Thursday, August 02, 2007

Iraq war price tag above $1 trillion

Boston Globe
Thursday Aug 2, 2007

The US Congressional Budget Office has announced that the war in Iraq could end up costing US taxpayers more than USD 1trillion.

The forecast includes the cost of keeping some US forces in Iraq for several years and of providing long-term care and financial support for wounded soldiers and benefits for the families of those killed, the Boston Globe reported.

“We are now spending on these activities more than 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds,” Robert A. Sunshine, the assistant director for budget analysis, said.

The government has already allocated USD 500b for combat operations and reconstruction.

In 2003, the Bush administration fired a White House budget analysis in the start up to war for giving an estimate of USD 200b for the conflict--saying the figure was far too high. The White House also assumed a quick military operation and restoration of Iraq's oil industry to pay for rebuilding.

9/11: Rare Evidence of Controlled Demolition

9/11 Blogger
Wednesday Aug 1, 2007

This video shows you not squibs but actual blasting charges possibly going off and rare shots of the making of the WTC "SPIRE".

All the video has been stabilized by me for clarity. The sound has been enhanced and syncronized.

A must see.


9/11 : - NEW COLLAPSE FOOTAGE (RARE) DEMO CLEARLY SEEN - video powered by Metacafe

Vote Vets Founder Spells Out Tillman Cover Up Perfectly

You Tube
Thursday Aug 2, 2007

On Wednesday’s “Hardball,” VoteVet’s Jon Soltz squared off with another veteran, Eric Egland, of Vets For Freedom on today’s heated testimony on Capitol Hill surrounding the cover up of Pat Tillman’s death. Egland–who is involved with Melanie Morgan’s Move America Forward–naturally defends Bush, Rumsfeld and the generals involved in the coverup.

Speeding drivers face DNA swabs under new Big Brother powers

JAMES SLACK
UK Daily Mail

Thursday Aug 2, 2007

Drivers stopped for speeding - or even for failing to wear a seatbelt - could soon be placed on the 'Big Brother' DNA database for life.

The most trivial offences, such as dropping litter, would also lead to samples being taken under sweeping new powers which police are demanding.

The samples would stay on the database, alongside those of murderers and rapists, even if the people involved were later cleared of any wrongdoing.

Campaigners condemned the plan as a step too far which could affect someone's job prospects for many years.

Under current rules, a person can have his or her DNA and fingerprints taken only if stopped for a 'recordable' offence - a crime serious enough to carry a jail term.

Minor offences such as allowing a dog to foul the footpath are excluded.

But police - backed by the Crown Prosecution Service - want to take DNA samples, fingerprints and even imprints of footwear for all offences.

They argue that, just because a person initially commits a low-level misdemeanour such as dog fouling, it does not mean they will not progress to the gravest crimes.

A chance to take their DNA - making any future crime far easier to solve - would be missed without new powers. Police also want to take samples - usually a mouth swab - at the scene of the "crime".

They say having to take offenders to the police station, as happens now, is too "bureaucratic".

The Home Office suggested the new powers to police in a consultation document earlier this year. Ministers are now under pressure to confirm the change.

There are already four million samples on the database - including those of a million suspects who turned out to be innocent.

Helen Wallace of GeneWatch UK said last night: 'There is significant potential for the loss of public trust in extending the taking and use of biometrics. They pose a serious threat to individual privacy and are unlikely to be an effective way to tackle crime.

"Any attempt to take DNA samples outside a police station is clearly unworkable."

Sonia Andrews of the Magistrates' Association said: 'We would find it difficult to justify extending the ability to take biometric data to cover nonrecordable offences.'

The Information Commissioner's Office warned of the danger of people being turned down for jobs if checks reveal details of minor offences committed many years ago.

Under the current system records of such offences are deleted after time. But if they are tagged to a DNA sample on the database they could remain 'active'.

But the idea is backed by police across the country, according to consultation responses published yesterday.

Inspector Thomas Huntley, of the Ministry of Defence Police, said failing to take samples 'could be seen as giving the impression that an individual who commits a nonrecordable offence could not be a repeat offender.

"While the increase of suspects on the database will lead to an increased cost, this should be considered as preferable to letting a serious offender walk from custody."

Pete Hutin, of Sussex Police, said the "taking of DNA samples in custody is unnecessarily bureaucratic".

David Evans, of the CPS, argued that the move would allow a 'more comprehensive database'.

The Home Office said: 'The DNA database has revolutionised the way the police can protect the public through identifying offenders and securing more convictions.

"The database provides police with, on average, over 3,500 matches each month and in 2005-6 alone led to matches against 422 homicides, 645 rapes, 1,974 other violent crimes and over 9,000 domestic burglaries.

"The consultation is about maximising police efficiency and ensuring that appropriate and effective safeguards are in place. No decisions have yet been made and any detailed proposals will be subject to a further public consultation next year."

The police demand was revealed as the Human Genetics Commission, the Government's independent DNA watchdog, launched an inquiry into the database. Panels across the country will gather evidence on public opinion.

U.S. Terror Attack — 'Ninety Days at Most'

Fox News
Thursday Aug 2, 2007

Counterterrorism expert Juval Aviv spoke with FOX Fan Central about what Americans can do to protect themselves in case of a terror attack.

Do you believe another terrorist attack is likely on American soil?

I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.

What advice do you have for individuals that have the misfortune of finding themselves in the middle of a terror attack?

Since mass transportation is the next attack, when you travel to work have with you, a bottle of water, a small towel and a flashlight. What happened in London is exactly a point to look at. Those people who were close to the bombs died, then others were injured or died from inhaling the toxic fumes or getting trampled. The reason you take a bottle of water and a towel is that if you wet the towel and put it over your face, you can protect yourself against the fumes and get yourself out of there.

Don't be bashful. If your gut feeling tells you when you walk onto a bus there is something unusual or suspicious, get out and walk away. You may do it 10 times for no reason, but there will be one time that saves your life. Let your sixth sense direct you.

Try to break your routine. If you travel during rush hour every day, try to get up a little earlier and drive to work or take the train when it’s still not full. Don’t find yourself every day in the midst of rush hour. Terrorists are not going to waste a bomb on a half-empty train.

What portion of the American infrastructure do you believe is at the greatest risk for a terror attack?

We have put all of our emphasis, right or wrong, on the aviation area. What has happened, in the last two to three years, based on information we have, is the terrorists have realized that they cannot hijack a plane in America soon because the passengers are going to fight back. So they realize what they have been very successful with over the last 50 years in Madrid, London, Iraq, Israel: demoralizing the public when they go to work and when they come back from work.

What they’re going to do is hit six, seven or eight cities simultaneously to show sophistication and really hit the public. This time, which is the message of the day, it will not only be big cities. They’re going to try to hit rural America. They want to send a message to rural America: "You’re not protected. If you figured out that if you just move out of New York and move to Montana or to Pittsburgh, you’re not immune. We’re going [to] get you wherever we can and it’s easier there than in New York."

What more do you think the government can do to protect the public?

Number one, and this is the beef I’ve had with Homeland Security for the last four years, is educating the public on how to deal with those types of events. There’s no education. We’re raising the color code alert and that means nothing to anyone. Whether it’s green, yellow, pink, no one ever educated the public how to identify suspicious items or people. In Israel, so many of them [terrorists] have been apprehended just because people have phoned in. We don’t have that training on campuses, schools or kindergarten.

In Israel, it’s very popular right now [amongst terrorists] to put one device to explode and time another one for five minutes later when it’s all calm, people are getting up and the rescue teams have responded. You need to know all those things and think about those things. The government must pursue that. Law enforcement will never have enough people on the street to detect things. We don’t have that kind of manpower. That’s why the government must enlist the public.


Juval Aviv is a former Israeli Counterterrorism Intelligence Officer and President and CEO of Interfor, Inc. Mr. Aviv has also served as a special consultant to the U.S. Congress on issues of terrorism and security and is the author of “Staying Safe : The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business.”

New Al Qaeda Web Ad Threatens 'Big Surprise'

Rhonda Schwartz
ABC, The Blotter
Thursday Aug 2, 2007

A new al Qaeda propaganda ad, headlined "Wait for the Big Surprise" and featuring a digitally altered photograph of President George Bush and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf standing in front of a burning White House, was posted on the Internet today.

The brief clip from al Qaeda's "as Sahab" propaganda arm juxtaposes the doctored photo of Bush and Musharraf along with previously seen images of al Qaeda's top leadership -- Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahri and Adam Gadahn -- as well as a photo of an SUV in a motorcade.

There is no additional information provided in the ad, and it closes with the words, "Soon -- God willing," written across the screen and repeated several times.

Following the recent failed London-Glasgow terror plot, U.S. intelligence officials have been paying closer attention to the now frequent propaganda releases from as Sahab, studying the videos for hidden clues or signals. The full video is expected to be released on the Web in the next 24 to 48 hours.

Police may be given power to take DNA samples in the street

Alan Travis
London Guardian
Thursday Aug 2, 2007

The Home Office is considering giving the police the power to take a DNA sample on the street, without taking the suspect to a police station, as well as taking samples from suspects in relatively minor offences such as littering, speeding or not wearing a seat belt.
The move comes as an official genetics watchdog prepares a public inquiry into the police national DNA database, following concern over the retention of samples from people acquitted of any offence, and disclosure that the database holds DNA records for one in three of British black males.The database is the largest in the world, with 3.4m profiles, more than 5% of the UK population. If the powers are granted, it would expand massively.

Baroness Kennedy, chair of the Human Genetics Commission, said the power of the police in England and Wales to take DNA samples from any arrested individual without requiring their assent was unrivalled in the world. "We want to ensure the public voice is heard on issues people think are relevant. The Citizen's Inquiry is likely to grapple with issues such as whether storing the DNA profiles of victims and suspects who are not charged, or who are subsequently acquitted of any wrongdoing, is justified by the need to fight crime."

She added that under law it was very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to have your sample removed. "On the other hand a steadily increasing number of serious crimes, including murder and rapes, are being solved and criminals brought to justice with its help. It is likely that the use of DNA information by police authorities for criminal intelligence purposes will grow. It is therefore vital that the public are able to voice their views."

The inquiry will recruit representative panels of the public to consider social and ethical issues in police use of DNA.

The initiative comes as the Home Office finishes consulting on police powers to extend use of the DNA database, with a view to legislation this autumn. The results show wide support from the police to take DNA, fingerprints and footwear impressions on the street to confirm identity and check against the national database, and support to lower the threshold to take in suspects in minor offences. A Home Office paper summarising the consultation said respondents "welcomed the ability to reduce the threshold, including to the extent of allowing for the taking of fingerprints, DNA and footwear impressions for non-recordable offenses for the purpose of offender identification and searching databases".

It adds: "The second issue relates to the taking of fingerprints, photographs and samples on the street. This was welcomed at an operational level as a means of increasing officer confidence in knowing who they are dealing with and enabling them to deal more effectively with the incident at the scene."

Savage: "You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats" to cause Roberts' seizure?

Media Matters
Thursday Aug 2, 2007

On the July 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage reacted to news that Chief Justice John Roberts had suffered a seizure that day by raising the possibility that "his health was in some way tampered with by the Democrats." Savage said, "Something's wrong with this picture," after noting that Roberts' seizure occurred just three days after Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said he would seek in general to reject any future Supreme Court nomination made by President Bush. Schumer told the American Constitution Society (ACS) in a July 27 speech: "I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances." Schumer said that, since the confirmation of Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the court had come to represent "what a diminishing clique of conservative ideologues wish for."

Savage asked, "Am I to believe there's no connection between Charles Schumer on Friday saying he would never appoint, or never, excuse me, approve another Bush appointment to the court, to any court? And then the chief justice suffers a so-called seizure two days later? You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats to have caused this seizure in some manner?" He added: "Tell me it's not possible, and I'll tell you you're a liar."

Schumer did not, in fact, say that "he would never ... approve another Bush appointment to the court, to any court." According to text and video of Schumer's speech before the ACS national convention, Schumer actually said: "Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances." (Schumer did not read from the text entirely verbatim.)

The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.

From the July 30 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: All right, we have a breaking news update. Chief Justice John Roberts has had a seizure in his summer home in Maine, and he fell on a dock. Now, what's interesting to me, and almost frightening and puzzling, is that on Friday Charles Schumer gave a loud and vociferously nasty speech during which he said he would never support another Bush judge. He would never support a -- it was -- you know, let me ask you something. All you leftists believe in the conspiracy of Bush and Cheney, the conspiracy of 9-11. Am I to believe that there's no connection between Charles Schumer on Friday saying that he would never appoint, or never, excuse me, approve another Bush appointment to the court, to any court? And then the chief justice suffers a so-called seizure two days later? You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats to have caused this seizure in some manner? Tell me that it's not possible. Tell me that the stakes are not so high that the liberals -- who've finally lost the court after 50 years -- that they would stop short of anything like this. Tell me it's not possible, and I'll tell you you're a liar.

[...]

SAVAGE: I find it odd that Bigfoot Schumer -- and I call him Bigfoot for a reason -- that Bigfoot on Friday would say he's putting his foot down and they're never going to approve another Bush appointment because the court's been moved too far to the right. What he means is it's no longer a communist socialist court. It's been moved to the center, make no mistake about it. It's a centrist court; it's by no means a right-wing court. A right-wing court would be much different than this one. It's a centrist court. Even that's too much for Schumer, [Sen. Barbara] Boxer [D-CA], [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA], [Sen. Richard] Durbin [D-IL], [Sen. Edward] Kennedy [D-CA], et al. They want a left-wing court of lackeys to bring us into the world of socialism, to destroy our Constitution once and for all under the guise of liberalism, to destroy once and for all the dignity of the United States of America by bringing the cesspool to Main Street.

And so, this is pretty amazing to me that he's had a seizure at age 52. That's a pretty amazing thing. They say that he had a similar episode in 1993 and that now they're telling us there's no cause for concern and you don't know what to believe. But he will remain in the hospital and will remain overnight. Now why he had a seizure I don't know. I don't think he was asked to dine in Manhattan on his way to Maine. I don't think he was asked to share a sandwich on his way to Maine, do you? They say, "Well it can't happen here. It's impossible."

Well, let me ask you something. You remember the Russian who ate some polonium sushi? He was going to give an interview that was embarrassing to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin? He ate a polonium sushi and then he died. Well, they do it over there when there's a lot of money at stake, don't they? Power at stake? What's a human being to power-mad people and power-mad parties? Nothing.

So why can't we assume for a moment that it's within the realm of possibility that Roberts was in some way -- his health was in some way tampered with by the Democrats because they can't believe that no matter what they do, no matter what they do -- even if they engineer a victory for Hillary Clinton/[Barack] Obama -- they're still not going to be in control because the court's moved to the center? Just a thought. Just a tiny little thought for you to ponder tonight, all you left-wingers who are so glib in your attacks on the conservative movement.

[...]

SAVAGE: Let me say this again: On Thursday, some hack for the left wing, some hack professor said that we should increase the number of people on the Supreme Court, raising it from nine to another number. And he gave precedent for it. Of course, you have to go back 200 years to come up with this precedent. He then -- then on Friday, the shocking statement by Schumer, the obstructionist, whose nightmare -- whose dream for America is a nightmare for me. His dream is to see a Hillary presidency and he becomes appointed to the Supreme Court. That's what Schumer has lived for from the time he was a little boy. That's all he wants, so he had the nerve to say on Friday he will never, ever, ever permit another Bush appointee to get onto a court, to become a judge. Then today we read that the chief justice has had a seizure and fell on a dock? Something's wrong with this picture.

—M.J.M.

Michael J. Maio is an intern at Media Matters for America.

Bush orders Rove not to testify

BBC
Thursday Aug 2, 2007

US President George W Bush has ordered close adviser Karl Rove not to testify before a Senate hearing on the sacking of eight federal prosecutors.
Mr Bush used the executive privilege he has as president to exempt Mr Rove from having to appear.

The US Senate committee is investigating whether the White House arranged the sackings for improper political reasons.

The Bush administration maintains that the dismissals were justified.

"Mr Rove, as an immediate presidential adviser, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity," White House lawyer Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, and made available to the Reuters news agency.

Mr Rove had been due to testify at a hearing on Thursday morning, along with another White House aide, deputy political director Scott Jennings.

Mr Jennings is still expected to appear but he is not expected testify about the fired prosecutors.

Contempt accusation

The row began after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fired eight federal prosecutors in 2006 - an unusual move, but not illegal.

However, the controversy over the firings has grown into a larger dispute between Congress and the White House.

Democrats, who control Congress, say the sackings were politically motivated and that Mr Rove knew of discussions about firing the attorneys nearly two years before the axe fell on them.

The president has previously offered to let Mr Rove and other aides speak privately to some members of Congress, but he has firmly rejected the demand for public testimony under oath.

Mr Rove and Mr Jennings were subpoenaed a day after the House judiciary committee issued contempt of Congress citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and ex-legal counsel Harriet Miers in the row.

The Democrats have also announced they will seek a perjury investigation to be carried out into Mr Gonzales in connection with the same case.

Opponents say he fired the attorneys for political reasons and later lied about the reason for their dismissal.

Mr Gonzales, who retains Mr Bush's support, says he did nothing wrong and has resisted calls for his dismissal.

Bush Insults BBC Political Editor at Press Conference

Editor & Publisher
Thursday Aug 2, 2007

At a recent press conference at Camp David, President George Bush insulted BBC political editor Nick Robinson, the Daily Mirror reports.

Robinson, who has asked Bush pointed questions in the past such as whether the president was “in denial” over the Iraq war, posed a question to Bush about whether he could trust visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown not to “cut and run” from Iraq.

Bush replied with a dismissal: “Are you still hanging around?”

Later on, Bush poked fun at the bare-pate of Robinson, joking, “You’d better cover up your bald head, it’s getting hot out.”

The respected British reporter shot back, “I didn’t know you cared.”

Bush responded with a cool, “I don’t.” The Mirror reports that Bush then “snorted disdainfully” and “walked away to laughter.”

Analyst: Al-Qaeda Videotapes Digitally Doctored


Analyst: Al-Qaeda Videotapes Digitally Doctored

IntelCenter and As-Sahab logos added at same time, indicating Pentagon linked "middleman" is directly releasing Al-Qaeda videos

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, August 2, 2007

An expert computer analyst has presented evidence that so-called "Al-Qaeda" tapes are routinely digitally doctored and has also unwittingly exposed an astounding detail that clearly indicates a Pentagon affiliated organization in the U.S. is directly responsible for releasing the videos.

"Neal Krawetz, a researcher and computer security consultant, gave an interesting presentation today at the BlackHat security conference in Las Vegas about analyzing digital photographs and video images for alterations and enhancements," reports Wired News.

"Using a program he wrote (and provided on the conference CD-ROM) Krawetz could print out the quantization tables in a JPEG file (that indicate how the image was compressed) and determine the last tool that created the image -- that is, the make and model of the camera if the image is original or the version of Photoshop that was used to alter and re-save the image. "

Krawetz's most telling discovery comes in the form of a detail contained in a 2006 Ayman al-Zawahiri tape. From his analysis he concludes that the As-Sahab logo (the alleged media arm of Al-Qaeda) and the IntelCenter logo (a U.S. based private intelligence organization that "monitors terrorist activity") were both added to the video at the same time.

This clearly indicates IntelCenter itself is directly creating or at least doctoring the Al-Qaeda tapes before their release. After all, why would Al-Qaeda terrorists be interested in branding their videos with the logo of a U.S. based organization that is run by individuals with close ties to the military-industrial complex?

In our previous groundbreaking investigation, we exposed IntelCenter, the middleman between "Al-Qaeda's media arm" and the press, and the organization that routinely obtains the tapes, as little more than a Pentagon front group staffed by individuals with close connections to Donald Rumsfeld and the U.S. war machine.

IntelCenter were also behind the release of the recent "new" Bin Laden tape, which in actual fact was old footage filmed in 2001 and had been released, including by IntelCenter itself, on no less than two previous occasions spanning back five years.


IntelCenter is run by Ben Venzke, former director of intelligence at a company called IDEFENSE, which is a Verisign company. IDEFENSE is a web security company that monitors intelligence from middle east conflicts and focuses on cyber threats among other things.

It is also heavily populated with long serving ex-military intelligence officials.

The Director of Threat intelligence, Jim Melnick, served 16 years in the US army and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and worked in psychological operations. From the IDEFENSE website:

Prior to joining iDefense, Mr. Melnick served with distinction for more than 16 years in the U.S. Army and the Defense Intelligence Agency. During this period, Mr. Melnick served in a variety of roles, including psychological operations, international warning issues with emphasis on foreign affairs and information operations and Russian affairs. He also served in active political/military intelligence roles with an emphasis on foreign affairs. Mr. Melnick is currently a U.S. Army Reserve Colonel with Military Intelligence, assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Melnick has been published in numerous military and foreign affairs journals, and has received numerous military and DIA awards. Mr. Melnick has a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College, a Master of Arts in Russian studies from Harvard University, and a Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Political Science from Westminster College.

So here we have a company that by its own admission has ties to a senior military psy-op intelligence officer who has worked directly for Donald Rumsfeld. As Intelcenter and Ben Venzke are directly connected to IDEFENSE, this puts Rumsfeld just three steps away from the Al Qaeda propaganda videos.

The business of releasing Al-Qaeda tapes is also very profitable for IntelCenter, they charge well over $4,000 dollars a year for packages aimed at "Intelligence, Military and Federal agencies".

Add to this the fact that IntelCenter are digitally doctoring the videos and then adding the logo of a purported terrorist group before their release and the ramifications become clear - elements within the U.S. are patently editing if not directly creating "Al-Qaeda" tapes for their own purposes.

Al-Qaeda, or more accurately IntelCenter, always seem to make a point of releasing the videos at the most politically expedient times for the benefit of the Bush administration.

Whether it's to justify a war, win an election or divert from a scandal, Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri or their stooges can always be relied upon to come up with the goods and save Bush's bacon.

As soon as the 6 month wait and see period for the "surge" was up and right when Bush's last remaining Republican cheerleaders deserted him on Iraq, Bin Laden popped up to remind us all of the necessity of "staying the course" and winning the war on terror by feeding more troops into the meatgrinder.

Both Kerry and Bush attributed the President's 2004 re-election to Osama Bin Laden's appearance in a video tape just days before the vote. Veteran newsman Walter Cronkite mused that the whole farce was a Karl Rove orchestrated set-up.

On the eve of the Iraq war during Colin Powell's infamous presentation to the UN, an audio tape in which bin Laden claimed he was allied with Saddam Hussein surfaced, a gift-wrapped present for the Neo-Cons who had consistently been proven wrong in their assertion that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Ayman Al-Zawahiri appeared right on cue at the exact same time two years running, days before the State of the Union, to slam Bush as a "butcher" and a "failure." His timing is impeccable! Right when Bush needs to reinforce the fear of the shadowy enemy each January to mute his critics before the big speech, al-Zawahiri pops up with the goods.

Krawetz's analysis (view in PDF) further concludes that different objects and green screen backgrounds have been artificially added to certain videos, including that of probable Mossad double agent Adam Pearlman, in order to "lend authority and reverence to the video".

The smoking gun remains the fact that the two logos, the As-Sahab "terrorist" media arm and the IntelCenter organization, were added at exactly the same time, meaning either that IntelCenter, with its close ties to the U.S. government and psychological operation, has terrorists on the payroll or that IntelCenter itself is doctoring and directly releasing Al-Qaeda propaganda tapes.

Both conclusions are equally disturbing and demand an immediate FBI investigation of IntelCenter and its owners.

Anti-terror chief 'misled' public

Anti-terror chief 'misled' public
There were "serious weaknesses" in the Metropolitan Police's handling of information after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a report has found.

Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman "misled" the public, the Independent Police Complaints Commission ruled.

The IPCC has examined statements issued by police after the 27-year-old was mistakenly shot dead by officers at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July 2005.

A complaint against Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair was not substantiated.

Mr Hayman - the UK's most senior counter terrorist-officer - was accused of failing to tell the commissioner at the first opportunity of his suspicions that an innocent man had been killed.

His actions "led to inaccurate or misleading information being released by the Metropolitan Police", the IPCC found.


READ THE IPCC REPORT

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

IPCC Commissioner Naseem Malik told a news conference information had been withheld from Sir Ian.

She said: "What the commissioner could, and should, have been told was the emergence of evidence throughout the day that pointed increasingly strongly to a terrible mistake having been made."

The Metropolitan Police apologised for "errors in both internal and external communication" in a statement.

It said it could not comment on the findings relating to Mr Hayman, but added that its approach to information-handling has changed since 2005.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, before the IPCC report's publication, London Mayor Ken Livingstone dismissed "the idea this is some sort of catastrophic error of judgement on the part of an officer who I have tremendous respect for".

Mr Hayman's "counter-terrorism activity has saved dozens of lives in this city", he added.


Many people still think, 'Oh well, he was wearing a bulky jacket, he jumped the barrier, the police tried to stop him and he refused'
Justice4Jean

Mr Menezes was mistaken for a suicide bomber in the wake of the 7 July London bombings and failed 21 July attacks.

On 22 July 2005, a surveillance team had been monitoring a block of flats in Tulse Hill, south London, where Mr Menezes lived.

They believed a man wanted in connection with the previous day's attempted suicide bombings in London lived there.

When Mr Menezes emerged from the flats, he was wrongly identified as the suspect and was followed to Stockwell, where he was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder as he boarded a Tube train.

Minute detail

After the IPCC's Stockwell One report into the events surrounding the shooting, the Crown Prosecution Service decided last year that no individual would be prosecuted in connection with the case.

However, the Metropolitan Police is facing trial under health and safety legislation in October. Its Stockwell Two report relates to the complaints of inaccurate information given to the public.

The report has gone into minute detail about who knew what and when in the hours following the fatal shooting.

The two-year investigation looked into claims that senior police officers were aware an innocent man had been killed earlier than was announced.

It also examined whether they failed to correct wrong information suggesting Mr Menezes acted suspiciously before his death.

'Minor changes'

The dead man's family have complained that inaccurate information was given to the public by officers including Commissioner Sir Ian Blair.

They have also complained that police had not corrected early reports suggesting Mr Menezes had vaulted ticket barriers and had been wearing a bulky jacket.

The Justice4Jean group said misinformation about Mr Menezes' actions on the day had "added insult to injury".

Spokeswoman Yasmin Khan told BBC News: "Many people still think, 'Oh well, he was wearing a bulky jacket, he jumped the barrier, the police tried to stop him and he refused'.

"And the real question for the family is why the police allowed that information to circulate when they knew it wasn't true."

It has also emerged the IPCC had made "minor changes" to the report after a legal challenge by officers who were criticised in it.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6927140.stm

Published: 2007/08/02 11:50:16 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Bush orders Rove not to testify

Bush orders Rove not to testify
US President George W Bush has ordered close adviser Karl Rove not to testify before a Senate hearing on the sacking of eight federal prosecutors.

Mr Bush used the executive privilege he has as president to exempt Mr Rove from having to appear.

The US Senate committee is investigating whether the White House arranged the sackings for improper political reasons.

The Bush administration maintains that the dismissals were justified.

"Mr Rove, as an immediate presidential adviser, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity," White House lawyer Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, and made available to the Reuters news agency.

Mr Rove had been due to testify at a hearing on Thursday morning, along with another White House aide, deputy political director Scott Jennings.

Mr Jennings is still expected to appear but he is not expected testify about the fired prosecutors.

Contempt accusation

The row began after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fired eight federal prosecutors in 2006 - an unusual move, but not illegal.

However, the controversy over the firings has grown into a larger dispute between Congress and the White House.

Democrats, who control Congress, say the sackings were politically motivated and that Mr Rove knew of discussions about firing the attorneys nearly two years before the axe fell on them.

The president has previously offered to let Mr Rove and other aides speak privately to some members of Congress, but he has firmly rejected the demand for public testimony under oath.

Mr Rove and Mr Jennings were subpoenaed a day after the House judiciary committee issued contempt of Congress citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and ex-legal counsel Harriet Miers in the row.

The Democrats have also announced they will seek a perjury investigation to be carried out into Mr Gonzales in connection with the same case.

Opponents say he fired the attorneys for political reasons and later lied about the reason for their dismissal.

Mr Gonzales, who retains Mr Bush's support, says he did nothing wrong and has resisted calls for his dismissal.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6927206.stm

Published: 2007/08/02 07:29:12 GMT