Debate grows over Taser use

Debate grows over Taser use

Questions arise whether law-enforcement too reliant on the zappers

The Associated Press

Updated: 5:50 a.m. ET Aug. 23, 2007

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. - Chained to a 55-gallon drum to protest the proposed development of a vacant lot, Jonathan Crowell wasn’t threatening anyone. But he refused police orders to unshackle himself and leave, so they zapped him with a Taser, then charged him with trespassing.

“It wasn’t just a short burst,” said Crowell, 32, of Dummerston, recalling the July 24 incident. “Five seconds is a long time to be electrocuted. My whole body was contorting and flapping around. You can’t think of anything else but that pain. It’s really scary. I felt like I was being tortured.”

Increasingly, police facing stubborn lawbreakers, belligerent drunks or violent suspects are reaching for stun guns to shock them into submission. In one recent incident, a hospital security guard in Houston used a Taser on a defiant father trying to take his newborn home, sending father and daughter to the floor.

Police say Tasers are valuable tools for avoiding hand-to-hand struggles that can injure officers and citizens. Small, portable and often effective even when merely brandished, Tasers — which fire tiny, tethered cartridges that transmit electrical currents — have become common in law enforcement in recent years, with some 11,500 police agencies using them.

Weapon of first resort
But critics say Tasers are being used as a weapon of first resort, sometimes on frail or mentally ill people.

“What’s at issue is whether the level of force being used is appropriate for arresting somebody,” said Allen Gilbert, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Vermont. “The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable seizures, which means police can’t use excessive force when they’re taking you into custody.”

Supporters of Tasers say they reduce workers’ compensation and lost time claims by police by preventing physical confrontations.

“We went over an entire year without a single lost hour of employee time or officer injury relating to wrestling or struggling to get a prisoner into custody, which is virtually unheard of,” said Deputy Chief Walt Decker of the Burlington, Vt., Police Department.

His department, which got Tasers last year, spent more than $150,000 on lost time the year before for officers sidelined by on-the-job injuries suffered subduing suspects, he said.

To many, the issue isn’t whether Tasers should be used, it’s how.

Houston incident
In the Houston incident, which occurred April 13, William Lewis, 30, was trying to take his newborn home from Woman’s Hospital of Texas because he and his wife felt mistreated by staff.

He was told not to take the baby, and was trying to leave when David Boling, an off-duty police officer working security, shot Lewis with the stun gun as he held the child.

“It’s very easy to blame police officers for the inappropriate use of a Taser, but we need to take another step back and look at how it’s been introduced to them,” said Dalia Hashad, a human rights violations specialist with Amnesty International.

“They’re under the impression that it’s a bit of a magic tool, that you’ll shoot someone with 50,000 volts and they’ll be rendered incapable and no harm will be done.”

Amnesty International USA has counted 250 cases in the last six years in which people died after being stunned with a Taser, but doesn’t track whether the shock caused the deaths, according to Hashad. According to the manufacturer, Taser International Inc., the devices have been listed as a contributing factor in about 12 deaths.

Restraint
Hashad says police should exercise more restraint in using Tasers on the mentally ill, and those with medical conditions who can die from the shock.

“Whether it’s coincidence or circumstance, we have several incidents of use of a Taser gun involving a person with a serious mental problem or presumed serious mental health problem,” said Ken Libertoff, executive director of the Vermont Association for Mental Health. “The use of a Taser intervention is not a minor situation, and it is not state-of-the-art mental health care.”

Police counter that they can’t always tell whether a person has mental health issues or pre-existing medical conditions that would make Taser use dangerous to them.

Two recent Taser incidents in Vermont involved psychiatric patients.

On July 3, police used a Taser to subdue an unruly juvenile patient at Brattleboro Retreat, a psychiatric facility.

Neither the hospital nor police would give more detail about the incident, which prompted Gov. Jim Douglas to ask the state attorney general to review the police’s actions and later to ask for a review of police agencies’ protocol for Taser use, with an eye toward setting a statewide policy.

In the second case, a Taser was used to subdue a psychiatric patient from Vermont State Hospital who was spotted jumping in front of cars on Interstate 89.

“It probably saved his life,” said Sgt. Craig Gardner, a Vermont State Police trooper who was there.

The use of the Taser also prevented the patient from fighting officers or pulling anyone else into traffic, Gardner said.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20403855/

Videos for consideration

Im so angry these days, I don't even know what to say anymore...

Here some videos that might get you pissed off, like me.


Alex Jones on recent events.


"We are change" confronts the criminal mayor of new york Bloomberg... Way to get em, Luke!


I hate Obama


Fake preachers go to hell!

Thats enough for me, right now.

SPP is built around secrecy and US military command - law expert

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Harper Index
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

The agreement's title is classic framing: "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) conjures up comfortable images. Michael Byers says the agreement under discussion this week by Canadian, US and Mexican leaders Harper, Bush and Calderon should more properly be framed as a secret agreement to give sweeping military, immigration and border control of all three countries over to the US. On Sunday, Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia told a standing-room-only forum in Ottawa about the politics and persuasion connected with the agreement under discussion behind the barricades this week at Montebello, Quebec.

I want to begin by welcoming the civil servants who been sent to keep track of what's going on here. Like you, we love our country, unlike the people who are gathering in Montebello this week, we have nothing to hide.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership did not begin as a phenomenon after September 11, 2001. It was part of a trend that predates that time. But the proponents of North American integration seized upon 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their cause. And some of those proponents in Canada were very overt about their aspirations in the weeks and months after the terrorist atrocities in New York City and Washington, DC.

David O'Brien, the CEO of Canadian Pacific and now Chairman of the Board of Royal Bank of Canada argued Canada would have to adopt US-style immigration policies to keep the border open. He said that we have to make North Americans secure from the outside. 'We're going to lose increasingly our sovereignty but it's necessarily so.' Mr. O'Brien is an influential man. Within months, the Canadian government had signed the Safe Third Country agreement with the United States whereby Canadian refugee policy was essentially assimilated into the refugee policy of the United States. The rights of human beings to asylum when they're being persecuted for their religious or political opinions or ethnic identities is one of the most fundamental rights of all.

Then there was Nancy Hughes Anthony, the President of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce who said that we're not going to get anywhere with our American friends unless we can show we have good strong anti- terrorist legislation and we intend to enforce it. The result was the 2001 Anti- terrorism Act, which, of course was modelled on the [US] Patriot Act.

And then there was Patrick E. Daniels, the President of Enbridge, the big energy company based in Calgary, who complained that Canada pushed its sovereignty 'a little too far.' He said it would be realistic for Canada to either get onside with US foreign policy or 'accept some change in our relationship.'

I was asked to speak about one aspect of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, namely security, or more specifically, the military. In the immediate aftermath of September 2001, plans were devised within the American and Canadian governments to put the entire Canadian Forces under the umbrella of the US Northern Command. To put all our soldiers, sailors and pilots and all their equipment under the operational control of the United States, in a much- expanded version of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Fortunately some sunshine was let in upon that thinking before it could be taken too far. Some serious credit needs to be given here to a former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, who took advantage of being out of Cabinet to let the rest of us know what his former colleagues were up to.

So those who wanted to pursue the efforts of further integration of the Canadian and US military decided to take their efforts underground in arrangements that bear striking similarity to the SPP. And the SPP is part of a larger process. The Bi-National Planning Group was the military sister or brother of the SPP. Essentially it was a transborder committee of unelected bureaucrats, military officers and consultants who were given task of studying and then reporting on the options for improving the efficacy of the North American defensive system. The goal was simply to allow us to respond faster and better to the various kinds of threats that might arise.

The military officers worked away quietly in Colorado Springs, Colorado, headquarters of NORAD, as well as the US space command.... Canadian military leaders quite liked playing with the big boys and using the best military equipment in the world...

The proponents of closer military integration could not believe their luck when Stephen Harper was elected. And very shortly after Mr. Harper came to power, they released their final report... which sets out four different options for the closer integration of the Canadian and US military. Most of the report is concerned with public relations, noting that Canadians are particularly attached to sovereignty.

Imagine how you might actually explain that closer military cooperation enhances sovereignty because giving up sovereignty is an exercise in sovereignty! You actually affirm your sovereignty by giving some of it away..

The report was very very clear that its preferred option was full integration, the option that had been floated internally in 2002, the assignment of Canadian Forces to what looked like an expanded NORAD, to an umbrella command where operational control would ultimately rest with the US military.

Some steps have been taken in that direction, including, last year, the NORAD agreement to expand the sharing of maritime surveillance including within the Northwest Passage. It wasn't much noticed at the time. Only one party opposed it in Parliament, the New Democratic Party of Canada.

When the report actually came out and was put up on the website of the Bi- National Planning Group, some smart people, including possibly the Prime Minister of Canada, decided that you were not yet ready for this. That somehow it wasn't the time to make the public case for the full integration of Canadian and US forces because Mr. Harper didn't get that majority he so desperately desired. And so it was shuffled away once again, it disappeared off the website, and the Bi-National Planning Group was shut down, and who knows what they're talking about in Montebello.

But something did happen, and I'm talking about Afghanistan.... We are seeing the implementation in theatre of precisely the kind of planning that was going into the Bi-National Planning Group. We are seeing the Canadian Forces being given more and more equipment. We're even buying new tanks. We're seeing the integration of attitudes and rules of engagement with respect to issues like the treatment of detainees. Why did we not adopt the Western European approach to detainee transfer rights, following models that were provided to us by the British, the Dutch and the Danish? Because Washington wanted to do it another way. And why should we volunteer for the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan, a forward-leaning, war- fighting search and kill mission supported by US airstrikes and working in tandem with a US-led and -commanded mission that is not part of the NATO command?

Why have 67 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan? Why did Private Simon Longtin die today? The simple explanation, and it's only a partial explanation, is that there are people who want to transform the Canadian Forces into a miniature version of the US Marine Corps and want Canada to only choose missions that involve fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States; that want us to acquire equipment that integrates seamlessly with the US military, including in the relatively near future new F35 fighters. The same people who will tell you that peace-keeping is dead, that we really don't need new search-and-rescue aircraft in the second largest country on Earth, and who will tell you that those who stand up for the rights of detainees are expressing disrespect and a lack of support for the brave young Canadian men and women who serve this country in whatever mission they're given because they love this country just as much as you and I.

The integration of the Canadian and US military is not officially part of the SPP, but the SPP and the integration of the Canadian and US military are part of a larger project, and we need to address that larger project, and understand that what we're up against here does not involve the existence of an independent Canada. But as we saw with the Bi-National Planning Group, a little bit of sunshine can chase these plans away. When I look at this room I see a whole lot of sunshine.

Related individuals, organizations and significant events
Deep integration - TILMA and SPP to bring in rules to let corporations challenge our laws

Harper Conservative vs. Public Values Frame
Security / Secrecy, American control
Sovereignty / American control, smokescreen

Links and sources
Bi-National Planning Group
Continental Integration of Military Command Structures: A Threat to Canada's Sovereignty, by Michel Chossudovsky

Harper Dismisses SPP Protests As "Sad"

DEB RIECHMANN
AP
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

President Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada worked Monday to craft a plan to secure their borders in the event of a terrorist strike or other emergency without creating traffic tie-ups that slowed commerce at crossings after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper want their homeland security experts to figure out the best way to protect citizens in an emergency, perhaps an outbreak of avian flu, without snarling business among the trading partners.

More broadly, the goal of the North American summit was to seek middle ground on shared concerns about the border and a host of other issues ranging from energy to trade, food safety to immigration. The three-way meeting at a highly secured red cedar chateau along the banks of the Ottawa River focused on administrative and regulatory issues, not sweeping legislative proposals for North America.

Few, if any, formal announcements were expected. The meeting served to address thorny problems between the U.S. and its neighbors to the North and South and bolster a compact - dubbed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America - that serves as a way for the nations to team up on health, security and commerce.

Several hundred demonstrators protested on issues such as the war in Iraq, human rights and integration of North America. One carried a banner that said: ``Say No To Americanada.''

Calderon and Harper both want tight relations with Bush, yet don't want to be seen as proteges of the unpopular president or leave the impression that the U.S. is encroaching on their sovereignty.

To that end, Harper is asserting his nation's claim to the Northwest Passage through the Arctic.

The race to secure subsurface rights to the Arctic seabed heated up when Russia sent two small submarines to plant a tiny national flag under the North Pole. The United States and Norway also have competing claims in the vast Arctic region, where a U.S. study suggests as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas could be hidden.

Canada believes much of the North American side of the Arctic is Canada's, but the United States says that the thawing Northwest Passage is part of international waters.

``We look at the Northwest Passage as an international waterway, and want the international transit rights to be respected there,'' White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. ``But certainly President Bush will listen to what Prime Minister Harper has to say.''

Harper also plans to raise concerns about new passport requirements for travelers, longtime U.S. restrictions on Canadian softwood lumber exports and the war in Afghanistan.

Harper has said Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will not be extended beyond 2009 without a consensus in the country and the Parliament. Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, fighting against the Taliban in the violet southern parts of the nation. Other countries, such as Germany ad Italy, restrict the use of their forces to more peaceful areas in the north.

With Hurricane Dean bearing down on Mexico, Calderon might have to cut his meetings short with Bush and Calderon. This is his first meeting with Bush since the U.S. immigration legislation died in the Senate. Calderon has called that a ``grave error'' and also is rankled by the Bush administration's newly announced crackdown on employers who use illegal immigrants.

It's unclear whether the United States will use the summit to announce a major new aid plan to help Mexico fight violent drug trafficking. U.S. anti-drug officials have been impressed with Caldron's crackdown on drug traffickers since he took office.

But Calderon has repeatedly pushed the U.S. to take more responsibility in fighting the two countries' common drug problem, including doing more to stop the flow of illegal U.S. arms into Mexico and trying to combat the demand for drugs north of the border. The issue of U.S. aid is a sensitive subject among Mexicans wary that U.S. help could lead to interventions that violate Mexican sovereignty.

Bush stepped off Air Force One and onto a red carpet at an airport in Ottawa where he was greeted by a bagpiper and a ceremonial honor guard dressed in red jackets and tall, black fur hats. Bush flew to the resort on the Marine One presidential helicopter, which landed in a grassy clearing along the water.

A few hundred protesters amassed at the gate of the resort. Police in riot gear used tear gas to hold back about 50 of them, who responded by flinging rocks, branches and plastic bottles. A line of police in riot gear jostled with about 50 demonstrators. A few hundred marched on the front gate of the summit compound shouting taunts.

``I've heard it's nothing,'' Harper said, dismissing the protests as Bush arrived at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello. ``A couple hundred? It's sad.''

Viewers See History Channel 9/11 Special As Straw Man Hit Piece

Documentary set up bias straw man arguments, ignored key evidence, afforded debunkers overwhelming majority of time - so-called "experts" Popular Mechanics are on the same corporate payroll as the History Channel itself, which is owned by Disney, GE and Hearst Publishing

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Initial reaction to last night's two hour History Channel Special on the 9/11 truth movement was vehement and conclusive - the show was nothing more than another biased hit piece that manufactured straw man arguments, ignored key evidence, and afforded debunkers to talk at length while ridiculing any other viewpoints.

According to viewers who were unfortunate to have to sit through 120 minutes of yellow journalism, the program was very similar to a previous BBC hit piece - an outright smear attempt that abandoned any pretense of neutrality early on and sought to vigorously attack so-called conspiracy theories.

Though producers of the show promised Alex Jones directly that the documentary was not going to be a hit piece, according to viewers it was replete with distortion and deception, all delivered in the kind of condescending tone we have become used to from the establishment media.

- According to 9/11 researcher James Gourley, the debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta's bombshell testimony about Cheney's actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, "the airplane coming in to the Pentagon," and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton.

- The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones' scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night, Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered" but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.

- The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn't hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell.

- The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded.

- The Able Danger program and how the hijackers were discovered before 9/11 was completely excluded.

- The fact that the money man behind the hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials before and on the morning of 9/11, was completely excluded.

- William Rodriguez' first-hand testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the planes was completely excluded, as was the testimony of numerous firefighters who attested to bombs and explosions.

- NBC reporter Pat Dawson claimed that FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi had only described explosions, not bombs, going off, contradicting Dawson's own report at the time which stated, "Reports of a secondary device, that is another ‘bomb’ going off."

According to another blogger, the whole tone of the program was crafted to be antagonistic towards those questioning the official version.

Conspiracy theorists were derided throughout the program as being ignorant, mean and kooky with no personal lives. On the other hand, the Popular Mechanics editors were given the last word on each and every subject along with the undeserving title of “expert”. To the best of my knowledge, not one of the pencil pushing staff members have any credentials that are relevant to any aspect of 9/11 truth. Of course it was the conspiracy theorists that were accused of not having any of the valid expertise necessary for stating their assertions logically. They do this by completely ignoring the very existence and works of groups like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Also just as expected, the History Channel failed to disclose the Chertoff connection and other major conflicts of interests that have clearly drastically compromised the research and conclusions of their so-called “experts”. It was disingenuous and deceptive from the very start. It only got worse.

As we reported previously, the makers of the hit piece first advertised the show as a response to "outrageous" theories about 9/11, but then immediately back-pedaled and altered the program description on their website after we highlighted the blatant biased agenda of the piece and its multiple corporate conflicts of interest.

Hearst Publishing's Popular Mechanics, the premiere name in yellow journalism, were featured on the show as the most prominent debunkers, shilling for their corporate bosses in a brazen display of cronyism.

The History Channel is part of the A&E Television Network which is jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company (37.5%), The Hearst Corporation (37.5%), and NBC Universal (25%).

The owners of Popular Mechanics are also the joint owners of the History Channel!

Once again it is not a good starting point for a neutral investigation when the people you choose to represent one side of a factual debate are actually on the payroll.

It makes Fox News appear fair and balanced in comparison!

Furthermore, the other joint owner of The History Channel, NBC Universal, is run by General Electric, the world's second largest corporation and one of the major players within the military industrial complex.

GE is a major supplier of arms and the “war on terrorism” has seen GE’s government and military contracts rise substantially to over $2.2 billion.

In short, GE really has very little to gain and a great deal to lose from probing into questions concerning the possibility of 9/11 being a military intelligence operation to seed the "war on terror" and to justify a huge increase in military activity around the globe.

Despite the fact that this charade was seemingly another crude smear job, we should thank the History Channel for attacking us because it only ensures that more people will check out the evidence for themselves and discover what was deliberately buried by the debunkers.

As we head towards the sixth anniversary of 9/11, our numbers are larger than ever and our credibility is growing, while lying corporate media whores like the History Channel lose respectability at a rate rivaled only by their hemoraging of viewers.

Beck: I Live In Connecticut Because ‘It’s Out Of Reach Of A Nuclear Explosion In Manhattan’

Think Progress
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

A new GQ profile of Glenn Beck asks whether the CNN Headline News host is the “most annoying man on TV.” But whether he is “annoying” is beside the real point, which is that Beck has a long history of inflammatory remarks on-air.

The mainstream media continue to reward Beck for his hateful, divisive rhetoric. Earlier this year, ABC’s Good Morning America hired Beck as a commentator, and Washington Post radio is now considering bringing on the right-wing pundit because he “does a good job.” Beck’s television producer admitted to GQ, “He’s a polarizing figure. That’s why we hired him.”

In the GQ article, author Benjamin Wallace claims that Beck “is less partisan soldier than channeler of regular-guy id.” A look at some of Beck’s “regular-guy id” as evidenced by the GQ article:

On the Virginia Tech shooter:

“This guy makes you have respect for suicide bombers,” Beck says, trying out today’s career-immolating zinger. “At least they’re killing themselves because they believe in something larger.”

On living in Connecticut:

In a mirrored room at CNN, on the fifth floor of the Time Warner Center in Manhattan, a makeup artist paints cream under Beck’s eyes while her colleague, idle in a nearby chair, tells Beck that she’s moving to Riverdale, in the Bronx. “At least you’re outside the vaporization zone,” Beck says.

“Really?” says makeup lady number two. “I’m still in New York.”

“You could drop a one-kiloton bomb on Lower Manhattan and be safe in Chelsea,” Beck says.

“Good to know,” the woman says.

Beck: “Did you check the blast radius?”

“No,” she says. “I was more interested in the public-school system.”

“Priorities,” Beck says.

He is kind of joking, kind of isn’t. One of the reasons he lives in Fairfield County, Connecticut, is that it’s out of reach of a nuclear explosion in Manhattan.

On work habits:

A Baltimore producer he fired named Tom Russell — who is not the Baltimore producer Beck fired for bringing him a ballpoint when he had asked for a Sharpie — recalls the time Beck seized him by his collar, hoisted him nearly off the ground, and said he would eat him “for fucking breakfast.”

In the profile, Beck also states, “If we don’t stop believing the worst in each other, we’re dead.” This is the same man who once described Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) voice as that of “a stereotypical bitch,” hosted a guest who said on-air that watching someone murder the Clintons would be “great,” and confessed that he is “afraid” to have “a lot of African-American friends.”

Rather than a “channeler of regular-guy id,” a better description of Beck might be what Jon Stewart said about him in 2006: “a guy who says what people who aren’t thinking are thinking.”

Chris Achorn at My Two Sense has more on the GQ profile

SPP deal could create common border standards

Canadian Press

Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

Just exactly who's allowed into North America -- and how long they can stay -- could be heavily influenced by the complex web of initiatives known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Canada, the United States and Mexico are collaborating on more than a dozen traveller security programs that fall under three umbrellas: creating trusted border documents, developing compatible immigration measures and sharing information on high-risk travellers.

The goal is to ensure none of the three countries is a weak link in the continental security chain.

While Ottawa, Washington and Mexico City say this will make citizens safer, critics charge it is a secretive bid to bolster the corporate agenda without public or parliamentary debate.

The three countries are:

• Working on biometric systems -- incorporating unique identifiers like iris scans and fingerprints -- to improve the security for passports, visas, permanent resident cards, transportation credentials and other border documents.
• Implementing immigration measures that include requirements for admission and length of stay, visa decision-making standards, border lookout systems for wanted individuals, and the possibility of entry and exit procedures, and
• Devising ways to share data on high-risk travellers such as suspected terrorists and other criminals.

Dozens of other initiatives deal with aviation, cargo and maritime security, protection of crops and livestock, and increased law-enforcement and intelligence co-operation.

In many ways, the march toward trilateral collaboration on these issues began with a path laid in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership builds on the so-called smart border accord Canada and the United States signed six years ago.

One of the measures to emerge from the accord was the safe third country agreement on refugees.

Under the agreement, each country recognizes the other as a safe place to seek protection.

It means Canada can turn back potential refugees at the Canada-U.S. border on the basis they must pursue their claims in the United States, the country where they first arrived.

Canada says that is only fair. Canadian refugee advocates strenuously oppose the deal, arguing the United States is not always a safe country for people fleeing persecution.

Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, says there's a concern that refugee protection is "left off the table'' when borders are harmonized.

He fears the trilateral talks could see a similar safe country deal established between Mexico and the United States.

"The problem is that these policies simply don't provide the kinds of exceptions and allowances made to ensure that people who have very valid and legitimate protection concerns get the safety they need,'' Neve said.

One woman who travelled to Canada to voice opposition to the Security and Prosperity Partnership pointed to her journey as evidence of curbs on civil liberties.

Ann Wright, an anti-war activist and retired U.S. State Department official, said she was questioned for three hours by immigration officials at the Ottawa airport because of her "peaceful, non-violent arrest'' for protesting in the United States.

At a news conference held by the Council of Canadians, Wright said she paid $200 for a three-day temporary visa to enter Canada "for activities in my own country that threaten no one.''

Leading Conservatives Denounce Bush on 'North American Union'

Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

President Bush is meeting with other world leaders in Canada this week to establish, in part, a "New World Order" that subverts national sovereignty, according to some leading American conservatives who have taken a hard stance against the president over the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

President Bush is meeting in Quebec Monday and Tuesday with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss the SPP, which the U.S. government's Web site describes as a cooperative effort among Canada, the United States, and Mexico to "increase security and enhance prosperity ... through greater cooperation and information sharing."

Yet Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, said at a news conference in Ottawa Monday that Bush is trying to develop a "New World Order" of centralized world government controlled by super-national bureaucracies. Phillips said some of the bureaucracies already exist, including the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations.

"George Bush and his daddy [former President George H. W. Bush] have both used the term 'New World Order.' It was used by Woodrow Wilson. It was used by Adolf Hitler. It was used by a number of people, and the New World Order relates to the desire of many people in the world to submerge national sovereignties to international institution." (See Video)

Other conservatives who joined Phillips at the news conference included author and columnist Jerome Corsi; John McManus, president of the John Birch Society; Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center; and Bob Park, founder of Veterans for Secure Borders.

The SPP meetings (the fourth since 2005) have afforded little access to the media and no access to the general public except for leaders of some large corporations taking part in the concurrent North American Competitiveness Council. The secrecy has led activists on both sides of the political aisle to develop ideas about what might be happening behind closed doors.

Responding to protests stated in Ottawa Sunday by leftist, anti-government, anti-corporate activists, Phillips acknowledged a difference of approach. But, he said, "if we're all firing in the same direction, let's work together."

Conservative author Jerome Corsi criticized supporters of the SPP for labeling opponents "conspiracy theorists."

"We're the Internet black helicopter conspiracy theorists?" asked Corsi. "What's going on over in Montebello behind closed doors? Is that not the real conspiracy?"

"Only to call us names does not answer the arguments we're making," he said. "We're called names because those supporting the Security and Prosperity Partnership wish to keep their secret agenda being advanced in secret, and we've ruined the party by exposing it."

Most recently, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins called the opposition to the SPP "conspiracy theories." In an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen Monday, Wilkins said that "while conspiracy theories abound, you can take it to the bank that no one involved in these discussions is interested in, or has ever proposed, a 'North American Union,' a 'North American super highway' or a 'North American currency.'"

Wilkins further wrote that "security with prosperity remains the defining vision of the leaders' meeting" and that "each [nation] will continue to protect its own interests, but it makes sense, as friends and neighbors, to sit down together and see what we might accomplish better together."

Phillips responded by noting that Wilkins was appointed by Bush and represents an administration that "does not have a reputation for straight talking or accuracy ... ." And it_s high time for the SPP organizers to "tear down the wall of silence and let the people see what you are scheming to do," he said.

History Channel 9/11 Hit Piece Ignores WTC 7

You Tube
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

The first review of last night's History Channel hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement which did not even address the anomalies surrounding the collapse of WTC7.

Bush seeks Canada, Mexico security plan

Bush seeks Canada, Mexico security plan

Canadian demonstrators protest three-country partnership as detrimental

The Associated Press

Updated: 3:53 p.m. ET Aug. 20, 2007

MONTEBELLO, Canada - President Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada worked Monday to craft a plan to secure their borders in the event of a terrorist strike or other emergency without creating traffic tie-ups that slowed commerce at crossings after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper want their homeland security experts to figure out the best way to protect citizens in an emergency, perhaps an outbreak of avian flu, without snarling business among the trading partners.

More broadly, the goal of the North American summit was to seek middle ground on shared concerns about the border and a host of other issues ranging from energy to trade, food safety to immigration.

The three-way meeting at a highly secured red cedar chateau along the banks of the Ottawa River focused on administrative and regulatory issues, not sweeping legislative proposals for North America.

Few, if any, formal announcements were expected. The meeting served to address thorny problems between the U.S. and its neighbors to the North and South and bolster a compact — dubbed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America — that serves as a way for the nations to team up on health, security and commerce.

'Say No To Americanada'
Several hundred demonstrators protested on issues such as the war in Iraq, human rights and integration of North America. One carried a banner that said: “Say No To Americanada.”

Calderon and Harper both want tight relations with Bush, yet don’t want to be seen as proteges of the unpopular president or leave the impression that the U.S. is encroaching on their sovereignty.

To that end, Harper is asserting his nation’s claim to the Northwest Passage through the Arctic.

The race to secure subsurface rights to the Arctic seabed heated up when Russia sent two small submarines to plant a tiny national flag under the North Pole. The United States and Norway also have competing claims in the vast Arctic region, where a U.S. study suggests as much as 25 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas could be hidden.

Canada believes much of the North American side of the Arctic is Canada’s, but the United States says that the thawing Northwest Passage is part of international waters.

“We look at the Northwest Passage as an international waterway, and want the international transit rights to be respected there,” White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. “But certainly President Bush will listen to what Prime Minister Harper has to say.”

Harper also plans to raise concerns about new passport requirements for travelers, longtime U.S. restrictions on Canadian softwood lumber exports and the war in Afghanistan.

Harper has said Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan will not be extended beyond 2009 without a consensus in the country and the Parliament. Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, fighting against the Taliban in the violet southern parts of the nation. Other countries, such as Germany ad Italy, restrict the use of their forces to more peaceful areas in the north.

Tear gas, riot gear needed
With Hurricane Dean bearing down on Mexico, Calderon might have to cut his meetings short with Bush and Calderon. This is his first meeting with Bush since the U.S. immigration legislation died in the Senate. Calderon has called that a “grave error” and also is rankled by the Bush administration’s newly announced crackdown on employers who use illegal immigrants.

It’s unclear whether the United States will use the summit to announce a major new aid plan to help Mexico fight violent drug trafficking. U.S. anti-drug officials have been impressed with Caldron’s crackdown on drug traffickers since he took office.

But Calderon has repeatedly pushed the U.S. to take more responsibility in fighting the two countries’ common drug problem, including doing more to stop the flow of illegal U.S. arms into Mexico and trying to combat the demand for drugs north of the border. The issue of U.S. aid is a sensitive subject among Mexicans wary that U.S. help could lead to interventions that violate Mexican sovereignty.

Bush stepped off Air Force One and onto a red carpet at an airport in Ottawa where he was greeted by a bagpiper and a ceremonial honor guard dressed in red jackets and tall, black fur hats. Bush flew to the resort on the Marine One presidential helicopter, which landed in a grassy clearing along the water.

A few hundred protesters amassed at the gate of the resort. Police in riot gear used tear gas to hold back about 50 of them, who responded by flinging rocks, branches and plastic bottles. A line of police in riot gear jostled with about 50 demonstrators. A few hundred marched on the front gate of the summit compound shouting taunts.

“I’ve heard it’s nothing,” Harper said, dismissing the protests as Bush arrived at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello. “A couple hundred? It’s sad.”

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20355559/

Russia restarts Cold War patrols

Russia restarts Cold War patrols

Russia is resuming a Soviet-era practice of sending its bomber aircraft on long-range flights, President Vladimir Putin has said.

Mr Putin said the move to resume the flights permanently after a 15-year suspension was in response to security threats posed by other military powers.

He said 14 bombers had taken off from Russian airfields early on Friday.

The move came a week after Russian bombers flew within a few hundred miles of the US Pacific island of Guam.

A few days ago Moscow said its strategic bombers had begun exercises over the North Pole.

Flexing muscles

"We have decided to restore flights by Russian strategic aviation on a permanent basis," Mr Putin told reporters at joint military exercises with China and four Central Asian states in Russia's Ural mountains.

"In 1992, Russia unilaterally ended flights by its strategic aircraft to distant military patrol areas. Unfortunately, our example was not followed by everyone," Mr Putin said, in an apparent reference to the US.

"Flights by other countries' strategic aircraft continue and this creates certain problems for ensuring the security of the Russian Federation," he said.

In Washington, state department spokesman Sean McCormack played down the significance of Russia's move, saying: "We certainly are not in the kind of posture we were with what used to be the Soviet Union."

"If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again, that's their decision," he told reporters.

One of the reasons Russia halted its flights 15 years ago was that it could no longer afford the fuel.

Today Moscow's coffers are stuffed full of oil money, says the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Moscow, and the Kremlin is determined to show it is still a military power to reckon with.

'Shadowed by Nato'

Russian media reported earlier on Friday that long-range bombers were airborne, and that Nato jets were shadowing them.

Itar-Tass quoted Russian air force spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky as saying: "At present, several pairs of Tu-160 and Tu-95MS aircraft are in the air over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which are accompanied by Nato planes."

Nato said it was aware of the flights but had no comment on whether Nato planes were in attendance.

In last week's incident near Guam, the Russian pilots "exchanged smiles" with US fighter pilots who scrambled to track them, a Russian general said.

The US military confirmed the presence of the Russian bombers near Guam, home to a large US base.

Last month two Tupolev 95 aircraft - dubbed "bears" according to their Nato code-name - strayed south from their normal patrol pattern off the Norwegian coast and headed towards Scotland. Two RAF Tornado fighters were sent up to meet them.

Russian bombers have also recently flown close to US airspace over the Arctic Ocean near Alaska.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6950986.stm

Published: 2007/08/17 16:37:09 GMT

U.S.: Americans tracking Iranian forces in Iraq

U.S.: Americans tracking Iranian forces

Meanwhile, mortar barrage slams into Baghdad, killing 12, wounding 31

The Associated Press

Updated: 11:02 a.m. ET Aug. 19, 2007

BAGHDAD - American forces are tracking about 50 members of an elite Iranian force who have crossed the border into southern Iraq to train Shiite militia fighters, a top U.S. general said Sunday. The French foreign minister, meanwhile, arrived in Baghdad on a groundbreaking visit after years of icy relations with the United States over Iraq.

In Paris, the foreign ministry said Bernard Kouchner was in “Iraq to express a message of solidarity from France to the Iraqi people and to listen to representatives from all communities.”

Merely stepping onto Iraqi soil was a major symbol of French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s efforts to end any lingering U.S.-French animosities over the 2003 Iraq invasion.

In east Baghdad, a mortar barrage slammed into a mainly Shiite neighborhood, killing 12 and wounding 31, police said, and a major battle raged north of the capital where residents of a Shiite city were fighting what police said was a band of al-Qaida in Iraq gunmen.

Separately, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, whose command includes the volatile southern rim of Baghdad and districts to the south, said his troops are tracking about 50 members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps in their area — the first detailed allegation that Iranians have been training fighters within Iraq’s borders.

“We know they’re here and we target them as well,” he said, citing intelligence reports as evidence of their presence.

He declined to be more specific and said no Iranian forces have been arrested in his territory.

“We’ve got about 50 of those,” he said, referring to the Iranian forces. “They go back and forth. There’s a porous border.”

Iran denies accusations
The military has stepped up allegations against Iran in recent weeks, saying it supplies militants with arms and training to attack U.S. forces.

Iran denies the allegations and says it supports efforts to stop the violence.

The Bush administration is moving toward blacklisting Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a “terrorist” organization, subjecting at least part of the entity to financial sanctions, U.S. officials said this week.

A decision has been made in principle to name elements of the corps a “specially designated global terrorist” group, but internal discussions continue over whether it should cover the entire unit or only the Guard’s Al-Quds force, the most elite and covert of Iran’s military branches, which has equipped and trained Muslim fighters outside Iran’s borders.

Lynch, whose mission is to block the flow of weapons and fighters into the Baghdad area, said Sunni and Shiite extremists have become increasingly aggressive this month, trying to influence the debate in Washington before a pivotal progress report on Iraq.

He singled out the Shiite extremists as being behind rising attacks using armor-piercing explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, which he said were largely assembled in Iraq from parts smuggled in from Iran. He also noted a marked increase in Iranian-rockets that have been increasingly effective against U.S. bases.

There has been an overall decrease in attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians, south of Baghdad, but 46 percent of those were being carried out by Shiite extremists, Lynch said.

“The real difference now is we’ve got to spend as much time fighting the Shia extremists as Sunni extremists,” he said.

Suffering in heat, violence
Women and children were among the 12 victims of the mortar attack in eastern Baghdad. Some houses in the neighborhood were damaged, according to police, and witnesses said U.S. helicopters were hovering above the attack site.

Hussein Saadon, 56, an owner of a small minibus station, was soaked in blood after he drove four victims to the hospital. He said the district had been without electricity for several days and the people were suffering in the heat.

“It fills me with pain and anger to see an attack on such poor area where is no presence of police nor army bases or checkpoints,” Saadon said.

In Khalis, 50 miles north of Baghdad, police said more than 1,500 people including sheiks and dignitaries had gathered near city hall to launch the counteroffensive against al-Qaida fighters who have been regularly firing mortars into the town and kidnapping residents at illegal checkpoints. Police said five townspeople were killed in the early hours of the fighting.

In central Baghdad, gunmen driving several cars waylaid a minibus headed for Sadr City, the capital’s Shiite enclave, and abducted 15 passengers, police said.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20343131/

Domestic use of spy satellites to widen

Domestic use of spy satellites to widen

Law enforcement getting new access to secret imagery

By Joby Warrick

The Washington Post

Updated: 1:16 a.m. ET Aug. 16, 2007

The Bush administration has approved a plan to expand domestic access to some of the most powerful tools of 21st-century spycraft, giving law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers.

A program approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security will allow broader domestic use of secret overhead imagery beginning as early as this fall, with the expectation that state and local law enforcement officials will eventually be able to tap into technology once largely restricted to foreign surveillance.

Administration officials say the program will give domestic security and emergency preparedness agencies new capabilities in dealing with a range of threats, from illegal immigration and terrorism to hurricanes and forest fires. But the program, described yesterday by the Wall Street Journal, quickly provoked opposition from civil liberties advocates, who said the government is crossing a well-established line against the use of military assets in domestic law enforcement.

Although the federal government has long permitted the use of spy-satellite imagery for certain scientific functions -- such as creating topographic maps or monitoring volcanic activity -- the administration's decision would provide domestic authorities with unprecedented access to high-resolution, real-time satellite photos.

‘More robust access’
They could also have access to much more. A statement issued yesterday by the Department of Homeland Security said that officials envision "more robust access" not only to imagery but also to "the collection, analysis and production skills and capabilities of the intelligence community."

The beneficiaries may include "federal, state, local and tribal elements" involved in emergency preparedness and response or "enforcement of criminal and civil laws." The "tribal" reference was to Native Americans who conduct semiautonomous law enforcement operations on reservations.

"These systems are already used to help us respond to crises," Charles Allen, the chief intelligence officer for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a telephone interview. "We anticipate that we can also use it to protect Americans by preventing the entry of dangerous people and goods into the country, and by helping us examine critical infrastructure for vulnerabilities."

Domestic security officials already have access to commercial satellite imagery, including the high-definition photographs available from Google and other private vendors. But spy satellites offer much greater resolution and provide images in real time, said Jeffrey T. Richelson, an expert on space-based surveillance and a senior fellow with the National Security Archive in Washington.

"You also can get more coverage more often," Richelson said. "These satellites will cover during the course of their orbits the entire United States. They will be operating 24 hours a day and using infrared cameras at night."

Other nonvisual capabilities can be provided by aircraft-based sensors, which include ground-penetrating radar and highly sensitive detectors that can sense electromagnetic activity, radioactivity or traces of chemicals, military experts said. Such radar can be used to find objects hidden in buildings or bunkers.

One possible use of the technology would be to spot staging areas along smuggling routes used to transport narcotics or illegal immigrants, officials said. In a handful of cases, security officials have requested -- and obtained -- similar help, but only on a case-by-case basis.

Allen said the agreement with the DNI grew out of the general impetus for wider intelligence-sharing in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when administration and intelligence officials began examining the possibility of increasing officials' access to secret data as a means of strengthening the nation's defenses.

The program was formally authorized in May in a memo by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. The two officials have been coordinating for months, as recommended in a 2005 study headed by Keith Hall, then the director of the National Reconnaissance Office.

Hall's group cited an "urgent need" for expanding sharing of remote sensing data to domestic groups other than scientific researchers. "Opportunities to better protect the nation are being missed," the report said.

Under the new program, the DHS will create a subordinate agency to be known as the National Applications Office. The new office, which has gained the backing of congressional intelligence and appropriations committees, is responsible for coordinating requests for access to intelligence by civilian agencies. Previously, an agency known as the Civilian Applications Committee facilitated access to satellite imagery for geologic study.

‘Big Brother in the sky’
Oversight of the department's use of the overhead imagery data would come from officials in the Department of Homeland Security and from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and would consist of reviews by agency inspectors general, lawyers and privacy officers. "We can give total assurance" that Americans' civil liberties will be protected, Allen said. "Americans shouldn't have any concerns about it."

But civil liberties groups quickly condemned the move, which Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a nonprofit activist group, likened to "Big Brother in the sky." "They want to turn these enormous spy capabilities, built to be used against overseas enemies, onto Americans," Martin said. "They are laying the bricks one at a time for a police state."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, said that the data could be useful but that oversight for the program was woefully inadequate. Enhanced access "shouldn't be adopted at all costs because it comes with risk to privacy and to the integrity of our political institutions," he said.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20290145/

NYPD warns of homegrown terrorists

NYPD warns of homegrown terrorists

Analysis describes a path to violence for disaffected Muslim youth

MSNBC News Services

Updated: 4:24 p.m. ET Aug. 15, 2007

NEW YORK - Average citizens who quietly band together and adopt radical ways pose a mounting threat to American security that could exceed that of established terrorist groups like al-Qaida, a new police analysis has concluded.

The New York Police Department report released Wednesday describes a process in which young men — often legal immigrants from the Middle East who are frustrated with their lives in their adopted country — adopt a philosophy that puts them on a path to violence.

The report was intended to explain how people become radicalized rather than to lay out specific strategies for thwarting terror plots. It calls for more intelligence gathering, and argues that local law enforcement agencies are in the best position to monitor potential terrorists.

“Hopefully, the better we’re informed about this process, the more likely we’ll be to detect and disrupt it,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said during a briefing with private security executives at police headquarters.

Internet stokes 'wandering mind'
The study is based on an analysis of a series of domestic plots thwarted since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including those in Lackawanna, N.Y.; Portland, Ore.; and Virginia. It was prepared by senior analysts with the NYPD Intelligence Division who traveled to Hamburg, Madrid and other overseas spots to confer with authorities about similar cases.

The report found homegrown terrorists often were indoctrinated in local “radicalization incubators” that are “rife with extremist rhetoric.”

Instead of mosques, those places were more likely to be “cafes, cab driver hangouts, flop houses, prisons, student associations, non-governmental organizations, hookah bars, butcher shops and bookstores,” the report says.

The Internet also provides “the wandering mind of the conflicted young Muslim or potential convert with direct access to unfiltered radical and extremist ideology.”

“The Internet is the new Afghanistan,” Kelly said. “It is the de facto training ground. It’s an area of concern.”

Four stages to radicalization
The report identified the four stages to radicalization as pre-radicalization, self-identification, indoctrination, and jihadization, and said the Internet drove and enabled the process.

Radicalization could be triggered by such things as the loss of a job, the death of a close family member, alienation, discrimination, and international conflicts involving Muslims, said the report by senior NYPD intelligence analysts.

“Much different from the Israeli-Palestinian equation, the transformation of a Western-based individual to a terrorist is not triggered by oppression, suffering, revenge or desperation,” it said.

“Rather, it is a phenomenon that occurs because the individual is looking for an identity and a cause and unfortunately, often finds them in extremist Islam,” said the report “Radicalization in the West: The Home-grown Threat.”

The threat posed by homegrown extremists — from “eco-terrorist” groups to neo-Nazis — has long been a top concern for federal counterterror officials.

While economic opportunities in the United States are better and the country’s Muslims are more resistant to Islamist extremism, they are “not immune to the radical message,” the report says. “The powerful gravitational pull of individuals’ religious roots and identity sometimes supersedes the assimilating nature of American society.”

Recently, authorities have taken a closer look at radicalization happening in U.S. prisons, where a study last year by George Washington University and the University of Virginia found that Islamic extremists were turning jail cells into terrorist breeding grounds by preaching violent interpretations of the Quran to their fellow inmates.

Additionally, the Justice Department last year indicted 28-year-old Adam Gadahn, who was raised on a farm in southern California, with treason and supporting terrorism for serving as an al-Qaida propagandist.

Gadahn is believed to have tried to recruit supporters through videos and messages posted on the Internet.

Critics: Report ‘plays into extremists’ plans’
The NYPD report warns that more intelligence gathering is needed since most potential homegrown terrorists “have never been arrested or involved in any kind of legal trouble,” the study says.

They “look, act, talk and walk like everyone around them,” the study adds. “In the early stages of their radicalization, these individuals rarely travel, are not participating in any kind of militant activity, yet they are slowly building the mind-set, intention and commitment to conduct jihad.”

Kareem Shora, legal adviser for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, called the findings faulty and potentially inflammatory.

Police “paint such a broad brush,” Shora said. “It plays right into the extremists’ plans because it’s going to end up angering the community.”

A recently released National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Osama bin Laden’s network had regrouped and remains the most serious threat to the United States.

Kelly insisted the NYPD report made no effort to provide a “cookie-cutter” profile for terrorists. He also argued that the NYPD report “doesn’t contradict the National Intelligence Estimate — it augments it.”

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20278590/

U.S. to move on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard

U.S. to move on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard

Administration will designate group as ‘global terrorist’

By Robin Wright

The Washington Post

Updated: 1:13 a.m. ET Aug. 15, 2007

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."

Growing tensions
The move reflects escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad.

The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard's financial operations.

"Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people."

For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guard Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Although administration discussions continue, the initial decision is to target the entire Guard Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.

Business ties
Formed in 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guard took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guard, also known as the Pasdaran, has since become an powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are tied to many mainstream businesses in Iran.

"They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines -- even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military, which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration."

The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines this spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The United States took punitive action against Iran after the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, including the breaking of diplomatic ties and the freezing of Iranian assets in the United States. More recently, dozens of international banks and financial institutions reduced or eliminated their business with Iran after a quiet campaign by the Treasury Department and State Department aimed at limiting Tehran's access to the international financial system. Over the past year, two U.N. resolutions have targeted the assets and movements of 28 people -- including some Revolutionary Guard members -- tied to Iran's nuclear program.

China an obstacle
The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, Iran's largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said.

China's actions reverse a cycle during which Russia was the most reluctant among the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. "China used to hide behind Russia, but Russia is now hiding behind China," said a U.S. official familiar with negotiations.

The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). The bill already has 323 House co-sponsors.

The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.

"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20269253/page/2/

Communist Dictator Mugabe: A Big Fan Of Bush's Wiretapping Program

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, August 13, 2007

The Communist dictatorship of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe has sought to justify its draconian new wiretapping law by citing the US and the UK as bedfellow nations that also engage in domestic eavesdropping and surveillance. Should we be concerned, or should we instead just ignore it and talk to our friends about Lindsay Lohan's rehab?

"Communications Minister Christopher Mushowe said Zimbabwe is not unique in the world in passing such legislation, citing electronic eavesdropping programs in the United States, the United Kingdom and South Africa, among other countries," reports VOA news.

Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is widely renowned as one of the most corrupt, inhumane hellholes on earth, a total police state ruled with an iron fist amidst a backdrop of societal meltdown, 85% unemployment rates, life expectancy under 40, and widespread starvation.

Mugabe's regime was characterized by the infamous land redistribution campaign, which began in 2000, a genocide perpetrated against white farmers that caused a mass exodus and the crippling of the agricultural industry and access to basic commodities.

Mugabe himself, whose enforcers are ordered to make dissidents rape their own children at gunpoint, has been in power for no less than 20 years having rigged numerous elections and intimidated recalcitrants by force to vote for him.

Should we be concerned that the tyrannical regime of Zimbabwe, one of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet, cites the U.S. as a benchmark on how to conduct government policy on privacy of telecommunications?

Should we be concerned that the rhetoric they use to justify unchecked spying mirrors almost exactly similar pronouncements by the Bush administration?

Consider this statement from the Zimbabwe Defense Forces director for communications, Colonel Livingstone Chineka.

"The mobile service providers have their own international gateway system, and from a security point of view, this is dangerous to the state because we need to monitor traffic coming in and outside, but at the moment we can not."

Would that seem out of place if it had been said by Gen. Michael Hayden or George W. Bush?

Mugabe is warmly greeted by former UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

As America and other western countries sink deeper into overt despotism, it should naturally follow that they will more closely resemble totalitarian autocracies that are already in existence.

A London Independent report today provides us with another example - though long denied, "Germany's Stasi archive has revealed one of the last dark secrets of the former Communist east: the politburo order to shoot to kill anyone attempting to breach the Iron Curtain to freedom," writes Allan Hall.

"The Stasi directive went: "Do not hesitate with the use of a firearm, including when the border breakouts involve women and children, which the traitors have already frequently taken advantage of." Dated 1 October 1973, the document is described as "explosive" by Andreas Schulze, a spokesman for the Magdeburg-based archive where it was found."

Though the report fails to mention it, the UK Metropolitan Police adopted a shoot to kill policy in 2003, a directive that came to the fore in July 2005, when innocent electrician Jean Charles de Menezes was brutally gunned down in London despite having no connection to terrorism, before a cover-up went into high gear to hide the real reasons for his assassination.

The UK has adopted a policy that is borrowed from the Communist Stasi while America is lauded by Communist dictator Mugabe for spying on its own citizens. Should this be a worry or is it safe to slump back on the couch, loosen our belts, crack open a 6-pack and watch America's Got Talent?

Should we be concerned?