Environmentalists Against War
Home | Say NO! To War | Action! | Information | Media Center | Who We Are

 

 

 

The New York Times: Making Nuclear Extermination Respectable

July 31st, 2008 - by admin

James Petras / Global Research – 2008-07-31 23:00:20

http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_New_York_Times_Making_Nuclear_Extermination_Respectable

(July 30, 2008) — On July 18, 2008 The New York Times published an article by Israeli-Jewish historian, Professor Benny Morris, advocating an Israeli nuclear-genocidal attack on Iran with the likelihood of killing 70 million Iranians – 12 times the number of Jewish victims in the Nazi holocaust:

“Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Barring this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland.”

Morris is a frequent lecturer and consultant to the Israeli political and military establishment and has unique access to Israeli strategic military planners. Morris’ advocacy and public support of the massive, brutal expulsion of all Palestinians is on public record. Yet his genocidal views have not precluded his receiving numerous academic awards. His writings and views are published in Israel’s leading newspapers and journals. Morris’ views are not the idle ranting of a marginal psychopath, as witnessed by the recent publication of his latest op-ed article in the Mi>New York Times.

What does the publication by the New York Times of an article, which calls for the nuclear incineration of 70 million Iranians and the contamination of the better part of a billion people in the Middle East, Asia and Europe, tell us about US politics and culture? For it is the NYT, which informs the ‘educated classes’ in the US, its Sunday supplements, literary and editorial pages and which serves as the ‘moral conscience’ of important sectors of the cultural, economic and political elite.

The New York Times provides a certain respectability to mass murder, which Morris’ views otherwise would not possess if say, they were published in the neo-conservative weeklies or monthlies. The fact that the NYT considers the prospect of an Israeli mass extermination of millions of Iranians part of the policy debate in the Middle East reveals the degree to which Zionofascism has infected the ‘higher’ cultural and journalist circles of the United States.

Truth to say, this is the logical outgrowth of the Times public endorsement of Israel’s economic blockade to starve 1.4 million Palestinians in Gaza; the Times’ cover-up of Israeli-Zionist-AIPAC influence in launching the US invasion of Iraq leading to over one million murdered Iraqi citizens.

The Times sets the tone for the entire New York cultural scene, which privileges Israeli interests, to the point of assimilating into the US political discourse not only its routine violations of international law, but its threats, indeed promises, to scorch vast areas of the earth in pursuit of its regional supremacy.

The willingness of the NYT to publish an Israeli genocide-ethnocide advocate tells us about the strength of the ties between a purportedly ‘liberal establishment’ pro-Israel publication and the totalitarian Israeli right: It is as if to say that for the liberal pro-Israel establishment, the nonJewish Nazis are off limits, but the views and policies of Judeo-fascists need careful consideration and possible implementation.

Morris’ New York Times ‘nuclear-extermination’ article did not provoke any opposition from the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO) because, in its daily information bulletin, Daily Alert, it has frequently published articles by Israeli and US Zionists advocating an Israeli and/or US nuclear attack on Iran.

In other words, Morris’ totalitarian views are part of the cultural matrix deeply embedded in the Zionist organizational networks and its extensive ‘reach’ in US cultural and political circles. What the Times did in publishing Morris’ lunacy has taken genocidal discourse out of the limited circulation of Zionist influentials and into the mainstream of millions of American readers.

Apart from a handful of writers (Gentile and Jewish) publishing in marginal web sites, there was no political or moral condemnation from the entire literary, political and journalistic world of this affront to our humanity. No attempt was made to link Morris’ totalitarian genocidal policies to Israel’s public official threats and preparations for nuclear war.

There is no anti-nuclear campaign led by our most influential public intellectuals to repudiate the state (Israel) and its public intellectuals who prepare a nuclear war with the potential to exterminate more than ten times the number of Jews slaughtered by the Nazis.

A nuclear incineration of the nation of Iran is the Israeli counterpart of Hitler’s gas chambers and ovens writ large. Extermination is the last stage of Zionism: Informed by the doctrine of rule the Middle East or ruin the air and land of the world. That is the explicit message of Benny Morris (and his official Israeli sponsors), who like Hitler, issues ultimatums to the Iranians, ‘surrender or be destroyed’ and who threatens the US, join us in bombing Iran or face a world ecological and economic catastrophe.

That Morris is utterly, starkly and clinically insane is beyond question. That The New York Times in publishing his genocidal ravings provides new signs of how power and wealth has contributed to the degeneration of Jewish intellectual and cultural life in the US.

To comprehend the dimensions of this decay we need only compare the brilliant tragic-romantic German-Jewish writer, Walter Benjamin, desperately fleeing the advance of totalitarian Nazi terror to the Israeli-Jewish writer, Benny Morris’ criminal advocacy of Zionist nuclear terror published in the New York Times.

The question of Zionist power in America is not merely a question of a ‘lobby’ influencing Congressional and White House decisions concerning foreign aid to Israel. What is at stake today are the related questions of the advocacy of a nuclear war in which 70 million Iranians face extermination and the complicity of the US mass media in providing a platform, nay a certain political respectability for mass murder and global contamination.

Unlike the Nazi past, we cannot claim, as the good Germans did, that ‘we did not know’ or ‘we weren’t notified’, because it was written by an eminent Israeli academic and was published in the New York Times.

Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

‘SS Liberty’ Sails to Challenge Israel

July 31st, 2008 - by admin

Bryant Jordan / Military.com|by – 2008-07-31 22:52:40

http://www.military.com/news/article/ss-liberty-sails-to-challenge-israel.html?col=1186032310810

(July 30, 2008) — Forty-one years after the American surveillance ship USS Liberty was napalmed, torpedoed and strafed by Israeli naval and air forces during the Six-Day War, another “Liberty” will be setting out from a Cyprus port in August to try and break through the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The SS Liberty is one of two ships — along with SS Free Gaza — that will be carrying an international group opposed to Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Israel imposed the blockade just over a year ago.

Karin Pally, a spokeswoman in Los Angeles for the group Free Gaza Movement, said the ship was named in honor of 34 Sailors and Marines killed in the attack and to help bring the Gaza issue home to Americans.

Jim Ennes, an officer aboard the original Liberty and author of the book Assault on the Liberty said he was invited to take part in the protest sailing to Gaza but was not able to make it.

Until contacted by Military.com for comment, Ennes was unaware that organizers had named one of the ships after the Liberty, but he said he is “absolutely” pleased with the move and wishes he could be there.

Israel attacked the Liberty on June 8, 1967, later saying they thought it was an Egyptian vessel — though survivors and others have long said the Israeli pilots and sailors knew exactly who they targeted.

The US Navy began telling families of the American dead that the attack was accidental even before it convened an official board of inquiry, which about 10 days later delivered that same finding, according to Navy documents.

Six years ago the legal affairs adviser to the board, retired Capt. Ward Boston, broke his silence to say the investigation was a sham, and that the final version was altered to exonerate the Israelis. Boston died in June.

Pally said the two ships will include about 40 passangers from 16 countries, including Israel and the United States.

“Everyone is committed to non-violence,” she said of the participants. “The Free Gaza Movement has arranged with a third party security expert to completely secure and search the boats before they leave Cyprus to make sure there are no weapons or anything dangerous aboard.”

The larger of the two ships, the SS Free Gaza, will be equipped with a Web cam and will be posting streaming video to their Web site (www.freegaza.org) during the voyage, Pally said.

© Copyright 2008 Military.com

Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

As America Collapses US Government Secret Plans Revealed & Rex 84: FEMA ’s Blueprint for Martial Law in America

July 31st, 2008 - by admin

B.A. Brooks / The United American Freedom Foundation & Allen L Roland / Global Research & Salon.com Blog – 2008-07-31 22:30:47

As America Collapses US Government Secret Plans Revealed

As America Collapses US Government Secret Plans Revealed

A secret meeting of Congress discusses immanent martial law.

(May 21, 2008) — On March 13th 2008, there was a secret closed-door meeting of The United States House Of Representatives in Washington. In the history of The United States this is only the fourth time a secret meeting was held by the house.

Even though Representatives are sworn to secrecy by House Rules XVII, some of the members were so shocked, horrified, furious, and concerned about the future of America by what was revealed to them inside the secret meeting, that they have started to leak this secret information to independent news agencies around the world.

The mass media said almost nothing about the secret meeting of the House, mentioning only one of the items being discussed. (The new surveillance techniques that are going to be used by the US Government to watch all American citizens).

Rhe story was first released in a newspaper out of Brisbane, Australia revealing the contents of the secret US Government meeting and plans for America including all of it’s citizens. Shortly there after, David J. Meyer from Last Trumpet Ministries found it and made it more available for the world to see.

Here is what was revealed:
• The imminent collapse of the US Economy to occur sometime in late 2008.

• The imminent collapse of the US Government finances sometime in mid 2009.

• The possibility of Civil War inside the United States as a result of the collapse.

• The advance round-ups of “insurgent US Citizens” likely to move against the government.

• The detention of those rounded up at The REX 84 Camps constructed throughout the United States.

• The possibility of public retaliation against members of Congress for the collapses.

• The location of safe facilities for members of Congress and their families to reside during massive civil unrest.

• The necessary and unavoidable merger of The US with Canada and Mexico establishing The North American Union.

• The issuance of a new currency called the AMERO for all three nations as an economic solution.

Except for a few hundred thousand US Patriots, most Americans have no clue what has really been going on within The United States over the past 100 years, and the sad thing is that most do not want to know the truth. The further you look into the rabbit hole, the deeper it gets.

Go to any currency conversion site and convert US dollars to Euros so you can see for yourself the massive decline of the dollar. Look at how much money is and has been spent on the Iraq War to date, ($12 billion per month). Look at our currency and when it stopped being backed by gold.

The Federal Reserve is not federal but a private bank who does not have Americans best interests at heart. We no longer have any manufacturing really based out of America and there is no way that our economy can survive this incredible strain very much longer. The IRS strong arms every American yearly with income taxes, yet there are no laws saying an income tax is to be paid.

The CIA is involved in everything from global drug trafficking and covert military missions, to assassinations around the world and including US Soil. Look at JFK for instance. It did not take long after JFK announced that he was going disband the CIA that he was shot in Texas. America’s new StasiThe Department Of Homeland Security is and has been slowly eradicating our rights for a few years now. based organization called

House Bill H.R. 1955/S-1959 was read by the senate and then sent to DHS for some reason, but is now back and sure to pass. Once passed, this bill introduced by Jane Harman (D/CA), will be the proverbial last nail hammered into every American patriots coffin. H.R. 4279 or the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 which was recently passed by the US House of Representatives, will give the government draconian powers to do just this.

This legislation gives the government the power to seize property that facilitates the violation of intellectual property laws. The legislation also mandates the formation of a formal Intellectual Property Enforcement Division within the office of the Deputy Attorney General to enforce this insanity…

It has been revealed that FEMA has been building internment camps all over America granting Halliburton a massive $385 million dollar construction contract to make this happen. Most of these sites only need refurbished because they are mostly closed prisons, old WW2 internment camps still intact and other facilities taken over by the government. Some people have referred to them as FEMA Death Camps where the infamous Red list/Blue Lists will be used to decide who goes where.

Whether you believe that The NWO/Illuminati/Globalization is real or not, there is a lot of proof that exposes definite plans or plots by the rich, political and religious elite to bring on an era of the end times. It is almost like some individuals are trying to make bible prophecy come true in their own sick and twisted ways. Not to mention that the world only has about 10 to 15 years of drinking water left before the wars fought for oil today will be fought for water in the near future.

It has been said that these powers want to depopulate the planet of over 30% of it’s human inhabitants in the coming years. Examine all of the executive orders that have been signed into place allowing the president to basically become dictator in control of all government from tribal to federal in the event of any national emergency.

If you did not know, In late 2006, Congress revised the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act to make it far easier for a president to declare martial law. Those changes were repealed at the end of this January as part of Public Law 110-181 (HR 4986), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (signed into law by President Bush on January 28, 2008). Unfortunately it is not the great victory in which one might think because of the total militarization of all local and State police forces all across America.

Will there be martial law? Is martial law coming soon to America? When you see law enforcement being armed with automatic weapons, bullet proof vests and riot gear in small towns that have not had a murder or crime in years, then you have to ask yourself why.

The United States has more people locked up in prisons today than Russia and China combined. It comes out to one in every hundred Americans is behind bars. Our once great country that our ancestors fought and died for has become exactly the tyrants they were fighting. Fascists! When has America ever used words like Homeland? Never!

If you spend a few weeks reading all the info, watching the videos and following the links at The U.A.F.F., you will then have a better understanding of what has led to The Decline And Fall Of America. Remember that Knowledge is power! Learn, look, listen, read, share, prepare, train, stock up on food and water supply for one year.

Fill your pantry with non-perishable foods, medicines, cooking oils, tinned meats and veggies. Flour, oats dried corn peas, beans and lentils.. Teach your self how to preserve food for storage. Check out your local potable/ drinking water supplies, non perfumed chlorine bleach is a good sterilizer for water, about 2 teaspoons full per 2 gallon bucket, stirred well and allowed to stand for at least 24 hours with a lid on it or until it no longer smells of bleach. Boiling water helps but it is not always enough to kill off the bacteria which can resist high temperatures.

Americans have been warned for years of the things to come, but have blindly looked away from the truth, which has been available for all to see. There are no more excuses not to prepare for the possible future. The time to act is now before it is too late. Check The United American Freedom Foundation for daily updates and news you won’t see in the mainstream media.


Rex 84: FEMA ’s Blueprint for Martial Law in America
Allen L Roland / Global Research & Salon.com Blogs

A mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.

(August 20, 2006) — We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.

The Cheney/Bush administration has a plan which would accommodate the detention of large numbers of American citizens during times of emergency.

The plan is called REX 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984. Through Rex-84 an undisclosed number of concentration camps were set in operation throughout the United States, for internment of dissidents and others potentially harmful to the state.

The Rex 84 Program was originally established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA .

Existence of the Rex 84 plan was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987, and subsequently reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987

“These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached.”

And there you have it ~ the real purpose of FEMA is to not only protect the government but to be its principal vehicle for martial law.

This is why FEMA could not respond immediately to the Hurricane Katrina disaster ~ humanitarian efforts were no longer part of its job description under the Department of Homeland Security.

It appears Hurricane Katrina also provided FEMA with an excuse to “dry run” its unconstitutional powers in New Orleans, rounding up “refugees” (now called “evacuees”) and “relocating” them in various camps. “Some evacuees are being treated as ‘internees’ by FEMA,” writes former NSA employee Wayne Madsen.

“Reports continue to come into WMR that evacuees from New Orleans and Acadiana [the traditional twenty-two parish Cajun homeland] who have been scattered across the United States are being treated as ‘internees’ and not dislocated American citizens from a catastrophe”

We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.

Be forewarned ~ the Cheney/Bush administration will stop at nothing to preserve their power and their ongoing neocon mis-adventure and they have currently proposed having executive control over all the states National Guard troops in a national emergency.

Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, called the proposal ” one step away from a complete takeover of the National Guard, the end of the Guard as a dual-function force that can respond to both state and national needs.”

The provision was tucked into the House version of the defense bill without notice to the states, something Vilsack said he resented as much as the proposal itself.

Under the provision, the president would have authority to take control of the Guard in case of ” a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident or catastrophe” in the United States.

Do remember, to the Cheney/Bush administration ~ the Mob at the Gates that they truly fear is not terrorists but, instead, the people demanding the truth.

Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

Report: Empty Prison in Iraq a $40 Million ‘Failure’

July 31st, 2008 - by admin

Brian Murphy & Pauline Jelinek / Associated Press – 2008-07-31 22:24:34

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107ap_iraq_vacant_prison.html

BAGHDAD (July 28, 2008) In the flatlands north of Baghdad sits a prison with no prisoners. It holds something else: a chronicle of US government waste, misguided planning and construction shortcuts costing $40 million and stretching back to the American overseers who replaced Saddam Hussein.

“It’s a bit of a monument in the desert right now because it’s not going to be used as a prison,” said Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, whose office plans to release a report Monday detailing the litany of problems at the vacant detention center in Khan Bani Saad.

The pages also add another narrative to the wider probes into the billions lost so far on scrubbed or substandard projects in Iraq and one of the main contractors accused of failing to deliver, the Parsons construction group of Pasadena, Calif.

“This is $40 million invested in a project with very little return,” Bowen told The Associated Press in Washington. “A couple of buildings are useful. Other than that, it’s a failure.”

In the pecking order of corruption in Iraq, the dead-end prison project at Khan Bani Saad is nowhere near the biggest or most tangled.

Bowen estimated up to 20 percent “waste” – or more than $4 billion – from the $21 billion spent so far in the US-bankrolled Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. It’s just one piece of a recovery effort that swelled beyond $112 billion in US, Iraqi and international contributions.

But the empty prison compound – in the shadows of more than two dozen watchtowers now dotted by birds’ nests – is an open sore for both American watchdogs and local Iraqi politicians who had counted on the prison as an economic boost.

The head of the municipal council in Khan Bani Saad, Sayyed Rasoul al-Husseini, called it “a big monster that’s swallowed money and hopes” – including those for more than 1,200 new jobs.

He sometimes drives out to the site, near groves of date palms and a former Saddam-era military training camp about 12 miles northeast of Baghdad and just over the border in the tense Diyala Province.

Al-Husseini says he walks the perimeter and wonders what can be salvaged. A housing development is not possible, he said. Many concrete walls lack proper iron reinforcements and “can collapse at anytime,” he said. Birds and small animals have found homes in the towers and crannies.

“But some of the cell blocks are good,” he suggested. “So maybe it can become a factory. I don’t know. It’s depressing.”

The idea for the modern-style prison began with the Coalition Provisional Authority running Iraq after Saddam’s fall.

On behalf of the authority, the US Army Corps of Engineers awarded a $40 million contract in March 2004 to global construction and engineering firm Parsons to design and build an 1,800-inmate lockup to include educational and vocational facilities. Work was set to begin May 2004 and finish November 2005.

Nothing went right from the start, the report says.

The Sunni insurgency was catching fire. The US was under pressure to improve prison conditions following the abuses exposed at Abu Ghraib.

Washington’s focus shifted quickly from rebuilding to just holding its ground. The prison project got started six months late and continued to fall behind – until Parsons asked to push the completion date to late 2008, the report said.

The US government pulled the plug in June 2006, citing “continued schedule slips and … massive cost overruns.” But they hadn’t abandoned the hope of finishing the project – awarding three more contracts to other companies in a doomed effort.

The waste was made more egregious by the fact that Diyala badly needs more prisons to handle a growing inmate population. Bowen’s team was told that about 600 inmates are crowded into an existing Diyala prison designed for 250 inmates and that the overcrowding and health conditions are so grave that several inmates have died, the report says.

The problem at Khan Bani Saad is only one example of the millions of dollars auditors found were wasted on construction projects by Parsons, which left Iraq two years ago.

In a companion report also being released Monday, Bowen said the prison was part of a $900 million Parsons contract to build border posts, courts, police training centers and fire stations. It was one of 12 contracts awarded in 2004 in hopes of restoring Iraq’s infrastructure.

Of 53 construction projects in the massive Parson contract, only 18 were completed.

As of this spring, Parsons had been paid $333 million. More than $142 million of that – or almost 43 percent – was for projects that were terminated or canceled.

While the failure to complete some of the work was “understandable given the complex nature and unstable security environment in Iraq, millions of dollars” were likely wasted, the report said.

Bowen said only about 10 US contracting officers and specialists were working on the $900 million contract, whereas 50 or 60 would be assigned to a comparable undertaking in the United States.

In a last wasteful act at Khan Bani Saad, the US government allowed $1.2 million worth of construction supplies to be left unguarded at Khan Bani Saad after work was suspended in June 2007 – fencing, gravel, piping and other items. Most of it is now missing.

US officials turned over control of the semifinished prison to Iraq’s Justice Ministry nearly a year ago. The ministry promptly replied it had no plans to “complete, occupy or provide security” for the facility, the report said.

In the end, Parsons got $31 million and the other contractors got $9 million.

Some parts of the facility are usable, but construction in other parts is so substandard that demolition is the only option, the report said. Inspectors found cracking and crumbling concrete slabs, columns not strong enough to support the structure and incorrect use of reinforcement bars meant to strengthen the concrete.

“Khan Bani Saad is a microcosm of the shortfalls in the reconstruction program,” said Bowen.

And the choice of Parsons – in retrospect – was part of a far bigger web of alleged shortcomings by the conglomerate in Iraq.

“This is the worst performing contractor that we have identified” among the seven firms so far studied in Congress-mandated reviews of Iraqi projects, said Bowen.

It was not possible to get advance comment from Parsons. Under the rules for the release of the audit, reporters were not allowed to reveal its details until Monday.

But the report said Parsons had argued that the US government misrepresented the security conditions. Parsons said that its subcontractors faced threats that either shut down or slowed work almost daily. In August 2005, the site manager for one of Parsons’ subcontractors was shot to death in his office.

Diyala remains one of the most dangerous places in Iraq. In the past week, US and Iraqi forces have stepped up sweeps against insurgents in one of their last footholds near Baghdad.

But officials of the Army Corps of Engineers – one of the agencies that oversaw the prison construction – countered that Parsons understood conditions in Iraq at the time. They also said Parsons rarely reported security threats, and only recorded seven days when it cited delays due to violence.

Bowen said his agency has done 120 audits on Iraqi projects. “And they tell an episodic story of waste,” he said.

Jelinek contributed to this report from Washington.

On the Net:
• The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reports:
• Prison project
http://www.sigir.mil/reports/pdf/assessments/PA-08-138.pdf
• Audit of Parsons Delaware, Inc.
http://www.sigir.mil/reports/pdf/audits/08-019.pdf

Censored News: Olympics Targeted for Avian Flu Attack?

July 31st, 2008 - by admin

Natural Solutions Foundation – 2008-07-31 01:17:08

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=750

Introduction: A professional media agent volunteered to post a Weaponized Avian Flu Press Release on the mass media wire services: AP, UPI, Reuters, etc. yesterday. Here’s what happened:

After writing the Press Release and our tweaking it, our media agent wrote on July 29, 2008:

Bert, Rima and Ralph,

The drama unfolds! The wire service called back and REFUSED to put out the release. I have never had that happen. They said it was baseless, sensationalistic and contained ‘advertising’ promoting the NSF. Again, I have never seen this type of response. They also said you could end up being sued by the government for libel. I don’t agree, obviously, but it doesn’t matter what I think.
Regards,
[Name deleted on request]”

Reality Check: Land of the Free?
Let’s be clear: the US Government cannot sue anyone for libel. There is no provision of law that allows such a lawsuit. The First Amendment provides a complete bar to any claim that someone is libeling the government. It is inconceivable to us that anyone in the professional press does not know that so we presume this is a good example of blowing smoke up our friend’s pipes to control information access.

The Censored Press Release

Here is the Censored Release that the mainstream media does not want the public to see:

Censored News: Olympics Targeted for Avian Flu Attack?
Natural Solutions Foundation

Here is the Censored Press Release that the mainstream media does not want the public to see

Avian flu may already be weaponized. Natural Solutions Foundation alerts world to startling evidence that H5N1 virus may already have been genetically engineered to create a man-made pandemic. Is the U.S. Government acting in concert with pharmaceutical interests to implement a mandatory vaccination agenda?

WASHINGTON, DC (July 29, 2008) — Noted health freedom activist Rima E. Laibow, MD and her organization, the Natural Solutions Foundation, this week alerted Health Freedom supporters that rogue government operatives, in concert with pharmaceutical interests, may be preparing to unleash a genetically engineered Avian Flu pandemic for profit, possibly during the Olympics.

The planned August delivery of an alleged Avian Flu “vaccine” coupled with other substantial pieces of intelligence has led Foundation President, Maj. Gen. Albert N. Stubblebine (USA Ret.) to conclude that an intentional pandemic “incident” may be the “Big Event with global consequences” to which Congressman Ron Paul MD alluded in his 2008 Independence Day message.

As a result, the Natural Solutions Foundation’s urgent Health Freedom eAlert and accompanying video, entitled: ‘Weaponized Avian Flu: Are YOU Ready to Die for the Establishment?’ has become an Internet phenomenon, forwarded to millions of readers, according to Foundation estimates of distribution.

The eAlert and YouTube video are available at http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=742

According to Stubblebine and Laibow, “The story is a long, complicated one, winding its way from China to France by way of the First World War, the Oil Cartel, the Pharmaceutical Cartel and Iraq to its final destination: a syringe full of something claiming to be a vaccine against the newly-deadly Avian Flu.

“Our best intelligence estimate is that pandemic Avian Flu has already been created through genetic engineering in the United States, fusing the deadly genome of the 1918 Pandemic, misnamed the ‘Spanish Flu’, with the DNA of the innocuous H5N1 virus in a growth medium of human kidney cells, according to the National Institutes of Health and the vaccine’s manufacturer. Some virologists believe that this would insure that the man-made mutant virus recognizes human cells and knows how to invade them.”

“A basic virological fact that the public has not been told is that it is impossible to make a vaccine against a virus that does not yet exist. Public relations efforts to the contrary, IF a vaccine is being made against the Avian Flu virus in its pandemic form, that means that the pandemic virus must already exist, period, end of discussion. So the fact that the Avian Flu vaccine is already being manufactured in China by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the French arm of the cartel is not only peculiar, but at the very least sinister.”

The Natural Solutions Foundation notes with alarm that the genome of the 1918 pandemic, the so-called “Spanish Flu”, was recently intentionally resurrected by the United States government. Because of that resurrection, both the Avian Flu, and its “vaccine” are now a significant threat to public health.

The Spanish Flu, which was not Spanish at all, was created in the U.S. through an early bioweapons program and injected into healthy young men (i.e., ‘soldiers’) as the first mandatory vaccination in the military during WWI (also known as the “War to End Wars” and the “Great War”). The “Spanish Flu”, which originated in Kansas on U.S. Military bases, killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and millions worldwide. It was one of the deadliest pandemics in modern history. It was also one of the most successful biological weapons ever created, until now.

“We can see that the pharmaceutical industry and US government are actively preparing for an Avian Flu pandemic through their own promotional literature and propaganda,” continues Laibow. “The manufacturer’s website contains a document which clearly illustrates their business model and how the company successfully capitalizes on the immensely profitable worldwide vaccination market.

To date, there have only been around 385 human cases of Avian Flu identified worldwide (assuming those identifications are trustworthy, of course), with 243 deaths. To put the absurdity of this effort into perspective, Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD), which researchers believe is heavily associated with aspartame consumption, is a leading cause of death which, according to the CDC, for example, killed 460,000 Americans in 1999 and the numbers keep rising www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5106a3.htm. But, aspartame is not under the gun, instead, a supposedly currently non-pandemic Avian Flu is the focus.

Laibow adds, “Given the shockingly obvious lack of any threat from an un-weaponized H5N1 virus, how can we explain the Bush Administration spending billions of dollars preparing each of the 50 States for what it drums into us is the “inevitable Bird Flu pandemic” anticipated to kill half or more of all Americans and similar numbers of people around the globe?

Americans are outraged and must inform themselves and their families by contacting the Natural Solutions Foundation and joining the free distribution list of the informative Health Freedom eAlerts, http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=187 . eAlert list members can expect to be uniquely well informed as recipients of the Foundation’s continuing threat analysis and action steps.

###

About the Natural Solutions Foundation
The Natural Solutions Foundation was founded by Dr. Rima E. Laibow, MD and Maj. Gen. Albert N. Stubblebine, III (USA, ret.), who, along with Ralph Fucetola JD, are the Foundation Trustees. Established in 2004, the Foundation is an international NGO (Non Governmental Organization) active and registered in several countries, and is a not for profit 501(C)(3) tax exempt organization in the United States.

The Mission of the Foundation is to discover, develop, demonstrate and disseminate natural solutions to the problems threatening health and freedom, achieving and maintaining a healthy self, community and world. Since its founding the Natural Solutions Foundation has pursued a vigorous program on many fronts, including natural solutions to significant social, legal and international problems involving health and wellness.

We consider health freedom to be part of those solutions. Among the major threats to health freedom are Codex Alimentarius (the World Food Code) and national agencies that are tasked with protecting the public, but are not. The threats to health and freedom are both domestic and international, as are the solutions…

Further listing of Natural Solutions Foundation accomplishments at:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=195

Source: Natural Solutions Foundation
Contact: Dr. Rima Laibow, M.D.
Natural Solutions Foundation
dr.laibow@gmail.com

Ralph Fucetola JD
ralph.fucetola@usa.net

Websites:
• www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
• www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
• www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
• http://YouTube.com/NaturalSolutions


Only One Censorship Episode of Many
When Natural Solutions Foundation sent out its blast many months ago suggesting that maybe, just maybe, the huge number of deaths from properly used drugs in this country each year (well over 100,000 of them, in fact) might not be accidental since a lot of bright people are involved at every step of the drug approval process, our site was immediately hit with a sophisticated attack which threw the server company, and our site, off line.* When I say “immediately”, I mean within minutes.

Well, don’t you know, when we published the Weaponized Avian Flu information in the last 10 days or so, the same thing happened: not only was our site thrown off line, but the entire company that provides expensive secure server service for us to protect us from exactly this kind of attack, went off line, too. They were forced to offer their clients a month of free service since their corporate guarantee mandates that compensation if they do not provide continuous service.

What does that tell you? To me it says we are right on target and the PTB do not, repeat NOT, want you to have this information.

But Wait! There’s More!
More Censorship, That Is!

Natural Solutions Foundation emails are now being marked as spam despite the fact that everyone who receives them has opted in for that purpose. We could not understand why so many people are not receiving our emails who want them. We ran a spam report and found that the words “Natural Solutions Foundation” have been set in some systems, to trigger spam responses from computers. We have also learned that phrases like “Millions of dollars” have been set to trigger spam responses.

That means that you need to check your spam filters for our blasts and let people you send this information to that they need to do the same. In fact, if you will send a separate email saying “I am about to send you information that I think is really important. To suppress it, spam filters may put it into your spam box. Please make sure to check for my next email to you from the Natural Solutions Foundation and indicate that it is not spam” to your distribution list.

The internet is our most powerful tool for organizing and censorship of material on it means that, since the MMD censors this news out, if we do not take some actions to keep the information in circulation, there will soon be no way to get that information.

The Natural Solutions Foundation knows that the censorship of information is a standard tool to keep people in line. We are therefore creating a new site created for the sole purpose of archeiving and preserving access to this vital information. We’ll be telling you about it soon so you can book mark it and viralize it.

You(r)Tube? Or TheirTube?
The Natural Solutions Foundation regularly posts videos on its YouTube channel, www.YouTube.com/naturalsolutions. In recent weeks, our videos on

* forced psychiatric drugging of children

* Avian Bird Flu video (in New Zealand and some other regions)

and a number of other important topics have been censored locally or permanently removed so you cannot watch them.

Not only that, we learned today that our healthfreedomusa.org site on MySpace.com has been labeled as an “unsafe site”. This is exactly like what happened in Oklahoma when the Tulsa OK library system was hacked and www.HealthFreedomUSA.org was identified in the filters as a porno site. Investigation made it clear that at that point, too, we were putting out information so strong and so contrary to the wishes of the PTB that they were using suppression of our First Amendment Rights to censor the truth.

Censorship a Complement?
We take it as a confirmation and a complement that our material is so powerful and correct that extra-constitutional and extra-legal means are being used to suppress it. Can you afford NOT to viralize truth? Where else will you find out what is happening unless we take steps to set up our own lines of communication using the tools available to us all, the internet’s power?

For example, when you visit the Natural Solutions Foundation home page, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org, and click on the Health Freedom Blog button, you’ll find the latest in threat analysis and timely information to help you make your choices for living – and surviving, in these difficult times. That is precisely the sort of information the PTB do not want you to have.

URGENT ACTION STEPS
1. This warning MUST “go viral” to protect our health and freedom. Please forward this eblast as widely as you can! Let people know that they need to check their spam filters because relegating our data there is a way of censoring it.

2. Send a copy of the censored Weaponized Avian Flu Press Release, http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=750 to everyone you know. Everyone. Urge them to do the same.

3. We urgently need your recurring tax deductibel donations to allow us to distribute this press release through paid online services such as PR Web, to counteract the mass media blockade of this major attack on health and freedom. We need at least $5,000 to do this effectively.

4. Get as many people as possible to join the Health Freedom eAlert system so they can be kept updated on the threats to health and freedom, pass along the information, further viralizing it. You can join here:

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=187

We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. The viralization of powerful information is our best tool to prevent succumbing to it!

Yours in health and freedom,

Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director, Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org

*http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/11/26/death-by-medicine-part-one.aspx

The Bush Administration’s Secret Biowarfare Agenda

July 31st, 2008 - by admin

Stephen Lendman / Global Research – 2008-07-31 01:12:32

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9685&id=9856

WASHINGTON (July 28, 2008) — When it comes to observing US and international laws, treaties and norms, the Bush administration is a serial offender. Since 2001, it’s:

• spurned efforts for nuclear disarmament to advance its weapons program and retain current stockpiles;

• renounced the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and asserted the right to develop and test new weapons;

• abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) because it expressly forbids the development, testing and deployment of missile defenses like its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and other programs;

• refuses to adopt a proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) that would prohibit further weapons-grade uranium and plutonium production and prevent new nuclear weapons to be added to present stockpiles – already dangerously too high;

• spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined plus multi-billions off-the-books, for secret programs, and for agencies like the CIA;

• advocates preventive, preemptive and “proactive” wars globally with first-strike nuclear and other weapons under the nihilistic doctrines of “anticipatory self-defense” and remaking the world to be like America;

• rescinded and subverted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) to illegally develop new biowarfare weapons; in November 1969 and February 1970, Richard Nixon issued National Security Decision Memoranda (NSDM) 35 and 44; they renounced the use of lethal and other types of biological warfare and ordered existing weapons stockpiles destroyed, save for small amounts for research – a huge exploitable loophole; the Reagan and Clinton administrations took advantage; GHW Bush to a lesser degree;

• GW Bush went further by renouncing the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that prohibits “the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons….;” on May 22, 1990, GHW Bush signed it into law to complete the 1972 Convention’s implementation; what the father and Nixon established, GW Bush rendered null and void; “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is his central policy document for unchallengeable US hegemony; among other provisions, it illegally advocates advanced forms of biowarfare that can target specific genotypes – the genetic constitution of individual organisms.

A Brief Modern History of Biowarfare

• the Hague Convention of 1907 bans chemical weapons;

• WW I use of poison gas causes 100,000 deaths and 900,000 injuries;

• Britain uses poison gas against Iraqis in the 1920s; as Secretary of State for War in 1919, Winston Churchill advocates it in a secret memo stating: “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes;”

• the 1928 Geneva Protocol prohibits gas and bacteriological warfare;

• in 1931, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads infects human subjects with cancer cells – under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations; Rhoads later conducts radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients;

• in 1932, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins on 200 black men; they’re not told of their illness, are denied treatment, and are used as human guinea pigs to follow their disease symptoms and progression; they all subsequently die;

• in 1935, the Pellagra Incident occurs; after millions die over two decades, the US Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease;

• In 1935 – 1936, Italy uses mustard gas in conquering Ethiopia;

• In its 1936 invasion, Japan uses chemical weapons against China; in the same year, a German chemical lab produces the first nerve agent, Tabun;

• in 1940, 400 Chicago prisoners are infected with malaria to study the effects of new and experimental drugs;

• the US has had an active biological warfare program since at least the 1940s; in 1941, it implements a secret program to develop offensive and allegedly defensive bioweapons using controversial testing methods; most research and development is at Fort Detrick, MD; beginning in 2008, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs will also conduct it; production and testing are at Pine Bluff, AR and Dugway Proving Ground, UT;

• from 1942 – 1945, (US) Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on about 4000 servicemen;

• in 1943, the US begins biological weapons research at Fort Detrick, MD;

• in 1944, the US Navy uses human subjects (locked in chambers) to test gas masks and clothing;

• during WW II, Germany uses lethal Zyklon-B gas in concentration camp exterminations; the Japanese (in Unit 731) conduct biowarfare experiments on civilians;

• in 1945, German offenders get immunity under Project Paperclip; Japanese ones as well – in exchange for their data and (for Germans at least) to work on top secret government projects in the US;

• in 1945, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) implements “Program F;” it’s the most extensive US study of the health effects of fluoride – a key chemical component in atomic bomb production; it’s one of the most toxic chemicals known and causes marked adverse central nervous system effects; in the interest of national security and not undermining full-scale nuclear weapons production, the information is suppressed; fluoride is found naturally in low concentration in drinking water and foods; compounds of the substance are also commonly used for cavity-prevention, but few people understand its toxicity;

• in 1946, VA hospital patients become guinea pigs for medical experiments;

• in 1947, the US has germ warfare weapons; Truman withdraws the 1928 Geneva Protocol from Senate consideration; it’s not ratified until 1974 and is now null and void under George Bush;

• in 1947, the AEC’s Colonel EE Kirkpatrick issues secret document #07075001; it states that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects;

• in July 1947, the CIA is established; it begins LSD experiments on civilian and military subjects with and without their knowledge – to learn its use as an intelligence weapon;

• in 1949, the US Army releases biological agents in US cities to learn the effects of a real germ warfare attack; tests continue secretly through at least the 1960s in San Francisco, New York, Washington, DC, Panama City and Key West, Florida, Minnesota, other midwest locations, along the Pennsylvania turnpike and elsewhere; more on outdoor testing below;

• after the (official) 1950 Korean War outbreak, North Korea and China accuse the US of waging germ warfare; an outbreak of disease the same year in San Francisco apparently is from Army bacteria released in the city; residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms;

• in 1950, the DOD begins open-air nuclear weapons detonations in desert areas, then monitors downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates;

• in 1951, African-Americans are exposed to potentially fatal stimulants as part of a race-specific fungal weapons test in Virginia;

• in 1953, the US military releases clouds of zinc cadium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, Canada, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, VA – to determine how efficiently chemical agents can be dispersed;

• in 1953, joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in New York and San Francisco – exposing tens of thousands of people to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii;

• in 1953, the CIA initiates Project MKULTRA – an 11 year research program to produce and test drugs and biological agents that can be used for mind control and behavior modification; unwitting human subjects are used;

• in 1955, the CIA releases bacteria from the Army’s Tampa, FL biological warfare arsenal – to test its ability to infect human populations;

• from 1955 – 1958, the Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research (on over 1000 subjects) – to study its effect as an incapacitating agent;

• in 1956, the US military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, GA and Avon Park, FL – to test the health effects on victims;

• in 1956, Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, specifically states bio-chemical warfare isn’t banned;

• in 1960, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence authorizes LSD field tested in Europe and the Far East;

• in 1961, the Kennedy administration increases chemical spending from $75 – $330 million; it authorizes Project 112 – a secret program (from 1962 – 1973) to test the effects of biological and chemical weapons on thousands of unwitting US servicemen; Project SHAD was a related project; subjects were exposed to VX, tabun, sarin and soman nerve gases plus other toxic agents;

• in 1962, chemical weapons are loaded on planes for possible use during the Cuban missile crisis;

• in 1966, the New York subway system is used for a germ warfare experiment;

• in 1968, the Pentagon considers using some of its chemical weapons (including nerve gas) against civil rights and anti-war protesters;

• in 1969, an apparent nerve agent kills thousands of sheep in Utah; Nixon issues two National Security Memoranda in 1969 and 1970; the first (in November 1969) ends production and offensive use of lethal and other type biological and chemical weapons; it confines “bacteriological/biological programs….to research for defensive purposes” and has other loopholes as well; the second (in February 1970) orders existing stockpiles destroyed, confines “toxins….research and development (to) defensive purposes only,” and declares only small quantities will be maintained to develop vaccines, drugs and diagnostics – a huge exploitable loophole;

• in 1969, the General Assembly bans herbicide plant killers and tear gases in warfare; the US is one of three opposing votes; despite being banned, open-air testing intermittently continues to the present, and the Pentagon apparently authorized it in its most recent annual report; it calls for developmental and operational “field testing of (CBW) full systems,” not just simulations, and followed it up in a recent March 2008 test; in Crystal City, VA, it released perflourocarbon tracers and sulfur hexaflouride assuring residents it’s safe; it’s not and may harm persons with asthma, emphysema and other respiratory ailments;

• in 1969, DOD’s Dr. Robert MacMahan requests $10 million to develop a synthetic biological agent for which no natural immunity exists;

• from the 1960s through at least the 1980s, the US assaults Cuba with biological agent attacks;

• in 1970, US Southeast Asian forces conduct Operation Tailwind using sarin nerve gas in Laos; many die, including civilians; Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Joint Chiefs Chairman, confirmes the raid on CNN in 1998; under Pentagon pressure, CNN retracts the report and fires award-winning journalist Peter Arnett and co-producers April Oliver and Jack Smith because they refuse to disavow their report;

• in 1971, US forces end direct use of Agent Orange in Southeast Asia; also in 1971 with CIA help, an anti-Castro paramilitary group introduces African swine fever into Cuba; it infects a half a million pigs and results in their destruction; a few months later a similar attack fails against Cuban poultry; in 1981, a covert US operation unleashes a type 2 dengue fever outbreak – the first in the Caribbean since the turn of the century involving hemorrhagic shock on a massive scale; over 300,000 cases are reported, including 158 fatalities;

• in 1975, the Senate Church Committee confirms from a CIA memorandum that US “defensive” bioweapons are stockpiled at Fort Detrick, MD – including anthrax, encephalitis, tuberculosis, shellfish toxin, and food poisons;

• in 1980, Congress approves a nerve gas facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas;

• during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, the US supplies Iraq with toxic biological and chemical agents; Ronald Reagan signs a secret order to do “whatever (is) necessary and ‘legal’ ” to prevent Iraq from losing the war;” a 1994 congressional inquiry later finds that dozens of biological agents were shipped, including various strains of anthrax and precursors of nerve gas (like sarin), gangrene, and West Nile virus;

• in 1984, Reagan orders M55 rockets retooled to contain high-yield explosives and VX gas; his administration begins researching and developing biological agents allegedly for “defensive purposes;”

• in 1985 and 1986, the US resumes open-air biological agents testing; it likely never stopped;

• in 1987, Congress votes to resume chemical weapons production;

• in 1989, 149 nations at the Paris Chemical Weapons Conference condemn these weapons; after signing the treaty, it’s revealed that the US plans to produce poison gas; at the UN, GHW Bush reaffirms the US commitment to eliminate chemical weapons in 10 years; the US implements the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 – “to implement….the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction….;”

• in 1990, GHW Bush signs the 1989 act making it illegal for the US to develop, possess or use biological weapons; Bush also signs Executive Order 12735 stating: the spread of chemical and biological weapons constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;”

• following the Gulf War, reports surface about US forces’ health problems – later called Gulf War Syndrome; the likely cause – widespread use of depleted uranium, other toxic substances, and the illegal use (on nearly 700,000 theater forces) of experimental vaccines in violation of the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation; over 12,000 have since died and over 30% are now ill from non-combat-related factors; they’ve since filed claims with the VA for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits;

• in 1997, Cuba accuses the US of spraying crops with biological agents;

• in 1997, the US ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) banning the production, stockpile and use of these substances;

• in 2001, the Bush administration rejects the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) citing 38 problems with it, some called serious; claiming a need to counter chemical and biological weapons threats, it’s spending multi-billions illegally to develop, test and stockpile “first-strike” chemical and biological weapons that endanger homeland security and threaten good relations with other countries;

• all along, a BWC loophole allows appropriate types and amounts of biological agents to be used for “prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes” – construed to be defensive; it also permits “research,” not “development;” the CIA took full advantage to conduct programs for offense, not defense or to further peace; further, the BWC includes nothing about genetic engineering because it didn’t exist at the time.

London Guardian reported that “Respected scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned that the US is (illegally) developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare” – ironically at the same time it accused Iraq of these same type violations.

University of Bradford international security professor Malcolm Dando and University of California microbiology lecturer Mark Wheelis accused the Bush administration of “encouraging a breakdown in arms control” treaties by secretly conducting these programs. Dando said they include:

• developing a cluster bomb to disperse bioweapons;

• building a bioweapons plant from commercially available materials to prove “terrorists” can do it;

• genetically engineering a more potent anthrax strain;

• producing dried and weaponized anthrax spores in quantities far larger than for research;

• researching and producing hallucinogenic weapons such as BZ gas; and

• developing “non-lethal” weapons similar to the gas Russia used to end the 2002 Moscow theater siege that killed around 170 people and injured hundreds.

In February 2008, the Sunshine Project suspended operations, but its website is still accessible. It was an NGO dedicated to banning and “avert(ing) the dangers of” bioweapons. In 2001, it accused the Bush administration of advancing “a plan to undermine international controls on biological weapons.”

On May 8, 2002, it issued a press release titled “US Armed Forces Push for Offensive Biological Weapons Development – genetically engineered microbes that attack items such as fuel, plastics and asphalt” in violation of international law. The proposals date from 1997 and involve the (Washington, DC) Naval Research Laboratory and the (Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas) Armstrong Laboratory. They come at a time when the US rejected “legally-binding” UN inspections of “suspected” facilities producing weapons “explicitly for offense.”

Additional documents have been suppressed and those known “are probably only the tip of the iceberg….The National Academies are also concealing related documents. After the Sunshine Project requested copies….on March 12, 2002, (they) placed a ‘security hold’ on the public file” without explanation.

“The research proposed by the Air Force and Navy raises serious legal questions. Under the (1989) US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, development of biological weapons, including those that attack materials, is subject to federal criminal and civil penalties.” It also prohibits development, acquisition and stockpiling of agents intended as bioweapons.

On May 21, 2004, AP reported that arms control advocates warned the Bush administration that “proposed research for a new (Fort Detrick) Homeland Security center may violate an international ban on biological weapons and encourage other countries to follow.” Experts said proposals for the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) flout bioweapons prohibitions by crossing the line between “defensive” research and banned weapons development.

On July 31, 2007 the London Guardian reported that the US is “Building (a) Treaty-Breaching Germ War Defence Centre” near Washington, DC” – NBACC. It’s to be completed in 2008 and will be a “vast germ warfare laboratory intended to help protect the US against an attack with biological weapons, but critics say the laboratory’s work will violate international law and its extreme secrecy will exacerbate a biological arms race (by) accelerat(ing) work on similar facilities around the world.”

It will house “heavily guarded and hermetically sealed chambers….to produce and stockpile the world’s most lethal bacteria and viruses” – forbidden by the 1972 BWC and 1989 US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act. The Fort Detrick facility will be used for the new 160,000 square foot lab, and it’s authorization coincided with the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, and along with 9/11, unleashed everything that followed.

DHS calls Fort Detrick the home of “The National Interagency Biodefense Campus.” Besides NBACC, other agencies there include:

• the Health and Human Services’ (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID);

• the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service and Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research Unit (FDWSRU); and

• the Department of Defense’s US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID).

DHS says USAMRIID “conduct(s) basic and applied research on biological threats (to provide) cutting-edge medical research for the warfighter against biological threats.” International law and bioweapons expert, Francis Boyle, disagrees. He says the “program constitutes clear violations of the international (1972 BWC) arms control treaty….ratified by the United States in 1975.” He also cites BWC’s preamble that states in part:

“….Parties to this Convention (are) Determined to act with a view to achieving effective progress towards general and complete disarmament, including the prohibition and elimination of all types of weapons of mass destruction, and convinced that the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons and their elimination, through effective measures, will facilitate the achievement of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control….” The BWC goes on to say that use of these weapons are so “repugnant to the conscience of mankind….that no effort should be spared to minimize this risk.”

In Boyle’s view, Fort Detrick’s NBACC and USAMRIID heighten risks because their work involves: “acquiring, growing, modifying, storing, packaging and dispersing classical, emerging and genetically engineered pathogens.” This work is an “unmistakable hallmark of an offensive weapons program” in violation of the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act that he authored.

Even worse. according to Edward Hammond, former director of the Sunshine Project: Recreating the deadly 1918 “Spanish flu” germ that killed an estimated 40 million worldwide (or other dangerous pathogens) increases “the possibility of (a) man-made disaster, either accidental or deliberate….for the entire world.” If a single viral particle or cell escapes or is unleashed, an enormous outbreak may result with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The Fort Detrick plan derives from a Bush Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-10) written April 28, 2004. It states: “Among our many initiatives we are continuing to develop more forward-looking analyses, to include Red Teaming efforts, to understand new scientific trends that may be exploited by our adversaries to develop biological weapons and to help position intelligence collectors ahead of the problem.” Boyle calls it “a smoking gun” aimed at the BWC.

“Red Teaming means that we actually have people out there on a Red Team plotting, planning, scheming and conspiring how to use biowarfare” and sooner or later will unleash it using living organisms for military purposes. They may be viral, bacterial, fungal, or other forms that can spread over a vast terrain by wind, water, insect, animal, or humans, according to Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Biotech Century. Rifkin also asserts it’s “impossible to distinguish between defensive and offensive research in the field,” and given this administration’s penchant for lying and secrecy, other nations will be justifiably suspicious.

The Bush administration proceeded anyway. Since 9/11, it spent or allocated around $50 billion on bioweapons development through 11 federal departments and agencies, including DOD and DHS. For FY 2009, it wants an additional $8.1 billion or $2.5 billion more than in FY2008. It calls its program preventive and defensive and cites Project BioShield as an example. It became law in July 2004 as a 10-year program to develop countermeasures to biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents. It was, in fact, a gift to companies like Gilead Sciences, the company Donald Rumsfeld led as chairman from 1997 to 2001 (and remains a major shareholder) until he left to become George Bush’s Defense Secretary.

It would have also required every American to be vaccinated under the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005. It passed the Senate but not the House and would have, under a public emergency, allowed experimental or approved drugs to be used with insufficient knowledge of their safety – in violation of the Nuremburg Code on medical experimentation. It also would have immunized companies from liability and denied those harmed the right to sue.

Private Bioweapons Labs Cashing In
According to the Sunshine Project, “scores of US universities and biotechnology companies (since 2001) have benefitted handsomely from billions of dollars in ‘biodefense’ cash. Across the country, ‘biodefense’ labs are sprouting up like weeds. The unrelenting spigot of federal money (has) thousands of scientists and technicians” doing bioweapons research on some of the deadliest pathogens. But the problem is much greater than that:

• projects underway are illegal;

• immense secrecy enshrouds them; and

• federal oversight is so lax that NIH safety guidelines aren’t enforced and CDC poorly identifies problems it should address; as a result, “accidents are popping up everywhere” amidst a “pervasive cover-up culture” that hides them – in direct violation of federal rules and responsible practice that:

(1) require government agencies to protect the public from dangerous pathogens, and

(2) obligate research labs to disclose the nature of their work; failure to do so suggests alleged biodefense research is, in fact, cover for offensive biowarfare programs to complement Fort Detrick and other government site efforts.

The Sunshine Project believes about 400 private bioweapons labs now operate around the country with no public disclosure of their activities – and plenty of reasons to worry Francis Boyle that the Bush administration is up to mischief. It “sabotaged the Verification Protocol for the BWC (and) fully intend(s) to (engage in) research, development and testing of illegal and criminal offensive biowarfare programs.” That prospect should frighten everyone.

Reporter Sherwood Ross for sure. He calls the administration’s project “the costliest, most grandiose research scheme ever attempted (with) germ warfare capability….going forward under President Bush and in defiance of” US and international laws. Far worse, where once “germ warfare was an isolated happenstance, (today’s efforts elevate it) to an instrument of (deadly and loathsome) policy.

Other Recent Developments
On February 21, 2008, the Sidney Morning Herald reported that the Bush administration rejected claims made by Indonesian Health Minister, Siti Fadilah Supari, in her book titled: “It Is Time for the World to Change! God’s Hand Behind Bird Flu Virus.” She questions whether the US is using bird flu samples collected from developing nations to develop biological weapons, not new vaccines as claimed.

On July 20, 2008, the Jakarta Post reported: “If there were a “National Darling Award” contest…. Supari would probably win it. (Her) supporters praise her as a great third world heroine who dares challenge the global structure of injustice and inequality perpetrated by powerful states (like the US) and networks of international institutions. Most of the praise is based on opinions” from her new book mentioned above.

She claims the US is transferring virus samples to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It’s one of two US nuclear weapons labs that will operate new biological research facilities capable of researching and developing dangerous pathogens in violation of the BWC and US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. California-based Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is the other one.

On January 25, it began operating a new Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) lab. In August, Los Alamos is scheduled to complete a federally mandated environmental study for a similar lab to begin operations shortly thereafter. Given the Bush administration’s penchant for secrecy, Supari’s accusations may be justified.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) establishes biosafety classifications. BLS-4 ones, like for Ebola, are the most dangerous, in part, because no known cures exist. Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore currently operate BLS-2 labs. They’ll now have BLS-3 ones to study infectious agents able to cause serious or fatal illnesses if inhaled. But there’s no way to know if both labs, Fort Detrick, others like the former Edgewood Arsenal (now the Edgewood Area at the Aberdeen Proving Ground), Oak Ridge Ridge National Laboratory, and still more we don’t know about will secretly research any type pathogens, including the most dangerous ones, for any purpose – offense or defense.

What is known is that government labs will study pathogens posing serious public health and safety threats. Ones like anthrax, botulism, brucellosis, plague, Rickettsia, tularemia, Avian influenza, H5N1 (the recent strain reported and called the most dangerous), and valley fever plus whatever others are planned but kept secret.

Most important is this. These labs conduct weapons research, so they’ll likely focus on bioweapons and not follow BWC “prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes” guidelines. For example, vaccines and potential biological weapons defenses may, in fact, be for offense. Distinguishing between the two is impossible so other nations and figures like Supari are suspicious.

They’re not comforted by Lawrence Livermore’s Lynda Seaver. On February 12, she told Arms Control Today that the US is “a signatory to the Biowarfare Convention and does not conduct bioweapons research.” She also said most work there will be unclassified.

On February 15, however, a CDC spokesperson suggested otherwise and informed Arms Control Today that Lawrence Livermore security restrictions are tight as they are at Los Alamos, Fort Detrick and other US weapons research facilities. They bar transparency and place strict limits on sharing select agents research to prevent other nations from knowing it exists or its purpose.

Further, later this year DHS will complete construction of the new Fort Detrick lab (NBACC), and a new $500 million animal research facility is planned. Both will have BLS-3 and 4 capabilities. They’ll work on the most dangerous known pathogens and conduct controversial type threat assessment research – to develop and produce new biological weapons and develop defenses against them. Once again, differentiating between offense and defense is impossible, and given their penchant for deception and secrecy, no one takes Bush administration officials at their word nor should they.

Francis Boyle’s “Biowarfare and Terrorism”
Boyle drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act and covers it in his 2006 book. It’s now codified in Title 18 of the US Code, sections 175 – 178 and was the implementing legislation for the landmark 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).

MIT molecular biology professor Jonathan King wrote this about the book in its forward:

It “outlines how and why the United States government initiated, sustained and then dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms buildup….Boyle reveals how the new (multi-) billion-dollar US Chemical and Biological Defense Program has been reoriented (endorsing “first strike” CBW use in war) to accord with the Neo-Conservative pre-emptive strike agenda – this time by (illegal) biological and chemical warfare.” This “represent(s) a significant emerging danger to our population (and) threaten(s) international relations among nations.” These programs “are always called defensive (but) with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.”

“Boyle (also) sheds new light on the motives for the (2001) anthrax attacks, the media black hole of silence (about them), and why the FBI may never apprehended the perpetrators of this seminal crime of the 21st century.” They killed five people, injured 17 others, and temporarily shut down Congress, the Supreme Court, and other federal operations. Army scientist Dr. Steven Hatfill was unfairly implicated as a “person of interest” but was never charged. He sued the Justice Department and in June was awarded $2.8 million and a $150,000 annuity for violating his privacy, leaking false and inflammatory information, costing him his job and reputation, and blasting his name all over the media for days. It was the beginning of the frightening events that followed.

Boyle is currently a leading proponent of an effort to impeach George Bush, Dick Cheney and other high-level administration figures for their crimes of war, against humanity and other grievous violations of domestic and international law.

In his “Biowarfare and Terrorism,” he sounds an alarm about the administration’s bioweapons program and what it means for humanity. He fears “a catastrophic biowarfare or bioterrorist incident or accident (is) a statistical certainty.” It highlights enormous new risks plus other frightening ones like the possibility of nuclear war and catastrophic fallout from it. That, permanent wars, a potential Andromeda Strain, police state justice, and destroying the republic are but five among other threats since the advent of George Bush and his roguish team.

In “Biowarfare and Terrorism,” Boyle addresses the bioweapons threat as an expert on the subject and gives readers an historical perspective. He asserts that the US government dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms development, production, and buildup that endangers all humanity with its potential. It’s part of an extremist agenda for unchallengeable power and right to unleash “proactive” wars with the most aggressive weapons in its arsensal – nuclear, chemical, biological, others, space-based ones, and new ones in development.

Since WW II, America has actively developed, tested, and used terror weapons, including biological ones. Even after Nixon ended the nation’s biowarfare programs, they never stopped. The CIA remained active through a loophole in the law, then the Reagan administration reactivated what Nixon slowed down. It acted much like the current regime with many of the same officials espousing similar extremist views – that America must exploit its technological superiority and not let laws, norms, or the greater good deter them.

The Bush administration raised the stakes and threatens all humanity. Boyle believes it used 9/11 and the anthrax attacks to stampede Congress and the public into aggressive wars and a menu of repressive laws. He also thinks the FBI knows who’s behind the anthrax attacks: criminal US government elements planning a police state and another frightening enterprise – to fight and win a future biowar. A possible nuclear one as well. Boyle sounds the alarm about what may lie ahead and its potential consequences.

In October 2003, the National Academy of Sciences did as well. It warned about the “misuse of tools, technology, or knowledge base of (bioweapons) research for offensive military or terrorist purposes.” That’s the present risk. It makes everyone unwitting subjects of a recklessly endangering experiment.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM – 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. www.globalresearch.ca

© Copyright Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2008

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca

Acts of War: The US Is Already Attacking Iran

July 31st, 2008 - by admin

Scott Ritter / TruthDig – 2008-07-31 01:04:58

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080729_acts_of_war/

(July 29, 2008) — The war between the United States and Iran is on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation’s sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood.

Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world today.

Much of the information behind this is being promulgated by Israel, which has a vested interest in seeing Iran neutralized as a potential threat. But Israel is joined by another source, even more puzzling in terms of its broad-based acceptance in the world of American journalism: the Mujahadeen-e Khalk, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group sworn to overthrow the theocracy in Tehran.

The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran, including a particularly devastating “accident” involving a military convoy transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions. If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency’s backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the United States against Iran.

The MEK traces its roots back to the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeg. Formed among students and intellectuals, the MEK emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. Facing brutal repression from the Shah’s secret police, the SAVAK, the MEK became expert at blending into Iranian society, forming a cellular organizational structure which made it virtually impossible to eradicate.

The MEK membership also became adept at gaining access to positions of sensitivity and authority. When the Shah was overthrown in 1978, the MEK played a major role and for a while worked hand in glove with the Islamic Revolution in crafting a post-Shah Iran. In 1979 the MEK had a central role in orchestrating the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and holding 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.

However, relations between the MEK and the Islamic regime in Tehran soured, and after the MEK staged a bloody coup attempt in 1981, all ties were severed and the two sides engaged in a violent civil war. Revolutionary Guard members who were active at that time have acknowledged how difficult it was to fight the MEK. In the end, massive acts of arbitrary arrest, torture and executions were required to break the back of mainstream MEK activity in Iran, although even the Revolutionary Guard today admits the MEK remains active and is virtually impossible to completely eradicate.

It is this stubborn ability to survive and operate inside Iran, at a time when no other intelligence service can establish and maintain a meaningful agent network there, which makes the MEK such an asset to nations such as the United States and Israel. The MEK is able to provide some useful intelligence; however, its overall value as an intelligence resource is negatively impacted by the fact that it is the sole source of human intelligence in Iran. As such, the group has taken to exaggerating and fabricating reports to serve its own political agenda.

In this way, there is little to differentiate the MEK from another Middle Eastern expatriate opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, which infamously supplied inaccurate intelligence to the United States and other governments and helped influence the U.S. decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Today, the MEK sees itself in a similar role, providing sole-sourced intelligence to the United States and Israel in an effort to facilitate American military operations against Iran and, eventually, to overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran.

The current situation concerning the MEK would be laughable if it were not for the violent reality of that organization’s activities. Upon its arrival in Iraq in 1986, the group was placed under the control of Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat, or intelligence service.

The MEK was a heavily militarized organization and in 1988 participated in division-size military operations against Iran. The organization represents no state and can be found on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, yet since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK has been under the protection of the U.S. military. Its fighters are even given “protected status” under the Geneva Conventions. The MEK says its members in Iraq are refugees, not terrorists. And yet one would be hard-pressed to find why the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees should confer refugee status on an active paramilitary organization that uses “refugee camps” inside Iraq as its bases.

The MEK is behind much of the intelligence being used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in building its case that Iran may be pursuing (or did in fact pursue in the past) a nuclear weapons program. The complexity of the MEK-CIA relationship was recently underscored by the agency’s acquisition of a laptop computer allegedly containing numerous secret documents pertaining to an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Much has been made about this computer and its contents. The United States has led the charge against Iran within international diplomatic circles, citing the laptop information as the primary source proving Iran’s ongoing involvement in clandestine nuclear weapons activity. Of course, the information on the computer, being derived from questionable sources (i.e., the MEK and the CIA, both sworn enemies of Iran) is controversial and its veracity is questioned by many, including me.

Now, I have a simple solution to the issue of the laptop computer: Give it the UNSCOM treatment. Assemble a team of CIA, FBI and Defense Department forensic computer analysts and probe the computer, byte by byte. Construct a chronological record of how and when the data on the computer were assembled. Check the “logic” of the data, making sure everything fits together in a manner consistent with the computer’s stated function and use. Tell us when the computer was turned on and logged into and how it was used. Then, with this complex usage template constructed, overlay the various themes which have been derived from the computer’s contents, pertaining to projects, studies and other activities of interest. One should be able to rapidly ascertain whether or not the computer is truly a key piece of intelligence pertaining to Iran’s nuclear programs.

The fact that this computer is acknowledged as coming from the MEK and the fact that a proper forensic investigation would probably demonstrate the fabricated nature of the data contained are why the U.S. government will never agree to such an investigation being done.

A prosecutor, when making a case of criminal action, must lay out evidence in a simple, direct manner, allowing not only the judge and jury to see it but also the accused. If the evidence is as strong as the prosecutor maintains, it is usually bad news for the defendant.

However, if the defendant is able to demonstrate inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data being presented, then the prosecution is the one in trouble. And if the defense is able to demonstrate that the entire case is built upon fabricated evidence, the case is generally thrown out.

This, in short, is what should be done with the IAEA’s ongoing probe into allegations that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons. The evidence used by the IAEA is unable to withstand even the most rudimentary cross-examination. It is speculative at best, and most probably fabricated. Iran has done the right thing in refusing to legitimize this illegitimate source of information.

A key question that must be asked is why, then, does the IAEA continue to permit Olli Heinonen, the agency’s Finnish deputy director for safeguards and the IAEA official responsible for the ongoing technical inspections in Iran, to wage his one-man campaign on behalf of the United States, Britain and (indirectly) Israel regarding allegations derived from sources of such questionable veracity (the MEK-supplied laptop computer)?

Moreover, why is such an official given free rein to discuss such sensitive data with the press, or with politically motivated outside agencies, in a manner that results in questionable allegations appearing in the public arena as unquestioned fact? Under normal circumstances, leaks of the sort that have occurred regarding the ongoing investigation into Iran’s alleged past studies on nuclear weapons would be subjected to a thorough investigation to determine the source and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to end them.

And yet, in Vienna, Heinonen’s repeated transgressions are treated as a giant “non-event,” the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everyone pretends isn’t really there.

Heinonen has become the pro-war yin to the anti-confrontation yang of his boss, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Every time ElBaradei releases the results of the IAEA probe of Iran, pointing out that the IAEA can find no evidence of any past or present nuclear weapons program, and that there is a full understanding of Iran’s controversial centrifuge-based enrichment program, Heinonen throws a monkey wrench into the works.

Well-publicized briefings are given to IAEA-based diplomats. Mysteriously, leaks from undisclosed sources occur. Heinonen’s Finnish nationality serves as a flimsy cover for neutrality that long ago disappeared. He is no longer serving in the role as unbiased inspector, but rather a front for the active pursuit of an American- and Israeli-inspired disinformation campaign designed to keep alive the flimsy allegations of a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to justify the continued warlike stance taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.

The fact that the IAEA is being used as a front to pursue this blatantly anti-Iranian propaganda is a disservice to an organization with a mission of vital world importance. The interjection of not only the unverified (and unverifiable) MEK laptop computer data, side by side with a newly placed emphasis on a document relating to the forming of uranium metal into hemispheres of the kind useful in a nuclear weapon, is an amateurish manipulation of data to achieve a preordained outcome.

Calling the Iranian possession of the aforementioned document “alarming,” Heinonen (and the media) skipped past the history of the document, which, of course, has been well explained by Iran previously as something the Pakistani nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan inserted on his own volition to a delivery of documentation pertaining to centrifuges. Far from being a “top-secret” document protected by Iran’s security services, it was discarded in a file of old material that Iran provided to the IAEA inspectors. When the IAEA found the document, Iran allowed it to be fully examined by the inspectors, and answered every question posed by the IAEA about how the document came to be in Iran.

For Heinonen to call the document “alarming,” at this late stage in the game, is not only irresponsible but factually inaccurate, given the definition of the word. The Iranian document in question is neither a cause for alarm, seeing as it is not a source for any “sudden fear brought on by the sense of danger,” nor does it provide any “warning of existing or approaching danger,” unless one is speaking of the danger of military action on the part of the United States derived from Heinonen’s unfortunate actions and choice of words.

Olli Heinonen might as well become a salaried member of the Bush administration, since he is operating in lock step with the U.S. government’s objective of painting Iran as a threat worthy of military action. Shortly after Heinonen’s alarmist briefing in March 2008, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, emerged to announce, “As today’s briefing showed us, there are strong reasons to suspect that Iran was working covertly and deceitfully, at least until recently, to build a bomb.”

Heinonen’s briefing provided nothing of the sort, being derived from an irrelevant document and a laptop computer of questionable provenance. But that did not matter to Schulte, who noted that “Iran has refused to explain or even acknowledge past work on weaponization.” Schulte did not bother to note that it would be difficult for Iran to explain or acknowledge that which it has not done. “This is particularly troubling,” Schulte went on, “when combined with Iran’s determined effort to master the technology to enrich uranium.” Why is this so troubling? Because, as Schulte noted, “Uranium enrichment is not necessary for Iran’s civil program but it is necessary to produce the fissile material that could be weaponized into a bomb.”

This, of course, is the crux of the issue: Iran’s ongoing enrichment program. Not because it is illegal; Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not again because Iran’s centrifuge program is operating in an undeclared, unmonitored fashion; the IAEA had stated it has a full understanding of the scope and work of the Iranian centrifuge enrichment program and that all associated nuclear material is accounted for and safeguarded.

The problem has never been, and will never be, Iran’s enrichment program. The problem is American policy objectives of regime change in Iran, pushed by a combination of American desires for global hegemony and an activist Israeli agenda which seeks regional security, in perpetuity, through military and economic supremacy.

The specter of nuclear enrichment is simply a vehicle for facilitating the larger policy objectives. Olli Heinonen, and those who support and sustain his work, must be aware of the larger geopolitical context of his actions, which makes them all the more puzzling and contemptible.

A major culprit in this entire sordid affair is the mainstream media. Displaying an almost uncanny inability to connect the dots, the editors who run America’s largest newspapers, and the producers who put together America’s biggest television news programs, have collectively facilitated the most simplistic, inane and factually unfounded story lines coming out of the Bush White House. The most recent fairy tale was one of “diplomacy,” on the part of one William Burns, the No. 3 diplomat in the State Department.

I have studied the minutes of meetings involving John McCloy, an American official who served numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, in the decades following the end of the Second World War. His diplomacy with the Soviets, conducted with senior Soviet negotiator Valerein Zorin and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev himself, was real, genuine, direct and designed to resolve differences.

The transcripts of the diplomacy conducted between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho to bring an end to the Vietnam conflict is likewise a study in the give and take required to achieve the status of real diplomacy.

Sending a relatively obscure official like Burns to “observe” a meeting between the European Union and Iran, with instructions not to interact, not to initiate, not to discuss, cannot under any circumstances be construed as diplomacy. Any student of diplomatic history could tell you this. And yet the esteemed editors and news producers used the term diplomacy, without challenge or clarification, to describe Burns’ mission to Geneva on July 19.

The decision to send him there was hailed as a “significant concession” on the part of the Bush administration, a step away from war and an indication of a new desire within the White House to resolve the Iranian impasse through diplomacy. How this was going to happen with a diplomat hobbled and muzzled to the degree Burns was apparently skipped the attention of these writers and their bosses. Diplomacy, America was told, was the new policy option of choice for the Bush administration.

Of course, the Geneva talks produced nothing. The United States had made sure Europe, through its foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, had no maneuvering room when it came to the core issue of uranium enrichment: Iran must suspend all enrichment before any movement could be made on any other issue.

Furthermore, the American-backed program of investigation concerning the MEK-supplied laptop computer further poisoned the diplomatic waters. Iran, predictably, refused to suspend its enrichment program, and rejected the Heinonen-led investigation into nuclear weaponization, refusing to cooperate further with the IAEA on that matter, noting that it fell outside the scope of the IAEA’s mandate in Iran.

Condoleezza Rice was quick to respond. After a debriefing from Burns, who flew to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where Rice was holding closed-door meetings with the foreign ministers of six Arab nations on the issue of Iran, Rice told the media that Iran “was not serious” about resolving the standoff.

Having played the diplomacy card, Rice moved on with the real agenda: If Iran did not fully cooperate with the international community (i.e., suspend its enrichment program), then it would face a new round of economic sanctions and undisclosed punitive measures, both unilaterally on the part of the United States and Europe, as well as in the form of even broader sanctions from the United Nations Security Council (although it is doubtful that Russia and China would go along with such a plan).

The issue of unilateral U.S. sanctions is most worrisome. Both the House of Representatives, through HR 362, and the Senate, through SR 580, are preparing legislation that would call for an air, ground and sea blockade of Iran. Back in October 1962, President John F. Kennedy, when considering the imposition of a naval blockade against Cuba in response to the presence of Soviet missiles in that nation, opined that “a blockade is a major military operation, too. It’s an act of war.” Which, of course, it is.

The false diplomacy waged by the White House in Geneva simply pre-empted any congressional call for a diplomatic outreach. Now the president can move on with the mission of facilitating a larger war with Iran by legitimizing yet another act of aggression.

One day, in the not-so-distant future, Americans will awake to the reality that American military forces are engaged in a shooting war with Iran. Many will scratch their heads and wonder, “How did that happen?” The answer is simple: We all let it happen. We are at war with Iran right now. We just don’t have the moral courage to admit it.

Scott Ritter is a former U.N. weapons inspector and Marine intelligence officer who has written extensively about Iran.

Posted in accordance with Titled 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

Nuclear-Powered Amphibious Assault Ships?

July 29th, 2008 - by admin

Prof. Karl Grossman / Blogspot.com –

WATCH the WVVH-TV Videos:
• Renewable Energy is More Than Ready (Part 1)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1Iug28mWSlY

• Renewable Energy is More than Ready (Part 2)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xw0qLzaqmos

Nuclear-Powered Amphibious Assault Ships?

(July 29, 2008) — Most new large US Navy amphibious assault ships would be required to be nuclear powered under the National Defense Authorization Act for 2009 which the House of Representatives has passed by a vote of 384 to 23. It now goes to the Senate where many senators are uneasy about the scheme — as is the Navy and the shipbuilding industry in the U.S.

As to safe-energy and environmental advocates, “This reckless plan gives ‘we’ll fight them on the beaches’ a whole new sinister meaning,” says Linda Gunter of Beyond Nuclear of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute. “If one of these amphibious ships is hit, or has an accident, we would be fighting a tide of radioactivity on beaches that could leave them contaminated indefinitely.”

“Expanding the use of nuclear technology as a form of propulsion puts our sailors at risk,” says Jim Riccio of Greenpeace U.S.A. Also, because “nuclear-powered vessels are already rejected from ports around the world, it undermines the ability to actually use them.” Further, they would be “more of a target” for terrorists. “And what if the Cole had been nuclear powered?”

Indeed, if the USS Cole, the destroyer struck by suicide bombers who crashed into it with explosives off Yemen in 2000 had been nuclear-powered, a nuclear disaster could have occurred killing many more than the 17 crewmembers who died.

The Navy is concerned about the cost of the plan. The price of the amphibious assault ships that would be mandated to be nuclear-powered is $1.5 billion-plus each. Adding nuclear propulsion would raise the price by $800 million each. And there would be the tens of millions in cost for their eventual radioactive decontamination and disposal.

The US shipbuilding industry is worried about the impact on an industry already in precarious shape. Only two shipyards in the nation, Northrop Grumman’s Newport News, Virginia facility and General Dynamics’ Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut are certified to build nuclear-powered ships.

The push for nuclear-powered amphibious assault ships is being led by Representative Gene Taylor, chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. Taylor, a Democrat, also has in his Mississippi district a shipyard that is the major one for the construction of amphibious assault ships, Northrop Grumman’s Ship Systems facility in Pascagoula.

The rationale for the plan which his subcommittee had included in the act is, after its declaration that all new “assault echelon amphibious shipsˇmust be constructed with integrated nuclear power systems,” that “the future naval force should not be reliant on the availability of fossil fuel for fleet operations. Removing the need for access to fossil fuel sources significantly multiplies the effectiveness of the entire battle forces.”

The National Defense Authorization Bill of 2008 required that all new U.S. aircraft carriers, cruisers and submarines be nuclear-powered. Although there was some reluctance to this in the Senate, it passed and was signed by President Bush.

Dr. Ralph Herbert, professor emeritus of environmental studies at Long Island University, sees the Bush administration, ardent about all things nuclear, seeking nuclear power for amphibious assault ships, too, because “it wants to get as much nuclear as it can in the pipeline before it’s finished–it’s harder to get rid of once it’s in. The Bush administration will do anything it can to solidify its damage.”

The amphibious assault vessels to be built with nuclear power, if the Senate approves this year’s act, are those designated as LHA and LHD, ships with large flight decks for helicopters and vertical-take-off-and-landing airplanes, and the LPD, a smaller vessel mainly carrying landing craft and troops.

“The vessels’ position in combat canˇvary–from a ‘stand-off’ over-the-horizon location to be being moored to a pier in a combat zone,” noted The New Scientist, the British magazine, in a June 14 article on the plan. It added that “a US Navy website confirms that such ships “are designed to get in harm’s way.”

The Congressional Resource Service, in a December 2006 report to Congress, examined a variety of non-oil energy alternatives for Navy ships. Titled “Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use,” it considered “integrated electric-drive propulsion,” fuel cells, solar power, nuclear energy and various “synthetic fuels” especially “alternative hydrocarbon fuels.” It noted that the Navy “started making its own biodiesel fuel” in a pilot program in 2003.

This report said that “shifting” amphibious assault ships to using nuclear power “might make them potentially less welcome in the ports of countries with strong anti-nuclear sentiments” and “reduce the number of potentially suitable location for forward-homeporting the ships.”

A May 2008 Congressional Resource Service Report, “Navy Nuclear-Powered Surface Ships: Background Issues, and Options for Congress,” related that in the 1960s the Navy began building nuclear-powered cruisers and nine were constructed, indeed at one point Congress mandated it, but after 1975 “procurement of nuclear-powered cruisers was haltedˇdue toˇcosts.”

This report, in addressing environmental impacts, spoke of °ßthose associated with mining and processing uranium to fuel reactors, and with storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel cores, radioactive waste water from reactors, and the reactors and other radioactive components of retired nuclear-powered ships.°

Also, “a very serious accident involving a nuclear-powered Navy shipˇor a major enemy attack on a nuclear-powered Navy ship might damage the ship’s hull and reactor compartment enough to cause a release of radioactivity.”

Another issue involves nuclear proliferation. “Military reactor fuel,” said the New Scientist, “can reach 90 percent enrichment level.°® That is atomic bomb-grade. °ßThis could make reactor maintenance sites at U.S. bases in ports around the world a tempting target for any thief intent on making weapons-grade fuel for a bomb.°®

Obama Is Saying the Wrong Things about Afghanistan

July 29th, 2008 - by admin

Juan Cole / Salon.com – 2008-07-29 21:23:24

http:..www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/23/obama/

(July 23, 2008) — Barack Obama’s Afghanistan and Iraq policies are mirror images of each other. Obama wants to send 10,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan, but wants to withdraw all American soldiers and Marines from Iraq on a short timetable. In contrast to the kid gloves with which he treated the Iraqi government, Obama repeated his threat to hit at al-Qaida in neighboring Pakistan unilaterally, drawing howls of outrage from Islamabad.

But Obama’s pledge to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan will not be easy to fulfill. While coalition troop deaths have declined significantly in Iraq, NATO casualties in Afghanistan are way up. By shifting emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan, would a President Obama be jumping from the frying pan into the fire?

During the Baghdad stop of his ongoing overseas tour, the convergence between the worldview of the presumptive Democratic nominee and that of his Iraqi hosts provided some embarrassing moments for the Bush administration. Obama and his traveling companions, Senate colleagues Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., issued a statement Tuesday after a day of consultations with Iraqi politicians and US military commanders, affirming the need to respect Iraqi aspirations for a “timeline, with a clear date, for the redeployment of American combat forces.”

By then, in an interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had already expressed support for Obama’s proposal to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration next January.

Although al-Maliki’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, attempted to soothe ruffled GOP feathers by suggesting the Der Spiegel interview was mistranslated, al-Dabbagh came clean while Obama was in Baghdad on Monday. He confirmed that the Iraqi government hoped US troops would be withdrawn within two years. Obama was thus able, in his joint statement with Reed and Hagel, to cite Iraqi attitudes for his own stance: “The prime minister … stated his hope that US combat forces could be out of Iraq in 2010.”

In general, Obama’s policies toward Iraq synchronize neatly with the aspirations of the Shiite-dominated elected Iraqi government, with an affirmation of the need to gain the consent of the Iraqis for any status-of-forces agreement with the US, and with a far greater emphasis on addressing the humanitarian crisis provoked by the US invasion. On leaving al-Maliki’s office, Obama was able to call his consultations with the prime minister “very constructive.”

By comparison, Obama’s criticisms of Bush administration policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his determination to make those countries the centerpiece of his foreign policy, are more problematic. Obama’s determination to put down the tribal insurgencies in northwestern Pakistan and in southern Afghanistan reveals basic contradictions in his announced policies. His plans certainly have the potential to ruffle Afghan and Pakistani feathers, and have already done so in Pakistan.

On July 13, Obama criticized Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai on CNN, saying, “I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped organize Afghanistan and [the] government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence.” Although the remark had the potential to make for awkward moments between Karzai and Obama during their meeting Sunday, it was welcomed by the independent Afghan press, which applauded the senator for bucking the “self-centered” policies of Bush and his knee-jerk support of Karzai.

After Obama met with Karzai, reporters asked his aide, Humayun Hamidzada, if the criticism had come up. He tried to put the best face on issue, saying the Afghan government did not see the comment as critical, but as a fair observation, since it had in fact been tied down fighting terrorism.

Less forgiving were the politicians in Pakistan, who reacted angrily to Obama’s comments on unilaterally attacking targets inside that country. The Democratic presidential hopeful told CBS on Sunday, “What I’ve said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaida targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should.” He added that he would put pressure on Islamabad to move aggressively against terrorist training camps in the country’s northwestern tribal areas.

Pakistan, a country of 165 million people, is composed of six major ethnic groups, one of them the Pashtuns of the northwest. The Pakistani Taliban are largely drawn from this group. The more settled Pashtun population is centered in the North-West Frontier province, with its capital at Peshawar. Between the NWFP and Afghanistan are badlands administered rather as Native American reservations are in the US, called the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, with a population of some 3 million. These areas abut Pashtun provinces of Afghanistan, also a multiethnic society, but one in which Pashtuns are a plurality.

The tribal Pashtuns of the FATA no man’s land, a third of which is classified as “inaccessible” by the Pakistani government, have sometimes given shelter to al-Qaida or Afghan Taliban militants. Some of the Pashtun tribesmen themselves have turned militant, and have been responsible for suicide bombings at police checkpoints inside Pakistan. They are also accused of attacking targets across the border in Afghanistan and of giving refuge to Afghan Taliban who conduct cross-border raids.

The governor of the North-West Frontier province, Owais Ghani, immediately spoke out against Obama, saying that the senator’s remarks had the effect of undermining the new civilian government elected last February. Ghani warned that a US incursion into the northwestern tribal areas would have “disastrous” consequences for the globe.

The governor underlined that a “war on terrorism” policy depended on popular support for it, and that such support was being leeched away by US strikes on the Pakistan side of the border and by statements such as Obama’s. A recent American attack mistakenly killed Pakistani troops who had been sent to fight the Pakistani Taliban at American insistence. The Pakistani public was furious. Ghani complained, “Candidate Obama gave these statements; I come out openly and say such statements undermine support, don’t do it.”

The NWFP governor is responsible for Pakistani counterinsurgency efforts in his province and in the neighboring tribal regions. He is well thought of in Pakistan because of his successes in Baluchistan province, which he governed for five years prior to January of this year, where he combined political negotiations with militants and targeted military action when he felt it necessary. He firmly subordinated the military strategy to civilian politics and negotiations. That is, Ghani is a politician with long experience in dealing with tribal insurgencies.

Obama’s aggressive stance, on the other hand, could be counterproductive. The Illinois senator had praised the Pakistani elections of last February, issuing a statement the next day saying, “Yesterday, a moderate majority of the Pakistani people made their voices heard, and chose a new direction.” He criticized the Bush administration, saying US interests would be better served by “advancing the interests of the Pakistani people, not just Pakistan’s president.”

Yet the parties elected in February in Pakistan are precisely the ones demanding negotiations with the tribes and militants of the northwest, rather than frontal military assaults. Indeed, it is the Bush administration that has pushed for military strikes in the FATA areas. Obama will have to decide whether he wants to risk undermining the elected government and perhaps increasing the power of the military by continuing to insist loudly and publicly on unilateral US attacks on Pakistani territory.

Nor is it at all clear that sending more US troops to southern Afghanistan can resolve the problem of the resurgence of the Taliban there. American and NATO search-and-destroy missions alienate the local population and fuel, rather than quench, the insurgency. Resentment over US airstrikes on innocent civilians and wedding parties is growing. Brazen attacks on US forward bases and on institutions such as the prison in the southern city of Kandahar are becoming more frequent.

To be sure, Obama advocates combining counterinsurgency military operations with development aid and attention to resolving the problem of poppy cultivation. (Afghani poppies are turned into heroin for the European market, and the profits have fueled some of the Taliban’s resurgence.) Stepped-up military action, however, is still the central component of his plan.

Before he jumps into Afghanistan with both feet, Obama would be well advised to consult with another group of officers. They are the veterans of the Russian campaign in Afghanistan. Russian officers caution that Afghans cannot be conquered, as the Soviets attempted to do in the 1980s with nearly twice as many troops as NATO and the US now have in the country, and with three times the number of Afghan troops as Karzai can deploy.

Afghanistan never fell to the British or Russian empires at the height of the age of colonialism. Conquering the tribal forces of a vast, rugged, thinly populated country proved beyond their powers. It may also well prove beyond the powers even of the energetic and charismatic Obama.

In Iraq, he is listening to what the Iraqis want. In Pakistan, he is simply dictating policy in a somewhat bellicose fashion, and ignoring the wishes of those moderate parties whose election he lauded last February.

Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

George Bush Blasted by Pakistan PM

July 29th, 2008 - by admin

Bruce Loudon / The Australia – 2008-07-29 21:20:27

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24097692-2703,00.html

WASHINGTON (July 30, 2008) — Pakistan’s Prime Minister lashed out at George W. Bush during talks in Washington yesterday, “reproaching” the US President over a US Hellfire drone missile strike inside Pakistani territory only hours before the leaders met.

The missile strike that reportedly killed an al-Qa’ida chemical and biological weapons expert came hours before new Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani met Mr Bush and warned him not to launch “unilateral” strikes on Pakistani soil.

Speaking immediately after his meeting with the US President, Mr Gilani said: “This action should not have been taken by the United States. It’s our job because we are fighting the war for ourselves.”

If the missile strike was proven to have been a US operation, it would be a violation of Pakistani sovereignty, he said.
“Basically, Americans are a little impatient. Therefore in the future I think we’ll have more co-operation on the intelligence side and we’ll do the job ourselves,” Mr Gilani said.

But US officials strongly defended the missile strike that was claimed to have killed Abu Khabab al-Masri, al-Qa’ida’s Egyptian-born chemical and biological weapons expert.

Mr Gilani, who has been under pressure to do more to combat al-Qa’ida and Taliban militants in Pakistan, told reporters after his meeting at the White House that Pakistan was committed to fighting extremists.

“We are committed to fight against those extremists and terrorists who are destroying and making the world not safe,” Mr Gilani said.

Pakistan has been a key US ally in the war on terror since the September 11, 2001, attacks and has received an estimated $10 billion in mostly military aid over the past six years.

But Mr Gilani’s remarks revealed the growing tension between Islamabad and Washington over how to tackle the militants, many of whom have been sheltering in northern Pakistan since being driven out of Afghanistan by a US-led invasion in late 2001.

Concerned about mounting NATO casualties in Afghanistan, the US has been pressing Pakistan for months to take more direct action to prevent the militants from making incursions over the Afghan border.

But Pakistan is reluctant to anger its mostly Muslim population and to complicate relations with the independence-minded Pashtun tribesmen who populate the frontier with Afghanistan. Since coming to power in February elections, the Pakistani Government has negotiated ceasefire agreements with the militants that US officials fear will give them time to regroup.

So in recent months, the US has increased the frequency of its missile attacks on militant targets in Pakistan – many of them using remotely piloted Predator drones.

Most have been with the tacit permission of Islamabad, but Pakistani officials complain that several have been conducted without their prior knowledge.

Mr Bush stressed after his meeting with Mr Gilani that the US respected Pakistan’s sovereignty.

“The US, I repeat, respects the sovereignty of this democracy. And we also appreciate the Prime Minister’s strong words against the extremists and terrorists who not only would do us harm but have harmed people inside, in Pakistan,” Mr Bush said.

Mr Bush called Pakistan a “strong ally” and said he had received a “strong commitment” from Mr Gilani that Pakistan would try “as best as possible” to prevent militants from crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

Pakistani security officials last night were still trying to check reports that the suspected US missile strike had killed Masri.
The death of Masri would be the most significant blow against al-Qa’ida’s leadership in at least six months. The Egyptian-born chemical engineer is believed to have trained a generation of al-Qa’ida fighters in bombmaking and has a $5 million bounty on his head.

Similar reports of his death in 2006 turned out to be unfounded.

Bruce Loudon is the South Asia correspondent for The Australian. Additional reporting: The Times

Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

Archives by Month:

 

 

Stay Connected
Sign up to receive our weekly updates. We promise not to sell, trade or give away your email address.
Email Address:
Full Name:
 

Home | Say NO! To War | Action! | Information | Media Center | Who We Are