Monday, July 30, 2007

Bush Wants Terrorism Law Updated

DEB RIECHMANN
AP
Sunday July 29, 2007

President Bush wants Congress to modernize a law that governs how intelligence agencies monitor the communications of suspected terrorists.

"This law is badly out of date," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, provides a legal foundation that allows information about terrorists' communications to be collected without violating civil liberties.

Democrats want to ensure that any changes do not give the executive branch unfettered surveillance powers.

Bush noted that terrorists now use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate, recruit operatives and plan attacks; such tools were not available when FISA passed nearly 30 years ago. He also cited a recently released intelligence estimate that concluded al-Qaida is using its growing strength in the Middle East to plot attacks on U.S. soil.

"Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country," Bush said. "Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Bush was trying to exploit the threat from al-Qaida to push the bill. Feingold said the measure was an "egregious power grab that includes broad new powers that have nothing to do with bringing FISA up to date."

The 1978 law set up a court that meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the National Security Agency and other agencies for warrants to wiretap or search the homes of people in the United States in terrorist or espionage cases.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to spy on calls between people in the U.S. and suspected terrorists abroad without FISA court warrants. The administration said it needed to act more quickly than the court could. It also said the president had inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.

After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush put it under FISA court supervision this year.

The national intelligence director, in a letter Wednesday to the House intelligence committee, stressed the need to be able to collect intelligence about foreign terrorists overseas. Mike McConnell said intelligence agencies should be able to do that without requirements imposed by an "out of date" law.

"Simply put, in a significant number of cases, we are in the unfortunate position of having to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located overseas," he wrote the committee chairman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

Reyes said Saturday that the committee is intently focused on the issue.

"If changes to the law are required, we are prepared to do so," Reyes said. "We are actively working with the administration on any emergency requirements they may have. However, we want to avoid repeating the mistakes made by rushing the Patriot Act into law."

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, contends the White House is asking for more power to conduct warrantless domestic and international surveillance.

"The administration claims the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must be 'modernized.' Actually, it needs to be followed," she said. "The reality is, their proposal would gut FISA."

The ACLU said the legislation backed by the administration would give immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability for the telecommunication companies that participate in the NSA program. The ACLU urged lawmakers to find out the full extent of current intelligence gathering under FISA before making changes.

"The only thing more outrageous than the administration's call for even more unfettered power is a Congress that would consider giving it to them," Frederickson said.

The House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, said Democrats are delaying necessary changes.

"Rather than learning the lessons of September 11 _ that we need to break down the bureaucratic impediments to intelligence collection and analysis _ Democrats have stonewalled Republican attempts to modernize FISA and close the terrorist loophole," he said Saturday.

Clinton heckled during speech

CNN
Monday July 30, 2007

Speaking before an audience of college Democrats on Saturday, Senator Hillary Clinton was interrupted by a heckler. An older woman carrying a sign that read, “She doesn’t care, all she wants is the power” yelled at Clinton as she spoke. Several Clinton supporters in the audience returned shouts to the protestor and pushed her out of the room.

“One of the things I love about politics, you never know what the day will bring,” Clinton said.

Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, delivered remarks to the College Democrats of America National Convention. It was held on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia, South Carolina.

Fellow competitors for the Democratic nomination, Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel also addressed the group Saturday.

And Then There Was One, The Final Holdout: 9-11

Reggie, Contributing Editor
TvNewsLIES.org
Monday July 30, 2007

Not to worry, this is not about truth seekers or conspiracy theories. It’s not about the long list of anomalies and discrepancies in the official story of 9/11. It’s not even about the undeniable fact that the events of 9/11 gave George Bush and his handlers the keys to the neocon kingdom of empire. It really is not.

What it’s about is the strangest phenomenon I can recall in my entire adult life. It’s about what I perceive to be an extraordinary lapse in the logic of millions of otherwise sensible Americans. And it’s about something I cannot wrap my mind around, no matter how I try. Maybe someone out there can help me understand what’s going on.

In preface, let me also say that this is not about being uninformed. Granted, the corporate media have suppressed any discussion, debate or investigative reporting about the attacks on the United States that purportedly ‘changed everything.’ That reality aside, even the most fawn-like pundits on the airwaves understand that the ship of state is sinking, and that it is time to challenge the lies of this administration. But, it seems that lie after lie has become fair game for disclosure, or at least for some discussion at this point. As a result, each day, the American people in larger and larger numbers understand that they have been taken for a terrible and costly ride by the lies they were told by this President and his cohorts.

That is, every lie but one.

Finally, nearly seven years after a stolen election that was itself based on lies, greater numbers of Americans are no longer blindly accepting the talking points emanating from the White House as the Gospel truth. In more and more media outlets the Bush lies are openly being identified as such, - rather than by every other euphemism meant to soften the ugliness of a government lying to its people. If people are not totally convinced, at least they hear debates and discussions and competing viewpoints. If nothing else, they are beginning to have doubts about the daily mantras that had them mesmerized for so long.

So let’s take a look at just the short list of these lies, so as better to understand my dilemma about the lone holdout: 9/11. Bear with me:

At this point in time, many, if not most Americans know that the men and women in the Bush White House clearly and deliberately LIED to them, both by omission and commission about:

- The Bush connection to the bin Laden family.

- Escorting dozens of members of the bin Laden family out of US after 9/11

- The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11

- The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars

- A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror

- Regular, politically timed terror alerts

- Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11

- The ‘junk science’ of Global Warming and its effects around the globe

- WH orders to suppress and politicize reports on by the Surgeon General

- Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11

- Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD

- Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda

- Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11

- Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors

- Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peace

- Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform

- Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time

- Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq

- The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue

- The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch

- The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire

- Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens

- Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan

- Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture

- Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative

- White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors…

There are so many more lies to list, but I think you get the idea.

Am I wrong to believe that in any other life situation there would be a different reaction to a series of important lies? If you became aware that your plumber or your neighbor or your doctor, or anyone at all in your life lied to you over and over and over about issues that were relevant to your well being, would you ever again believe ANYTHING that person said to you? I really don’t think so.

So, after becoming aware of lie after lie after lie by Bushco, why would anyone in his or her right mind FULLY EMBRACE THE OFFICIAL STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11 WITHOUT A SINGLE QUESTION? Why would anyone in the United Sates of America conclude that the official version of the most important event in recent American history AS TOLD BY PROVEN LIARS is true?

Help me out here, please.

It makes no sense to me at all. Especially, since the most telling part of all this illogic is this: NONE OF THE LIES ON THE ABOVE LIST WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY OR EVEN POSSIBLE WERE IT NOT FOR AN UNSWERVING ACCEPTANCE BY MOST AMERICANS OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11.

Bottom line: I fully understand how difficult it is to believe anything other than the official government story of 9/11. The editor of TvNewsLIES.org has examined the reasons behind the refusal of so many Americans to believe the mounds of evidence that challenge the credibility of the story we have been told. Fine and good.

But, frankly, for the purpose of this article, your personal opinion about who was responsible for 9/11 is irrelevant. It makes no difference at all. What matters is that we examine the strange illogic that stops millions of Americans from questioning a possible lie – one that may matter more than any other. These same Americans now seem willing to openly question many of the lies that are told and repeated ad nauseam by the President and his clan. They are now for more skeptical about their messages and far more hesitant to believe anything George W. Bush tells them in his speeches and press conferences.

But they still will not consider for a moment that the official story of 9/11 as told by this lying government may also be a lie. Ergo, the illogic I cannot understand..

The official story of 9/11 has been told by professional, experienced, and successful liars.
Think about that as you try to explain the need to believe it.

Maybe it will take another 9/11, as we’ve recently been warned may happen very soon, to convince Americans that the most egregious and damaging of all the lies told by the Bush administration must not remain off limits.

We really have few choices left. We have to reach that logical moment when we can openly discuss and debate and examine the available information about 9/11, no matter what the outcome may be. We have to retrieve our collective abilities to examine the events of that day. Perhaps, then, we finally can say about the lies we have heard….:

…and then there were none.

Soltz: Bush Needs To Resolve Whether Pat Tillman Was Killed For His Political Views

Think Progress
Monday July 30, 2007

Yesterday, Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz wrote on ThinkProgress about Pat Tillman: “Was the man the White House used to promote the war ordered to be killed because he was becoming increasingly critical of the war in Iraq?”

Last night on MSNBC’s Countdown, host Keith Olbermann noted that “Corporal Tillman held a number of personal views that were unpopular within the context of the Bush administration, perhaps also within the Army.” Tillman reportedly favored John Kerry in the presidential election, opposed the invasion of Iraq, and had plans to meet with Noam Chomsky.

The Associated Press reported that in the last moments before Tillman died, another soldier was hugging the ground at Tillman’s side, and Tillman said, “Would you shut your [expletive] mouth? God’s not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling –”

The question of whether Tillman was killed for his political views lingers greater than ever. Appearing on MSNBC’s Countdown, Soltz said:

We know he was a free thinker. But it leads you to think was this guy killed possibly by people that didn’t like his political views or was he killed accidentally? We had a time in the war when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April 2004 in Iraq; we had basically the Iraqi Tet offensive where the Shiite militias rose up and the contractors were burned at the stake; the President was facing the election and he decided not to go into Fallujah for six months. Did they use him to justify, politically, bad policy in Iraq?

Watch it:

The confluence of these factors intensify the need for openness. Despite being warned that Tillman may have died by friendly fire, Bush referenced Tillman in a 2004 speech but made no reference to how he died. The White house has cited executive privilege in refusing to turn over records that would verify how much Bush knew.

Soltz wrote on ThinkProgress that the longer this case lingers, the more damaging it will be to the military: “Those already in the military will lose faith that the leadership actually gives a damn about them, as the Tillman case becomes a hot topic in chow halls. Morale and confidence in the institution will crumble.”

UPDATE: Some commenters incorrectly understand Soltz’s argument to be that the White House had some involvement in or prior knowledge about the death. That is not what is being alleged. Rather, the question is whether Tillman’s political views played any role in motivating the person who shot him. And did the administration subsequently cover up the motive for Tillman’s death?

Administration looks to push through surveillance changes

CNN
Monday July 30, 2007

The Bush administration is looking to speed through a “significantly narrowed” group of changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before Congress leaves Washington for its August recess.

One of them would ensure U.S. authorities could intercept on communications between suspected terrorists overseas without a warrant when those communications — due to modern technology — may travel through a switch in the United States.

According to a letter obtained by CNN, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell informed House and Senate leaders Friday that the administration is willing to temporarily shelve the broader FISA reform plan it’s been advocating for months in order to immediately push through a smaller package of changes that would “close the critical gaps in our intelligence capability in the short-term.”

The letter describes an “urgent” need for the intelligence community to provide warnings.

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff told CNN this month that the United States has seen increased activity by al Qaeda and knows al Qaeda wants to launch an attack on the United States. He also noted that the group has launched attacks in various countries during the summer months. But intelligence officials have also told CNN there is no evidence suggesting a specific threat, and none suggesting the group is more likely to strike in the summer than at any other time.

McConnell wrote in his letter, “Although my strong preference is the immediate adoption of the proposal I transmitted to Congress in April, in light of the urgency of the situation, I offer the attached significantly narrowed proposal focused on the current urgent need of the Intelligence Community to provide warning.”

It was addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Friday, July 27, 2007

New Documents Shed Light On Tillman's Death

(AP) SAN FRANCISCO Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors -- whose names were blacked out -- said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.

The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Among other information contained in the documents:

-- In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

-- Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

-- The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.

-- No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene -- no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman's death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

With questions lingering about how high in the Bush administration the deception reached, Congress is preparing for yet another hearing next week.

The Pentagon is separately preparing a new round of punishments, including a stinging demotion of retired Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., 60, according to military officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the punishments under consideration have not been made public.

In more than four hours of questioning by the Pentagon inspector general's office in December 2006, Kensinger repeatedly contradicted other officers' testimony, and sometimes his own. He said on some 70 occasions that he did not recall something.

At one point, he said: "You've got me really scared about my brain right now. I'm really having a problem."

Tillman's mother, Mary Tillman, who has long suggested that her son was deliberately killed by his comrades, said she is still looking for answers and looks forward to the congressional hearings next week.

"Nothing is going to bring Pat back. It's about justice for Pat and justice for other soldiers. The nation has been deceived," she said.

The documents show that a doctor who autopsied Tillman's body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case.

"He said he talked to his higher headquarters and they had said no," the doctor testified.

Also according to the documents, investigators pressed officers and soldiers on a question Mrs. Tillman has been asking all along.

"Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?" an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott.

Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental.

Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked.

The documents also shed new light on Tillman's last moments.

It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who was at Tillman's side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" again and again.

But the latest documents give a different account from a chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman was killed.

The chaplain said that O'Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman's side, "crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

(© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. )

US astronauts 'flew while drunk'

US astronauts 'flew while drunk'
A panel reviewing health issues at Nasa has found that US astronauts have been allowed to fly while intoxicated at least twice, an aviation magazine says.

The panel also found heavy alcohol use within the 12-hour "bottle to throttle" ban for flight crew, according to Aviation Week and Space Technology.

The independent panel is due to present its findings later on Friday. Nasa has declined to comment on the allegations.

Separately, Nasa confirmed that a contractor had sabotaged a computer.

The damage to wiring in a network box - which is to be taken to the International Space Station (ISS) - was intentional and obvious, the agency said.

However, it stressed that the equipment was not essential and that astronauts' lives had not been at risk. An investigation is under way.

Warnings

Meanwhile the health panel is preparing to announce its conclusions.

It was set up following the arrest on kidnapping and assault charges of Nasa astronaut Lisa Nowak in February.


The damage is very obvious, easy to detect
William Gerstenmaier
Nasa Associate Administrator for Space Operations

She is accused of attacking her love rival, the girlfriend of a fellow astronaut.

The panel's findings do not deal with Ms Nowak directly or mention any other crew by name.

According to Aviation Week, the panel found that on at least two occasions astronauts flew after doctors and fellow astronauts had warned that they were intoxicated and posed a flight-safety risk.

The report did not say when the alleged incidents took place, or whether they involved pilots.

Regarding the sabotage allegations, Nasa's Associate Administrator for Space Operations, William Gerstenmaier, said the computer problem had been discovered earlier this month.

"The damage is very obvious, easy to detect," he told reporters on Thursday. "It's not a mystery to us."

Mr Gerstenmaier said wires had been found cut inside the unit before it had been loaded onto the shuttle.

The computer is designed to collect and relay data from sensors which detect vibrations and forces on the space station's external trusses.

The equipment had been supplied by a sub-contractor, he added.

Mr Gerstenmaier said engineers would try to repair the hardware before 7 August, when the space shuttle Endeavour is due to fly to ISS, but that the mission would not be delayed.

The damage is believed to be the first act of sabotage of flight equipment Nasa has discovered.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6918801.stm

Published: 2007/07/27 10:39:44 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Gorbachev: U.S. sowing world 'disorder'

Gorbachev: U.S. sowing world 'disorder'

Ex-Soviet premier blasts Bush as helping create ‘very dangerous’ situation
Reuters
Updated: 10:13 a.m. ET July 27, 2007

MOSCOW - Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev criticized the United States, and President Bush in particular, on Friday for sowing disorder across the world by seeking to build an empire.

Gorbachev, who presided over the break-up of the Soviet Union, said Washington had sought to build an empire after the Cold War ended but had failed to understand the changing world.

“The Americans then gave birth to the idea of a new empire, world leadership by a single power, and what followed?” Gorbachev asked reporters at a news conference in Moscow.

“What has followed are unilateral actions, what has followed are wars, what has followed is ignoring the U.N. Security Council, ignoring international law and ignoring the will of the people, even the American people,” he said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bush say they are friends but ties have been strained by U.S. plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, disagreements over Kosovo and the war in Iraq, and competition for allies in the former Soviet Union.

Rival and enemy?
Many Russians view the United States as a rival and enemy.

Gorbachev, 76, who left politics after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, is deeply unpopular in Russia. Though feted abroad, he is blamed in Russia for sinking the Soviet empire and plunging millions into poverty.

“When I look at today’s world I have a worrying feeling about the growth of world disorder,” he said.

“I don’t think the current president of the United States and his administration will be able to change the situation as it is developing now — it is very dangerous,” he said.

‘Massive strategic mistake’
Gorbachev said Russia’s hopes of building stronger ties with Washington had waned in the face of a series of U.S. administrations interested in building an empire.

“It is a massive strategic mistake: no single center can command the entire world, no one,” he said. “Current America has made so many mistakes.”

He said the U.S. administration was apparently unable to adapt to a swiftly changing world and had ignored — or was unable to see — the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China as economic heavyweights.

Treaties limiting the number of nuclear weapons should be observed, he said, adding that officials in Washington should be wary of sparking a new arms race.

Gorbachev, who became Soviet leader in 1985, battled against the conservative wing of the Communist Party to push through reforms that dismantled the one-party system, freed the press and ended restrictions on religion.

The father of “glasnost” (openness) said he supported Putin’s policies but that the pro-Kremlin United Russia party had eroded democratic rights.

He said Putin’s “seriousness” as a leader would be assured if he left office according to the constitution. Putin says he will leave office in 2008 after two terms in office.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19994563/

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

The EU constitution is back and more dangerous than ever!

DANIEL JOHNSON
UK Daily Mail
Wednesday July 25, 2007

Do you remember the European Constitution? Yes, the one rejected by the French and Dutch? That same European Constitution on which the Labour Government promised the British people a referendum before the last General Election?

Well, it's back with a vengeance. Like some old Hammer horror movie, the constitution has returned from the dead, now repackaged as a 'treaty'.

But the so-called 'new' EU Treaty has all the same ingredients as the old constitution. In fact, it was revealed yesterday that it is 96 per cent identical to the old constitution.

And so the response to this newly repackaged threat to British freedom and independence must be exactly the same: a referendum to give the people the final word.

As usual, our politicians in Westminster have woken up late to the full significance of the 16-page mandate that Tony Blair signed with a flourish at his swansong EU summit last month.

In contrast, the speed with which the Eurocrats have moved to head off any British objection to their power-grab has astonished political observers more accustomed to the leisurely habits of Brussels.

Over the years the EU, aided and abetted by our own Foreign Office, has given the impression that the process of what it terms 'pooling' sovereignty is inevitable. But the EU's notion of 'pooling' is suspiciously similar to what will actually renounce all individual sovereignty.

So, while our fresh-faced Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, was in Brussels on Monday to launch the Intergovernmental Conference that will decide the exact wording of the new treaty, the first stirrings of resistance could be heard in London.

William Hague, who has done a good job of stiffening David Cameron's backbone on Europe, gave a speech yesterday in which he renewed the call to 'trust the people' with a referendum on the new treaty. The Tories seem to have woken up to their duty to defend British democracy.

Similarly, the Commons European scrutiny committee has belatedly sounded the alarm at the proposed wording of the treaty that purports to tell the British Parliament what to do. The treaty text reads: 'National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union.'

Rightly, the committee is worried that these words would be interpreted by unelected European judges to force our elected representatives to put the interests of the EU above those of the member states. Parliament would be reduced to the status of a regional assembly.

Such a loss of parliamentary sovereignty is incompatible with Gordon Brown's promise to restore Parliament to its past glory. But even if Mr Brown tries to renegotiate the draft text to neuter its proposed powers, other member states will try to block him.

And the more closely the Prime Minister examines the text of the proposed treaty he has inherited from Mr Blair, the more worried he should be. Apart from a few trivial changes in wording - instead of a European Foreign Minister, for example, we will have a 'High Representative' - the treaty incorporates virtually the entire constitution.

On defence and foreign affairs, for example, it reads: 'The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security.'

Meaning that its explicit aim is a common EU defence policy that would undermine Parliament's right to decide when to go to war: a centrepiece of Mr Brown's programme of legislation.

It is the same story across the entire spectrum covered by the treaty, from immigration to the environment. Out goes the free market and in comes the 'social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, with a high level of protection'.

If anyone doubts this treaty is simply the old discredited constitution under another name, they need only listen to an architect of the constitution, former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

He has admitted that the changes made were 'few and far between, and more cosmetic than real'. The term 'constitution' was dropped simply to 'make a few people happy'.

This time, not content with allowing other member states to accelerate the creation of the superstate, the treaty would let the EU kick out countries that rock the boat. It isn't hard to guess which nation the gentlemen in Brussels have in mind.

Britain still sees its role in the world very differently from its Continental neighbours. For all the bonhomie between Mr Brown and President Nicolas Sarkozy at their meeting in Paris last week, the British and the French do not see eye to eye on Europe.

Mr Sarkozy has no intention of giving his voters a chance to reject the treaty for a second time. Nor does the Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, who has ruled out such a vote.

So this time Mr Brown will not be able to rely on continental voters to save him the trouble of holding a referendum. If the British don't want to be part of a European superstate, they will have to force their leaders to grant them a vote.

That is why Mr Hague's speech was so vital. Unless at least one of our major parties is serious about a referendum, it is not going to happen.

But if Mr Hague can rally the Tories behind the cross-party campaign for a referendum, then it will acquire the momentum it needs to force the Government to give the people a say.

After all, we have come to a crossroads in our relations with the EU. This treaty marks the point of no return - the point at which the British must decide who they are.

Do they wish to be submerged in what the EU Commission President JosÈ Manuel Barroso calls the 'empire' of Europe? Or do they want to continue as an independent nation state?

The leader who dares to tell us the truth about the choice we face on Europe will transform the political landscape. If David Cameron were to put half as much effort into the referendum campaign as he does into more modish causes, he might soon restore some of his flagging fortunes.

We should be grateful to William Hague for putting the issue back at the centre of Westminster debate.

While Europe may not be a fashionable issue, like climate change or poverty in Africa, it is the key to all the others. Once Britain has lost the power to control its own destiny, it won't matter what other policies future governments adopt.

Already up to 70 per cent of our legislation comes from the EU. Unless this treaty is stopped, the nation that gave freedom, democracy and the rule of law to the world will wake up to find that it has forfeited all three.

It takes a statesman to tell people things that they do not want to hear. In 1941 Winston Churchill told the Commons the British people are 'unique in this respect. They are the only people who like to be told how bad things are, who like to be told the worst'.

Whatever Euro-fanatics may say about him, Churchill's instincts and actions were those of a British patriot - one of the greatest who ever lived.

Our leaders should follow his example, and come clean with the electorate about the extent to which the powers delegated to them by the people have been lost to Europe - before the loss becomes irrevocable.

The Police State Takeover Of Schools

Conditioning the kids for their future on the global plantation

Steve Watson
Infowars.net

Tues
day, July 24, 2007






Schools have become hi-tech prisons. Children all across America and the UK are being conditioned to accept that they are not free and that they must submit to draconian laws and measures for their own safety. Soon enough children will not even know what it is like to act as a private individual within society. Don't believe this? Read on.

All over the United States and Britain children are increasingly being subjected to measures that wouldn't look out of place in maximum security prisons.

Everyday we post reports from mainstream news sources documenting this disturbing trend.

Today The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that schools across America are banning backpacks that are made of non see-through materials .

If students walking between classes want to use a backpack, it must be made of clear plastic or mesh so its contents can be seen at a glance. Cloth backpacks can be carried into the school in the morning but must be stored in lockers.

So the students should all now feel much safer due to the fact that they can all see each other's personal items right? Wrong.

The move has unleashed a torrent of protest from some Wissahickon students, who say high schools are coming to resemble "prisons or police states," in the words of one. Brandon Hemmen, a senior, said the clear bags will make it easy for thieves who already rip off students every day. And "bags will get mixed up; we'll have to use name tags," he added. "This is wrong. They can't take all our freedoms away."

A second item today comes from Security tech website Security Park which reports that Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania is to deliver the convenience and security of contactless payments by cell phone to students and the faculty.

Beginning in July, Slippery Rock University's 8,500 students, faculty and staff will receive a new official campus ID card and a separate contactless token designed for use with their mobile phones.

Using either the card or the phone, they will be able to make payments at on-campus locations as well as participating merchants in the surrounding community....

The new mobile phone tokens incorporate the same standards-based contactless technology (ISO 14443) used worldwide by MasterCard, Visa and leading card issuers in the payment and identity sectors.

Good, prepare the kids first and then bring in the cashless society nationwide, with an ID card of course, which you will need to be able to buy and sell. We have long warned of the dangers of a cashless society putting total control into the hands of state regulated and private corporations and the break down of basic freedoms that it encompasses.

Still don't feel there is anything to worry about in schools?

Do a prisonplanet.com google search on the word "school", you will be confronted with literally hundreds and hundreds of news articles from the past few years that detail the police state takeover of schools all over the US and throughout the UK.

There are far too many to mention, however, a quick overview of linked headlines follows.

Fingerprinting, Iris Recognition and biometric hand scanners in schools

Children as young as five to be fingerprinted in schools

High school in Irvine drops plan to scan fingerprints

Children tricked into giving fingerprints... by headmaster

Iris recognition added to school security

Hand scanners to keep tabs on students at Boca middle school

Cameras in school halls, school bathrooms and school buses

School puts CCTV in toliets to beat bullies

More Cameras Used In School Bathrooms

Big Brother To Monitor High Schools

U.S. schools resort to security cameras

School buses may get spy cams

Cameras let police peer down high school halls

Kids Being Conditioned To Big Brother and Police State

RFID tracking devices, microchips and GPS tracking devices for students

Mandatory Student ID Cards Contain RFIDs

Privacy Advocate Feels Student Radio Tracking System Sets Bad Precedent

Buffalo children tracked by plastic cards with embedded RFID microchips

School district considers GPS tracking for buses

School daypack features satellite tracking

Armed police raids, sniffer dogs, use of tasers, handcuffs, and other police state measures in schools

Schools may use spray to trace kids' drug use

Drug dogs could be checking schools

Officer Shows Up To School Because Of 8-Year-Old's Overdue Books

Students handcuffed at elementary school

5-year-old is handcuffed at school

Fall River police handcuff 7-year-old outside his elementary school

planetarabia.com No homework Tell it to the judge

Tasers in schools trigger disputes

St. Paul police add Tasers to school patrols

Taser Used To Break Up School Fight

Officer's Taser is used on girl, 9

Police used Taser gun to subdue 6-year-old student wielding piece of glass

School official asks police to stop Tasers

Armed Men Terrorize School

Goose Creek Police tape prompts questions on school raid

Little cop lesson: Students participate in mock raid

Fla. Student Shot by SWAT Team Member

School District Demands Biometric Data From Parents In Return Parents Get Access To Children

School Says Police, Social Services Will Snatch Kids Of Late Parents

These are not isolated incidents, I could have posted hundreds under each category.

Our Schools and institutes of higher education are now total breeding grounds for the big brother police state. Kids are conditioned from day one to accept surveillance and draconian security policies as the norm.

The youth are being indoctrinated to accept the fact that they must swipe or be scanned to have access to buildings or books. In schools it is now normal to be chipped, tagged, tracked, traced and filmed by cameras at all times, while having all items on their person in clear view to everyone.

There is also a dangerous precedent being set whereby kids are made to feel important if they carry a card or a chip. They can gain access to places other people cannot go, open doors electronically and have the use of superior resources. In actual fact the technology given to them merely tracks their every move and is nothing more than a form of control.

By the time students leave education and move into the wider world, encountering surveillance technology everywhere, they are completely unfazed and totally conditioned to it.

In even more alarming circumstances armed SWAT teams are busting into lessons for children barely out of Kindergarten in "mock" raids while parents are having to give their biometric data in order to pick their children up from school, if they are not late that is, in which case the CPS may already have grabbed the kids.

Do you know what big brother measures are already in place in your child's school? Are you a teacher in a school that has been overrun by Orwellian technology? It is clearly up to parents and teachers to do something about this if not for the sake of their own freedom then for the freedom of their children.

Airports warned about terror dry runs

MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
AP
Wednesday July 25, 2007

Airport security officers around the nation have been alerted by federal officials to look out for terrorists practicing to carry explosive components onto aircraft, based on four curious seizures at airports since last September.

The unclassified alert was distributed on July 20 by the Transportation Security Administration to federal air marshals, its own transportation security officers and other law enforcement agencies.

The seizures at airports in San Diego, Milwaukee, Houston and Baltimore included "wires, switches, pipes or tubes, cell phone components and dense clay-like substances," including block cheese, the bulletin said. "The unusual nature and increase in number of these improvised items raise concern."

Security officers were urged to keep an eye out for "ordinary items that look like improvised explosive device components."

The 13-paragraph bulletin was posted on the Internet by NBC Nightly News, which first reported the story.

A federal official familiar with the document confirmed the authenticity of the NBC posting but declined to be identified by name because it has not been officially released.

"There is no credible, specific threat here," TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said Tuesday. "Don't panic. We do these things all the time."

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke described the notice as the latest copy of a routine informational bulletin for TSA workers, airport employees and law enforcement officials.

A statement posted late Tuesday by the TSA on its Web site confirmed that "a routine TSA intelligence bulletin relating to suspicious incidents at U.S. airports" had leaked to news organizations. The statement added, "During the past six months TSA has produced more than 90 unclassified bulletins of this nature on a wide variety of security-related subjects."

The bulletin said the a joint FBI-Homeland Security Department assessment found that terrorists have conducted probes, dry runs and dress rehearsals in advance of previous attacks.

It cited various types of rehearsals conducted by terrorists before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; the July 7, 2005, London subway bombings; the Aug. 2, 2006, London-based plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights using liquid explosives and the 1994 Bojinka plot in the Philippines to blow up multiple airliners over the Pacific Ocean.

The bulletin said the passengers carrying the suspicious items seized since September included men and women and that initial investigation had not linked them with criminal or terrorist organizations. But it added that most of their explanations for carrying the items were suspicious and some were still under investigation.

The four seizures were described this way:

• San Diego, July 7. A U.S. person — either a citizen or a foreigner legally here — checked baggage containing two ice packs covered in duct tape. The ice packs had clay inside them rather than the normal blue gel.

• Milwaukee, June 4. A U.S. person's carryon baggage contained wire coil wrapped around a possible initiator, an electrical switch, batteries, three tubes and two blocks of cheese. The bulletin said block cheese has a consistency similar to some explosives.

• Houston, Nov. 8, 2006. A U.S. person's checked baggage contained a plastic bag with a 9-volt battery, wires, a block of brown clay-like minerals and pipes.

• Baltimore, Sept. 16, 2006. A couple's checked baggage contained a plastic bag with a block of processed cheese taped to another plastic bag holding a cellular phone charger.

Report: George W. Bush's Grandfather Plotted Fascist Coup to Overthrow America

New investigation sheds light on clique of powerbrokers, including Prescott Bush, who sought to overthrow U.S. government and implement Hitlerian policies Prison Planet | July 24, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

A BBC Radio 4 investigation sheds new light on a major subject that has received little historical attention, the conspiracy on behalf of a group of influential powerbrokers, led by Prescott Bush, to overthrow FDR and implement a fascist dictatorship in the U.S. based around the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler.



General Smedley Butler, author of the famous quote "war is a racket", exposed the fascist plotters but was subsequently demonized and shunned by the government and the media.

In 1933, Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler was approached by a wealthy and secretive group of industrialists and bankers, including Prescott Bush the current President's grandfather, who asked him to command a 500,000 strong rogue army of veterans that would help stage a coup to topple then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

According to the BBC , the plotters intended to impose a fascist takeover and "Adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."

The conspirators were operating under the umbrella of a front group called the American Liberty League, which included many families that are still household names today, including Heinz, Colgate, Birds Eye and General Motors.

Butler played along with the clique to determine who was involved but later blew the whistle and identified the ringleaders in testimony given to the House Committee on un-American Activities.

However, the Committee refused to even question any of the individuals named by Butler and his testimony was omitted from the record, leading to charges that they were involved in covering the matter up, and the majority of the media blackballed the story.

In 1936, William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in which he stated,

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."

The proven record of Prescott Bush's involvement in financing the Nazi war machine dovetails with the fact that he was part of a criminal cabal that actively sought to impose a fascist coup in America.

Prescott did not succeed but many would argue that two generations down the line the mission has all but been accomplished.

In his documentary film Martial Law , Alex Jones interviews John Buchanan, who was instrumental in uncovering the documents tying Prescott Bush to the financing of the Third Reich. Watch a clip above. The subject is also covered in Alex's upcoming film, End Game, which includes rare video of Smedley Butler's testimony.

Click here to listen to the BBC Radio 4 investigation.

Controversial 9/11 professor fired

Al Jazeera.net
Wednesday July 25, 2007

An American university has sacked a professor who compared some of victims of the September 11 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre to a Nazi war criminal.

Ward Churchill, fired by the University of Colorado on Tuesday, had been accused of plagarism and research misconduct over some of his earlier work.

Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the state-funded university, said in an interview that the allegations were a pretext to remove him because of his unpopular views.

"I'm not a martyr or a victim, but certainly a target," he said.

But three faculty committees had accused Churchill of falsification and other misconduct regarding some of his earlier writings, though the investigation only began after the controversy over his September 11 essay.

Hank Brown, the university president, said there had been little choice but to fire Churchill to protect the integrity of the university's research.

"The decision was really pretty basic," he said. "The individual [Churchill] did not express regret, did not apologise, did not indicate a willingness to refrain from this type of falsification in the future."

The allegations against Churchill included claiming the work of a Canadian environmental group as his own, misrepresenting the effects of federal laws on American Indians and fabricating evidence that the army deliberately spread smallpox to Mandan Indians in 1837.

His September 11 essay, Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, was not part of the investigation.

Controversy

That essay, along with a follow-up book, argued that the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Centre was a response to a long history of US abuses.

He said that some of those killed in the attack were "a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire", calling them "little Eichmanns", referring to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi bureaucrat involved in the persecution of the Jews and the Holocaust.

Churchill explained that while Eichmann carried out policies planned by others, he was still responsible for his own actions.

Later, he conceded that the analogy was an "ill-designed rhetorical device", but continued to conclude that the attack was understandable, given US foreign policy in the Middle East.

The essay cause uproar and prompted some, including Bill Owens, then governor of Colorado, to call for Churchill to be sacked.

University officials said Churchill's writing was protected speech under the First Amendment, but launched an investigation into his research in other work.

David Lane, Churchill's lawyer, said that the decision was retribution for Churchill's September 11 remarks and that he would file suit on Wednesday.


CIA Bin Laden Chief: Next Attack ‘Bigger Than 9/11'

Dave Eberhart
Newsmax
Wednesday July 25, 2007

If al-Qaida does launch an attack inside the U.S., as the U.S. government suggests, "it will be much bigger than 9/11."

This prediction of a nightmarish terror attack comes from Michael Scheuer, the retired CIA veteran who headed the agency's secret unit dedicated to capturing Osama bin Laden.

In an exclusive NewsMax interview, the 22-year CIA veteran and bestselling author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror," argues that while our government in Washington has talked a "good talk" about security, America remains seriously vulnerable.

Despite the clear and present danger, Scheuer cites the federal government's failure to secure the borders, especially the U.S.-Mexico border.

"We haven't done the basic things that were needed on 9/11 to protect Americans to the greatest extent possible – and that is domestic border control," he says.

As a result, almost six years since the Sept. 11 attacks, America's law enforcement still does not know "who is in the country without a pool of illegals that increases by the hour."

Today, terrorists could strike with ease if they so choose. Scheuer points to the port of Houston, which could be easily targeted because of its refining operations.

On the global front of the war on terror, Scheuer offers a similar pessimistic view because the U.S. has never exercised the full clout of the "military option" to put down the insurgency in Iraq and deal with terrorists elsewhere.

Simply put, Scheuer says the U.S. is too worried about what Europe thinks of our policies and has not risen to the challenge we face from Muslim extremists.

His solution: We need "to kill off more of the enemy." He adds the comment may seem "callous," but it is the best way to deal with an enemy that plays by no rules.


On the heels of the recent release of the disturbing National Intelligence Estimate, the man who provided the U.S. government with as many as 10 opportunities to take out bin Laden before Sept. 11 evaluates homeland security chief Michael Chertoff, lambastes lawmakers, addresses intractable American policy on Israel, reveals the enemy's strategy to bankrupt America, and uncovers the real motivation of terrorists.


NewsMax: At the CIA, you couldn't get top people to take assertive action against bin Laden. Now that you are a private citizen, what's the frustration that you are feeling?


Scheuer: I don't get the impression that the natural goal of American politicians in either party is to protect America.

They are more concerned with what international opinion thinks of us. They are more concerned with making sure that they can win the next election.

If our government doesn't exist to protect my grandchildren, what does it exist to do?

This whole refrain we hear now from the Democrats and the Republicans, we have tried the military option and it doesn't work -- it is such nonsense.

They don't want to use our military forces because they don't want to be condemned by the Europeans for killing too many people.

They would rather have Americans killed in the long run than to face a lot of criticism from a continent that is fading from the scene.

That's my frustration.

I'm very much a nationalist. I'm really very much a hawk when it comes to protecting Americans.

But I'm also a non-interventionist. I think that there are places that we don't have to be.

But that is my frustration.

NewsMax: When it suits al-Qaida to finally launch another domestic attack on the United States, what do you think is the most likely scenario?


Scheuer: I think it will be bigger than 9/11.

I don't think we're going to see a car bomb or two car bombs or three car bombs.

I would really worry about a place like Houston because so much of our oil is refined into gasoline there. It only has a single ship channel. It is the capital of our chemical industry and it is the hub for natural gas distribution.

Al-Qaida has always thought oil is a very important target. But it is hard for them to attack because if they attack it in the Muslim world it hurts Muslims.

If they attack it in the United States it hurts the United States and it benefits the Muslims because the price goes through the roof.


NewsMax: The president has invested heavily in the surge. Will it prove effective?


Scheuer: The Marine Corps are not nation builders. You point them at our enemy and they kill our enemy and then they come home.

That's why I don't think that there is any difference between President Bush and Senator John McCain [on one hand] and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton [on the other].

One wants to lose sooner; one is resigned to losing later. If you try to hold and defeat a country that's bigger than California with 160,000 troops with rules of engagement that make our soldiers targets, not killers, you are going to lose. History never changes.

I do a lot of work with young Marine Corp and Special Forces intelligence officers, lieutenants and captains, and they are such bright, smart, brave people. They realize they are getting led down the path on this.

You know, some of the stories they come back with from both places (Afghanistan and Iraq) about the rules of engagement that really make them targets is heartbreaking.

It is very depressing.

If we knew history a little bit better, we would know that things are not as complicated as our leaders make them out to be. If you don't kill your enemy, he is going to kill you.

If you don't operate from that assumption as your starting point you are done.


NewsMax: The latest National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] concludes, among other things, that al-Qaida is using its growing strength in Pakistan and Iraq to plot attacks on U.S. soil.


Scheuer: [The NIE] says the [al-Qaida] affiliate in Iraq has been the one to express a desire to attack in the United States. It doesn't say anything about its capability.

As an old intelligence officer, that sentence to me looked like they were making as much as they could out of precious little evidence.

I'm a little bit less concerned about any planning to attack the domestic United States coming out of Iraq. I think that the plans will be made where they have always been made and that is Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I certainly agree with the overall conclusion of the estimate that we now have two tiers of threat. We have al-Qaida – the group that answers to Osama bin Laden – and then we have the people that are being instigated by bin Laden.


NewsMax: The NIE says that "because of terrorists' undiminished intent to attack the U.S." our nation will face a persistently evolving terrorist threat over the next three years.


Scheuer: Yes, that's exactly right. I think that this is a situation where we're going to be in a heightened state of alert for a long time.

Emphasis, I think, needs to be on attacking the enemy - more than trying to make ourselves safer - because I really think it's almost impossible to make America safe because we're not going to fix borders, we're not going to do immigration.

As a result, we have to really do something to kill more of the enemy. It sounds callous, but I think that that is the trade-off.

NewsMax: Isn't it curious to you that it is more politically correct to invade a foreign sovereign country than it is to put up a border wall around your own country?


Scheuer: Yes, it is extraordinary. A country of laws is afraid to enforce the laws that are on the books. It really is.

One of the constraints, if you will, on the intelligence community is simply you can't talk about things that make us vulnerable.

We talk about the capabilities of the enemy and what they can do and what they can't do, but we can't say by not closing the borders you have really helped the enemy; by not securing the Soviet nuclear arsenal you have really helped the enemy; by invading Iraq you have really helped the enemy.


NewsMax: So there is a reason the NIE is mum about such obvious issues?


Scheuer: Yes, because [as an intelligence officer] you can't talk about U.S. policy.


NewsMax: Doesn't that limitation diminish the NIE report?


Scheuer: As an intelligence officer, if I was looking at this intelligence estimate again, I would say it was very good. It gave a very good idea of what the threat was, that the threat was growing, broadening and deepening, and I think that that is exactly right.

The failure of it is the report says nothing about the motivation of the enemy. I think if that piece was included, people would understand why the threat is as it is described there.

But we are still in the position -- 10 years after bin Laden declared war on us -- of having all of our politicians, the 18 who are running for the next term, Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton before him, insisting that we're at war because they hate our freedoms and liberties and our elections and women in the workplace and all of that stuff.


NewsMax: Our pornography?


Scheuer: Our pornography, or because I have a draft beer after work on Friday. People have a hard time believing that people are going to blow themselves up for that, but Americans accept it from their president and from their leaders.

I think that if you matched the real motivation - which I believe is the impact of our foreign policy in the Muslim world - with the assessment that the threat is growing, I think that people can better understand that…

When Mr. [Ron] Paul tried to raise that in the [GOP] debate in South Carolina, [Rudy] Giuliani suggested that any contention that we were responsible for any of this motivation of the enemy was unpatriotic.

I think that's where we are. Quite frankly, if these guys were attacking us because they hated our elections they would barely be a lethal nuisance. No one is going to blow themselves up because we have early primaries in Iowa.


NewsMax: It seems to have come as a surprise to the establishment when we had the advent of suicide bombing in Iraq.


Scheuer: And in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is extraordinary. I worked in Afghanistan for 10 years and for most of the time, the Soviets were there and I don't recall a single suicide bombing - and now we have not only Arabs blowing themselves up but Pakistanis and Afghans. That is an extraordinary development.


NewsMax: What is your take on Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's recent unleashing of his "gut feeling" that we are in for a long dangerous summer?


Scheuer: Chertoff knew this NIE was coming. The NIE clearly has information that wasn't released that is more detailed about why they think that the threat is growing ... I think Chertoff is a good enough bureaucrat that he wouldn't have been giving us his gut feeling if there wasn't something behind it.

He doesn't strike me as a kind of off-the-cuff guy. I think he kind of thinks about things before he says them ... and I think he's one of the least - this is my view at least - suspect members of this administration.


NewsMax: That's damning the man with faint praise.


Scheuer: It's a terrible business for me because I have been a lifelong Republican and I feel heretical every time I open my mouth, but I don't know what else to do.


NewsMax: Do you think that the terror outlook is as dangerous as Chertoff and the NIE suggest?


Scheuer: I think it is but not because we're a weak country and because the enemy is particularly overpowering.

It is because we're still behaving as if these guys are on lunatic fringe of the Muslim world; that there is a high enough number of them that we can bring to justice in a matter of time; and, more especially, I think the issue of motivation is crucial. Until we have a discussion about that, we are not in a position to attack the enemy and kill them.

I really think that what we fail to understand is that America is not the main enemy of these people. Their main enemy is what they call the "apostate government" – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan and the Israelis – and their goal is not to defeat American or as Steve Emerson says to obliterate our society.

Their goal is to get us out of the way so they can go after their main enemy.

In defense of America, I think you not only have to figure out how to kill them when you can but also to look at policies that have been in place for 30 or 35 years that were designed for the Cold War era and see if we can sort of deflect the animosities of these guys back to where they belong into the region.

NewsMax: President Bush's White House Counter Terrorism advisor said recently that terrorists are determined to figure out a way to launch a mass casualty spectacular event in the United States, "so we work everyday to make sure that doesn't happen." What about the average working stiff American citizen who scratches his head and rejoins, "If you are working so damned hard, why are the borders still wide open?"


Scheuer: There's almost a generational failure in our governing elite. They talk a good talk about believing that the threat is genuine but sometimes I really wonder if they do.

We haven't done the basic things that were needed on 9/11 to protect Americans to the greatest extent possible. That's domestic border control, not for any racist reason or anti-immigrant reasons but to give law enforcement a chance to find out who is in the country without a pool of illegals that increases by the hour.

The president and Mrs. Clinton, they all say we have spent tens of billions of dollars on fancy gadgetry for our border crossing points, so we are safer.

Well, that assumes that al-Qaida is stupid and [will] walk in with an al-Qaida T-shirt carrying a nuclear suitcase and having a bandoleer of bullets around their chest and say here I am at Miami International.

They are not going to come in that way. They are going to come across the border and they are going to come in through a port.

It's better if you look for a little bit of genius in the enemy than for abject ignorance.

Bin Laden could not have picked a better issue to, if you will, run on than the policies that he has picked. They are all intertwined with domestic politics.

Whether it's domestic security, "Well, we're not going to do that because it's immigration and that's a political issue"; oil – "We're not going to do that and because we're not going to do oil we're going to remain supportive of Arab police states, which furthers his cause."

We can't talk about Israel … We're the world's greatest power, but we're stuck because we can't talk about the problems that are really, really threatening us.


NewsMax: Is there an answer to the dilemma?

Scheuer: Ron Paul is the only one that really has said, "Wait a minute, people don't like other people sticking their nose in their business, and we have been doing this for 50 years."

Whether it is right or wrong that we do it we ought to at least recognize that there is a reaction to it on the other side.


NewsMax: There are those who would suggest that bin Laden and company haven't attacked the United States domestically because they don't want to rally Americans back to the cause of 9/11. Your take?


Scheuer: I think that there's probably an ongoing discussion within their council – why break a good thing here.

Americans losing two wars overseas which we are participating in. Their alliances are falling apart. The cohesion of their domestic political society has never been weaker than probably since the Vietnam period, and they are spending money like a drunken sailor.

Al-Qaida's goal, they would say, is encapsulated simply into two phrases: One, lead them into bankruptcy and two, spread out their forces. Clearly they have accomplished both of those things.

As long as things are going to go their way, an attack would be superfluous, and it would also rally people to the government. That's one of the reasons why we haven't seen things like what has gone on in London.


NewsMax: Is London serving as a handy a surrogate for us – they can make their point in London without upsetting the big applecart?


Scheuer: That's right. Also, I think we forget sometimes that in many ways Britain is as hated as we are because of the colonial period in the Middle East, but they're just not the big boys on the block anymore.

If they wanted to do the car bombings, the mall shoot-ups, Pizza Hut bombings, that kind of thing could be done in our country very easily. They have made a conscious decision not to do those kinds of small attacks.

Bin laden gave a speech or a statement in November of 2001 and he said basically: We don't have to do anything else to the Americans regarding their domestic society. They are going to strangle their own society. They will eat away at their civil liberties. They'll become divisive within.

The point is very well taken. History is a big thing in understanding where we are and where we are going. He is very conscious of our history. It's a very dangerous situation because we're really flying blind…

The National Intelligence Estimate doesn't offer Mr. Bush and the administration very much. In fact, it's got to give them a lot of heartburn.


NewsMax: If you were sitting in the Oval Office, what is the very first thing you would do to help protect America?


Scheuer: I would do two things. I would immediately inaugurate some kind of an energy program. If we weren't so dependent on oil, we wouldn't have to support police states...

The second thing I would do, if you really wanted to protect America, is to square with the American people about what the enemy is motivated by and inaugurate debate in this country about whether we want to continue to pursue these policies - because we are the agent of bin Laden's strength and of his unity. Our policies are the one indispensable ally he needs…

If you say our unqualified support for Israel stirs people in the Muslim world to join bin Laden, somehow that gets twisted around from a statement of fact to an anti-Semitic tirade. As long as we are in that kind of position, things are not going to get talked about.


NewsMax: The Muslim success against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan has been cited as a rallying cry in their battle with the U.S. today.


Scheuer: The most important thing about Afghanistan is that the Arabs and Afghans and the Islamics believe that they defeated not only the Red Army but the Soviet Union. So they have it in their mind that if they beat one, they can beat the second one.

The Muslims have always said that the Americans will be easier than the Soviets because they are soft. They have no patience. And they won't use the power that the American people have bought for the military. So far they have been dead on about that.