Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Shouting Big Brother Cameras To Use Child Voices

Psychological warfare to shame dissenters into obedience
infowars
another article on bbc's website
A previously localized trial of CCTV cameras that allow local government officials to monitor people in the streets and shout orders at anyone they deem to be acting in an anti-social manner is to be enforced nationwide across the UK. In a bizarre psychological move the cameras will speak in a child's voice.

In an incredibly Orwellian move, loudspeakers are to be fitted to surveillance cameras throughout major cities, allowing CCTV operators to bark commands at people who drop litter, act in an aggressive manner or loiter.

Last October we reported on the trial scheme of these cameras in Middlesbrough. At the time we predicted "The voice of Big Brother has already echoed across several major cities and the program will no doubt be unfolded nationwide once the salivating control freaks in council offices have their way." Now this has indeed come to pass.

Council workers in a control centre can monitor pictures from 12 talking cameras in the town, and communicate directly with people on the street at the flick of a switch.

Communities are being coerced into adapting existing cameras with the offer of nearly £500,000 in grants.

Home Secretary John Reid has denied that the plans were "Big Brother gone mad", stating "This is a hugely popular scheme in Middlesbrough and the vast majority of the people here are right behind it."

Sadly it seems Reid is right as once again the simpering jellyfish-like people of the UK have not reacted in protest to a control freak's dream come true scheme that surpasses any methods that were ever employed by the state in the Soviet Union or currently in Communist China.

The BBC has put out a new report on this loving scheme:



Note the terroristic "skater boy" who will soon have cease and desist orders barked at him. No longer are skate boards cool and fun, Bart Simpson may still have one, but now they are the tools of evil and must be clamped down upon by the state.

The shouting cameras have been on the table for a long time and were spotted in London, along with large black megaphone apendages, up to one year ago:

In an even more frightening and conniving move it has today been revealed that the bureaucrats behind the cameras will use recordings of children's voices to discourage any adult they target from dissenting and shouting back at the cameras.

As tech web site The Register today put it:

Using recordings of children's voices will make it harder for those in opposition to the surveillance society to be defiant of the talking cameras. Moonies and rude gestures will most definitely be a no-no.

Children will be recruited from schools to take part in the scheme and will be shown round CCTV operating rooms on school trips, learning how wonderful the big brother state is and how forcing people to behave in a certain way in public is the essence of a free society.

The use of children's voices to control adult behaviour is all out psychological warfare when you consider that it constitutes a total reversal of social norms. The government knows this full well and justifies it by suggesting that some people in the UK are now so devoid of morality that there is no way of setting that right other than by ritualistic public isolation and humiliation.

What does it say about the state of a society in general that the government has given up on a portion of people and has decided that the best course of action is to extradite them and label them as fair game for methods of control that wouldn't look out of place in a horrific dystopian science fiction film?

The current divisions within society are frightening. We have reached the point where the general public is willing to accept massive invasions of their own privacy in order to deal with people they consider to be a bit of a nuisance from time to time.

It would not be surprising at all to see some people reveling in the control, egging on the shouting cameras and engaging in a proverbial "two minutes hate" against those they no longer dare stand up to themselves because they, quite rightly, fear for their own safety if they were to do so.

The most dangerous form of tyranny is one that has the consent of the people.

At the other end of the social divide the "louts" and "yobs" that are the primary target of such control mechanisms feel so divorced from society that their only means of articulation is to resort to acts of violence and vandalism.

How is it possible that further alienating these people, and almost rubbing their faces in the fact, is going to solve the problem?

Because modern day government is so obsessed with short term appearance over long term reality we are witnessing the literal unraveling of society as each problem is provided a solution that in turn engenders an even worse set of problems.

In short, such surveillance state methods are greasing the skids for the police state. As the general public cry out for more and more state intervention in society, and the dropouts become more and more alienated and reactionary, there is only one place we are all going to end up.

In a culture where people are not instilled with internal limiters on their behaviors, increasing external limiters is demanded and thus must be provided. Welcome totalitarianism.

Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

"Smith!" screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. "6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me."


- George Orwell, 1984.

Anti-Flu Drugs Losing Punch

Flu Fighters Tamiflu, Relenza Could Be Less Effective Against Certain Viral Strains, Study Finds
abcnews

April 3, 2007 — Tamiflu and Relenza, two anti-viral drugs commonly used to treat influenza, may be losing their effectiveness as the flu virus adapts, Japanese scientists report in a new study.

The study, published in the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), reports yet another obstacle in the fight against the flu.

The research suggests that scientists may have to find new ways to combat growing resistance to current flu treatments — and possibly rethink the strategy for preventing a global flu pandemic.

There are three types of viruses that cause the flu: influenza types A, B and C. Drugs like Tamiflu, manufactured by Roche, and Relenza, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, are designed to fight the A and B types — the two most responsible for yearly flu outbreaks.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 36,000 people in the United States die every year from the flu.

Influenza A viruses — among which is the H5N1 virus responsible for bird flu — cause regular outbreaks of flu and can infect animals. Influenza B viruses are responsible for sporadic outbreaks of flu, while influenza C viruses rarely cause symptoms.

When an infectious agent such as a virus changes, or mutates, in such a way as to render a drug against it less effective, the virus is said to be drug-resistant.

The concept of flu resistance to anti-viral drugs is not new. While some influenza A viruses have already been found to be resistant to anti-viral agents, this report is the first to identify resistant strains of influenza B.

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1999, Tamiflu and Relenza are relatively new additions to our armaments against the flu. They work by reducing the number of viruses released by infected cells. Fewer viruses means a lower chance of viral spread — and a higher chance of survival for the infected individual.

Tamiflu is by far the more frequently used of the two anti-viral drugs, with more than 50 million patient treatments worldwide since its approval. Japan is the greatest user of medicines like Tamiflu, and more than 90 percent of all such prescriptions are for Tamiflu.

Researchers had previously found some evidence that the mutations that make the flu virus resistant to drugs also lessens its ability to infect humans. The current study's findings suggest, however, that this is not always the case.

The resistant strains of influenza B identified in this study "cause infections with no difference in duration of symptoms, level of viral shedding, or clinical outcome," Dr. Anne Moscona, vice chair of research for pediatrics at New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

In other words, these resistant viruses make people just as sick. Furthermore, the resistant viruses seem to be passed readily from person to person — not only within families, but also among community members.

Does this mean we can expect a pandemic of drug-resistant influenza B in the near future? Not necessarily.

While flu resistance is a concern, unlike influenza A, influenza B is "not likely to be spread pandemically," said Robert Garry, professor of microbiology and immunology at the Tulane University School of Medicine.

This is because influenza B viruses are not inherently programmed to result in pandemic spread in the same manner as influenza A viruses — so it is unlikely that we need to prepare for a bird flu-like scare caused by influenza B.

Additionally, since this study was conducted in Japan, where Tamiflu use is much more common, "There are no immediate implications for anti-viral treatment in the U.S., but this is a yellow caution light," said Dr. William Schaffner, chair of the department of preventative medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

Resistance Still Rare, but Monitored

Though resistant strains of flu are being reported, resistance to Tamiflu is generally rare and is "continually and very closely monitored," according to Roche spokesperson Terry Hurley. He adds that anti-viral drugs such as Tamiflu are still "an essential part of any pandemic flu plan," and maintain their position as heavyweight fighters against flu.

Most importantly, the results of this study emphasize that anti-viral agents such as Tamiflu, Relenza and any other anti-viral drugs to be developed in the future should be used carefully in order to limit resistance.

And preventative measures, such as getting regular yearly flu shots, remain particularly important.

"The study reminds us that the treatment of influenza, although important, is not as effective as its prevention," Shaffner said. "We need to continue, indeed increase, research to create more effective influenza vaccines and improve methods of rapid vaccine production and delivery."

Authorities Collect, Bury Corpses in Mogadishu

voanews
Residents of Somalia's capital are collecting corpses that are still scattered on the streets after last week's fighting between insurgents and Ethiopian forces.

Medics and clan leaders began gathering up bodies Wednesday as a lull in the violence continued.

A top official with Somalia's doctor's association says infectious diseases could break out if the decaying bodies are not buried. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) says dead bodies do not generally pose a health hazard, unless they pollute sources of drinking water with human waste.

Aid organizations say last week's fighting was the worst violence to strike Mogadishu in 15 years. More than 380 civilians were killed.

On Tuesday, African, European and U.S. diplomats called for a full stop to fighting in Somalia. The diplomats were meeting in Cairo under the umbrella of the International Contact Group on Somalia.

International concern about the country is running high as the interim government struggles to establish authority in the capital.

Last week's fighting broke out when the government and its Ethiopian allies mounted an offensive against insurgents. The Ethiopian entered Somalia in December to help the government push a rival Islamist movement from power.

Somalia has not had an effective central government since 1991.

Iranian president announces release of British naval personnel

INTERNATIONAL HERALD
LONDON: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said Wednesday that he would immediately release 15 British sailors and marines who have been held captive in Iran since March 23.

Ahmadinejad said at a news conference in Tehran that he was giving the British military personnel amnesty and a pardon.

"I announce their freedom and their return to their people," he said. "They will be free after our meeting. They will go to the airport and will join their families."

The Iranian president said the decision to release the prisoners was not part of a swap with Iranian prisoners in Iraq.

"Our government has pardoned them, it is a gift from our people" he said. "It has nothing to do with this analysis. If we were to move forward on that basis things would have looked different. We approached the subject on a humanitarian basis. It was a unilateral decision on our end."

The announcement came after Ahmadinejad had taken the opportunity to pin a medal on the uniform of an Iranian naval commander who had captured the British sailors and marines.

The Britons were seized at gunpoint in disputed waters in the northern Persian Gulf. Iran contended that they illegally entered Iranian territorial waters. Britain argued that they were in Iraqi waters on a routine anti-smuggling patrol at the invitation of the Iraqi government and the United Nations.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain had said Tuesday that the next 48 hours would be "fairly critical" in resolving the dispute.

"All the way through this, we've had two tracks on this," Blair said in an interview with Real Radio in Glasgow. "One is to make sure Iran understands that the pressure is there available to us if this thing has to be hard and tough and long."

The other option is a peaceful resolution, the prime minister said. "We're not looking for confrontation over this," he had said. "Actually, the most important thing is to get the people back safe and sound, and if they want to resolve this in a diplomatic way, the door is open."

Blair had said that comments made by Ali Larijani, a top Iranian security official, on British television on Monday that "there is no need for a trial" and that "this issue should be resolved bilaterally" offered some prospect of a way to proceed. "But we need to hear from them direct," the prime minister had said, referring to the Iranians.

Iran had promised on Monday not to broadcast additional images of the British captives, but on Tuesday released photographs of several of them, looking relaxed and smiling, through the state news agency.

Some of the British captives, possibly under duress, have admitted to trespassing, and it appears that Iran has made such an admission a condition of their release.

Iran had demanded an admission of guilt from Britain and an apology, but Ahmadinejad appeared to have dropped that demand on Wednesday.

The Iranian president said Wednesday that he asks that Blair not put the captive sailors and marines on trial for admitting in the videotaped statements that they had trespassed in Iranian waters.

Other countries "must recognize that Iran will protect its right and its land and as it did in the past it will in the future," Ahmadinejad said. "We are sorry that the British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors are being arrested in Iran. We are sorry of this event."

He also questioned why one of the sailors was a mother. "Why is it that the most difficult missions, naval inspections, be given to a mother, who is carrying out a mission thousands of miles away from her child?" he said.

While remarks from Iran seemed softer in recent days, throughout the dispute its statements veered between conciliatory and angry, and it was hard to get a clear sense of what the government was thinking - or indeed whether the government was speaking with one voice.

Ahmadinejad's news conference on Wednesday came after he had postponed one on Tuesday.

In Washington, President Bush had described the Iranian seizure of British military personnel as "indefensible" and said that he, too, hoped to see the situation resolved peacefully. But he said Britain should not bargain for the captives' release.

"We are in close consultation with the British government," he said at a news conference at the White House. "I also strongly support the prime minister's declaration there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages."

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

U.S. agents eye secret prisons in Ethiopia - Africa - MSNBC.com

U.S. agents eye secret prisons in Ethiopia - Africa - MSNBC.com

U.S. agents eye secret prisons in Ethiopia
CIA, FBI agents looking for al-Qaida militants at notorious Ethiopia jails
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:58 p.m. ET April 3, 2007

NAIROBI, Kenya - CIA and FBI agents hunting for al-Qaida militants in the Horn of Africa have been interrogating terrorism suspects from 19 countries held at secret prisons in Ethiopia, which is notorious for torture and abuse, according to an investigation by The Associated Press.

Human rights groups, lawyers and several Western diplomats assert hundreds of prisoners, who include women and children, have been transferred secretly and illegally in recent months from Kenya and Somalia to Ethiopia, where they are kept without charge or access to lawyers and families.

The detainees include at least one U.S. citizen, and some are from Canada, Sweden and France, according to a list compiled by a Kenyan Muslim rights group and flight manifests obtained by AP.

Some were swept up by Ethiopian troops that drove a radical Islamist government out of neighboring Somalia late last year. Others have been deported from Kenya, where many Somalis have fled the continuing violence in their homeland.

Ethiopia, which denies holding secret prisoners, is a country with a long history of human rights abuses. In recent years, it has also been a key U.S. ally in the fight against al-Qaida, which has been trying to sink roots among Muslims in the Horn of Africa.

U.S. government officials contacted by AP acknowledged questioning prisoners in Ethiopia. But they said American agents were following the law and were fully justified in their actions because they are investigating past attacks and current threats of terrorism.

The prisoners were never in American custody, said an FBI spokesman, Richard Kolko, who denied the agency would support or be party to illegal arrests. He said U.S. agents were allowed limited access by governments in the Horn of Africa to question prisoners as part of the FBI’s counter-terrorism work.

Western security officials, who insisted on anonymity because the issue related to security matters, told AP that among those held were well-known suspects with strong links to al-Qaida.

An 'outsourced Guantanamo'
But some U.S. allies have expressed consternation at the transfers to the prisons. One Western diplomat in Nairobi, who agreed to speak to AP only if not quoted to avoid angering U.S. officials, said he sees the United States as playing a guiding role in the operation.

John Sifton, a Human Rights Watch expert on counter-terrorism, went further. He said in an e-mail that the United States has acted as “ringleader” in what he labeled a “decentralized, outsourced Guantanamo.”

Details of the arrests, transfers and interrogations slowly emerged as AP and human rights groups investigated the disappearances, diplomats tracked their missing citizens and the first detainees to be released told their stories.

One investigator from an international human rights group, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak to the media, said Ethiopia had secret jails at three locations: Addis Ababa, the capital; an Ethiopian air base 37 miles east of the capital; and the far eastern desert close to the Somali border.

More than 100 arrests in January
More than 100 of the detainees were originally arrested in Kenya in January, after almost all of them fled Somalia because of the intervention by Ethiopian troops accompanied by U.S. special forces advisers, according to Kenyan police reports and U.S. military officials.

Those people were then deported in clandestine pre-dawn flights to Somalia, according to the Kenya Muslim Human Rights Forum and airline documents. At least 19 were women and 15 were children.

In Somalia, they were handed over to Ethiopian intelligence officers and secretly flown to Ethiopia, where they are now in detention, the New York-based Human Rights Watch says.

A further 200 people, also captured in Somalia, were mainly Ethiopian rebels who backed the Somali Islamist movement, according to one rights group and a Somali government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to jeopardize his job. Those prisoners also were taken to Ethiopia, human rights groups say.

Kenya continues to arrest hundreds of people for illegally crossing over from Somalia. But it is not clear if deportations continue.

The Pentagon announced last week that one Kenyan al-Qaida suspect who fled Somalia, Mohamed Abul Malik, was arrested and flown to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Ethiopia denying secret prisoners
When contacted by AP, Ethiopian officials denied that they held secret prisoners or that any detainees were questioned by U.S. officials.

“No such kind of secret prisons exist in Ethiopia,” said Bereket Simon, special adviser to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. He declined to comment further.

A former prisoner and the families of current and former captives tell a different story.

“It was a nightmare from start to finish,” Kamilya Mohammedi Tuweni, a 42-year-old mother of three who has a passport from the United Arab Emirates, told AP in her first comments after her release in Addis Ababa on March 24 from what she said was 2½ months in detention without charge.

She is the only released prisoner who has spoken publicly. She was freed a month after being interviewed, fingerprinted and photographed by a U.S. agent, she said. Tuweni, an Arabic-Swahili translator, said she was arrested while on a business trip to Kenya and had never been to Somalia or had any links to that country.

She said she was arrested Jan. 10. Tuweni said she was beaten in Kenya, then forced to sleep on a stone floor while held in Somalia in a single room with 22 other women and children for 10 days before being flown to Ethiopia on a military plane.

Finally, she said, she was taken blindfolded from prison to a private villa in the Ethiopian capital. There, she said, she was interrogated with other women by a male U.S. intelligence agent. He assured her that she would not be harmed but urged her to cooperate, she said.

More families speak out
In a telephone conversation with AP, Tuweni said the man identified himself as a U.S. official, but not from the FBI. A CIA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Tuesday that the agency had no contact with Tuweni.

“We cried the whole time because we did not know what would happen. The whole thing was very scary,” said Tuweni, who flew back to her family in Dubai a day after her release.

Tuweni’s version of her transfer out of Kenya is corroborated by the manifest of the African Express Airways flight 5Y AXF. It shows she was taken to Mogadishu, Somalia, with 31 other people on an unscheduled flight chartered by the Kenyan government.

The family of a Swedish detainee, 17-year-old Safia Benaouda, said she was freed from Ethiopia on March 27 and arrived home the following day. Benaouda had traveled to Somalia with her fiancé but fled to Kenya during the Ethiopian military intervention, her mother said.

“She is exhausted, her face is yellow and she’s lost about 10 kilograms (22 pounds),” her mother, Helena Benaouda, a 47-year-old Muslim convert who heads the Swedish Muslim Council, wrote on a Web site she set up to help secure her daughter’s release. “She was beaten with a stick when she demanded to go to the toilet.”

The mother spoke briefly by telephone with AP, saying any information she had was being posted on the Web site. She declined to make her daughter available for an interview.

According to the Web site, an American specialist visited the location where Benaouda was being held and took DNA samples and fingerprints of detainees. It said the teenager was never charged or allowed access to lawyers. The teen was also concerned about a 7-month-old baby that was in detention with her, the Web site said.

One American among detainees
The transfer from Kenya to Somalia, and eventually to Ethiopia, of a 24-year-old U.S. citizen, Amir Mohamed Meshal, raised disquiet among FBI officers and the State Department. He is the only American known to be among the detainees in Ethiopia.

U.S. diplomats on Feb. 27 formally protested to Kenyan authorities about Meshal’s transfer and then spent three weeks trying to gain access to him in Ethiopia, said Tom Casey, deputy spokesman for the State Department.

He confirmed Meshal was still in Ethiopian custody pending a hearing on his status.

An FBI memo read to AP by a U.S. official in Washington, who insisted on anonymity, quoted an agent who interrogated Meshal as saying the agent was “disgusted” by Meshal’s deportation to Somalia by Kenya. The unidentified agent said he was told by U.S. consular staff that the deportation was illegal.

“My personal opinion was that he may have been a jihadi a-hole, but the precedent of ’deporting’ U.S. citizens to dangerous situations when there is no reason to do so was a bad one,” the official quoted the memo as saying.

Like Benaouda, Meshal was arrested fleeing Somalia. A Kenyan police report of Meshal’s arrest obtained by AP says he was carrying an assault rifle and had crossed into Kenyan with armed Arab men who were trying to avoid capture.

Meshal’s parents insist he is innocent and called on the U.S. government to win his release.

“My son’s only crime is that he’s a Muslim, an American Muslim,” his father, Mohamed Meshal, said from the family’s two-story home on a cul-de-sac in Tinton Falls, N.J., where he lives with his wife, Fifi.

“Clearly the U.S. government interrogated him, and threatened him with torture according to the accounts that we’ve seen,” said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law who has been assisting the family.

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday to demand Meshal’s immediate release. “Our government cannot allow an American citizen to continue to be held by the Ethiopian government in violation of international law and our own due process,” he said.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, the guardian of the Geneva Conventions that protect victims of war, is seeking access to the Ethiopian detainees, said a diplomat from a country whose citizens are being held. He insisted on speaking anonymously because he is working for their release.

U.S. officials, who agreed to discuss the detentions only if not quoted by name because of the information’s sensitivity, said Ethiopia had allowed access to U.S. agencies, including the CIA and FBI, but the agencies played no role in arrests, transport or deportation.

One official said it would have been irresponsible to pass up an opportunity to learn more about terrorist operations.

Kolko, the FBI spokesman, also said the detainees were never in FBI or U.S. government custody.

“While in custody of the foreign government, the FBI was granted limited access to interview certain individuals of interest,” he told AP. “We do not support or participate in any system that illegally detains foreign fighters or terror suspects, including women and children.”

Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, declined to discuss details of any such interviews. He said, however: “To fight terror, CIA acts boldly and lawfully, alone and with partners, just as the American people expect us to.”

One of the U.S. officials said the FBI has had access in Ethiopia to several dozen individuals — fewer than 100 — as part of its investigations.

1998 bombings a focal point
The official said the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed hundreds are a major focus of the agents’ work. Law enforcement officials have long believed the bombings were carried out by members of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network who were later given safe haven in Somalia.

The official said FBI agents would not be witness or party to any questioning that involved abuse.

It wasn’t clear how many people the CIA interviewed or whether the agency’s officers were working jointly with the FBI.

The CIA began an aggressive program in 2002 to interrogate suspected terrorists at an unknown number of secret locations from Southeast Asia to Europe. Prisoners were frequently picked up in one country and transferred to a prison in another, where they were held incommunicado by a cooperative intelligence service. But President Bush announced in September that all the detainees had been moved to military custody at Guantanamo Bay.

One Western diplomat, who refused to be quoted by name for fear of hurting relations with the countries involved, would not rule out that additional suspects in Ethiopia could be sent to Guantanamo.

Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua insisted no laws were broken and said his government was not aware that anyone would be transferred from Somalia to Ethiopia.

Lawyers and human rights groups argue the covert transfers to Ethiopia violated international law.

“Each of these governments has played a shameful role in mistreating people fleeing a war zone,” said Georgette Gagnon, deputy Africa director of Human Rights Watch. “Kenya has secretly expelled people, the Ethiopians have caused dozens to disappear, and U.S. security agents have routinely interrogated people held incommunicado.”
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17935971/

How I know Blair faked Iran map

ukdaily
Like most senior Royal Navy officers, Commodore Nick Lambert has great reserves of professional expertise and common sense. The Coalition task force commander was aboard HMS Cornwall when 15 Royal Navy personnel serving on the frigate were seized at gunpoint by Iranian forces on March 23


The Navy states the 14 men and one woman were on a routine patrol in rigid inflatables off Iraqi shores - Iran insists they were in its waters illegally.
-read Craig Murray's Blog
A few hours after the 15 were seized, Cdre Lambert said: 'There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated.'

Another day, another chance for Iran to heap on the humiliation
Iran crisis is Blair's true legacy
Family relieved by Iran footage
And his predecessor in command of the task force, Commodore Peter Lockwood of the Royal Australian Navy, said last October: 'No maritime border has been agreed upon by the countries.'

Both officers told the truth. It is the burial of this truth by No 10 spin doctors, and Tony Blair's remark that he is 'utterly certain' the incident took place within Iraqi territorial limits, that has escalated this from an incident to a crisis. Blair is being fatuous.

How can you be certain which side of a boundary you are when that boundary has never been drawn?

I am best known as the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, but from 1989 to 1992 I headed the Foreign Office's maritime section. This included responsibility for territorial sea claims and for negotiating our own maritime boundaries. The expertise of the Royal Navy was invaluable.

For eight months I also worked with Royal Naval and Defence Intelligence Service personnel in the Embargo Surveillance Centre, a secret unit operating 24 hours a day from an underground command centre in Central London to prevent Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement.

We analysed information from intelligence and other sources, and could instruct Royal Naval craft in the Gulf to board and inspect individual ships. I was responsible for getting the political clearance for operations just like the one now in question, in this exact location. So I know what I'm talking about.

There is no agreed boundary in the Northern Gulf, either between Iran and Iraq or between Iraq and Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq border has been agreed inside the Shatt al-Arab waterway, because there it is also the land border. But that agreement does not extend beyond the low tide line of the coast.

Even that very limited agreement is arguably no longer in force. Since it was reached in 1975, a war has been fought over it, and ten-year reviews - necessary because waters and sandbanks in this region move about dramatically - have never been carried out.

But what about the map the Ministry of Defence produced on Tuesday, with territorial boundaries set out by a clear red line, and the co-ordinates of the incident marked in relation to it?

I have news for you. Those boundaries are fake. They were drawn up by the MoD. They are not agreed or recognised by any international authority.

To put it at its most charitable, they are a potential boundary. It is accepted practice, where no boundary exists, to work by a rule-of-thumb idea of where a boundary, based on a median line between the two coasts, might be.

But to elevate that to a hard and fast boundary, and then base a major international incident on being a few hundred yards one side or the other, is out of order.

Negotiating a maritime boundary is horribly complicated. To set a median line you agree a series of triangulation points on both coastlines and do a geometric triangulation exercise to find a line running out from the coast.

Of course, both sides will argue about which triangulation points on the coast to use. You are allowed, for example, to draw a line across a bay entrance and use that as the coast, but there is plenty of room for the other side to argue over where that line is drawn.

That is only the start. For territorial seas you start at the low tide mark and uninhabited rocks and sandbanks count.

There is huge room for argument - ownership of a useless sandbank is not necessarily a settled thing. Then it really gets complex. What if the sandbank appears only at low tide or moves? In this area of the Gulf, sands shift endlessly.

It is, in short, impossible to say where a real, negotiated or adjudicated Iran-Iraq boundary might eventually lie. It is also why the instinct of both the Foreign Office and MoD was to play this quietly and negotiate our people back.

But the No10 spin doctors stepped in, seeing a propaganda opportunity to portray Blair as fighting evil Iranians.

Navy and Foreign Office experts were horrified at the notion of publishing that map.

In doing so we entrenched Blair's ridiculous boast that our 15 Navy personnel were definitely in Iraqi territorial seas, and claimed the right to dictate Iran's boundary.

It's not surprising Iraq backed British claims - the map is favourable to them. But it makes compromise on the captives very difficult.

Of course, the Iranians equally cannot say unilaterally that these are their territorial waters, and act as if they owned them.

In disputed waters it behoves everyone to act with caution and respect. Plainly the Iranians are not doing that.

None of this vindicates Iran's aggressive behaviour in holding the captives or the so-called confessions.

For Iran to detain the British sailors in these circumstances was provocative and bellicose.

To hold them for a few hours could have been taken as a legitimate, if over forceful way, of indicating their claim to the disputed waters in which the British personnel boarded a neutral vessel.

But Iranian behaviour in the past few days has tipped over into the plain illegal and indefensible.

However I have no doubt Blair is delighted at last to have a Middle East issue with popular support before May's elections.

Yes, Iran has a bad government that is behaving stupidly. But perhaps it is not alone. Both sides have to climb down. We have to state that no agreed border exists and that we had no intention of straying into Iranian waters.

The Iranian government should let our people go immediately. That is the way out of this mess for both sides.

Supreme Court Denies Guantánamo Appeal - New York Times

Supreme Court Denies Guantánamo Appeal - New York Times

April 3, 2007
Supreme Court Denies Guantánamo Appeal
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON, April 2 — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear urgent appeals from two groups of detainees at Guantánamo Bay. The 45 men sought to challenge the constitutionality of a new law stripping federal judges of the authority to hear challenges to the open-ended confinement of foreign citizens held at the American naval base in Cuba and designated as enemy combatants.

The court’s action leaves standing a ruling six weeks ago by the federal appeals court here that upheld the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The justices’ refusal to hear the case at this point, before any of the detainees have availed themselves of alternative appeal procedures that their lawyers argue are unconstitutionally truncated, does not foreclose eventual consideration by the court after those appeals have run their course.

The men have all been held at Guantánamo Bay for more than five years, and none has been charged with a crime. They filed petitions for habeas corpus, challenging their continued confinement, before Congress ordered in the 2006 law that all such petitions must be dismissed and no new ones could be accepted for filing.

Ordinarily, the Supreme Court makes no comment when it turns down an appeal. In this instance, the court offered an unusual degree of transparency, with two separate opinions accompanying the one-sentence order denying the two petitions.

One was a dissenting opinion from three justices, Stephen G. Breyer, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who voted to hear the cases as “significant ones warranting our review,” as Justice Breyer said in an opinion that spoke for the three.

The separate opinion was a statement “respecting the denial,” signed jointly by Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy. They explained why they voted against hearing the cases. They said the court should follow its usual practice for ordinary prison inmates and require “the exhaustion of available remedies as a precondition to accepting jurisdiction over applications for the writ of habeas corpus.”

Despite the apparent transparency, the real story was probably one that no justice acknowledged: the inability of the court’s four most liberal members, Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg, to count on Justice Kennedy’s eventual vote.

While four votes are sufficient to grant a case under the court’s rules, five are of course necessary to win it. The liberal justices, or at least their leader, Justice Stevens, may well have decided that refraining at this point was the wiser course, given the risk that the case might come out the “wrong” way, from their point of view, with an affirmation of the appeals court’s decision that would then become a hard and fast Supreme Court precedent.

Justice Stevens is the author of the court’s two decisions rejecting the Bush administration’s legal analysis of the status of the Guantánamo detainees, Rasul v. Bush in 2004 and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld last June. He almost certainly agreed on Monday with the assessment in Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion that the men bringing the new appeals “plausibly argue that the lower court’s reasoning is contrary to this court’s precedent” as expressed in the earlier opinions.

But Justice Stevens, who will turn 87 later this month, is also a strategic and canny inside player who knew that providing a fourth vote to hear the cases without assurance of Justice Kennedy’s position risked putting them on track to the wrong destination.

Furthermore, Justice Ginsburg evidently did not agree with Justices Stevens and Souter that the court should not only grant the appeals, but also should schedule argument on an expedited basis in order to decide them in June. She declined to sign the part of Justice Breyer’s opinion that called for expedited review.

That meant that even if the court did vote to hear the cases, the argument would be deferred until next fall and a decision might well be a year or more away. Now that the appeals have been denied, the detainees’ lawyers will undoubtedly explore other options for moving the cases along, perhaps even more quickly.

Justices Stevens and Kennedy said pointedly that if it turns out that “the government has unreasonably delayed proceedings” or subjects the detainees to “some other and ongoing injury,” the Supreme Court would be open to a renewed appeal.

At issue at this point are challenges to proceedings known as Combatant Status Review Tribunals that decide whether a detainee should be labeled an enemy combatant. Under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has sole jurisdiction to hear appeals from the tribunal’s determination.

The detainees’ lawyers argue that both the tribunals and the limited form of review in the appeals court are fatally flawed.

The cases were Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, and Al Odah v. United States, No. 06-1196.

Autism a lifelong burden, study shows

Because few adults with the disorder can work, the economic costs continue
globe and mail
ach child diagnosed with autism will accrue about $3.2-million (U.S.) in medical and non-medical costs over his or her lifetime, according to a new study.

The most expensive components are lost productivity and adult care, not medical costs and behavioural therapies that so many parents crave for their children, the research shows.

"Although autism is typically thought of as a disorder of childhood, its costs can be felt well into adulthood," said Michael Ganz, an adjunct professor in the department of society, human development and health at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., and the lead author.

Earlier research estimated that autism costs the U.S. economy about $35-billion annually, and the Canadian economy $3.5-billion.

The new study, published in today's edition of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, takes the analysis further, examining how these costs are incurred throughout the lifetime of a person with autism.

The study showed that direct medical costs were high in the first five years of life, at about $35,000 annually. That is when most behavioural therapies are offered. The indirect costs to parents, in large part due to lost income, are also quite high in the childhood and adolescent years, averaging $43,000 annually.

But, as a person with autism ages, the costs of non-medical care soars, and so do productivity losses.

Because there are programs for autistic adults, these are paid out-of-pocket, with costs averaging $27,500 a year. Many people with the disorder do not work and their parents still need to provide care, factors that translate into economic losses averaging $52,000 annually, according to the research.

Susan Bryson, who holds the Jack and Joan Craig Chair in Autism Research at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said the research is important because it draws attention to adults with autism.

"The data we have tell us that only about 5 per cent of adults with autism are self-supporting," she said. Yet there is a paucity of adult programs, and this creates a life-long burden for families."

Dr. Bryson said it is not clear if investing in behavioural therapy like ABA/IBI in childhood will ultimately result in adult autistics who are more able to be independent and to work.

"But we need to ask the question: Does investment early on have significant economic benefits later?" Dr. Bryson said.

Dr. Ganz said recognizing that a child diagnosed with autism today may become an adult who is unable to work and who requires specialized adult care should awaken parents to the need for financial planning.

"Parents of children with autism should seek financial counselling to help plan the transition into adulthood," he said.

To conduct the research, Dr. Ganz looked across the lifetime of a hypothetical group of individuals born in 2000 and diagnosed with autism in 2003.

Only costs directly related to autism were included, with no medical or non-medical costs incurred by individuals with or without autism included.

Autism and related conditions are development disabilities known under the catch-all term autism spectrum disorders.

They have become increasingly common in recent years.

The soaring numbers are due to a combination of factors, including greater awareness, changes in diagnostic criteria and, perhaps, more children being born with the disorder.

The Autism Society of Canada estimates the incidence rate in this country is one in every 286 births. The condition is about four times more likely in boys than girls.

It is not clear what causes autism spectrum disorders, but there are many theories, including exposure to environmental toxins, diet, a malfunctioning immune system and paternal age.

(There are those who also believe that autism can be caused by a mercury derivative that used to be found in childhood vaccines, but that theory has repeatedly been debunked.)

Did Google airbrush Katrina history? - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com

Did Google airbrush Katrina history? - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com

Did Google airbrush Katrina history?
Company replaced aerial images showing damage with pre-hurricane shots
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:43 p.m. ET March 30, 2007
NEW ORLEANS - A congressional subcommittee accused Google on Friday of “airbrushing history” by replacing post-Hurricane Katrina satellite imagery on its popular map portal with images of the region taken before the storm’s devastation.

Citing an Associated Press report from Thursday, the House Committee on Science and Technology’s subcommittee on investigations and oversight asked Google Inc. Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt to explain why his company is using the outdated imagery.

“Google’s use of old imagery appears to be doing the victims of Hurricane Katrina a great injustice by airbrushing history,” subcommittee chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., wrote Friday in a letter to Schmidt.

Swapping the post-Katrina images and the ruin they revealed for others showing an idyllic city dumbfounded many locals and even sparked suspicions that the company and civic leaders were conspiring to portray the area’s recovery progressing better than it is.

Andrew Kovacs, a Google spokesman, said the company had received the letter but Schmidt had no immediate response.

After Katrina, Google’s satellite images were in high demand among exiles and hurricane victims anxious to see whether their homes were damaged.

Virtual trip through pristine city
Now, though, a virtual trip through New Orleans is a surreal experience of scrolling across a landscape of packed parking lots and marinas full of boats.

Reality, of course, is very different: Entire neighborhoods are now slab mosaics where houses once stood and shopping malls, churches and marinas are empty of life, many gone altogether.

John Hanke, Google’s director for maps and satellite imagery, said “a combination of factors including imagery date, resolution, and clarity” go into deciding what imagery to provide.

“The latest update from one of our information providers substantially improved the imagery detail of the New Orleans area,” Hanke said in a news release about the switch.

Kovacs said efforts are under way to use more current imagery.

It was not clear when the current images replaced views of the city taken after Katrina struck Aug. 29, 2005, flooding an estimated 80 percent of New Orleans.

Quest for answers
Miller asked Google to brief his staff by April 6 on who made the decision to replace the imagery with pre-Katrina images, and to disclose if Google was contacted by the city, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey or any other government entity about changing the imagery.

“To use older, pre-Katrina imagery when more recent images are available without some explanation as to why appears to be fundamentally dishonest,” Miller said.

Edith Holleman, staff counsel for the House subcommittee, said it would be useful to understand how Google acquires and manages its imagery because “people see Google and other Internet engines and it’s almost like the official word.”

Google does provide imagery of New Orleans and the region following Katrina through its more specialized service called Google Earth.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17880969/

WTO protesters to get $1 million - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

WTO protesters to get $1 million - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

WTO protesters to get $1 million
Insurer to pay about 175 arrested at peaceful demonstration in Seattle
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:45 a.m. ET April 3, 2007
SEATTLE - The city's insurance company has agreed to pay $1 million to settle claims from about 175 people who were wrongly arrested during a peaceful World Trade Organization protest in 1999.

The case went to trial in January, and a federal jury found Seattle liable for violating the protesters' constitutional rights by arresting them without probable cause. The settlement, announced Monday, avoids a damages phase to determine how much the city owed, and it resolves the last outstanding claims against the city from the protests.

"The police can respect the constitutional rights of protesters and at the same time protect the public safety," said Mike Withey of Washington, D.C.-based Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, which brought the lawsuit.

As part of the settlement, which a federal judge must approve, the city will seal the arrest records and ask any law enforcement agencies that received copies to expunge them, Withey said. Each protester will be eligible to receive $3,000 to $10,000, and some of the settlement will be used to pay legal fees.

City Attorney Tom Carr said the city believes it would have won an appeal.

"However, the city's insurance company decided to settle the case rather than to continue to fund the appellate litigation," Carr said in a news release.

The insurance company is National Union, said Carr's assistant, Ruth Bowman. The company did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

Protesters were singing anthems
The trial stemmed from the mass arrest of protesters at a downtown park, where they were sitting and singing patriotic anthems. That week, 50,000 demonstrators had swarmed Seattle, overwhelming police and closing down parts of the WTO meeting.

The park was in a "no-protest" zone established by the mayor, but officers made no effort to determine whether the protesters had other legitimate reasons to be there before making the arrests, the jury decided.

In a pretrial ruling, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled the city had made the arrests without probable cause. Arrest reports were not filled out properly, she noted.

The city agreed in the settlement to issue copies of Pechman's rulings in the case to police cadets and officers to help prevent unlawful mass arrests, Withey said.

Lead plaintiff Ken Hankin, a Boeing worker, said he was pleased the settlement had been reached but added that getting a few thousand dollars seemed paltry compared to the violation of his rights. He spent three days in police custody and wasn't released until the WTO meetings had ended.

"I lost my right to protest the WTO," he said. "That's something I feel very upset about."

Seattle previously paid about $800,000 in more than a dozen WTO lawsuits and claims.


© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17921582/

WP: How phony letter drove Iraq war - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

WP: How phony letter drove Iraq war - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

WP: How phony letter drove Iraq war
Intelligence failures surrounded inquiry on Iraq-Niger uranium claim
By Peter Eisner
The Washington Post
Updated: 7:43 a.m. ET April 3, 2007
It was 3 a.m. in Italy on Jan. 29, 2003, when President Bush in Washington began reading his State of the Union address that included the now famous -- later retracted -- 16 words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Like most Europeans, Elisabetta Burba, an investigative reporter for the Italian newsweekly Panorama, waited until the next day to read the newspaper accounts of Bush's remarks. But when she came to the 16 words, she recalled, she got a sudden sinking feeling in her stomach. She wondered: How could the American president have mentioned a uranium sale from Africa?

Burba felt uneasy because more than three months earlier, she had turned over to the U.S. Embassy in Rome documents about an alleged uranium sale by the central African nation of Niger. And she knew now that the documents were fraudulent and the 16 words wrong.

Nonetheless, the uranium claim would become a crucial justification for the invasion of Iraq that began less than two months later. When occupying troops found no nuclear program, the 16 words and how they came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war.

Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available to them at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable.

In February 2002, the CIA received the verbatim text of one of the documents, filled with errors easily identifiable through a simple Internet search, the interviews show. Many low- and mid-level intelligence officials were already skeptical that Iraq was in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The interviews also showed that France, berated by the Bush administration for opposing the Iraq war, honored a U.S. intelligence request to investigate the uranium claim. It determined that its former colony had not sold uranium to Iraq.

Burba, who had no special expertise in Africa or nuclear technology, was able to quickly unravel the fraud. Yet the claims clung to life within the Bush administration for months, eventually finding their way into the State of the Union address.

As a result of the CIA's failure to firmly discredit the document text it received in February 2002, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was called in to investigate the claim. That decision eventually led to the special counsel's investigation that exposed inner workings of the White House and ended with the criminal conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was forced to resign as chief of staff to Vice President Cheney.

"You know I feel bad about it," Burba said later, discussing her frustrations about her role in giving the dossier to the Americans. "You know the fact is that my documents, with the documents I brought to them, they justified the war."

The tip
In early October of 2002, a man mysteriously contacted Elisabetta Burba at her Milan office.

"Do you remember me?" the deep voice said, without identifying himself outright. It was Rocco Martino, an old source who had proved reliable in the past. He was once again trying to sell her information.

Martino said he had some very interesting documents to show her, and asked whether she could fly down to Rome right away.

They met at a restaurant in Rome on Oct. 7, where Martino showed Burba a folder filled with documents, most of them in French. One of the documents was purportedly sent by the president of Niger to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, confirming a deal to sell 500 tons of uranium to Iraq annually. This was the smoking gun in the package, claiming to show the formal approval of Niger's president to supply Iraq with a commodity that would in all likelihood only be used for a nuclear weapons program: Iraq had no nuclear power plants.

Though the document was in French it would later come to be known as "The Italian Letter." It was written in all capital letters, in the form of an old telex, and bore the letterhead of the Republic of Niger. The letter was dated July 27, 2000, and included an odd shield on the top, a shining sun surrounded by a horned animal head, a star and a bird. The letter was stamped Confidential and Urgent.

The letter said that "500 tons of pure uranium per year will be delivered in two phases." A seal at the bottom of the page read "The Office of the President of the Republic of Niger." Superimposed over the seal was a barely legible signature bearing the name of the president of Niger, Mamadou Tandja.

Burba listened without saying much as she took a first look at the documents. She recognized right away that the material was hot, if authentic. But confirming the origin would be difficult, she recalled thinking at the time. She didn't want to fall into a trap.

Burba and Martino made an agreement; she would take the documents, and if they checked out as authentic, then they could talk about money.


'Let's go to the Americans'
Back in her magazine's Milan newsroom, Burba told her editors she thought it would make sense to fly to Niger and check around for confirmation. The editor of the magazine, Carlo Rossella, agreed. He then suggested they simultaneously pursue another tack.

"Let's go to the Americans," Rossella said, "because they are focused on looking for weapons of mass destruction more than anyone else. Let's see if they can authenticate the documents." Rossella called the U.S. Embassy in Rome and alerted officials to expect a visit from Burba.

On Wednesday morning, Oct. 9, Burba returned to Rome and took a cab to the U.S. Embassy, which is housed at the old Palazzo Margherita.

Burba came to a security gate and walked through a magnetometer, where an Italian employee of the embassy press department came down to meet her.

After a few formalities, an Italian aide introduced her to Ian Kelly, the embassy press spokesman. Kelly and Burba walked across the embassy's walled grounds and sat down for a cup of coffee in the cafeteria.

Burba told Kelly that she had some documents about Iraq and uranium shipments and needed help in confirming their authenticity and accuracy.

Kelly interrupted her, realizing he needed help. He made a phone call summoning someone else from his staff as well as a political officer. Burba recalled a third person being invited, possibly a U.S. military attache. She didn't get their names.

"Let's go to my office," Kelly said. They walked past antiquities, a tranquil fountain, steps and pieces of marble, all set in a tree-lined patio garden.

The Italian journalist's chat with Kelly and his colleagues was brief. She handed over the papers; Kelly told her the embassy would look into the matter. But Kelly had not been briefed on what others in the embassy knew.


CIA role
One person who refused to meet with Burba was the CIA chief of station. A few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Sismi, the Italian intelligence agency, had sent along information about the alleged sale of uranium to Iraq. The station chief asked for more information and would later consider it far-fetched.

On Oct. 15, 2001, the CIA reports officer at the embassy wrote a brief summary based on the Sismi intelligence, signed and dated it, and routed it to CIA's Operations Directorate in Langley, with copies going to the clandestine service's European and Near East divisions. The reports officer had limited its distribution because the intelligence was uncorroborated; she was aware of Sismi's questionable track record and did not believe the report merited wider dissemination.

The Operations Directorate then passed the raw intelligence to the CIA's Intelligence Directorate and to sister agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency. A more polished document, called a Senior Executive Intelligence Brief, was written at Langley three days later in which the CIA mentioned the new intelligence but added important caveats. The classified document, whose distribution was limited to senior policymakers and the congressional intelligence committees, said there was no corroboration and noted that Iraq had "no known facilities for processing or enriching the material."

Pushing the Africa claim
Almost four months later, on Feb. 5, 2002, the CIA received more information from Sismi, including the verbatim text of one of the documents. The CIA failed to recognize that it was riddled with errors, including misspellings and the wrong names for key officials. But it was a separate DIA report about the claims that would lead Cheney to demand further investigation. In response, the CIA dispatched Wilson to Niger.

Martino's approach to Burba eight months later with the Italian letter coincided with accelerating U.S. preparations for war. On Oct. 7, 2002, the same day Martino gave Burba the dossier, President Bush launched a new hard-line PR campaign on Iraq. In a speech in Cincinnati, he declared that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a "grave threat" to U.S. national security.

"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons," the president warned.

CIA Director George J. Tenet had vetted the text of Bush's speech and was able to persuade the White House to drop one questionable claim: that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa. The information was too fishy, Tenet explained to the National Security Council and Bush's speechwriters.

Bush dropped the shopping-for-uranium claim, but ratcheted up the bomb threat. He said in Cincinnati that if Hussein obtained bomb-grade uranium the size of a softball, he would have a nuclear bomb within a year. This particular doomsday scenario had first been unveiled several weeks earlier, on Aug. 26, by Cheney. In a speech in Nashville to the 103rd national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he declared with no equivocation that Hussein had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

On Oct. 16, Burba sat on a plane on her way to Niger, while in Washington, copies of the Italian letter and the accompanying dossier were placed on the table at an interagency nuclear proliferation meeting hosted by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

At this point, State Department analysts had determined the documents were phony, and had produced by far the most accurate assessment of Iraq's weapons program of the 16 agencies that make up the intelligence community. But the department's small intelligence unit operated in a bubble. Few administration officials -- not even Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- paid much attention to its analytical product, much of which clashed with the White House's assumptions.

The State Department bureau, nevertheless, shared the bogus documents with those intelligence officials attending the meeting, including representatives of the Energy Department, National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. Four CIA officials attended, but only one, a clandestine service officer, bothered to take a copy of the Italian letter.

He returned to his office, filed the material in a safe and forgot about it.

The Niger uranium matter was not uppermost in the minds of the CIA analysts. Some of them had to deal with the issue in any case, largely because Cheney, his aide Libby and some aides at the National Security Council had repeatedly demanded more information and more analysis.


A fraud unravels
Burba arrived in Niamey, Niger's capital, on Oct. 17 and began tracking down leads on the Italian letter. Burba's investigation followed a series of similar inquiries by Wilson, the former ambassador, who investigated on behalf of the CIA eight months earlier. It became clear that Niger was not capable of secretly shipping yellowcake uranium to Iraq or anywhere else.

Burba found that a French company controlled the uranium trade, and any shipment of uranium would have been noticed. If a uranium sale had taken place, the logistics would have been daunting. "They would have needed hundreds of trucks," she said -- a large percentage of all the trucks in Niger. It would have been impossible to conceal.

Burba returned to Milan and reported her findings to her bosses in detail. She didn't believe the evidence provided by Martino; it was impossible. Her editors agreed. There was no story.

Five months later, on March 7, 2003, as preparations for the Iraq invasion were in their final stages, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, told the U.N. Security Council that the report that Iraq had been shopping for uranium in Niger was based on forged documents. The agency had received the document from the United States a few weeks earlier.

Not long after the invasion, other news media in Italy, elsewhere in Europe and then in the United States reported that the source of the information about a Niger yellowcake uranium deal had been a batch of bogus letters and other documents passed along several months earlier to an unnamed Italian reporter, who in turn handed the information over to the United States.

Although Burba knew that the Bush administration had also received information about the forged documents from Italian intelligence, she wished she could have acted earlier to reveal the fraud.

It remains unclear who fabricated the documents. Intelligence officials say most likely it was rogue elements in Sismi who wanted to make money selling them.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17902403/

Monday, April 02, 2007

O'Reilly Mafia Threatens O'Donnell Over Sex Scandal



Fox News host promises to "go after" The View host and her colleagues
prisonplanet

Rosie O'Donnell, currently under attack after she questioned the official story behind 9/11, has revealed that Fox News bully Bill O'Reilly threatened to "go after" her and her colleagues after they mentioned O'Reilly's sex scandal on The View.

ABC has now gagged O'Donnell from mentioning the subject on all future broadcasts.

The policy of mafia-like intimidation directed at anyone who discusses 9/11 truth on behalf of O'Reilly is a common and disturbing theme.

Within the past two weeks, O'Reilly has threatened both Charlie Sheen and Mark Cuban that he'll be "looking out" for them if they continued their involvement in the upcoming release of the Loose Change Final Cut movie. On his Friday show, O'Reilly demanded Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, be thrown in jail.

In October of last year, O'Reilly threatened Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett that he would use his influence to push for an FBI investigation of the 9/11 truth professors, in an attempt to discover if they had links with terrorists.

"I'd put the FBI on you and that nutty Barrett and find out what the hell you guys are up to," salivated O'Reilly, making reference to Sammy Al-Arian, a former professor at USF who was charged and later acquitted of helping to lead a Palestinian terrorist group that carried out suicide bombings against Israel.

During a September 2001 interview before his arrest, O'Reilly told Al-Arian, "if I was the CIA, I'd follow you wherever you went. I'd follow you 24 hours."

As Kurt Nimmo writes, "Bill O'Reilly essentially had Dr. Sami al-Arian, an associate professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida, not only bounced from his job but also arrested and indicted by the Justice Department on racketeering and terrorist charges due to his alleged association with Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Ashcroft went as far as to characterize al-Arian as "the North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

In March of 2006, O'Reilly threatened disagreeing callers to his own radio show that their information would be turned over to law enforcement and that they would receive a visit from Fox security personnel. One such caller was actually contacted by Fox security after he mentioned Keith Olbermann on O'Reilly's show, an action classified by O'Reilly as obscene.

"If you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit," barked O'Reilly.

In October 2004, O'Reilly Factor producer Andrea Mackris filed a lawsuit in which it was alleged that O'Reilly had subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment, including unwanted invitations to engage in phone sex and unsolicited graphic descriptions of O'Reilly's sexual fantasies, as well as O'Reilly masturbating on the phone following an O'Reilly Factor episode in which two porn stars were featured. O'Reilly is married with two children.

Out of court settlements were reached in both Mackris' and O'Reilly's counter-lawsuit. The whole sordid affair can be read here.

O'Reilly has written five non-fiction books, one of which includes graphic scenes of sex and violence, including teenagers having sex with adults. The ending of O'Reilly's detective thriller, Those Who Trespass, features a shower scene that is almost identical to the one described by Mackris in her lawsuit.

Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly called for Rosie O'Donnell to be fired by ABC for questioning the official 9/11 story as well as other controversial statements. On Thursday night, MSNBC guest Danny Bonaduce called for O'Donnell to be executed for treason.

"When Joy and I alluded to O'Reilly's sex scandal on The View," writes O'Donnell on her blog, "we were told the following day that we couldn't bring it up anymore or else Bill O'Reilly would "go after" all the hosts of The View."

O'Donnell goes on to write that O'Reilly carefully edited her statements in his end of week attack on her for discussing the Iranian hostage crisis and 9/11, "molding the facts" like 1984 in an attempt to appease Fox News owner "Big Brother" Rupert Murdoch.

O'Donnell quotes a passage from George Orwell's 1984.

"Parsons was Winston’s fellow employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralyzing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms—one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the thought police, the stability of the Party depended."

The View host warns America that they must question authority before it's too late, and that by 2050 no human being will be able to understand a conversation that requires thought on behalf of the individual.

"The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness," writes O'Donnell.

O'Reilly's methods are disgraceful and are intended to create a chilling atmosphere to prevent more high profile figures from going public in support of 9/11 truth. But O'Reilly's arrogance is rivaled only by his delusion, ratings for his Fox show continue to plummet, while The View has gained 600,000 new viewers since O'Donnell took the helm.

Telling the truth resonates with the American public - threatening people with consequences unless they shut up does not.

Bill O'Reilly is sowing the seeds of his own downfall as more people every day begin to see through his tenuous facade as a fatuous cheerleader for the Neo-Cons and the Bush administration.

Top Court: EPA Can Control Emissions

(04-02) 08:54 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.

The court's four conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — dissented.

Many scientists believe greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, are leading to a warming of the Earth, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.

The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case.

"In many ways, the debate has moved beyond this," said Chris Miller, director of the global warming campaign for Greenpeace, one of the environmental groups that sued the EPA. "All the front-runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, even the business community, are much further along on this than the Bush administration is."

Democrats took control of Congress last November. The world's leading climate scientists reported in February that global warming is "very likely" caused by man and is so severe that it will "continue for centuries." Former Vice President Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth — making the case for quick action on climate change — won an Oscar. Business leaders are saying they are increasingly open to congressional action to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, of which carbon dioxide is the largest.

Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. One way to reduce those emissions is to have more fuel-efficient cars.

The court had three questions before it.

_Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

_Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

_Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that had grown frustrated by the Bush administration's inaction on global warming.

In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.

The court should simply recognize that redress of the kind of grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said.

His position "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem," he said.

The decision also is expected to boost California's prospects for gaining EPA approval of its own program to limit tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval of standards that are stricter than national norms.

The case is Massachusetts v. EPA, 05-1120.

Saturday, March 31, 2007

USS Cole suspect claims torture - International Terrorism - MSNBC.com

USS Cole suspect claims torture - International Terrorism - MSNBC.com

USS Cole suspect claims torture
Saudi says he admitted involvement in attack ‘to make the people happy’
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:08 p.m. ET March 30, 2007

WASHINGTON - A suspected Saudi terrorist told a military hearing that he was tortured into confessing that he was involved in the bombing of the warship USS Cole, according to a Defense Department transcript released Friday.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi national of Yemeni descent, said he made up stories that tied him to the Cole attack, which killed 17 U.S. sailors and nearly succeeded in sinking the $1 billion destroyer in Aden harbor, Yemen.

"From the time I was arrested five years ago, they have been torturing me. It happened during interviews. One time they tortured me one way, and another time they tortured me in a different way," al-Nashiri said, according to the transcript. "I just said those things to make the people happy. They were very happy when I told them those things."

Portions of the 36-page hearing transcript were edited out, and it does not include any details of the torture al-Nashiri said took place over five years. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that any allegations of torture would be investigated. He said sections were blacked out of the transcript because of national security reasons.

Al-Nashiri is one of 14 so-called high-value detainees that were moved to Guantanamo in September from secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons abroad. The military is conducting hearings for the 14 to determine if they are enemy combatants, who can be held indefinitely and prosecuted for war crimes.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17871604/

Bush: Capture of sailors ‘inexcusable’ - Focus on Iran - MSNBC.com

Bush: Capture of sailors ‘inexcusable’ - Focus on Iran - MSNBC.com

Bush: Capture of sailors ‘inexcusable’
Ahmadinejad rips U.K. for not following ‘legal, logical way’ to resolve issue
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 7:47 p.m. ET March 31, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran - President Bush said Saturday that Iran's detention of 15 British sailors was "inexcusable" and that Tehran must release them immediately.

"The British hostage issue is serious because the Iranians took these people out of Iraqi water. It's inexcusable behavior. I strongly support the Blair government's attempts to resolve this peacefully," he said, referring to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Meanwhile, Iran’s president said on Saturday the British government was not following “the legal and logical way” of resolving the dispute over the British naval personnel detained last week, state radio said.

“After the arrest of these people, the British government, instead of apologizing and expressing regret, over the action taken, started to claim that we are in their debt and shouted in different international councils,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the state radio report. “But this is not the legal and logical way for this issue.”

Earlier, Britain said it was concerned at Iranian “saber-rattling” about possibly putting captured British naval personnel on trial and for the first time voiced regret the incident had occurred.

Iran’s ambassador to Moscow said the 15 Britons captured eight days ago could face punishment if found guilty of illegally entering the Islamic Republic’s territorial waters.

Britain insists the sailors were seized in Iraqi waters and Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said she was worried by such talk.

“Obviously, I am concerned. It is not the first person to have made saber-rattling noises,” she told reporters after a European Union foreign ministers’ meeting in Germany.

“The message I want to send is I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen. What we want is a way out of it.”

Beckett said Britain had sent Iran a written reply to its diplomatic note on the detention of the sailors and had so far received no response.

Iran seized the sailors and marines in the northern Gulf on March 23 when they were on a U.N.-backed mission searching for smugglers. Tehran says they strayed into Iranian waters but Britain insists they were well in Iraqi territory.

The crisis, at a time of heightened Middle East tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, has helped push oil prices to six-month highs over concerns an escalation might cut oil exports from the region.

More confusion
There were more confusing signals about Iran’s intentions.

Iran’s Moscow ambassador, Gholamreza Ansari, said in an interview broadcast by Vesti-24 television on Friday, according to a Reuters translation from the original Farsi: “If there is no guilt they will be freed but the legal process is going on and has to be completed and if they are found guilty they will face the punishment.”

It was not clear on what authority he was speaking and IRNA said on Saturday Ansari had denied making the comments.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Sunday that Iran was considering charging the sailors with illegally entering its waters.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry delivered a letter to Britain’s embassy in Tehran on Thursday, the first written communication between the two capitals since the crisis began.

The IRNA news agency said the Iranian message asked for “necessary guarantees that violations against Iranian waters would not be repeated.”

Beckett said: “We have made our response and we are now beginning to discuss. As you may know it’s a holiday period in Iran and it’s perhaps not too helpful.”

The Iranian government is largely shut down for the two-week Nowruz holiday, a pre-Islamic Persian new year, which began on March 21 and ends next Tuesday.

‘Corruption nest of the British old devil’
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana was mandated on Friday by the 27-nation bloc’s foreign ministers to seek the Britons’ immediate release. He said he had not yet been able to speak to Iranian leaders but his staff had made first contacts.

Student members of the Basij religious militia from across Iran issued a statement on Saturday demanding the British embassy in Tehran be closed down, calling it the “corruption nest of the British old devil,” IRNA said.

They also invited students to protest outside the embassy on Sunday “to protest the violation of Iranian waters by British soldiers and the Security Council’s latest statement,” the student news agency ISNA said.

Iran displayed three of the detained Britons on television on Friday and released a letter from one saying she was being held because of “oppressive” British and U.S. behavior in Iraq.

British forces have been deployed in southern Iraq since joining the U.S.-led invasion of the country in 2003. Britain and the United States accuse Iran of allowing sophisticated weapons used to target their forces to be brought into Iraq.

As NBC News' Tehran producer Ali Arouzi reports, after initially paying relatively little attention to the story, it is now top of the news in Iran.
© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17883991/

Bombing becomes deadliest of Iraq war - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Bombing becomes deadliest of Iraq war - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Bombing becomes deadliest of Iraq war
Tally arrives during week in which more than 500 died in sectarian violence
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 12:10 p.m. ET March 31, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi government raised the death toll on Saturday from a truck bomb in the town of Tal Afar to 152, making it the deadliest single bombing of the four-year-old war.

Meanwhile, a series of bombings and attacks killed at least 17 people around the country, including nine construction workers who died when gunmen opened fire on their bus. The violence capped a week in which more than 500 people have died in sectarian violence.

Interior Ministry spokesman Brigadier Abdul Kareem Khalaf said 347 people were wounded in Tuesday’s attack on a Shiite area. There was another truck bomb in the mixed northwestern town on Tuesday, but it was small.

Khalaf said 100 homes had been destroyed in the main blast, which officials have blamed on al Qaeda. The explosion left a 75-foot-wide crater.

“It took us a while to recover all the bodies from underneath the rubble of the homes ... what did they achieve by using two tons of explosive to kill and wound 500 in a residential area?” Khalaf asked at a news conference.

The past week has been the bloodiest in Iraq since the government launched a security crackdown in Baghdad in February aimed at halting the country’s slide toward civil war.

Bombings blamed on Sunni Islamist al-Qaida have killed 400 people in Shiite areas across the country in the past week.

Car bombs killed nine people on Saturday, police said.

Officials had earlier this week said 85 people died in the Tal Afar bombing, which triggered reprisal attacks by gunmen and police in a Sunni neighbourhood of the town hours later.

Officials said earlier up to 70 were killed in the revenge attacks, but Khalaf put the number at 47. He said most of the attackers were police. Much of the force is made up of Shi’ites.

Only a year ago U.S. President George W. Bush held up Tal Afar as a beacon of hope for Iraq after al Qaeda militants were ousted in a U.S. offensive a year earlier.

Newly appointed U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker reiterated Washington’s support for Maliki’s government.

“He (Bush) has been very clear and very determined that he will continue his full support for the government and the people,” Crocker said in his first news conference.

“We’ve seen encouraging signals of progress but we have to keep moving forward.”

Blast was outside hospital
In Baghdad, a car bomb outside a hospital in a Shi’ite stronghold killed five people and wounded 22, police said. Four people were killed and 20 wounded by a car bomb in the Shiite city of Hilla, south of Baghdad.

Gunmen ambushed a vehicle carrying civilian workers employed at an Iraqi military base near Hawija, 45 milessouthwest of Kirkuk, killing eight and wounding two, police said. Four brothers were among the dead.

Amid fears the country is being dragged to the brink of all-out civil war, Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called for restraint on Friday, urging Iraqis not to allow themselves to be divided by “evildoers.”

President Jalal Talabani said the government was talking to armed groups, although he gave no details. Iraqi officials have said in the past negotiations have been held with Sunni Arab insurgents. Such talks have been preliminary.

“There are many armed groups that have started talks with the Iraqi government,” Talabani told reporters without elaborating.

Before leaving Iraq last Monday at the end of his assignment, U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said U.S. and Iraqi officials had held contacts with Sunni Arab insurgent groups to build an alliance against al-Qaida.

‘Defeat for terrorism and infidels’
Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr blamed the United States for the violence and called for a huge anti-American demonstration April 9, the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.

Al-Sadr’s statement was his first since March 16, when he urged supporters to resist U.S. forces through peaceful means. U.S. and Iraqi officials say al-Sadr remains in Iran, sitting out the security crackdown, but aides have told The Associated Press he has returned to Najaf.

His latest declaration was read to worshippers during Friday prayers at a mosque in Kufa, a twin-city to Najaf where al-Sadr frequently led the ritual, and in Baghdad’s Sadr City Shiite enclave.

“I renew my call for the occupier to leave our land,” he said in the statement, a copy of which was obtained by AP. “The departure of the occupier will mean stability for Iraq, victory for Islam and peace and defeat for terrorism and infidels.”

Al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militiamen fought American troops in 2004 but have generally cooperated with the current U.S.-Iraqi security push in Baghdad, blamed the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq for the rising violence, lack of services and sectarian bloodshed.

“You, oppressed people of Iraq, let the entire world hear your voice that you reject occupation, destruction and terrorism,” he said in calling for the April 9 demonstration.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17883992/from/RS.2/

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Richardson: 'Nuclear 9-11' Is Possible

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said the United States needs to do more to prevent a "nuclear 9-11," a threat that he argues has been neglected because the Bush administration has been consumed with Iraq.

The New Mexico governor said the United States must lead an effort to secure nuclear materials in Russia and dangerous areas of the world so they can't get into terrorists' hands. "If al-Qaida obtained nuclear weapons, they would not hesitate to use them with the same ruthlessness that allowed them to fly airplanes filled with people into buildings," he said in a speech to the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

"It took a Manhattan project to create the bomb," Richardson said. "We need a new Manhattan project to stop the bomb—a comprehensive program to secure all nuclear weapons and all weapons-usable material, worldwide."

Asked why he doesn't support a nuclear-free world like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other Cold War leaders have promoted, Richardson replied, "I'm a pragmatist."

"I believe what the world needs to do is nuclear arms reductions," Richardson said. He recalled that it didn't work when President Reagan and Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev agreed in 1986 to renounce all nuclear weapons "for about 10 minutes."

Richardson worked on securing Russian nuclear weapons when he was energy secretary in the Clinton administration. But he accused the Bush administration of underfunding their programs.

"Meanwhile, we are spending $10 billion a month on Iraq," he said. "Of the many ways in which the Iraq war has distracted us from our real national security needs, this is the most dangerous."

In the question-and-answer period after his speech, Richardson laid out the plans for his first days in the White House. The first day, he would get out of Iraq. The second, he would announce a plan to drastically cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

On the third day, the issue would be global warming. Richardson gave former Vice President Al Gore credit for spreading knowledge about the issue through his Oscar-winning film. But he wasn't encouraging Gore to enter the 2008 race.

"I like Al Gore, he looks very healthy and prosperous," Richardson said with a laugh. "He should stay where he is."

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower

Unseen documents show official investigations used flawed construction details
infowars

A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction.

The documents were passed to physics Professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who has done extensive research into the collapse of the buildings and contends that explosives were used to bring them down.

Little is known about the identity of the whistleblower at this point, however the blueprints provided consist of 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast on top of the North Tower.

Most of the drawings can be viewed here.

The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.

The website 911research.wtc7.net, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:

The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:

As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.

The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.

The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.

These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell.

The buildings more or less fell into their own footprints, which is something that normally takes weeks of expert planning when a building is intentionally demolished and there are only a few companies on the planet that can do it.

Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.

Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:

"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."



Below is an examination of the official reports in more detail.

The Official Explanation of the collapses of the Trade Towers and Building 7

The official explanation says that the towers collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building".

And building 7's collapse according to FEMA was also due to fire, however FEMA could not give specific details:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

FEMA is not an investigative agency, but it was entrusted with the sole responsibility for investigating the collapses. It began to coordinate the destruction of the evidence almost immediately. The structural steel was quickly removed and loaded on ships for transport to blast furnaces in India and China. Meanwhile, FEMA's investigation of the collapses consisted of assembling a group of volunteer investigators from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). The group was headed by W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer from Chicago who led the investigation of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

FEMA's investigation of one of the worst and most pivotal events in history was farcical:

*
No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report.
*
Except for an early "tourist trip", The BPAT volunteers were barred from Ground Zero.
*
They did not see a single piece of steel until almost a month after the disaster.
*
They had to guess the original locations of the few pieces of steel they saw.
*
They collected 150 pieces of steel for further study (out of millions of pieces).
*
Their report, which called for "further investigation and analysis", was published after Ground Zero had been scrubbed.

A key facet of the FEMA report on the towers' collapse was the pancaking floors theory, whereby each floor successively gave way due to buckled columns and the weight from above. This theory has since been roundly dismissed as it totally ignores the fact that the building's central core columns even existed and also ignores the toppling effect witnessed during the collapse of the South Tower and the explosive pulverizing of all materials into fine powder.

NIST's Investigation

It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar budget began: NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with an initial budget of $16 million.

Where as the FEMA investigation in understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center could be chalked up as a farce, the NIST's investigation cannot. NIST's results strongly indicate a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:

*
NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question their investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?
*
NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomalous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.
*
NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study.This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
*
NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation".

The report explains the collapse of both towers with the following sentence:

"The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued."

So NIST promulgates a theory of "progressive collapse" - ie once the top started coming down, the whole lot came down with it, even the undamaged sections of the building.




NIST admits that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged portions of the building and only modeled a portion of each tower in any detail -- its "global floor model" which consisted of "several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even predicted "collapse initiation".

The excellent research website www.911review.com, which everyone should visit, succinctly sums up the cover up perpetrated by the NIST report:

In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetrically of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.

Despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, and despite the fact that they published models of the plane impacts, NIST has refused to publish visual simulations from its computer models of the collapses.

In an even more startling admission in its own report, NIST reveals that it "adjusted the input" of variables in tests beyond the visual evidence of what actually happened in order to save its own hypothesis:

"The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted..." (NIST, 2005, p. 142)

NIST simply "discarded" realistic tests based on the empirical data because they did not cause the buildings to collapse.

If this is not indicative of a cover up then what is? The investigation is the wrong way round, NIST has already decided what happened and is manufacturing data to prove it!