pakistan was heading towards a dramatic change. According to my sources, President Farooq Leghari was conspiring to oust Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and I was more interested in the political developments inside Pakistan. (Benazir was finally removed on November 6, 1996.)

Then came another surprise. The US Assistant Secretary of State Mrs. Robin Raphael, speaking in a closed-door UN session in New York on November 16, 1996 bluntly explained: “The Taliban control more than two-third of the country, they are Afghan, they are indigenous, and they have demonstrated staying power. The real source of their success has been the willingness of many Afghans, particularly Pashtoons, to tacitly trade unending fighting and chaos for a measure of peace and security, even with several social restrictions. It is not in the interest of Afghanistan or any of us here that the Taliban be isolated.”

I was surprised that Robin Raphael was not bothered by the “social restrictions” the Taliban imposed in Afghanistan. To know more about student rulers, I decided to visit Afghanistan and to meet Mullah Omar. I contacted some Taliban officials through a prominent Pakistani religious leader Maulana Sami ul Haq and I reached Kandahar next month.

I met Mullah Omar, Mullah Ghaus and lot of other Taliban leaders in Kandahar. Most of them complained about my column of the 8th October in the “Daily Pakistan” and about what I said that Radio Tehran declared them “American Agents” by quoting my column. I still remember the words of Mullah Omar echoing in my ears. He said: “If we were American agents then why we could have good relations with their big enemy Sheikh Osama?” I asked: “Where is he” and Mullah Omar simply answered, “Sheikh is living in Jalalabad.” I asked then: “if you were not American agents, why didn’t you arrange my meeting with Osama bin Ladin and if he said that you were protecting him, then the world would come to know about the reality and I would also write that you were not working for Americans.”

Mullah Omar was sitting on ground; after hearing my words he stood up in happiness, clapped his hand like kids do, and gave instructions to contact Maulvi Younas Khalis in Jalalabad for arranging my meeting with Osama bin Ladin.

In February 1997, a Taliban delegation had flown to the Unocal Corporation headquarters at Sugarland, Texas, for a whirlwind of corporate hospitality. I again contacted Taliban officials in Kandahar and I asked them: while their relations with Americans were still developing, how could they refute the charges that they were part of the American agenda?

The reaction of the Taliban forced me to realize, for the first time, the simmering differences within the Taliban ranks. Many Taliban leaders openly criticized Mullah Ghaus for his engagement with the Americans. In March 1997, some Arabs and Afghans in Islamabad contacted and informed me that I would see their “Sheikh” soon in Afghanistan, but they instructed me to keep quiet. I noticed that some of their Pakistani collaborators started monitoring my daily movements. After a few days of espionage activities, one night they came to my office in Melody Market, Islamabad and told me to get ready to go with them next morning.

I reached to Jalalabad in Afghanistan the same evening and I met Osama bin Ladin for the first time. I spent my first night in his cave and, next morning, when he was proposing a grand alliance between Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and China against US imperialism in his interview, I was completely confused. I was thinking if the Taliban were implementing any American agenda, then why this man was terming America as an “evil”?

If Pakistan was supporting the Taliban to minimize the Iranian influence in Afghanistan, then why this dangerous guest of the Taliban was proposing an anti-American alliance in the region, which included Iran? If the Americans were aware that the Taliban forces were protecting Osama, then why they were supporting them? Who was using whom? Nobody can deny the fact that the American administration ignored the rise of the Taliban and protected them to protect the US oil concerns.

Just weeks before the 9/11 attacks, US Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca met Taliban officials in Islamabad, in July 2001. She announced aid for the Taliban, worth 43 million dollars in food and shelter. When Christina Rocca announced that aid, I asked several of my American friends: why the US was unable to understand the strong ties between Mullah Omar and Osama bin Ladin? I got no satisfactory answer from any one of them.

Al Qaeda’s nuclear ambitions
I came to know about the nuclear ambitions of Al Qaeda in May 1998 when I traveled to Afghanistan again and I saw a Ukrainian scientist present in the ranks of Al Qaeda. I also met two black Americans around bin Ladin in Kandahar. At that time Osama bin Ladin was not willing to speak about his nuclear plans. I spent two days with him and confronted him on a question: how can he justify the killing of all the Americans in the light of Islamic teachings because in Islam the blood of an innocent non-Muslim is equal to the blood of a Muslim. My interview with him was very long. Actually it became a hot debate, and finally I told him that I cannot summarize this whole conversation in one newspaper interview and I would write a book now.

In the next three years, the presence of the Ukrainian scientist and of the two black Americans around OBL was a matter of great confusion for me. I was thinking that if OBL wants to kill all the Americans, including Muslims, then why two black American Muslims joined him? I tried to find out answers to these questions and I delayed my book.

Just one day before my third interview with Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan, in November 2001, I met an Al Qaeda operator Yousaf in a Kabul hideout, where I was asked to wait. Yousaf was talking about the use of nuclear materials inside America. At that time Kabul was under intense US bombing. I also lost the hope of my own survival, I wrote a letter to my wife and apologized for my blunder of visiting Afghanistan during war times, but there were no means of sending that letter to Pakistan.

Then I noticed that Yousaf wrote something on a piece of paper and handed over to one Chechen fighter. He asked him to deliver that message as soon as possible to some fellow fighters in America and make it sure that they should not be panicked if any of our important leaders were martyred, they had to follow the instructions of Jaffer.I requested from the Chechen fighter that he carry my letter with him and just post it after entering inside Pakistan but he said “sorry” to me in a broken English, because he was not going to Pakistan, he was going to Iran.

Anyhow, the next day I was sitting in front of Osama bin Ladin and that was the time when Osama clearly admitted that he has nuclear weapons as means of deterrence. Within a few minutes after his disclosure, Dr. Ayman al Zawahri told me that it was not difficult to buy some suitcase nukes from Russian underworld just for few hundred million dollars.

After my last meeting with Osama bin Ladin, I have traveled to Afghanistan again and again. I also visited Iran, I visited Russia and I traveled in the mountains of Chechnya, I visited Uzbekistan, Syria, Lebanon and also I went to India, just to investigate about the nuclear capabilities of Al Qaeda.I got lots of information about the smuggling of enriched uranium and about the purchase of some suitcase nukes by Al Qaeda from Moscow. I interviewed one Chechen leader who told me that they had smuggled three suitcase nukes from Russia to Georgia, and from Georgia to Italy. At least two of the suitcase nukes were finally smuggled inside America with the help of Italian underworld.


I interviewed one Chechen leader who told me that they had smuggled three suitcase nukes from Russia to Georgia, and from Georgia to Italy. At least two of the suitcase nukes were finally smuggled inside America with the help of Italian underworld.

Certainly some Pakistani scientists were also in contact with Al Qaeda, but an Egyptian “brigade” of Al Qaeda scientists tested a dirty bomb in the mountains of Kunar in 2000, without the help of Pakistanis, and that was the reason an Egyptian scientist lost his eyesight due to radiation.

Two attacks on America and the role of Iran
This is very important. Al Qaeda planned two attacks against America,one was implemented on 9/11 and the second was not yet implemented.A total of 42 fighters had been trained for attacking America, 19 of them were used and killed on 9/11, and the remaining 23 are still at large. These 23 “death lovers” are hiding somewhere in America. These 23 people are the real threat to America. It is also a fact that more than 8000 fighters were trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan during 1996-2001.Many of them are also hiding in America and in different European countries. They may try to attack with some dirty bombs and maybe with some suitcase nuclear bombs. The threat is real, not only for America but for all the allies of America, including Pakistan.

Just a few days back, 5000 Pakistani tribals threatened Musharraf by suicide attacks in the Pakistani tribal area of Bajour, which is only 300 kilometers away from the Capital Islamabad. This suicide terrorism is the product of the Iranian intelligence in the Muslim world. Iranians gave the lesson of suicide bombings to Hezbollah in Lebanon in the early 80’s; Al Qaeda learned it from Hezbollah and then spread it from Iraq to Afghanistan.

In my opinion, the biggest failure in the war against terror is a possible victory of Iran in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Lebanon. Today the elected PM in Iraq is a follower of Ayatollah Sistani, who is being dictated by Iranians.Today Iranians are helping the Taliban in Afghanistan and they are using Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is no check on Iran and this is the biggest failure in the war against terror. Iranians are playing double games everywhere, they are controlling some government ministers in Iraq and they are also using Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Now they are trying to organize a new Hezbollah in Afghanistan. It is no more a secret in Afghanistan that Iran is providing money and weapons to the Taliban. Some very high ranking Afghan security officials admitted to me that even Russians are using the Taliban against NATO forces in Afghanistan, but they cannot expose Iran and Russia because they have a strong lobby inside the Afghan government.

Afghanistan is becoming a new battlefield between Iran and America.
Russia is on the Iranian side, while more than 37 countries are standing with America. The problem is that the American allies like Pakistan are confused. The majority of the Pashtun population in Pakistan is with the Taliban, because they are facing bad law and order situation in their neighboring areas, after the fall of the Taliban regime. Even then Pakistan is helping America.

Since the war against terror has been started, after 9/11, and the Taliban regime was dismanteled, there are bomb blasts in two Pakistani provinces every second or third day, which are not reported here in America. We believe that Indians are using Afghanistan to create disturbance in Pakistan. This situation has created misunderstandings between the Pakistani and Afghani governments, which is very unfortunate.

Many people here think that Pakistan will become a dangerous country without Musharraf. Some people think that the Pakistani nuclear weapons will go into the hands of the Taliban and they will attack America.

When this question was asked to Musharraf recently, he said that according to the constitution the Chairman of the Senate will become the caretaker President, the parliament will elect a new President in three months and his political allies will run the government smoothly.

Nobody can steal our nuclear weapons because they are coded. The Taliban cannot decode them. Our nuclear weapons are India-specific, their range is between 1500 to 2000 kilometers. America is far away from Pakistan and nobody here has a delivery system capable to explode these missiles in America.

There is also another misconception. Many people in the Muslim countries think that America is not fighting a war against terror but it is fighting against Islam. Anti-Americanism is becoming a political culture in the South Asia and the Middle East. I have two examples. President George W. Bush visited India and Pakistan early this year. Thousands of radical Muslims and Hindu Communists marched against America the day Bush landed in India. Same was the case in Lebanon.

I saw thousands of pro-Hezbollah Shia and Sunni Muslims, including Christians, shouting against Condoleezza Rice in Beirut during the recent Lebanon-Israel war. US Secretary of State tried her best to prove that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that Israel is fighting against terrorism, but the people of the most modern and most liberal country of the Middle East, Lebanon, were not ready to listen to American government. This war further strengthened the relations between Islamic militants and Christian leftists. President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez openly supported Hezbollah and became a popular figure in many Muslim countries. What does it mean?

Anti-Americanism is not religious, it is mainly political.
The last Lebanon war increased anti-Americanism in Pakistan and Afghanistan and you can see sudden increase in suicide attacks against Western troops after the war in Lebanon. I must say that anti-Americanism in our part of the world is not increasing because the Americans are really bad people. I think most of the Americans are very simple and innocent people, Muslims are still treated better in America, than in the many Muslim countries, freedom and democracy is the real strength of the American society. I think that actually America is facing an image problem.

For example, Palestinians can get American citizenship even today, but they are not welcome in many Arab countries, then why America is not popular among most of the Palestinians? I think the Americans need a serious debate on that question.

Britain is called “mother of democracy,” but today British Muslim women are facing some new laws, of which they think they are not democratic. Muslim women are not feeling comfortable even in France. As for as America is concerned, Muslims are not facing any problems here in practicing Islam. Then why many Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq believe that the American war against terrorism is a “Crusade”, a Christian war against Islam? Who is responsible for that misunderstanding?

Weak US strategy.
First of all, Americans depended on warlords and drug smugglers, after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan. That is why today Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of opium. The most significant strategic miscalculation was the US invasion of Iraq, without stabilizing Afghanistan first. There is a perception in the Muslim world that the US attacked Iraq not for the (non-existent) WMDs but for oil. Dismantling of the administration and the Army in Iraq further deteriorated the situation. The UN proposed a government of technocrats in Iraq, but Paul Bremer imposed a corrupt person like Ahmed Chellabi as the new PM of Iraq, a man who was actually an Iranian agent. Iranians provided safe passage to Al Qaeda for entering into Iraq and that’s how Al Qaeda got an opportunity to establish new training camps there.

Conspiracy therories about 9/11.
Many Muslims still don’t believe that Osama bin Ladin is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There are many books written (like “9/11 The Big Lie” by Thierry Meysson) in the West and also some films produced in the West, denying the official version of the US government on 9/11. This “conspiracy theories” are very popular in the Muslim world. Many people tell, without any hesitation, that 9/11 was a “Jewish conspiracy” against the Muslims.

US support for authoritarian regimes.
Many Muslims don’t like America for its support of autocratic governments in the Middle East. President Bush is proud for liberating Iraq and Afghanistan from their repressive regimes, but why not liberate Saudi Arabia, why not Egypt and why not Qatar?

Lack of unity.
The allied countries in the war against terrorism are not united. Spain and the Philippines have pulled out their troops from Iraq. On the other side, the Pakistani and Afghani governments are accusing each other for playing double games. They couldn’t still agree on how to stop the illegal cross-border movement. You will be surprised to know that even today there is no international border between the two countries. People can cross the border without any documents. The ultimate beneficiary is Al Qaeda.

What are the possible solutions?

1-First of all, we have to prove that this war on terror is not a clash of two civilizations, that it is not the war between Islam and the West, and it is really a war against terrorism. World leaders, like John Howard of Australia, should not support the controversial statements of Pope Benedict XVI about the Prophet of Islam. We need to promote a real inter-faith dialogue.

2-Secondly, try to engage popular militant movements like Hamas and Hezbollah in dialogue. At least these two organizations still believe in democracy. Dialogue is very important. When you start a dialogue after lot of failures and casualties, you cannot have a good bargain. This is the case in the North Wazirastan. There, the Pakistani forces struck a deal with the Taliban, after more than 650 casualties on both sides .But now the Taliban fighters have an upper hand in the deal.

3-America should try to increase the role of the UN, at least in Iraq. If the UN forces can take over Southern Lebanon from Hezbollah, then why not in Iraq. US troops can operate under the command of the UN, and the number of Asian and African troops must be increased in eventual UN forces deployed to Iraq. The success in Iraq can lead international community to bring peace in Afghanistan, on the same lines. I know that a lot of Americans have negative thinking about the UN, but they have no other option than to strengthen the UN.

4-The NATO forces in Afghanistan (ISAF) and the Pakistani forces in their own tribal areas must avoid killing innocent civilians. Try to understand their tribal culture, if you kill one innocent among them, they will kill at least ten on your side in revenge, by becoming suicide bombers. Most of the suicide bombers in Afghanistan and Pakistan were those who wanted to take revenge on the security forces. There is no international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We need a proper border in the North- West of Pakistan, but also the same border in the South of Afghanistan to stop the Iranian interference.

5-The US Government must launch an aggressive public campaign in the Muslim countries for improving the image of the United States there. On the other hand, more and more Islamic scholars should be invited to the US for improving the image of the Muslims.

6-And finally, America must withdraw its support from the repressive Muslim regimes and must promote real democracy in our part of the world. We want democracies with independent judiciary and with free press. Freedom and democracy is the real strength of America, we need the same thing in our societies. Promoting real democracy is the ultimate solution, the only way to defeat terrorism. Now in Afghanistan you have a vibrant parliament, but without independent judiciary and with no free press. Injustice, illiteracy and poverty create terrorism. We have to defeat injustice, illiteracy and poverty, while defeating terrorism.

In the end I must say that America should secure its border with Mexico. This 2000 kilometers loose border is the biggest route of Al Qaeda infiltration into America. Al Qaeda has transferred their weapons and suicide bombers inside America via the Mexican border, there is no use of asking common passengers to take of their boots off in all of the American airports until the Mexican border is not properly sealed.

This paper was presented in a symposium in Las Vegas organized by America’s Truth Forum in November 2006

Muslims ordered to leave the United States: Next Attack Imminent

deutschland

Bombige Urananreicherungsanlage in Gronau

Michael Schulze von Glaßer – Die Uranbranche boomt und bei solch großen Expansionen ist es wohl nur noch eine Frage der Zeit, bis der erste große Unfall mit dem radioaktiven Material passiert.

Seit dem 15. August 1986 ist in der nordrhein-westfälischen Stadt Gronau die erste und einzige Urananreicherungsanlage Deutschlands in Betrieb. Nahe der Grenze zu den Niederlanden und zum Bundesland Niedersachsen wird seit dem Uran–238 im Zentrifugenverfahren angereichert.


Die Urananreicherungsanlage in Gronau aus der Vogelperspektive.
© Google Earth

Das ist Urananreicherung:

Natur-Uran, das zu großen Teilen aus Afrika und Australien kommt, aber auch in Russland und sogar Deutschland zu finden ist, besteht zu etwa 99,3 Prozent aus Uran–238 und nur zu etwa 0,7 Prozent aus Uran–235, das nötig ist, um es in Reaktoren (oder in Atombomben) spalten zu können. Daher ist eine Anreicherung auf 3 bis 5 Prozent Uran–235 (bei Atombomben auf 90 Prozent und mehr) angebracht. Der populärste, Strom sparende Weg dies zu erreichen ist die Zentrifugenmethode. Dabei wird das Uran in zwei Teilen, Fraktionen genannt, als gasförmiges Uranhexafluorid in einen schnell drehenden Zylinder gegeben. Uranhexafluorid kommt in der Anlage auch im flüssigen Zustand zum Einsatz. Zurück bleibt eine angereicherte Uranfraktion („Feeds“ oder „Products“) mit einem Uran–235 Anteil von 3 bis 5 Prozent oder für Atombomben 90 Prozent und höher eine abgereicherte Uranfraktion mit einem minimalen Anteil an spaltbarem Material, „Tails“ genannt. Nachdem sich die Fraktionen wieder verfestigt haben, können sie in Atomkraftwerken oder Atombomben gespalten werden beziehungsweise wird die „Tails“-Fraktion entsorgt.

Bündnisse gegen die Anlage von Gronau

Etliche Bündnisse haben sich gegen die Anlage in Gronau gebildet und beinahe wöchentlich finden Demonstrationen und Proteste vor der Anlage statt. Ein Großaufgebot an Sicherheitspersonal und Polizei steht immer zum Einsatz bereit. Zäune, Wälle und andere Hindernisse versperren eine freie Sicht auf die große Anlage. Diese beinhaltet neben den eigentlichen Fabriken auch Büro und Verwaltungsgebäude und sogar ein Informationszentrum.

Atomkraftgegner vermuten, dass in Gronau innerhalb von zwei bis drei Wochen das Uran so weit angereichert werden könnte, um es zum Bau von Atombomben nutzen zu können. Dazu muss das Natur-Uran nur oft genug durch die Zentrifugen laufen, um immer weiter angereichert zu werden – bis ein hoher Grad der Anreicherung erreicht ist. Dies ist auch die Gefahr, die von einer iranischen Urananreicherungsanlage ausgeht.

Jedes Land das Urananreicherungsanlagen besitzt, kann ohne viel Aufwand Atombomben bauen. In den 70er-Jahren arbeitete der 1936 geborene Pakistaner Abdul Qader Khan in einer Zentrifugenfabrik von Urenco. Der Urenco-Konzern ist wegen seiner hervorragenden Ausbildung neuer Mitarbeiter bekannt. Heute gilt Khan als „Vater der pakistanischen Atombombe“, da er das für die Urananreicherung nötige Know how bei der Urenco erlernt hatte und Blaupausen stahl. Im Jahr 2004 gab Khan zu, auch Nordkorea, Iran und Libyen mit den Informationen versorgt zu haben.


Liste der weltweit größten Urananreicherungsanlagen und deren Betreiber. UTA ist die Abkürzung für Urantrennarbeit also für das Uran das in die zwei Fraktionen getrennt werden soll. Neben dem Zentrifugenverfahren (etwa 50 kWh pro kg UTA) gibt es noch das auslaufende, weil Strom verschwendende Diffusionsverfahren (etwa 2500kWh pro kg UTA).
Quelle: Wikipedia

Schlampiger Umgang mit radioaktivem Material?
In den sensiblen Anlagen kommt es immer wieder zu Störfällen, so nun auch in Gronau. Noch im Sommer 2006 trat aus der Anlage Uran-haltiges Wasser aus, das radioaktiv verseucht war. Bei Reparaturarbeiten wurde festgestellt, „dass die vorgesehene Gesamtmenge an verflüssigtem Uranhexafluorid überschritten war“. Anti-Atomkraft-Aktivisten befürchten künftig einen weit größeren Unfall in der Gronauer Anlage der Urenco Deutschland GmbH. Diese Firma hat weitere Anlagen in Capenhurst und der niederländischen Stadt Almelo.

Beinahe monatlich fahren lange Güterzüge mit bis zu 500 Tonnen abgereicherten Uran durch das Münsterland, um über Umwege in die Niederlande zu kommen, weil die Bahnstrecke in Enschede für die Züge nicht befahrbar ist. Im westfälischen Münster werden die Züge umgekoppelt und fahren dann wieder über eine andere Strecke Richtung Rotterdammer Hafen. Von dort aus geht es mit dem Schiff in die Einöden Russlands, in der das abgereicherte aber immer noch gefährlich strahlende Uran, ohne viel Aufwand „weggeworfen“ und „vergessen“ wird. Doch die Urenco hilft also nicht nur Schurkenstaaten beim Bau von Atombomben, sondern verschmutzt auch noch im großen Stil die russische Umwelt.

Geheime Urantransporte
Dass Atomkraft wegen seiner enormen Gefährlichkeit von vielen Menschen abgelehnt wird, weiß auch die Urenco. Und so wird getarnt und verschleiert, werden Transporte getarnt wo es nur geht, um bloß keine Aufmerksamkeit zu erregen.

Das beste Beispiel hierfür sind die Urantransporte – wie zuletzt geschehen am 15. und 16. November 2006: Ein Güterzug mit gefährlichem Uranhexafluorid fuhr an jenen Tagen vom französischen Pierrelatte nach Gronau. Die lange Reise führte über den Ort Perl-Apach an der Mosel, wo der Zug die Grenze zu Deutschland passierte. Über Trier, Koblenz und Bonn ging es weiter bis ins nördliche Westfalen. Dabei war der Zug zweifellos vielen Blicken ausgesetzt. Um den Menschen in den Bahnhöfen, vor den geschlossenen Bahnschranken oder neben dem Bahndamm, keinen Anlass für Gespräche über gefährliche Atomtransporte durch Deutschland zu geben, wurde der Zug aufwändig getarnt: Nach der Lok, die zwischendurch gewechselt wurde, kam zunächst ein Kesselwaggon, danach die sieben Waggons mit dem Uranhexafluorid, die unter unauffällige braune Planen versteckt wurden. Nach diesen Waggons kamen einige Flachwaggons und nach den Uranwaggons folgten ähnliche Güterwaggons mit der Aufschrift „Raillion“, einer Abteilung der Bahn, die für Güterzüge zuständig ist. Den Abschluss des Geheimtransportes bildeten einige mit PKW beladene Waggons.

Die Polizei hielt sich eifrig zurück, um nicht zuviel Aufmerksamkeit zu erregen. Die mangelnde Bewachung und planerischen Fehler der Polizei waren es dann auch die dazu führten, dass die Güterwaggons, in dem sich das Uranhexafluorid transportiert wurde, zeitweise unbewacht im Gronauer Bahnhof standen. Mit bösen Absichten hätte jedermann ungehindert und weitestgehend unbeobachtet unter die Planen in den Waggon klettern und sich damit in die Urananreicherungsanlage einschleusen können. Die Platzierung einer Bombe in den Waggons wäre ebenfalls möglich gewesen. Nicht auszudenken was geschehe, wenn eine Bombe neben dem strahlenden Uranhexafluorid explodiert und der gefährliche Stoff in die Luft gelangt wäre! Bei seiner Reaktion mit Wasser bildet sich aus dem Uranhexafluorid nämlich gefährlicher Fluorwasserstoff, der zum Atemstillstand führen kann.


Uran gefällig? Im Gronauer Bahnhof muss der Güterzug umgespannt werden, dabei steht er zeitweise unbewacht und für jedermann erreichbar im Bahnhof.
© Foto: aaa-West


Nur die gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Symboltafeln an den Waggons verrieten den getarnten Urantransportes.
© Foto: aaa-West


Der Uranzug bei seiner Ankunft an der Urananreicherungsanlage im nordrhein-westfälischen Gronau.
© Foto: aaa-West


Schnell wurden die Tore hinter dem gefährlichen Urantransport verschlossen.
© Foto: aaa-West

Die Anreicherung von Uran ist aber auch sehr gefährlich und kann leicht missbraucht werden. Die Sicherheit ist trotz äußerlicher Sicherheitseinrichtungen um die Urananreicherungsanlage nicht gewährleistet, wie der freie Zugang zum Uranzug zeigte. Der Urenco-Konzern hat mit der Ausbildung von Abdul Qader Khan maßgeblich zur weltweiten Verbreitung von Atomwaffen beigetragen. Trotzdem wird weiter versucht, die vorhandene Bedrohung von Nukleartechnologie zu verschleiern!

Ausbau von der Urananreicherungsanlage trotz Atomausstieg.
Die Urenco GmbH hält momentan im Anreicherungsgeschäft einen Anteil von 15 Prozent am Weltmarkt. Diesen will der Konzern nun ausbauen. Und um Kernkraftwerke auch in Zukunft weiter mit angereichertem Uran zu versorgen und um damit auch den beschlossenen Atomausstieg zu untergraben, wird innerhalb des abgeriegelten Areals weiter unbeirrt gebaut. 35 Atomkraftwerke will die Urenco nach dem Bau der neuen Fabrikhallen mit angereichertem Uran beliefern können, und die Kapazität soll von 1.720 t/UTA/Jahr auf 4.500 z/UTA/Jahr gesteigert werden. Wenn man dem Urenco-Konzern nicht unterstellen will, heimlich die Grundlagen für eine deutsche Atombombe zu schaffen, zählen zur Zielgruppe auch ausländische Atomkraftwerke.

Dennoch: Der größte Kritikpunkt zu den Urananreicherungsanlagen bezieht sich weniger auf die zivile als vielmehr auf die militärische Nutzbarkeit angereicherten Urans. Je nachdem wie viel Umläufe das Uran in den Zentrifugen verbringt, kann es bis zur Waffenfähigkeit angereichert werden.

Dass die Umwelt durch die Uranabfälle geschädigt wird, stört offensichtlich weder die Urenco noch die anderen Betreiberfirmen von Urananreicherungsanlagen. Mit den Atomkraftwerken muss somit auch die Urananreicherungsanlage aus Deutschland verschwinden, damit Deutschland endlich frei von hoch radioaktivem Uran wird, das eine Gefahr für Mensch und Umwelt darstellt – auch politisch gesehen.

Nicht nur in Deutschland, sondern auf der ganzen Welt sollten Atomkraftwerke und Urananreicherungsanlage abgeschaltet werden und in erneuerbare Energien investiert werden.

Sofortiger Atomausstieg Münster
Anti Atom Aktuell

Krieg

14 contractors kidnapped in Iraq

ABC News – Up to 14 people, including four American contractors, were kidnapped in an ambush of a convoy near the southern Iraq city of Nasiriyah on Thursday, ABC News reported, citing defense officials.

„We can confirm that an incident happened in Nasiriyah that resulted in kidnappings,“ said Sgt. Matthew Roe, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.

The spokesman provided no additional details, adding, „We are working on getting further information on that right now.“

ABC News, citing military officials, said a convoy run by a Kuwaiti-based company called Crescent Security Group was stopped at what looked like an Iraqi police checkpoint.

Initial reports said 19 trucks were seized and about 14 people detained, including four Americans, ABC reported.

The report said it was not clear whether the checkpoint was operated by actual Iraqi police or by a Shi’ite militia.