Just Asking

Last week Jeremy Scahill covered a very interesting story over at his blog titled ‘Paramilitary Thug with Long History with Top US Democrats Arrested for War Crimes.’ The story is about Agim Ceku who commanded the ethnic cleansing operations in Yugoslavia in 90s, and then headed KLA, an organization labeled ‘terrorist’ by the US government. I briefly covered the issues related to KLA and it’s tainted and biased coverage by the US MSM in ‘The Forbidden Apple of the US Press, and talked about their burial of the dark side of KLA and our government’s partnership with them as just another example of our hypocrisy-ridden foreign policy.

Back to Scahill’s nicely-done piece, and a summary of the case provided in the introduction paragraph:

“A US-trained paramilitary figure from the Balkans with a lengthy history with leading Clinton-era Democrats, including some now in the Obama administration, has been arrestedin Europe on an Interpol warrant for war crimes. Agim Ceku, an Albanian from Kosovo, is a former Croatian Army General who was trained by the private US security firm Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI) during the Clinton Administration. Ceku, backed by the US, would go on to become the “prime minister” of Kosovo despite the fact that he was responsible for some of the worst acts of “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and was the leader of a paramilitary organization with drug trade ties, which Clinton’s top envoy to Kosovo called a “terrorist” organization.”

For the purpose of my coverage please put your own emphasis on “…the leader of a paramilitary organization with drug trade ties.” Now a bit more on Ceku as the darling of the US government and its extension, NATO:

“Gen. Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, worked with Ceku when Clark led the bombing of Kosovo. “[Ceku] could have been in anybody’s army and done well,” saidClark in 2007.”

And two important excerpts for my purposes with emphasis added:

“Despite US intelligence that indicatedthat the KLA was a terrorist organization with ties to narco-trafficking and networks connected to Osama bin Laden, the Clinton Administration embraced the organization as its proxy armed force on the ground in Kosovo in 1998-1999.”
…

“This is not the first time Ceku has been arrested. In 2003, he was detained in an airport in Slovenia and in 2004 at the airport in Budapest. In May 2009, he was deported from Columbia.”

Since the story’s main focus is on Ceku’s role in ethnic cleansing and our shameful diplomatic relations – based on even more shameful objectives and foreign policy, there is no explanation for Ceku’s trip to and stay in Colombia. We already know he is connected to Narco-Trafficking, and we know the importance of the Balkan Route to the heroin industry. But what the hell was Ceku doing in Colombia? Is there some sort of a barter system, heroin-for cocaine and vice versa within the industry? Again, keep this thought for what’s to follow. Reported as an update by Scahill, interestingly but expectedly, due to “international intervention” Ceku was ordered released the next day, on Thursday, June 25.

Hmmmm, international intervention? That makes it NATO-US.

I do follow Scahill’s reports and editorial pieces regularly, and he is one of very few journalists out there whom I respect. This piece got my attention especially, and brought back memories of another story I followed personally for over a year: Jan Willem Matser, another NATO Thug.

Jan Willem Matser, a Dutch Lieutenant Colonel in Staff to NATO Secretary General George Robertson in charge of Eastern Europe, whose job gave him access to classified NATO material, was arrested on February 2003 in Wemmel, Belgium, and charged with trying to launder at least $200 million for an international drug cartel from his office at the alliance’s HQ in Brussels. Other criminals involved in Matser’s case were Mohammed Kadem, a Moroccan, and Pietro Fedino, a wealthy Sicilian with a previous conviction for cocaine smuggling.

Here is some background as reported by Times UK :

“According to documents seen by The Sunday Times, the investigation began last September after customs police at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam received a tip-off about a FedEx parcel sent from Colombia [Emphasis Added] to an address in the Netherlands. The parcel was found to contain a receipt for a £120m deposit at a bank in Bogotá [Emphasis Added] and a fake document authorising the transfer of the same amount of money to Tender SA, a company registered in the Romanian town of Timisoara. The company is not suspected of any wrongdoing.”

And here some more background on the investigations from the same report by Times UK:

“The information was passed to a police unit working for the Dutch finance ministry that specializes in combating organised crime. The package was fitted with a bug and resealed. It was allegedly received by Fedino, who is suspected by the Dutch police of being an Italian mafia boss. Five agents monitored him around the clock and listened to his telephone calls. It was this surveillance that led police to Matser. In a call taped on September 7, a man later identified as Matser said he was “going to be leaving NATO in half an hour”.”

And more,

“In a further conversation, on December 27, Matser allegedly said: “I’ll make false documents for the entire transaction . . . It’s no problem; my computer’s very patient and I can even recreate the official notary seals from old documents.” Matser also held several meetings with his alleged accomplices. One meeting with Kadem on Christmas Eve at the Airport hotel in Rotterdam was filmed by the surveillance team. Kadem was already the focus of four international drug investigations and had been sought by Interpol since 1996.”Investigators believe Matser helped to set up the scheme when Nato sent him to Romania last year to instruct central European intelligence chiefs on how to raise standards.”

Here comes another very interesting connection:

“Matser — an assistant to Chris Donnelly, Robertson’s special adviser for central and eastern Europe — is believed to have used his contacts in Romania’s domestic secret service to arrange meetings with senior members of the government. He is thought to have told them of plans to launch a fund, backed by wealthy individuals and middle-ranking investors that would invest £1.8 billion in Romania. This was to begin with the purchase of Petrom, oil refining company, and Libra Bank [Emphasis Added]”

Interestingly Dick Cheney’s Halliburton happened to be another contender for control of Romania’s Petrom. Here is the ‘Interesting’ Connection:

“Matser and Tender are further connected by their failed attempt to gain control of PETROM National Society (SNP), a soon-to-be privatized Romanian oil-company, which produces 10% of the Romanian GDP. Tender, Matser and Halliburton formed a consortium in an effort to gain controlling stakes – 51% estimated to be worth approx. US$ 1 billion. A few days following the announcement of this trio’s interest, Matser was arrested. Subsequently, Romania’s Economy Ministry has made it known that the consortium had not met its criteria and was no longer being considered.”

Sanders Research has one of the very few analyses of Matser’s case, here are a few excerpts:

“Matser had a suspiciously large amount of money to invest, as the Dutch police found out. They discovered in Matser’s apartment papers from a Romanian holding company, Tender SA, owned by the tycoon Ovidiu Tender. Matser said that he had frequently carried out such money transfers with Tender, whom he had met at a NATO-related conference in the Romanian mountain resort of Sinaia in April 2002, [2] and who is often described as being “close” to the Romanian president, Ion Iliescu. Tender was interviewed by the Dutch investigators, and he told them that he had attended a meeting between Matser and the Romanian prime minister, Adrian Nastase, at which Matser had announced that he had no less than $2 – 3 billion to invest. In the latter half of 2002, Matser nearly concluded the purchase of a Libra Bank in Romania. [3] And it seems that he may have been interested in using his money to buy a stake in the Romanian oil giant, Petrom, in which Tender also has an interest. (Oddly enough, another contender for control of Romania’s petro-chemical industry was none other than Hallburton, the company which used to be headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney[Emphasis Added].”

Do you want to get a good chuckle? Here is how Matser tried to explain the source of his fortune:

“Matser claimed that he had such gigantic sums at his disposal because he ran a sort of freelance brokerage business in the short-term money markets. He claimed that he operated on a 40% commission for companies seeking short-term loans, and that with this business he had amassed a fortune which he wanted to invest. Specialists consulted during the trial said this was simply impossible. But because he was friendly with numerous notorious criminals, his activities started to arouse suspicion, in particular that he was involved in laundering money for drug dealers. Although Matser was in fact acquitted of complicity in organised crime, his two co-defendants had previous convictions for drug dealing and fraud. And he was friendly with Mohammed Kadem, a Moroccan who is alleged to be one of the biggest drug dealers in the Netherlands.”

And here is how NATO tried to wiggle its way out of this (well, as you will see later, in the end it did!):

“What is clear is that Matser not only had connections with numerous very powerful criminals – the phone number of his co-defendant, Pietro Fedino, the notorious Italian Mafioso [5], was in his mobile – but also that he had astonishingly high-level political contacts too. On his arrest and conviction, NATO insisted that he was merely a junior employee of the association, and thus tried to dissociate itself from his conviction. But if he was so junior, how did he manage to hold meetings with the Romanian prime minister, or to meet the most powerful men in the country? And how was it that he saw Lord Robertson, Secretary-General of the Atlantic Alliance, nearly every day? Matser even used to use the headed paper of the Secretary-General for his own personal notes.”

NATO or its defendants never answered the following question that arose from the Matser Case, I guess they didn’t have to; after all, they are ‘NATO’:

“The silence has been deafening which has greeted the revelation that NATO officials consort with some of the biggest gangsters in organised crime. Yet it is obvious what questions Matser’s convictions throws up. What did Matser’s bosses at NATO, including the Secretary-General, know about his criminal activities? How can a NATO official, with all the security controls which such a post implies, entertain friendship and business contacts with well-known gangsters and criminals? How can he amass such stupendous sums of money while holding down a full-time office job?”

Guess what? As with Scahill’s Agim Ceku, despite serious charges supported by tons of evidence Matser was mysteriously acquitted.

“A Dutch court on 27 January acquitted former NATO official Jan Willem Matser of charges he attempted to launder $200 million by channeling money from a Colombian bank account to Belgium via Romania, AP and AFP reported (see “RFE/RL Newsline,” 14 January 2004). The judge said prosecutors had failed to support the money-laundering charges. Matser was found guilty of forgery and fraud on two other accounts and was sentenced to 14 months in prison, but was ordered released because he has already served two-thirds of the sentence in pretrial detention. He was given three years’ probation.”

No ‘real’ explanation has ever been provided for his acquittal. Matser was convicted of forgery but acquitted of other charges, including belonging to a criminal organization. Yap, that’s the kind of immunity you get if you are a NATO man directly or indirectly. The organization seems to work like a network set up to advance large scale criminal operations.

And finally, even more interestingly, this story which became the front page news for days, even weeks, in Dutch and Romanian media, received ‘0,’ that is ‘zero,’ as in ‘zilch’ coverage in the USA media. Go check it for yourself. Enter Matser’s name in any news search engine of your choice and wait for the results. Seriously, go and do it. You’ll see 3 or 4 pieces in English, in UK papers, and NOTHING here in the United States of America. I don’t have to wonder why. Do you?

Cartoon by Paul Jamiol

Shielding our Multi-Daddy Statesmen & Generals

Some of you may be familiar with my past interviews, comments, or writings on the issue of ‘revolving doors.’ I started this blog by emphasizing the importance of separating ‘main causes’ from the multiple ‘symptoms’ we’ve been suffering from. Well, I consider the chronic revolving doors phenomena as one of those main causes leading to many of the ailments we suffer from today.

In November 2006 I wrote a two part series on this issue: ‘The Highjacking of a Nation. ‘In Part Two, ‘The Auctioning of Former Statesman & Dime a Dozen Generals’, I provided a few examples of how certain former statesmen and generals cash in on their connections and peddle their influence to the highest bidders turned clients. One of these cases involved General Joseph Ralston. He is the Vice Chairman of The Cohen Group. He serves on the board of Lockheed Martin, which paid the Cohen Group $550,000 in 2005, according to a Lockheed filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Ralston is also a member of the 2006 Advisory Board of the American Turkish Council (ATC), and one of Turkey’s top advocates and lobbyists.

In late summer of 2006, while serving as the Vice Chairman for the Cohen Group, while serving on Lockheed Martin’s Board, while sitting on the Advisory Board of the Turkish Lobby Group, ATC and lobbying for Turkey, this ‘Dime a Dozen’ General, was appointed to be US Special Envoy for Countering the Kurdistan Workers Party conflict with Turkey. Here is an excerpt from my piece:

“Our government sent this man, Ralston, as a special envoy to help resolve the highly critical Northern Iraq situation with possible dire consequences in the near future. Considering Ralston’s livelihood and his loyalties, as a member of the board of the directors of Lockheed Martin, as the vice chairman of a lobbying firm with foreign interests, as an advisor and board member for the most powerful Turkish Lobby group, ATC, who did this man represent while in Turkey as the special envoy? What interests did he really represent; Iraq’s situation, Lockheed’s livelihood, which depends on further conflicts and bloodshed; the corrupt and criminal government of Turkey and its representation via ATC; or, the furthering of the Cohen Group’s future pimping opportunities?”

Why am I revisiting Ralston and this major case of conflict of interest now? It is because I intend to re-illustrate it within the framework and as an example in the discussion we’ve been having on ‘Dissecting the MSM.’

While the implications of Ralston’s appointment caused a major stir within the Kurdish community and organizations, pointing to Ralston’s position with the Turkish lobby in the US, and within Turkey’s own communities and pointing to Ralston’s position with Lockheed Martin, our own media and watchdog organizations let this gargantuan conflict of interest pass under the radar.

Also from ‘Hijacking of a Nation: Part Two’

“Why in the world did no one within the U.S. mainstream media give even the slightest coverage of this conflict of interest? Why haven’t we heard anyone asking Ralston the most important question, in dire need of an answer: ‘Who’s your daddy Ralston; boy?’ Ralston’s position is no different than what is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: “A person conceived and born out of wedlock.” With the possibility of any one of four daddies, and without the benefit of a DNA test, how do we go about determining Ralston’s real daddy?”

Ken Silverstein of Harper Magazine wrote a piece on this in November of 2006, titled ‘Lost in the Valley of the Wolves’. He touched the most important aspects of this case:

“…But it appears that Ralston is representing the interests of the shareholders of Lockheed Martin rather than the interests of the American people.”

“Then came the mid-September announcement (just weeks after Ralston’s appointment) that Turkeywould be purchasing thirty new F-16’s from Lockheed Martin. Weeks later, the Turkish government ruled out purchasing any Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes. This leaves only one option—Lockheed Martin’s new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. A deal between Lockheed and Turkey would be worth as much as $10 billion.”

… and he asked the ‘real question’ any MSM reporter with even a half of a brain should have asked:

“Did Special Envoy Ralston lobby on behalf of Lockheed Martin during his encounters with Turkish officials? It seems likely. Ralston sits on the Board of Directorsof Lockheed Martin and serves as vice chairman of The Cohen Group, a lobbying firm that has represented Lockheed since 2004. On August 11 of this year, seventeen days before he was named Special Envoy, Ralston was appointed to The Cohen Group team that lobbies for Lockheed.”

…and he emphasized the unmentionable as far as the US MSM is concerned, the Turkish Lobby:

“As Kurdish activist and blogger Mizgin Yilmaz has explained in detail , Ralston has close ties to Turkey through his military service and through his seat on the advisory board of the American Turkish Council. Lockheed Martin is a leading member and financial sponsor of this council, which “is dedicated to effectively strengthening U.S.-Turkish relations through the promotion of commercial, defense, technology and cultural relations.””

…and he concluded it with a punch absent in the work (stenography) of all other MSM players:

“It’s hard to understand how the Bush Administration could appoint a special envoy with so many conflicts of interest, but Lockheed’s corporate slogan says it all: “We never forget who we’re working for.” Neither, it seems, does General Ralston.”

Aside from Harper’s Silverstein, one other publication, the Boston Globe, did an excellent hard-hitting report on this. Kevin McKiernan begins the piece with a great punch line:

“MOST PEOPLE would agree that it’s bad ethics for government officials to invest in companies that they regulate. But what about a US special envoy to a Middle East trouble spot who happens to be a director of an arms company selling weapons to one of the parties in the conflict?”

Here is more from McKiernan’s report:

“The problem is that General Ralston is on the board of Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest arms maker, which just last month finalized a $2.9 billion sale for advanced F-16 fighters that may well be used in the Kurdish region (the State Department acknowledges that F-16 s were involved in human rights abuses in Turkey in the 1990s). This gives the ex-general the appearance of holding a financial interest in his shuttle diplomacy.”

“General Ralston is on the board of the American Turkish Council, the powerful Capitol Hill lobby, and he is vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a corporation founded by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, with close ties to the Turkish military. Unfortunately, Ralston carries too much baggage to be special envoy, and he should step down before he alienates the Kurds of Iraq, the best — and perhaps only — friend the US government has in the country.”

And even a punchier finale:

“Our new man in Ankara will be seen as an arms merchant in diplomat’s clothing. He should be replaced.”

Now, here is a list of links to some of the major news coverage involving Ralston’s bastardization of military honor:

McClatchy

CBS News

CNN

New York Times

NPR

Time Magazine

I can go on and list more, but I’m sure you get the picture. They all went with the transcript faxed to them by the State Department like good little stenographers! Didn’t they have access to Ralston’s background, which is listed even in Wikipedia and his employer’s, Cohen Group, website? Surely they did! Weren’t they given reports and tips by those who’ve been acting as watchdogs on this case? Surely they were!

Here is a statement from ‘Mizgin’ who not only followed the case from the beginning as it was unfolding, but took it upon herself to contact these MSM reporters, supplying them with all the background on Four-Daddy General Ralston, and underlining all the issues of ‘conflicts of interests’:

At the end of September 2006, a friend in the UK who writes the Hevallo blog had sent me a link to an article in the Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram on the sale of F-16s to Turkey. At the same time, Turkey was considering a purchase of the new Lockheed Martin F-35 but was not scheduled to make a decision on this purchase until the end of 2006. This news came almost one month after former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Joseph Ralston was named by the State Department as the “special envoy” to “coordinate” the PKK for Turkey.

Since the PKK was preparing to declare a 1 October 2006 unilateral ceasefire, and since I was working on an English translation of Ocalan’s statement regarding the ceasefire, I didn’t have time to immediately investigate the F-16 story and the connection to Ralston. However, by 1 October, I had completed some initial investigation and noted the conflict of interest that Ralston’s appointment created.

In researching Ralston’s background, I found that he was working for The Cohen Group, a lobbying firm founded by former Defense Secretary William Cohen, and that Ralston was one of two vice-chairmen for The Cohen Group. The other was Marc Grossman. I had come across a Washington Post article from May 2006 on Cohen and his firm which was written by David Hilzenrath. The article described the revolving-door syndrome between government and private business. In writing the article, I thought Hilzenrath would have the background to see that there was an obvious conflict of interest with Ralston’s appointment and his connection to a private company that was listed with the US Senate, in accordance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as a lobbyist hired to sell Lockheed Martin tactical fighter aircraft. In fact, Ralston was listed as a lobbyist with the Senate for this very purpose at least as late as 31 July 2006.

I contacted Hilzenrath with the information I had managed to search out within a couple of days and suggested that he write something about the appointment since he had written about the people involved with The Cohen Group. He was interested initially and asked for a phone number where he could contact me. I gave him a “throw-away” number where he could reach me, but never heard from him again.

In the meantime and out of frustration with trying to get the mainstream media interested in an appointment that was obviously very wrong, I wrote an article myself with was first published on KurdishInfo and then on KurdishMedia. Hevallo managed to get the article published in the UK’s Socialist Worker. A friend from Diyarbakir translated the article into Turkish and I sent it to Ozgur Gundem, where it was published. I also posted the Turkish version on Istanbul Indymedia. Another friend persuaded the Kurdish National Congress of North America to call for Ralston’s resignation as “special envoy.”

Before the end of October 2006, Ralston had secured Turkey’s purchase of F-35 aircraft for $10 billion and the official announcement of the purchase came in December 2006. This meant that within a matter of a few weeks, Ralston had squeezed some $13 billion out of the Turkish Defense Ministry.

From the UK, Hevallo had contacted a reporter for the LA Times, Kim Murphy, after she wrote a piece on Ralston and the Kurdish situation while she had been in Iraq. This also looked promising as Murphy appeared interested initially. Hevallo sent her the information that we had collected on Ralston and the Lockheed deals with Turkey and she was going to present the information to her editor in Washington DC. From that point on the information was buried and we heard nothing else from Murphy or the LA Times.

Did the reporters themselves make the decision to sit on the information about this conflict of interest or did they, honestly, pass it to their editors, who made the final decisions? I don’t know. I guess it really doesn’t matter because our experience proves that somewhere along the line, someone in the mainstream media is going to sit on this kind of information to keep it from the public.

Considering that most of Turkey’s purchases of military hardware during the Clinton administration were subsidized by up to 80% by the US taxpayer, Americans themselves should have an interest in what happens when retired generals-turned lobbyists are appointed to handle situations that deal in matters of life and death.

There were those whom we contacted who did take up the pen to write about the Ralston problem and I am grateful to them for their help. Among those were Ken Silverstein at Harper’s; Kevin McKiernan, a longtime advocate for the Kurdish people, writing in the Boston Globe; Chris Deliso, who included information about Lockheed Martin’s public relations firm, Public Strategies, Inc., who took a great interest in the things I was writing about Ralston and Lockheed–hence the need for “throw-away” phone numbers when you have to deal with these bloodsuckers; and Luke Ryland, who managed to link the Ralston conflict of interest with the Sibel Edmonds case. For all of these, I have nothing but praise and the greatest thanks

So what did they do instead? They all went by the transcript faxed and or e-mailed to them by the State Department like good little stenographers! That’s exactly what they did, and that’s exactly what they’ve been doing when it comes to shielding our multi-daddy Statesmen & Generals.

Is Ralston an isolated case? Of course not! There is an extensive list of these multi-daddy ex government officials who double or maybe even triple dip. Here, check out a few of these dime-a-dozen public servants turned foreign lobbyists:

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert: Here, here, and here.

Former Undersecretary of State & Ambassador to Turkey Marc Grossman: Here, here, and here.

Retired General Brent Scowcroft: Here, here, here, and here.

NSA’s Russ Tice on CyberCom & StratCom

While we were busy covering the ‘Iranian Twitter Revolution’ and gobbling up the latest ‘sex’ news involving Sanford:

Robert Gates issued his anticipated order to establish the U.S. Cyber Command which ‘supposedly’ will be responsible for defending the military portion of cyberspace. Of course the preoccupation with Sanford’s hanky panky and playing cheerleader for our twitter buddies didn’t allow for any in-depth coverage of this gigantic development.

Here is what my friend and a member of NSWBC, Russ Tice, Former NSA Senior Intelligence Analyst & Action Officer, had to say about this latest development:

“As StratCom has neither the expertise nor technical resources to conduct this mission, the default control of CyberCom will fall, by design, into the lap of NSA. This was similarly true of StratCom being given responsibility for military space after the demise of US Space Command, which effectively ceded control of space to the Air Force. Are we to believe that CyberCom being headquartered not at Omaha, NE, but rather at Fort Meade, MD, right next to NSA; and with NSA’s current director, Lieutenant General Keith Alexander, promoted to a four star general, as its head, is a coincidence?

NSA has coveted control of cyber operations for some time and already exerts considerable influence in the mission field. Illegally, NSA has tapped into all domestic e-mail traffic within the United States. To allow them the ability to subject all U.S. domestic computer communications to offensive cyber attacks and the many other aspects of digital “information warfare” should make all of America shutter in fear. Of course this supposedly will be subject to congressional oversight, federal statutes, executive orders, and agency regulations, and we all now know how steadfastly NSA is committed to these safeguards and to our constitutional liberties. With NSA now pulling the wool over our new president’s eyes, in conjunction with their contempt for congressional oversight, I am truly horrified of the prospect that NSA will usher us into a new dystopia where we will soon learn the mandatory newspeak language that will alter the concluding line of our national anthem from “… the land of the free and home of the brave” to, “… the land of the fear and the home of the depraved”.

This development indicates that SecDef Robert Gates is truly a creature of his former master. Be afraid America, be very afraid, as NSA will soon be the number one “clear and present danger” to your freedom and liberty. “

For the first time, Tice goes on record and reveals his exact job title and mission concentration while working for the NSA & DIA:

“At NSA and while at DIA, I worked as an Intelligence Analyst & Capabilities Operations Officer specializing in all aspects of OFFENSIVE INFORMATION WARFARE (O-IW).”

I had a meeting with James Bamford and got a ‘real’ education on how alarming this really is. I am also in touch with a few other NSA sources and friends, so more on this later…

Next

US drone attacks on a funeral in South Waziristan piled up at least 35 more civilian bodies. Let’s add these up as we go. Jeremy Scahill has a solid piece on this:

“In the first 99 days of 2009, more than 150 people were reportedly killed in these drone attacks. The most recent documented attack was Tuesday in Waziristan. Since 2006, the US drone strikes have killed 687 people (as of April). That amounts to about 38 deaths a month just from drone attacks.”

So yes, let’s take the responsibility of adding these up since our media and many blogosphere activists are currently busy with Sanford’s escapade and ‘twitter land.’

Back to Iran

And, for the final update I am choosing a couple of relevant reports in line with our own ‘twitter’ coverage:

Chip Pitts has an interesting analysis on ‘Twitter Factor’ over at CSR LAW. It is extensively documented and linked. I plan to go back and read it a second time.

Philip Giraldi has a refreshing perspective on the latest concerning Iran over at AntiWar.

Giraldi appropriately bashes the newly found expertise among those who’ve been muddying historical facts and what’s really happening on the ground with their intentional fiction, spin, or, ignorant interpretation reeking with naivety or plain old stupidity:

“Having spent much of my working life as an intelligence officer on the street in places like Istanbul, I am astonished at what passes for expertise in the debate over what to do about Iran. It is clear that even the few genuine experts on Iran don’t really know what is going on there because they are slaves to their sources of information, which tend to reflect their own philosophical viewpoints and are, in any event, narrowly based.”

Here are a few excerpts on ‘Twitter Hero’ Mousavi:

“He is, in reality, a defender of extremely corrupt vested interests. That he has attracted the support of the so-called “Gucci crowd” of twentyish twitterers does not mean that he has embraced western values.”

I love his right on target characterization here: “Gucci Crowd of Twentyish Twitterers”!! Well-said, Phil, totally in line with what I’ve been getting from my Iranian sources here and over there.

“And then there is the corruption issue, Iran’s six hundred pound gorilla. Mousavi is heir to the corrupt Iran of the post- revolutionary period when the country was looted by the senior clerics cooperating with the business class, the bazaaris.”

The corruption charges on Mousavi are valid; have been established. He appears to fit the “State Department Viable Candidate Criteria,’ don’t you agree? And, here is another good observation:

“If there was one thing I learned from twenty years of experience as a military intelligence and CIA officer it is that nothing is ever what it seems. If a situation appears to be clear cut, with good guys and bad guys arrayed against each other it is probably anything but. So maybe black and white comes out gray. All the more reason to step back.”

And this is how Giraldi nicely wraps up his piece:

“The old Hippocratic advice to doctors to “do no harm” should perhaps be the best advice for the American political chattering classes and the media. Doing no harm regarding events in Iran is to stay out of it.”

That’s it for a quick round up of a few select issues while Sanford Gate & the Iran Spin machine are busy at work, taking up space and time all over the news and much of the blogosphere…

Now Accepting Applications

The State Department seeks a ‘viable’ Iranian political candidate to lead and channel the current dissenter factions in Iran to topple the current Anti-US regime and replace it with one certified and approved by the United States Government and US ‘special’ business interests. The latest developments in Iran have presented our ‘real’ policy makers with a golden opportunity to execute their plan for Iran and to at long last achieve their objectives. The previous administration’s bold and hawkish methodology and their overly used and exhausted ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and ‘evilization’ rhetoric failed to achieve these objectives, which are shared by those who actually ‘matter’ in our country. Today we have a new administration brought to power by brilliantly and masterfully utilizing the rhetoric of ‘change.’ This new slogan of ‘change’ includes a new style and methodology in addressing long-sought Iran objectives. This opportunity is mutual, where the Iranian candidate of our choice will enjoy not only the symbolic power position supported and protected by US intelligence and military services, but enormous monetary benefits he or she will be able and allowed to parasitically extract from the resources and people of Iran. This may be your opportunity.

Listed below are the candidate qualification criteria and ‘some’ of the unclassified major benefits we are committed to providing the chosen ‘viable’ candidate. Also attached are two appendixes to provide you with examples of ‘real life’ candidates we have successfully installed and supported. In order to make them even more relevant we chose examples from your neighboring countries. Once you submit your application you will receive an initial package containing additional examples, similar to those listed in these two appendices, in much greater detail.

Candidate Qualifications

• Applicants must hold an Advanced Degree obtained in the United States or the United Kingdom, during which time extracurricular activities will have occurred and relationships formed. Candidates with degrees obtained elsewhere may be considered on a case by case basis with evidence of exceptional qualifications in other criteria.
• Applicants must provide evidence of previous covert or overt relationship(s) with the US intelligence apparatus, preferably the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or its UK counterpart, MI6.
• Applicants should have previous formal or informal connections with ‘key’ nongovernmental agencies (NGOs) and or think tanks involved in ‘development’ and/or ‘endowing democracy’, supported by US Government agencies and/or congressionally designated funding.
• Applicants are favored who possess an appealing criminal record. Record may include, but not necessarily be limited to: successful executions of fraud and embezzlement schemes, money laundering, bribery – as either recipient or donor, weapons smuggling, and/or mid to high level international narcotics trafficking. Candidates will be credited with their spouses’ criminal records.
• Applicants will be screened for an Interesting Bill of Mental Health, with the following preferred conditions: Pathological Lying Tendencies; Narcissism; Sadistic Mindset; Non-debilitating Psychotic Behavior. Those inflicted with moral, ethical, or conscientious predispositions need not apply.
• Applicants preferred with immediate family members connected to established mafia and/ or similar underground criminal groups and/or their related financial institutions, whether in Iran or elsewhere.
• Applicants should be exceptionally experienced in the art of ‘Multiple Image Projection’, with ability to smoothly but rapidly switch from a pious image satisfactory to the mullah sector, to a modern and progressive image to pacify the youth segment, to a pragmatic business-minded image to please the business (Bazaar) sector, to a patriotic nationalist image to garner support from the military.
• Applicants will be required to successfully complete our ‘BS detector’ exam, designed to test a candidate’s ability to deliver an expansive repertoire of ‘BS’ promises and messages undetected by the general population. This is not to be confused with an ordinary ‘polygraph test’, which is used for criminal suspects and lower level public servants. This sophisticated measuring system is solely designed to measure a political candidate’s ability to deliver ‘BS’. Further, the requirement to take this test is not ‘discriminatory’ to Middle Eastern political candidates. US presidential candidates are also required to pass this test before they are selected and declared ‘viable’ by our establishment and the media. For further analysis see our ‘BS’ record breaking 2008 presidential candidate.
• Applicants must evidence willingness and make a commitment to take the ‘US Ally Pledge’ – ‘thou shall always put US strategic and resources interests above the irrelevant public interest in Iran.’ This pledge is also known as the ‘Mi Casa, Su Casa Pledge,’ meaning, you consider your country, its resources, its strategic location, ours.

Benefits Provided

• You will be provided with necessary logistical support to enable you to build a positive international image in order to garner domestic and international support for your candidacy and post election rule. A quick look at our record in this area will evidence our successful dominance in national and international PR.
• You will be provided with direct and indirect military, educational and development aid worth billions of dollars. We will leave the allocation and consumption of this monetary assistance completely up to you. You may do as you wish, as you please.
• We will ensure that you secure additional external and international aid for the duration of your presidency. In addition to direct military aid and indirect ‘democratization & development’ aid, you will be granted a considerable allotment from IMF, and as indicated above, you will have complete freedom to consume, disseminate, waste, misdirect, and/or embezzle as you wish. No questions will be asked.
• You and your regime will benefit from our direct and indirect participation in your security and protection. You will have at your disposal the intelligence we collect on your dissenters and those in opposition factions. We will train your security and intelligence forces with our state of the art technology and methodology. This will include our intense and enhanced interrogation techniques and associated video capture and photography. During the initial training period, until you accumulate your own prisoners and detainees, we will provide you with subjects selected from among our own detainees globally. In addition, we will designate up to two of our special Gulfstream jets to exclusively assist you in your extraordinary renditions – reserved for your special and high profile dissenters.
• You and your immediate family will be granted US and/or UK citizenship status in case of any unlikely future regime failure. This will be supplemented with safe financial havens for you to deposit any and all funds you gather prior to and throughout your presidency. No questions will be asked regarding the sources of these funds, and any external attempts to question and or investigate them will be tactfully quashed.
• You will be guaranteed immunity from any international charges and or prosecution throughout your presidency and afterwards. Similarly, you will be retroactively immunized from any and all charges and or prosecutions that may deal with your deeds prior to your candidacy.
• You will not be subjected to prohibitions regarding acquiring weapons of mass destruction. In fact we may indirectly assist you in obtaining and developing such weapons. Our record should be a sufficient indicative of this pledge (please refer to Pakistan & AQ Khan, also Pre- 1988 Iraq and Saddam Hussein).
• You will be given a permanent ‘pass’ for any of your direct participation in previous and future Human Rights violations. All our chosen and installed third world leaders carry similar passes. Any international and/or organizational attempt to bring charges will be successfully quashed.

Appendix A

Turkey and Former Prime Minister Tansu Ciller

Former Prime Minister of Turkey, Ms. Tansu Ciller is a perfect example of a Middle Eastern leader who was selected, declared ‘viable,’ supported, promoted, installed, and protected by the United States. As can be seen Ms. Ciller met many if not all of the qualifications criteria listed above:

1. Ms. Ciller completed her advanced degrees in the United States – M.S. from the University of New Hampshire and PhD from the University of Connecticut. During this extended period while she resided in the US we had ample time and opportunity to train and mold her for the leadership position in Turkey.

2. Ms. Ciller was granted citizenship in the United States. In order to keep this fact from tarnishing her image during her candidacy campaign in Turkey and afterwards, we designated her US citizenship status ‘Classified and Top Secret’ on the grounds of Sensitive Diplomatic Relations. To this date, despite all attempts, Turkish authorities have been unable to have these files opened.

3. Ms. Ciller and her husband Ozer Ciller were closely involved with certain CIA operations prior to and after her return to Turkey, and their intimate relationship continued throughout her tenure as Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey. In fact, the CIA’s Roger Tamraz (see BCCI) was their partner in two front companies: ‘Emperyal’, which acquired and operated six (6) Casinos in Turkmenistan, and, ‘Lapis,’ involved with the oil pipeline project.

4. Ms. Ciller and her husband, before being considered ‘viable’ by us, already had an established shady financial past, including involvement in an embezzlement scandal connected to the collapse of ‘Istanbul Bankasi’, one of Turkey’s largest private banks. This along with involvements fortified Ms. Ciller’s qualification criteria when compared to competing applicants.

5. Ms. Ciller understood and participated in Turkey’s important strategic and operational role in the supply and transportation of heroin. She skillfully and very aggressively combined and furthered the marriage between the state military-police-intelligence and the underground heroin industry. Her notoriety even reached the German Courts, where she was accused of supporting and protecting the drug mafia – active not only in Turkey but elsewhere, including Europe and Central Asia.

6. Ms. Ciller played a direct role in scandals involving corruption, embezzlement, and state sponsored terrorism and narcotics operations. The best known scandal, one of her masterpieces, is known as ‘Susurluk’. Ciller and her husband – who is known for his mafia links and dealings, were directly implicated in Susurluk. The high profile kept by Ms. And Mr. Ciller during these scandals and their handling of them afterwards significantly bolstered their ‘value’ and ‘viability’ for us.

7. Ms. Ciller’s ‘known’ wealth is confirmed to be over $50 million, all of which was gained after she became a ‘’viable’ candidate supported directly by the US. A large portion of her investments and accounts are in the United States. We will not list the exact amount at this point, however, the selected candidate will be given an opportunity to see the ‘real’ dollar amount, and even consult with Ms. Ciller directly.

We can list many other desirable qualities of former Prime Minister Ciller, however for this appendix the above points should suffice. Interested candidates can conduct their own research and compare their qualifications to Ms. Ciller to get a better understanding of our ‘viability’ criteria for those candidates we select, support, promote, install, and sustain in ‘that’ part of the world. As you can see, we helped Ms. Ciller weather all accusations, investigations, and official charges, whether in Turkey or internationally. We made sure she and her government continuously received our military aid, development funds, and of course IMF funds. How she chose to spend, divert, or ‘lose’ these funds were left completely up to her, with no questions asked. Today she enjoys her incredible, almost fairytale like lifestyle, made possible with the enormous wealth accumulated through her official position, gained and sustained by our backing. We are pleased to take full credit for this. We will guarantee similar benefits for our candidate of choice in Iran.

Appendix B

Pakistan & Former Prime Minister Bhutto

Former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Ms. Benazir Bhutto provides another appropriate profile of our ‘ideal and desired’ leadership candidate for your part of the world. As can be seen there are remarkable similarities between Ms. Bhutto and Ms. Ciller:

1. Ms. Bhutto obtained her bachelor degree in the United States – BA from Radcliffe College at Harvard University. Later she attended Oxford University in the UK where she pursued International Law and Diplomacy. She spent a total of eight years in the US and UK – 1969-1977. Again, this time was ideal for the satisfactory grooming of Ms. Bhutto for ‘installment.’

2. Ms. Bhutto was granted British Citizenship and maintained her dual citizenship throughout her career as a candidate and later as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Her husband, the current President of Pakistan, also received British citizenship and has maintained his dual citizenship to date. The perceived conflict of interest back in her home country did not prove to be an obstacle for ‘us’ or the Bhuttos, thanks to our PR and global image projection activities.

3. Ms. Bhutto and her husband maintained intimate relationships with the underground economy and high level players of the heroin pipeline. Ms. Bhutto was a close ally, protector, and intimate friend of convicted Pakistani Drug Baron and Former Parliamentarian, Ayub Afridi, who like Bhutto, was given protection and safe haven in Dubai, one of our closest allies. These relationships and direct connections, some of which were directly inherited from her father, significantly bolstered Ms. Bhutto’s value for us and our British counterparts.

4. Ms. Bhutto and her husband proved to be desirably ambitious and admirably skilled in using their power, position, and connections, together with our protection, to misuse their proceeds of corruption and embezzlements to accumulate great wealth. Today her husband, who inherited this wealth, is the fifth richest man in Pakistan with a net worth of nearly $2 billion. As confirmation of their successful accumulation of wealth, in the 90s Ms. Bhutto and her husband purchased a 20-bedroom mansion in Surrey, England. They were known for their proficiency in receiving ‘kickbacks.’ Just the kickbacks they received from Swiss Cargo Inspection Companies alone were worth $12 million, which they stashed wisely in offshore companies in Swiss bank accounts. Ms. Bhutto’s record truly authenticates the future benefits of becoming our ‘ideal and viable’ candidate.

5. Ms. Bhutto’s Bill of Mental Health was not of much interest. However, she was permitted to transfer credits from her husband, Mr. Ali Asif Zardari. His is a far more interesting mental health record, made all the more interesting since she pledged to place him in an official position of power. He and his ‘mental health’ conditions proved to be extremely useful in ‘necessary’ operations involving murder, drug smuggling, corruption, and embezzlement, thus our making an exception for Ms. Bhutto was justified in this particular case.

6. Ms. Bhutto demonstrated tremendous talent in dealing with weapons of mass destruction from both sides of the issue. She successfully presented her image as a proponent of nuclear nonproliferation, while ambitiously pursuing proliferation domestically and internationally. Even AQ Khan had to admit who was the ‘real boss’ when it came to supplying Iran with centrifuge equipment and drawings from 1988 to 1990. Ms. Bhutto’s clever and original plot to use her family dentist in deals related to providing ‘rogue’ regimes with nuclear technology was awe inspiring even among the crustiest WMD dealers in leadership positions.

7. Ms. Bhutto exhibited great skills in ‘Multiple Image Projection’. With our direct backing and promotion she quickly sold her image as a needed progressive, democratic, and pro humanitarian leader for Pakistan. Just as quickly, at home in Pakistan, she was able to establishherself as equal to if not better than her dictatorial predecessors by sanctioning and carrying out extrajudicial killings, torture, persecution of religious minorities, and arbitrary detention. She also determinedly took extraordinary measures to muzzle the independent media. These skills were also applied to her utilization and exploitation of feministic support. At the same time she was portraying herself as a progressive and feminist example for ‘that’ part of the world, she was making deals and establishing close ties with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, notorious for their abuse of women…

As with ‘Exhibit A’ we can list many other desirable qualities of former Prime Minister Bhutto, but for this appendix the above points should suffice. We actively, directly and indirectly, selected, supported and protected Ms. Bhutto prior to, during, and after her position as PM. We provided her with billions of dollars in aid and billions of dollars in IMF loans. She in return was given complete discretion to use these funds to purchase our weapons, and of course to accumulate her and her family’s enormous wealth, during and after her position as PM. We shielded her despite serious charges and evidence of corruption and embezzlement brought against her and her husband, in Pakistan and worldwide, over nearly two decades. We continue this support and courting to date, after her assassination, through her husband, President Zardari. We will guarantee similar benefits for our candidate of choice in Iran.

*This satirical essay was neither created nor sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State, and the author has no direct knowledge that the Department has such a program currently in place for Iran.

Can’t Touch this…

On a beautiful sunny spring afternoon in 2006, I was sitting outside in the deck area of a neighborhood café in Alexandria with a friend who is a well-known journalist and an accomplished writer, for whom I happen to have the utmost respect. We were discussing the topical ‘Afghanistan & Terror Financing’ issue. Based on well-established trust between us my friend felt comfortable and open in sharing some ‘significant’ tidbits gathered from ‘credible’ sources within the CIA and DIA, and from British Intelligence officers. As I listened, the extent of credible information and documented incriminating evidence gathered excited me to the point where I had to stop this friend to ask:

‘When are you going to have this published?!’

The response was: ‘This was not the main topic I was investigating for my work. These ‘tidbits’ came to me as an ‘inevitable attachment’ due to relevancy…’

I had to stop the conversation again: ‘So? This is explosive. Even bigger than the main topic you’ve been chasing for the last year or so. No one has ever reported this, so you’ll be the first.’

My friend shook her/his head and said: ‘No one has done it because this topic is considered a ‘career ender.’ You know what happens to naïve reporters who actually try to get into this area, don’t you?’

Amazed by this line of reasoning and unable to really process it all I pressed harder: ‘What are you really afraid of?! Government interference? Classification?’
The answer that followed was even more amazing to me – due to my own naivety back then.

‘Government is the least of my worries. It’s the industry – the media. They go after anyone who dares touch this area – CIA, narcotics and terrorism. They will attack, label, and marginalize you, and before you know it your career as a reporter is over. For good.’

That day and in the days that followed I spent hours upon hours researching the topic; this ‘forbidden zone.’ I studied several cases where reporting on government-narcotics relationships, even though obtained and reported based on thoroughly documented credible sources and witnesses, had proven to be ‘career suicide.’ I met with several veteran DEA agents who presented me with even more cases and unreported criminal deeds, buried in the same journalistic ‘forbidden zone’ in the U.S. press. In the months and years that followed I paid much closer attention to reporting on current topics that skirt upon this forbidden area, and in my own time I analyzed and dissected these reports based on my own research and on information received from intelligence sources who are friends and members of my organization. And since I’ve been covering the U.S. MSM topic in ‘Dissecting the Mainstream Media’ series, I am going to present you with a few cases, reports, and analyses, and have your thoughts and views on this ‘Forbidden Apple of the U.S. Press.’

***

Gary Webb

In Part 3 of my ‘Dissecting the MSM’ series I discussed Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance series and its consequences in detail, so I won’t repeat the details here. If you haven’t read it I strongly encourage you to go back and do so. In 1996, after publishing his three-part investigative series, “Dark Alliance,” a thoroughly documented and diligently sourced story, he was attacked, ostracized, and pushed out of the media circle by his colleagues in the mainstream media. Despite the damning information contained in the content of the CIA IG Report, the corroborating findings of the DOJ IG Report, various congressional hearings and investigations filled with direct or indirect admissions, the MSM never eased up on its attacks and criticism of Webb’s report, until they successfully ended his career.

In a well-executed piece written by Barbara Osborn she sites the following exchange which took place between Post Dark Alliance Gary Webb and his supportive colleague Robert Parry:

“…Gary Webb didn’t know what was at risk. When he first spoke with Bob Parry–the Associated Press reporter who, along with Brian Barger, broke the Contragate and Contra/drug stories–Webb thought Parry was being “overly cautious.” “I thought he was being kind of foolish,” Webb recalled, when Parry asked him: “Are you sure you want to ruin your career?”

Unfortunately Parry proved to be the ‘realist.’ He was proven right. After all, he had gone through a rough journey of his own during and after his solid reporting on Iran Contra – for taking a bite off the ‘forbidden apple’ of the U.S. mainstream media.

***

Robert Parry

More or less a decade earlier another major case involving a direct government and narcotics relationship had emerged. In 1985, Robert Parry as an AP reporter teamed up with Brian Berger and broke the Iran Contra Affair. He later exposed Oliver North’s involvement in the scandal while reporting for Newsweek. For his impeccable investigative journalism he won a Polk Award, and became a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.

You would think a reporter with Parry’s credentials and solid track record would be revered and fought over by publishers in the U.S. mainstream media, no? Not so fast. First, this is what happened at the Associated Press where Parry broke the Contra scandal:

In late 1985, Parry teamed up with another reporter to report on a detailed and documented expose of drug-trafficking involving the Nicaraguan Contras. However, the AP editors blocked the story. Later Parry found out that his boss was regularly in touch with Oliver North and that he was conferring with him on a regular basis. Parry left the Associated Press.

And let’s read Parry’s own words gathered from an interview he gave on what took place at Newsweek:

,“As for my hiring at Newsweek, I think it resulted from how poorly the magazine had done on the scandal to that point. That said, Newsweek never liked the story and wanted it put to rest as soon as possible. Editor Maynard Parker was very sympathetic to the neoconservatives and became my nemesis. Evan felt that my presence so angered Parker that I had become an obstacle for Evan’s plans for the Washington bureau.”

Here is more:

“Though my finished article contained new information about the CIA’s relationship with Manuel Contreras, Chile’s intelligence chief and a key Letelier murder suspect, Maynard Parker and other Newsweek editors killed the story. I was told that Parker made some disparaging comment about me being “out to get” Bush.”

Of course, once again putting integrity in journalism first, Parry left Newsweek in 1990.

The Contra Scandal, especially the related Government-Narcotics relationship, was treated as an absolute ‘Forbidden Apple’ by the MSM. Webb and Parry were not the only ones; there were others. Here is another example involving reporter Ray Bonner and the New York Times – cited by Parry during an interview:

,“There were a number of journalists in the field in Central America, who were doing courageous work, people like Ray Bonner of the New York Times, who had been digging into the human rights problems in El Salvador, in particular. And he was—his career was very badly damaged, and he was made a sort of an example of what happens to you if you go into these areas too aggressively. Some reporters said that they were warned off from going after the North story, because that was seen as a career-ender.”

And of course Time Magazine as always, as an inseparable member of the MSM gang, followed the same trend:

“In the fall of 1987, Time assigned a staff reporter to assemble any evidence that the Oliver North network supplying guns to the Contras was also bringing cocaine into the U.S. The reporter found serious evidence, and wrote it up. As the former Time reporter explained to Extra!, after the article was written and rewritten, finally, a senior editor told the reporter to give up on the story. “The senior editor leveled with me,” the reporter told Extra!. “His words were: Time is institutionally behind the Contras. If this story were about the Sandinistas and drugs, you’d have no trouble getting it in the magazine.’”

Here is a punchy and so very factual quote from Robert Parry:

“It used to be that you were admired if you took on a tough story. Now you’re portrayed as a nut.”

That’s right. Thanks to the U.S. MSM even today many don’t know the facts involving the Contra Affair. Despite numerous reports, congressional investigations and statements, and tons of proven evidence, some people still consider the Iran Contra scandal a conspiracy theory or mere allegations, and those who had dared to touch it as ‘nuts.’ They owe their ignorance to the mainstream media.

The Walsh Report, the Independent Counsel for the Iran Contra Scandal, began it’s conclusion with this paragraph:

“The underlying facts of Iran/contra are that, regardless of criminality, President Reagan, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the director of central intelligence and their necessary assistants committed themselves, however reluctantly, to two programs contrary to congressional policy and contrary to national policy. They skirted the law, some of them broke the law, and almost all of them tried to cover up the President’s willful activities.”

The establishment did not have to concern itself with reports such as the Walsh Report or others produced by various IGs and Congress. These reports, the surfacing of facts exposing our Government’s direct hand in narcotics and illegal arms trade, did not matter a bit. Neither did they have to pay much attention to a handful of true investigative journalists who were determined and capable of informing the masses with their reporting. Of course not. Their extension, the United States Press, made certain that any concerns would be taken care of, thus the ‘real’ stories were quashed and blacked out, and those who dared to touch them were quickly attacked, labeled, marginalized, and ‘taken out.’

***

KLA, Narcotics, and the U.S. MSM

Remember our military intervention in Kosovo during 1998-1999 in order to stop what was referred to as ‘ethnic cleansing’? Our main ally, partner, over there was the Kosovo Liberation Army, a Kosovar Albanian guerilla group which sought the independence of Kosovo from Yugoslavia in the 90s. Up until 1998 the U.S. regarded the KLA as a terrorist group. Then, before the actual NATO-U.S. military intervention, while preparing for that ‘intervention,’ as U.S. Intelligence started establishing its intimate relationship with the KLA in the background, KLA’a terrorist label came off the U.S. government list. In effect our government ‘de-terroristed’ the KLA and cultivated ‘mutually beneficial’ diplomatic relations with KLA leaders.

Here are some excerpts from one of the very few articles printed by the U.S. MSM mentioning this, and ironically it is from the Washington Times, in May 1999:

“Last year, while State Department officials labeled the KLA a terrorist organization, saying it bankrolled its operations with proceeds from the heroin trade and from loans from known terrorists like bin Laden, the department listed the group as an “insurgency” organization in its official reports. The officials charged that the KLA used terrorist tactics to assault Serbian and ethnic Albanian civilians in a campaign to achieve independence.”

James Bissett, Former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, wrote the following:

“…as early as 1998, the Central Intelligence Agency assisted by the British Special Armed Services were arming and training Kosovo Liberation Army members in Albania to foment armed rebellion in Kosovo. The hope was that with Kosovo in flames NATO could intervene …”

Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, published extensively sourced and documented analyses of KLA as a gangster and terrorist entity, and its close ties to the CIA. The following except refers to what followed the State Department’s ‘de-terrorization’ of KLA:

“While KLA leaders were shaking hands with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at Rambouillet, Europol (the European Police Organization based in the Hague) was “preparing a report for European interior and justice ministers on a connection between the KLA and Albanian drug gangs.”

Chossudovsky provides report after report from the DEA and Europol, Germany’s Federal Criminal Agency and reports from Belgrade, establishing KLA as a high profile global narcotics and money laundering cartel:

“The proceeds of the narcotics trade has enabled the KLA to rapidly develop a force of some 30,000 men. More recently, the KLA has acquired more sophisticated weaponry including anti-aircraft and anti-armor rockets. According to Belgrade, some of the funds have come directly from the CIA “funneled through a so-called “Government of Kosovo” based in Geneva, Switzerland. Its Washington office employs the public-relations firm of Ruder Finn–notorious for its slanders of the Belgrade government”.”

“75% of the heroin entering Western Europe is from Turkey. And a large part of drug shipments originating in Turkey transits through the Balkans. According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), “it is estimated that 4-6 metric tons of heroin leave each month from Turkey having [through the Balkans] as destination Western Europe.” A recent intelligence report by Germany’s Federal Criminal Agency suggests that: “Ethnic Albanians are now the most prominent group in the distribution of heroin in Western consumer countries.”

He then provides an excellent overview for this entire picture:

“Remember Oliver North and the Contras? The pattern in Kosovo is similar to other CIA covert operations in Central America, Haiti and Afghanistan where “freedom fighters” were financed through the laundering of drug money. Since the onslaught of the Cold War, Western intelligence agencies have developed a complex relationship to the illegal narcotics trade. In case after case, drug money laundered in the international banking system has financed covert operations.”

Here is an explosive article exposing the relationship between the CIA and the KLA before the NATO bombing. Not only that, the article exposes a very familiar figure: William Walker, the head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to monitor the ceasefire in Kosovo in 1998-1999. Walker was nominated by Madeleine Albright, American Secretary of State. Guess what? A decade earlier, in 1988, Mr. Walker was the American Ambassador to El Salvador when Washington was helping the government there suppress leftist rebels, ‘while supporting the contra guerrillas’ against the government in Nicaragua. Coincidence? Not. This is the same Walker who served as Elliott Abrams’ Deputy Assistant Secretary for ‘Central American Affairs’ and accompanied him to all those Contra related meetings. During the investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair several felony charges were brought against Abrams by the special prosecutor, but he was not indicted because he entered into a plea agreement, had a conviction without imprisonment, and eventually was pardoned by President Bush.

Now back to the article for a few excerpts:

“AMERICAN intelligence agents have admitted they helped to train the Kosovo Liberation Army before Nato’s bombing of Yugoslavia . The disclosure angered some European diplomats, who said this had undermined moves for a political solution to the conflict between Serbs and Albanians. Central Intelligence Agency officers were ceasefire monitors in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, developing ties with the KLA and giving American military training manuals and field advice on fighting the Yugoslav army and Serbian police.”

And this on William Walker:

“Walker, who was nominated by Madeleine Albright, the American secretary of state, was intensely disliked by Belgrade… Some European diplomats in Pristina, Kosovo’s capital, concluded from Walker ’s background that he was inextricably linked with the CIA. The picture was muddied by the continued separation of American “diplomatic observers” from the mission. The CIA sources who have now broken their silence say the diplomatic observers were more closely connected to the agency.”

“Several Americans who were directly involved in CIA activities or close to them have spoken to the makers of Moral Combat, a documentary to be broadcast on BBC2 tonight, and to The Sunday Times about their clandestine roles. Walker dismissed suggestions that he had wanted war in Kosovo, but admitted the CIA was almost certainly involved in the countdown to airstrikes.”

And here is the real punch line on this entire article: This article, this news, was not published in the U.S. MSM. This was reported by the Sunday Times in March 2000. These facts, revelations, and scandalous ties were never truly touched by the U.S. MSM. There was an ‘action alert’ issued by FAIR in 1999 on Time Magazine’s censorship of the established facts and evidence on the ‘Real’ KLA, under the title ‘Time Magazine Ignores KLA Drug Charges’ and subtitle ‘Are editors following Contra tradition?’:

“Time magazine’s May 17 issue ran a feature on the funding of the Kosovo Liberation Army, titled “A Fighting Chance,” suggesting that the KLA is sustained by donations from ethnic Albanians outside of Kosovo. The article reports that the Republic of Kosova Fund holds “more than $33 million” in a bank in Albania, yet in a graphic titled “How the KLA Gets Its Money,” Time cheerfully reports that the KLA gets its money from “fund raisers, mailings and other sources.” What “other sources”? Bake sales? Time doesn’t say.”

“Fortunately, there has been some investigation into the question. The London Times on March 24 cited an intelligence report that indicated as much as half of the funding for the KLA’s guerrilla war comes from drug proceeds. And the San Francisco Chronicle on May 5 reported that European and U.S. law enforcement groups see officers of the KLA as “a major force in international organized crime, moving staggering amounts of narcotics through an underworld network that reaches into the heart of Europe.””

Here is how FAIR appropriately questioned Time’s motives and drew an even more appropriate parallel to show the ‘real’ reason:

“Why didn’t Time mention the ongoing international investigations of the KLA’s suspected role in the heroin trade? A look back at Time’s Iran-Contra coverage sheds some light.”

“In a 1987 investigation into allegations of drug-smuggling by the Nicaraguan Contras, Time staff writer Laurence Zuckerman found serious evidence of Contra-cocaine links, but his story was never run. Why not? A senior editor acknowledged to Zuckerman: “Time is institutionally behind the contras. If this story were about the Sandinistas and drugs, you’d have no trouble getting it in the magazine.””

Pretty hard-hitting piece, right? Can anyone question its validity? I certainly can’t see how. One more time the U.S. MSM showed it’s claws when it came to their ‘forbidden apple,’ – CIA and its narcotics and laundering deeds…

***

Afghanistan & Heroin: The journey from Freedom Fighters to Fanatic Villains

I invite anyone who is interested in understanding the axis of U.S. Government, mainstream media, and our foreign policy involving unholy alliances to look at the last three decades of U.S. media coverage of Afghanistan’s Taliban-Al Qaeda, previously known and promoted as ‘Afghan Freedom Fighters’ and the Mujahidin.
In the 1980s the U.S. government supported the Afghan resistance forces, the Mujahidin, today known as Taliban and Al Qaeda, in the fight against the Soviet occupation. The CIA worked through Pakistan military intelligence (ISS) and worked with these guerilla groups who were close to the ISS.

In his well-researched book, The Politics of Heroin, Professor Alfred McCoy documents the parallel increase in Heroin production in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the 1980s when the U.S. Government collaborated and supported the Mujahidin directly and indirectly. While in 1979 Pakistan had a small and local opium trade and produced no heroin, by 1981, according to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith, Pakistan emerged as the world’s leading supplier of heroin, became the supplier of nearly 60% of U.S. heroin supply, and took over major sections of the market in Europe.

“Who were the manufacturers? They were all either military factions connected with Pakistan intelligence, CIA allies, or Afghan resistance groups connected with the CIA and Pakistan intelligence. In May of 1990, ten years after this began, the Washington Post finally ran a front page story saying high U.S. officials admit that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar [leader of the Hezbi-i Islami guerilla group], and other leaders of the Afghan resistance are leading heroin manufacturers. This had been known for years, reported in the Pakistan press, indeed in 1980 reported in McClean’s magazine. In fact in 1980 a White House narcotics advisor, Dr. David Musto of Yale University, went on the record demanding that we not ally with Afghan guerilla groups that were involved in narcotics.”

McCoy also documents interesting phenomena involving the DEA operations and actions (or inaction) in Afghanistan during the 80s:

“During the 1980’s from the time that heroin trade started, there were 17 DEA agents based in Pakistan. They neither made nor participated in any major seizures or arrests. At a time when other police forces, particularly Scandinavian forces, made some major seizures and brought down a very major syndicate connected with former president Zia ul-Haq of Pakistan.”

In an excellent article published by FAIR David Gibbs provides the following documented facts and analyses:

“Despite CIA denials of any direct Agency support for Bin Laden’s activities, a considerable body of circumstantial evidence suggests the contrary. During the 1980s, Bin Laden’s activities in Afghanistan closely paralleled those of the CIA. Bin Laden held accounts in the Bank for Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the bank the CIA used to finance its own covert actions (London Daily Telegraph, 9/27/01). Bin Laden worked especially closely with Hekmatyar–the CIA’s favored Mujahiddin commander (The Economist, 9/15/01). In 1989, the U.S. shipped high-powered sniper rifles to a Mujahiddin faction that included bin Laden, according to a former bin Laden aide (AP, 10/16/01).”

Now let’s go back and search U.S. press coverage of Afghanistan’s ‘Freedom Fighters’ during the 80s and try to find any coverage related to these U.S. backed and supported operations’ intersection with the global narcotics trade. Are there any? I’m afraid we know the answer to this question. Here is further coverage based on the report by FAIR:

“The press coverage of this era was overwhelmingly positive, even glowing, with regard to the guerrillas’ conduct in Afghanistan. Their unsavory features were downplayed or omitted altogether. While some newspapers favored some restraint in the degree of U.S. military support for the Mujahiddin (notably the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post) and others (like the Wall Street Journal) favored a more open-ended policy, these differences were only matters of degree. Virtually all papers favored some amount of U.S. military support; and there was near unanimous agreement that the guerrillas were “heroic,” “courageous” and above all “freedom fighters.””

“According to the L.A. Times (6/23/86): “The Afghan guerrillas have earned the admiration of the American people for their courageous struggle…. The rebels deserve unstinting American political support and, within the limits of prudence, military hardware.””

And here the axis of U.S. Government-U.S. Press- and the information spin or black-out:

“Another problem was direct manipulation of reporting by the U.S. government, which was supporting the Mujahiddin guerrillas during both the Carter and Reagan administrations. (Indeed, we now know that U.S. aid to the Mujahiddin was secretly begun in July 1979, six months before the Soviets invaded–International Politics, 6/00.) This press manipulation began early in the conflict. In January 1980, the New York Times (1/26/80) reported that the State Department had “relaxed” its accuracy code for reporting information on Afghanistan. As a result, the Carter administration generated “accounts suggesting Soviet actions for which the administration itself has no solid foundation.””

I am tempted to continue, keep going, and cover this same trend in a more current context, but I’ll limit myself to only highlights since this piece is already longer than what I intended it to be.

Afghanistan’s $40-50 billion worth of poppy production today is a gigantic leap from it’s approximately $5-10 billion before our invasion after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Similar to cases shown above our media’s selective coverage has been limiting it’s reporting to a few hundred million dollars of this industry which directly involves the Afghan farmers and warlords. Yet, uniformly missing from the coverage is the remaining $40+ billion! Based on numerous reports publicized by Europol, UN, and even our own State Department, over 90% of this industry is operated, managed and carried out by ‘others.’ These ‘others’ happen to include Turkey, Pakistan, and Albania; currently none of them on our ‘terrorist’ or ‘axis of evil’ list, thus the censored coverage.

As we can see, the U.S. press censorship trend when it comes to Government-Narcotics relationships has been replicated over and over: Contra-Cocaine, Cold War era Afghanistan-Heroin, KLA-Heroin, Post 911 Afghanistan-Heroin. This trend goes above and beyond the usual censorship and/or spins regularly exercised by our media. They seem to have collectively designated U.S. Government-Narcotics-Terrorist relations and operations as a ‘Forbidden Apple.’ Moreover, they seem to have been successful in ensuring the marginalization and downfall of any of their colleagues who have been bold and brave enough to take a bite of it. As stated by my good journalist friend ‘…can’t touch this.’

Seeking Our Iranian Comrades’ Solidarity

Dear Activists in Iran:

We stand in solidarity with you and your movement against the alleged election fraud you’ve claimed. In return we hope you will reciprocate by supporting us in our struggle here in which we’ve been engaged for hmmmm…more or less eight years now – the following is an abbreviated list of our grievances:

• We the people of the United States have been spied upon by our government around the clock. All our communications – phone, cell, e-mail, fax, are being monitored. This even includes our ‘twitting’ with you; that’s right! They keep saying it’s for our own safety and that it’s to catch terrorists among us. They have yet to catch any, but they keep saying ‘it don’t matter – soon the results will show you.’ What do they mean by this? Our representatives are not giving us answers, instead declaring their own solidarity with the spying program targeting all of us. This should matter to you, since many here are afraid to follow you on twitter out of their fear of becoming one of those ‘results’ our government has been promising to show. Imagine how many more of us you’d get without this oppressive pressure! So please join us and declare your solidarity with us in this regard.

• We the people of the United States have been coerced into financing and supporting atrocious torture practices and killing of civilians in defenseless third world countries, who happen to be your neighbors. We’ve been financing it directly with our taxes, and supporting it through those representatives we somehow keep electing to speak and decide for us. We know your media is not that much better than ours, but surely you have heard our torture stories. To make it fit today’s graphic news we even have thousands of pictures to show. Does your government photograph or capture theirs on video? Exactly; it’s that bad! In our name and with our votes our military and their mercenary contractors have been piling up tens of thousands of civilian bodies in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don’t seem to be able to put a stop to that either. We keep going to the booths and voting, but things remain the same; they keep getting our tax dollars at the end of each week’s hard work, they keep getting ‘yeah’ votes from our representatives, and they keep killing, kidnapping, and torturing. We are not bad people, as you are not ‘axis of evil’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘fanatics.’ We really don’t believe in building empires, torturing, and killing. But we are stuck, and we keep continuing the same cycle, only worse with every new turn. Please help us figure out a way to help ourselves. We really need your solidarity in finding a way to stop these atrocious human rights violations committed in our name and with our money.

• We the people of the United States have been kept in the dark on so many issues directly related to us and affecting us due to our mainstream media – which has to come to resemble the ‘Pravda’ we used to look down upon. They don’t tell us much, and what they tell us is usually what they get directly from our government. At least you all know that what you’re getting over there is sanitized and censored, since there seems to be no pretense to otherwise. Our situation is worse! Many of our people still think they’ve got ‘freedom of the press’ and independent reporting, so they don’t bother ‘twitting’ or searching the net for real news. Many who do ‘twit’ limit it to a few key words like Brittany or Brangelina or Kate, and this is after they get bombarded with them from our ‘news’ channels. Please don’t get discouraged or offended when you come across many of us who don’t know where Iran is located, or think you ride camels over there, or that you speak Arabic, or,…Instead come and lend your solidarity in helping us find a way to inform our masses and help them see the light.

• We the people of the United States have our own black-listed people in the hundreds of thousands. Have you heard of our ‘No Fly List’? Last time we heard more than 400,000 of us had made it onto this dangerous but still mysterious list. They don’t even tell us why. If we participate in any peaceful demonstration, we mean any, whether for the homeless or to stop our wars, we get ‘listed.’ Well hell, based on what we choose to wear, such as ‘Doc Marten shoes,’ or a funny T-shirt, we end up on their list. Nobody knows exactly how people end up getting on this list, and certainly no one knows how to get off of it. Our government doesn’t tell us because it says the reasons are classified. Our media doesn’t dig much either. We keep hearing ‘legitimate’ rumors about ‘other’ secret lists and databases, but here in the United States, any whistleblower who chooses to disclose these violations gets punished, fired, even taken to courts – so those who know don’t dare talk about it. In fact, you may know more than we do. Please let us know if you know, and do so via twitting. We encourage you to stand in solidarity with us against these oppressive black-listings.

Of course we can go on and on with our list of urgent causes in need of your support and solidarity, but this should suffice for this particular ‘twit’. After you have had a chance to reflect upon our own sorry state of democracy, once you understand our own pathetic situation, you may find seeking our solidarity for your cause ironic and decide to cease and desist your twitting with us. We understand; we won’t blame you; rest assured. Here we are the richest and most powerful nation in the world with a powerful safeguard left to us by our ancestors and founding fathers called the Bill of Rights. Here we are a nation who prides herself of being a representative government and having the freedom to vote. Yet here we are sinking deeper each day, losing our rights, freedom, privacy, and dignity a little every day in the name of ‘national security’ and under an irrational fear of ‘terrorism.’ Understanding these realities you may find it preposterous for some of us to even attempt meddling in your own causes and affairs. And you’d be right. We wish those of you who truly seek and work for a democratic form of government lots of luck. And finally, don’t forget your history with us. We certainly hope you are informed and wise enough to see the ‘oil barrel’ signs in the eyes of those of us who wave their support and solidarity candy before your eyes.

Continuing the Smell Test

I see the previous post I had on conducting a smell test on the latest intense coverage of Iran’s elections got quite a bit of traction, including some retorts from the ‘misinformed’ in a few places. First, let me remind you, I don’t disagree with the view of highly probable election fraud in this case. My main point in this was ‘the selective coverage’ of election fraud throughout the world and the typical riots and government attacks that tend to follow these incidents. Also, I have a real issue with the timing of this media focus. Why don’t we have similar coverage and discussion when identical, or in many cases worse, incidents take place elsewhere? Especially when it occurs in countries we consider allies and friends regardless of how dictatorial, corrupt, or atrocious.

I can provide tens if not hundreds of similar cases of election fraud followed by dictatorial repression of demonstrators/rioters who take a stand against such practices.

Here is an excerpt from the election fraud scandal and the following violence in Egypt as reported by Human Rights Watch in 2006:

“Egyptian authorities should drop threats to dismiss two senior judges protesting election fraud and investigate the violence and fraud that plagued elections last year, Human Rights Watch said today.
The organization also expressed grave concern about a police attack against peaceful demonstrators outside the Judges Club in the early hours of Monday morning. An eyewitness told Human Rights Watch that a large number of men, apparently plainclothes police, attacked around 40 persons who had been holding a round-the-clock vigil in support of the two judges threatened with dismissal. They beat 15 demonstrators and Judge Mahmud `Abd al-Latif Hamza, who came out from the club.”

The 2003 presidential election results in Azerbaijan dubiously declared Ilham Aliyev the president. Of course this was cheered by many in Western policy circles since they viewed Ilhan Aliyev ‘critical’ to the stability of billions of dollars of investments in Azerbaijan’s energy sector. This is an excerpt from another report:

“International and domestic monitors reported widespread irregularities in the Oct. 15 election. The government clearly stole the election, and then brutally beat hundreds of people who poured out in the streets in protest. The day after the election, I watched from the roof of a hotel in Baku as thousands of riot police beat protesters unconscious. Afterward the riot police raised their shields to the sky and turned their batons into drumsticks, celebrating the victory of intimidation.

Now hundreds have been arrested, while Isa Gambar, the opposition leader, is effectively under house arrest and activists from his Musavat party are being beaten and detained all over the country. Everyone I speak to is scared.”

And here is a further damning quote from Peter Bouckart:

“More astonishing, however, were the public assessments of the election made by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe. Their election-monitoring missions in Azerbaijan took due note of the violence and election irregularities, but their overall appraisals were alarmingly upbeat.”

Speaking of post election protests and the recent ‘bloody’ pictures in post election Iran that have been circulating, here are some that didn’t make it into our social awareness, since it involved another ally country, thus was avoided by our press:

Click here to watch a protest against election fraud in Agri, Turkey.

And where was the same level of ‘attention’ and coverage in cases like this one reported by Craig Murray, where the dictator government of Uzbekistan (supported by us), whom Murray rightfully calls a ‘fascist regime,’ was (and probably still is) engaged in atrocious human right abuses. Yes, we certainly were closely courting a dictator regime where the dissenters were/are boiled alive.

“The police repeatedly tortured prisoners, State Department officials wrote, noting that the most common techniques were “beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask.” Separately, international human rights groups had reported that torture in Uzbek jails included boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers. Two prisoners were boiled to death, the groups reported. The February 2001 State Department report stated bluntly: “Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights.””

And here is how elections are held in Uzbekistan:

“The Communist Party simply renamed itself the Democratic Party of Uzbekistan, and, after getting rid of

Muhammad Salih, his only rival for power by exiling him, engaging in massive election fraud, and banning his Erk (Freedom) party, Karimov, president of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic and a Politboro member, seized the reins of power and refused to let go. A completely controlled “referendum,” in 1995, led to an extension of his term in office, and in January, 2002, a similar farce awarded him 92 percent of vote, with nominal opposition. Political parties that aim to “change the established order” are banned, including the “Birlik” Popular Unity

movement, which advocates democracy, religious tolerance, and economic liberty, as well as Islamist groups which the Karimov regime blames for the violence.”

And finally, for a bit of deja vu, remember Black Friday of 1978 in Iran? On September 8, 1978, a huge demonstration against the Shah’s regime was staged in Tehran. Thousands of students and progressive activists took part in this demonstration to peacefully express their dissent against the dictator monarch, Shah Pahlavi. The Shah’s military responded with extreme violent force, and even resorted to using tanks and helicopter gunships to respond. While the Shah Regime and Western media put the number of those massacred at around 80 or so, mainly students, other reports put that number in the range of thousands.

Again, I am inviting you all to join me for a ‘collective smelling test.’ I truly appreciated and enjoyed your informed comments and perspectives posted here. As for those people who chose to attack my previous points ‘elsewhere’: it is okay, unlike the regimes I mentioned above I do indeed welcome dissent. However, please do it with facts and logic, not as some loose lipped incoherent rant. Go buy a map, learn where Iran is located, then read a bit of history (not the ones written by the Neocons, that is), put aside what you are being fed by the propaganda machine and PR spin, take some vitamins and minerals to fortify your mental clarity, check with your grandparents and receive a tip or two on the value of giving respect in order to receive it in return, then come back and put forth your counterarguments and disagreements; I’ll be all ears.

…and it ain’t passing

Okay, I’ve been trying very hard to ignore the latest on Iran: Roxana’s highly publicized and dubious adventure (begging for a smell test), the pre-elections predictions making their way even onto the Sunday Talk Shows (A great Smell Test Indicator), and of course now, the intense and loud coverage of the post elections drama (The Smelliest of Alll)…

Why would I try to ignore this? Not because I am not interested in Iran, Iran Politics, or Iranians. Hey, I lived there for eight years. I speak Farsi as my second language. I had my primary education there. My Father is half Iranian, and through him, his family and friends, and his activities, I grew up with ‘lots of Iran politics’, not only in talk but in actual life. I witnessed the revolution unfold in 1978-79. In fact, along with my father, I participated in some demonstrations as an eight year old kid whose father was interrogated and tortured by the ruthless monarch, Shah. Contrary to what the US government has led citizens here to wrongly believe, the regime change in Iran did not occur through only Islamists. In the beginning, the liberals, the social democrats, the communists, socialists…many factions came together, united to get rid of the US-UK planted monarchy.

The country had its chance at having a democratic form of government, via Mossadegh. But hey, back then, the United States, driven by its Cold War, didn’t want democracies in that region. Are you kidding me??! Our business back then was ‘toppling democracies’; and replacing them with puppet monarchists, dictators, and the like. Back then we loved Islamic Fanaticism. It worked magically against the commie Soviets; Right?! So yes, due to my background, experience, education, family, friends, and past activities, Iran is not a subject I would ever ignore.

Back to ignoring the current publicity wave involving Iran. This one is no different than the previous wave towards the end of the Bush Presidency; only a tactic change, and this in a very sneaky and shrewd way. The ‘Nuke Scare’ didn’t quite work for the previous administration; neither domestically nor internationally. With Israel as adamant as ever, with President Obama as eager as his predecessor, only a bit savvier, and with the new neocons under new names and faces leading the way – and let’s not forget several disgruntled Iranian factions actively lobbying – it was about time to see the Iran topic resurface, but a bit differently. Thus, we have the new wave of recent publicity, although much more dangerous than before, since the appearance of the current method and operations do not seem nearly as bold as the old one – and so far it seems to be working and garnering public support for the neocon establishment and their agenda.

A recent survey which was conducted about three weeks before the elections showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin, even greater than his actual margin of victory in Friday’s election.

Here is what Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty had to say about the legitimacy of the survey:

“Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.”

Are allegations of election fraud designed to further isolate Iran? Are they meant to be used to massage and shape domestic and international public opinion to lead the way for ‘further action’ on Iran? Let’s face it, the timing and the latest events don’t pass the smell test. We just had the ‘Free Roxana’ episode, with both the mainstream media and the alternative press carrying it as a campaign not dissimilar to Bush’s campaign on ‘Exporting Democracy’ to ‘oil-rich’ regions. This lady never actually denied working for Intelligence (based on my two CIA sources she indeed did), and in fact, in a way, she accepted the espionage charges brought against her by the Iranian government.

Remember the covert action program against Iran reported by Seymour Hersh? How about the report by Telegraph on how the US has been funding terror groups and other factions in Iran to create chaos? Do you think those are only ‘military’ operations?

With the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq the majority among our military leaders have been opposing another war in the region. The ‘Nuclear Iran’ campaign didn’t prove to be that fruitful for the previous administration in garnering public support to pave the way for our next attack in the next oil rich Middle Eastern country. And of course, using the same tactic would have been too much for the Obama administration to expect to have swallowed by the public. So what better alternative than pursuing a ‘Humanitarian & Democratization’ campaign to change the ‘hearts & minds’ of our people and garner ‘liberal’ support against Iran?

Give them a martyr self-declared reporter in the form of ‘Roxana.’

All of a sudden get on our high horse and preach vehemently on elections’ lack of integrity in Iran, never mind the same conditions exist in two thirds of the world’s phony democracies.

Start displaying a few selective pictures of ‘bloody noses and arms’ taken in Iran and cry ‘atrocities,’ never mind our 2000+ torture pictures with not only bloody and torn up bodies, but actual corpses.

What are they going to do next? Well, if they run out of ‘dramatic’ pictures, they may go back and recycle their favorite footages from the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979! They certainly love that one; nothing like it when it comes to inducing misinformed passion to bring about wrongly expressed patriotism in the form of consent to another war.

We have Ann Coulter of the Right – I just finished reading her recent typical hate mongering article which includes some bizarre garbage misinformation on Iran and Mossadegh. Talk about ignorance combined with psychotic behavior! Here is another one – equally twisted.

Then, there are those Ann Coulters of the left, writing about issues and an area they know zilch about, and whether intentionally or unintentionally they beat the war drums for their President of Change in need of a ‘pretext’ to bring to fruition the objectives put in place before him by the previous administration. I just checked out one of these popular ‘lefty’ blog sites, and here is the list of what this ignorant lady has been writing about (as a pundit) just in the past two weeks, all with a ‘pretense’ of expertise; preposterously and ignorantly analyzing and attacking the Iran elections, analyzing the health care bill, the current economic crisis, some Hoax Blogger Baby Scandal (I have no idea what it is, since I don’t read stuff like that), Dr. Tiller Analyses, Torture Pictures & DOJ, Mass Production of Food, Sarah Palin and why she is a ‘slut,’ Palin’s daughter and why she is a ‘slut,’ Iraq, Drinking Coke vs. Water…I guess you get my point, right? Of course it’s okay for anyone to write about anything. What is not okay is the pretense of expertise with the intention of propaganda when it is advertised and supported by an ‘agenda driven’ establishment…Can’t they please go back and chase Rove, Libby, etc.?!!!

Now your turn: What’s your take on the recent intensive coverage of Roxana followed by even more intense coverage of the elections in Iran by both the MSM and the blogosphere? Do they pass your smell test? If yes, please tell me how and why? If no, let me hear your points and arguments.

123 Real Change- Progress Report & Notes

Hard to believe it’s already been a month since I finally got down to it, joined the blogosphere, and started this blog. Originally I thought the blog would be limited to a few posts per month, mainly short commentaries on issues and topics of interest to me, and maybe an op-ed piece or two. Well, that changed, and did so quickly!

The lengthy series on ‘Dissecting the MSM’ ended up becoming a project of its own. I have 3 parts done, and one last post, part 4, Corporate Ownership & Public Demand, to go. I think I should be able to wrap that one up before the end of this month. I already have an idea and notes on my next series, and I think you will find it interesting and controversial; at least I hope you will. I won’t give out more but please stay tuned.

I have two reports on Project Expose MSM and am reviewing two other cases to see whether they are ‘solid’ and supported sufficiently to be published. It is quite difficult, but interesting and fun nonetheless. Exposing these cases is only step one. What we need to do is decide how to translate the knowledge of these cases into action. More on this later…

We have also had a few fun TGIF posts. For these I am running out of ‘fun’ but relevant ideas, and welcome your suggestions on our future TGIF topics. The criteria: Fun, humorous, and relevant to our general discussion areas. Please bring in your ideas. You can post them under the ‘comments’ section of our last TGIF on June 5.

We have had over 25,000 visitors here in one month. This really exceeded my expectations for the first month. Most importantly I have been truly amazed by the depth of the comments you’ve posted: articulate, thought provoking, independent, and all that expressed and communicated respectfully and civilly. I have to admit, my biggest fear was to end up with lots of ‘one-liner’ shallow, ultra partisan, and or propagandist comments; the ultimate turn off and at times nauseating trend I’ve observed on many sites/blogs throughout the years. I am delighted to have you and your voice. I am learning a lot from you. Please don’t stop. For those of you among the 25,000 who have not added your voice yet: please join us. Let us hear and learn from you. Whether you are conservative, liberal, libertarian, realist, neocon…doesn’t matter, join the discussion and add your voice; enrich the discussion we are having here.

I have a few ideas and projects for the future of this blog. Some of them may be considered ambitious, but so what? I’ll do my best to implement them. One of these ideas will involve participation of a few solid investigative journalists I know and consider friends. Another one has to do with weekly Podcast interviews…However, before I start pitching and implementing them I need to get this blog, the number of visitors, and the number of posted comments to the next benchmark. I am hoping to establish a monthly average of 50,000 unique ID visitors by this fall. Ambitious? Yes. Doable? Surely. This also will largely depend on you and your support to get us there. Again please bring your ideas and suggestions. Those of you who happen to be savvy (I am certainly not savvy) in blogging and website promotion (cross-posting, RSS Feed, Digg, Reddit, etc.): I appreciate any help you can provide in this area…E-mail me if you are interested and can spare a little time to pitch in and help implement these ideas.

This is it for my brief monthly round up on this blog’s monthiversary. Now, it is your turn. Let me know what you think.

P.S.

Peter Lance’s ‘Triple Cross’ & Patrick Fitzgerald

This coming week the paperback edition of Peter Lance’s latest HarperCollins investigative book TRIPLE CROSS is being released. The book is highly critical of Fitzgerald, particularly with respect to his interaction with al Qaeda master spy Ali Mohamed, and is already creating lots of controversy. I just received my signed copy from Peter, but I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.

So far Patrick Fitzgerald has sent four threat letters to HarperCollins, Lance’s publisher, threatening to sue if the book is published. He claims the book has defamed him and put him in a “false light.”

Here is an article covering the latest on Lance’s book and Fitzgerald:

Ann Sparanese, the New Jersey Librarian who has waged anti-censorship campaigns in the past, sent an email to thousands of librarians nationwide chastising Fitzgerald for his attempt to pulp the book and calling it “A Book to Watch.” Here is the link: http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p=1454#comments

Lance’s Press Conference will be held this Tuesday, June 16, at 9:30 a.m., in the John Zenger Room of the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045. I am invited to attend, and hopefully will make it there and report on it further here.

Okay, this was supposed to be a brief monthly round up! I’ll wrap it up here before it turns into a novella, and leave you with the latest from

Paul Jamiol:

Major DEA Scandal & Time Magazine

As noted in the announcement, 123 Real Change invites all members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, other active (covert or overt) government whistleblowers, and reporters, to publish their experiences in regard to their own first-hand dealings with the media, where their legit disclosures were either intentionally censored/blacked out, tainted, or otherwise met with a betrayal of trust.

This second project report is based on the first-hand documented experience of Mr. Sandalio Gonzalez, retired Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent in Charge. Time Magazine reporters Tim Burger and Tim Padgett had an opportunity to speak at length with Mr. Gonzalez and several other veteran DEA agents with direct knowledge of a major corruption case involving several DEA agents on drug traffickers’ payrolls in Colombia. The involved corrupt US officers were also directly involved in helping Colombia’s paramilitary death squads launder drug proceeds. Further presented was the documented cover up of this major scandal by the DEA and DOJ IG offices. Despite corroboration by a number of other sources, including several veteran DEA agents and other government officials with first-hand knowledge of the case, and documented evidence disclosed and provided, and despite being given an ‘exclusive’ to the story as insisted on by them, Time Magazine never published the story, and no reasons were ever provided.

Name, Title, and /or Background

Name: Sandalio Gonzalez

Title: Special Agent in Charge (Ret.), DEA

Background: Mr. Gonzalez retired from the DEA as Special Agent in Charge of the El Paso, Texas Field Division in January 2005 after 32 years in law enforcement. He began his career in 1972 at the local level in Los Angeles, California and joined the DEA in 1978.

For more detailed background information see here.

Name of Publication and/or Editor and/or Reporter

Publication: Time Magazine

Reporter: Tim Padgett & Tim Burger

Editor: Unknown

Method

Complete blackout. No reason provided. The disclosure was supported and corroborated by three other highly credible veteran DEA agents, officials, and documents.

Description of Disclosure & Significance

By Sandalio Gonzalez

In late fall of 2005, Time Magazine’s DC Office was provided with detailed information and documents regarding a major story involving the DEA. The story had not been broken publicly before, and several publishers were competing to get what they referred to as an ‘Exclusive Scoop’, since they had been briefed generally and shown sample documents. Time Magazine seemed anxious to see and hear it all, and we were told they’d run it ‘big time’ if they were given documents, provided with access to witnesses, and all this ‘exclusively.’ Well, Time Magazine was in fact given everything they asked for; exclusively.

After Time’s DC office reporter Tim Burger received the initial/sample documents and statements (with NSWBC acting as coordinator and third party), they sat on the story for more than a month. Later we were told that the story was transferred to their Miami Office. After follow ups and pressure by NSWBC on the status of this ‘exclusive story’ with Time, one last meeting was set up with Tim Padgett, Time’s Miami bureau reporter.

The meeting with the Time reporter in Miami was attended by several other current and former DEA agents as sources and witnesses. Some of these witnesses had to travel to attend the meeting and provide the Time reporter with their reports. The three agents disclosed their account and documented information involving the never-public-before scandal and the subsequent cover up by the US government. Sibel Edmonds, Director and Founder of NSWBC, and Professor William Weaver, Senior Advisor for NSWBC, had also flown to Miami to attend and monitor the interview.

The center of the report dealt with ‘never-before-public’ documents and first hand witness statements, the Kent Memo, and related subjects and information. This case and its facts, statements, and documents, given to Time Magazine before and during that meeting, involved one of the most serious allegations ever brought against DEA officers.

On Dec. 19, 2004, Thomas M. Kent, an attorney in the wiretap unit of the Justice Department’s Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs Section (NDDS), submitted his memo to his section chief Jody Avergun, who would soon thereafter leave the DOJ to become the Executive Assistant to DEA Administrator Karen Tandy, with full knowledge of the reported corruption and cover up, and did nothing to correct it. The copies of this memo were forwarded to several high-level officials within DOJ and DEA.

In his memo, Mr. Kent reported several corruption allegations involving the DEA’s office in Bogotá, Columbia. The allegations in the memo were supported by several credible DEA agents in Florida with impeccable records. These agents – witnesses – were muzzled and retaliated against after they attempted to expose the corruption. Based on Mr. Kent’s report, supported by other DEA agents, the DEA’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) covered up the report and the corruption charges and sabotaged investigations by the Florida DEA office.

Here are the major points covered by Mr. Kent in the memo:

• Several DEA agents in Colombia are in fact on drug traffickers’ payrolls.
• Some of these corrupt US officers are directly involved in helping Colombia’s paramilitary death squads launder drug proceeds.
• The implicated agents have been protected by “watchdog” agencies within the Justice Department.

Here is an excerpt from Mr. Kent’s Memo:

“As discussed in my (prior) memorandum dated December 13, 2004, several unrelated investigations, including Operation Snowplow, identified corrupt agents within DEA. As further discussed in my memorandum, OPR’s handling of the investigations into those allegations has come into question and the OIG investigator who was actively looking into the allegations has been removed from the investigation.”

And here is another regarding other agents and witnesses who had come forward:

“As promised, I am providing you with further information on the allegations and evidence that is already in files at OPR and OIG. Agents I know were able to vouch for my credibility and several individuals close to the prior investigations that uncovered corruption agreed to speak with me…Having been failed by so many before and facing tremendous risks to their careers and their safety and the safety of their families, they were understandably hesitant to reveal the information I requested, including the names of those directly involved in criminal activity in Bogotá and the United States. They agreed to reveal the names to me on the condition that I not further disseminate these for the time being. They are prepared to provide the Public Integrity Section with those names and everything in the files at OPR and OIG, and then some, if called upon to do so”.

According to the report, one of the corrupt agents from Bogotá was actually caught on a wiretap in 2004 while he was discussing criminal activity related to the paramilitary group called the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). The group is known to be involved in narco-trafficking and arms dealing at the highest levels, and has been involved in death squads responsible for murdering thousands of Colombians. Kent reports that during the wiretap, this DEA agent discusses his involvement in laundering money for the AUC. However, despite being caught on tape the agent faced no reprimand. Just the opposite, according to Kent, the agent was promoted: “That call has been documented by the DEA and that agent is now in charge of numerous narcotics and money laundering investigations.”


The memo also alleged that DOJ officials shut down a money laundering investigation because they knew it was connected to the DEA corruption case in Bogotá:

“In June 2004, OPR and DEA, the two agencies embarrassed by the prior allegations (involving the Bogotá agents) and likely to come under tremendous scrutiny for their own actions in response, demanded that my case agent turn all of the (investigation) information … over to OPR,” Kent states in the memorandum. “One week after submitting the (information) to OPR, the money laundering investigation was shut down.”

In addition to the facts included in Kent’s reports, Time Magazine was also provided with corroborated reports on related cases, including a case of major leaks from the US Embassy in Bogotá that contained extremely sensitive intelligence.

That meeting gave Time Magazine one last chance, and the benefit of the doubt, to live up to its word given to us previously; to expose this major case and even more serious cover up by the Justice Department’s IG. We made it clear that after waiting for Time Magazine for months they had to give us a response within a day or two as to whether they were running the story, and if so when. The reporter, Tim Padgett, did seem genuinely interested, and made it clear that he had to persuade the editors and magazine management. He appeared to have his reservations as to the magazine’s willingness and or courage to ‘touch’ a story of this magnitude. We never heard back from him, or Tim Burger, or anyone else from the magazine. Time Magazine never delivered the ‘exclusive scoop’ given to them, all packaged with credible DEA witnesses and envelopes containing official documents. In fact, the MSM has never thoroughly covered this story. The only coverage of Kent Memo was given by web-based publisher, Narco News.

Comments in response by Mr. Tim Padgett, reporter, Time Magazine, Miami Office:

I contacted Mr. Padgett twice via e-mail. To my second request he provided me with the following reply:

For the record, I had no reservations about Time Magazine’s “willingness and or courage to ‘touch’ a story of this magnitude.” Time regularly takes on controversial stories; we simply decided in the end, after examining the material at hand, not to pursue this one. Tim PadgettMiami & Latin America Bureau ChiefTIME Magazine

Comments in response by Mr. Tim Burger, reporter, Time Magazine, DC Bureau:

Despite several requests for response, Mr. Burger did not reply.

Comments in response by Time Magazine:

Despite several requests for response, Time Magazine editor(s) did not reply.

Statement from Professor William Weaver, Senior Advisor, NSWBC:

This disheartening episode is, unfortunately, very familiar, and the story of DEA corruption and entanglement with Colombian drug cartels appears to have been ignored after initial interest for a variety of reasons. First, it is not easily digestible and therefore runs afoul of editors’ and reporters’ prejudice toward stories that may be quickly and simply related to the public. Emphasis on simplicity instead of on what the public should know about cuts down on research and reporter time, which are expensive, and feeds into the common belief that the public is largely incapable of understanding, or uninterested in, complicated stories. Second, running such a story may anger sources of information from government that reporters have come to rely upon. As great as any one story may be, a reporter’s career in these areas often depends on keeping friendly relations with cultivated sources. Ultimately, sometimes these sources end up dictating what shall and shall not be published. Finally, a story must make it past editors and staff who have interests that conflict with the goal of getting important news to the public. Considerations of effects on advertisers, sources of information, how shareholders and management will view decisions to publish particular stories, and other matters unrelated to “newsworthiness” affect a potential story’s fate. We need only look to The New York Times’ decision to delay reporting the existence of the probably unconstitutional Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) for an example of how forces inside MSM may outflank the newsworthy nature of a story. The story concerning the Bush Administration TSP was set to break just before the presidential election in 2004, but apparent appeals by Bush Administration officials and President Bush himself to The New York Times delayed publication until December 2005. And the story only came to light because of a whistleblower and the fact that the matter appeared destined to emerge in other forums. The refusal of The New York Times to publish the story in 2004 very possibly is the only reason that Bush prevailed over John Kerry. Time magazine’s failure to investigate the events outlined in the Kent Memo and by veteran, decorated DEA agents concerning wide-ranging government corruption is another abysmal example of how the public is ill-served by the MSM.

Statement from Sibel Edmonds, Founder and Director, NSWBC:

Our organization, NSWBC, persuaded these government sources and witnesses to come forward and provide the American people with this major report exposing corruption and cover-ups – which sheds light on the ‘real’ story of our government’s so-called ‘War on Drugs.’ Despite their reservations and the risks they faced, these witnesses agreed to disclose their first-hand accounts and documented facts, and to do so only once through what they considered to be a ‘major publication.’ During the interview, while listening to these agents and reviewing the sets of documents put in front of him, Time reporter, Tim Padgett, appeared flabbergasted and excited. At the end of the meeting he expressed it verbally and concluded that the story was incredible and highly explosive. This was a journalist’s dream: to have four veteran agents with impeccable career records as sources, to have tons of printed documents (official letters, IG reports, and more), and a major scandal contradicting the illusion of the War on Drugs – which has been costing lives and billions of dollars. I also have to add: Mr. Padgett expressed his reservations and pessimism regarding his editor(s) and Time’s management having the resolve and or willingness to run this ‘explosive’ story.

# # # #

Project Expose MSM is an experimental project created to provide readers with specific mainstream media blackout and/or misinformation cases based on the documented and credible first-hand experiences of legitimate sources and whistleblowers. I encourage those of you with direct knowledge and experience to join this project by sharing your experiences. Please E-mail me with your report, following the format described in the introductory announcement.

Cross-posted at The BRAD BLOG…

‘Sanitization’ is not the answer
By Sibel Edmonds

During the past few months I have been actively following the latest activity on the state secrets privilege (SSP). First, I was pleasantly surprised to see that this issue of extreme importance to our civil liberties and constitutional rights was finally getting long-over-due and deserved attention from the media. After all, the memories of fighting SSP in the federal courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, holding press conferences together with the ACLU to bring needed media attention to this draconian abuse, making the rounds in Congress to have them address this ‘privilege’ through legislation to restrict its misuse and abuse, are still fresh and vivid for me.

Then I started detecting some troubling common trends showing up in media reports and subsequently in discussions and statements within Congress. The most suspicious of these came in the form of sanitizing major SSP abuse cases from reports put forth by both the mainstream media and some in alternative publications. The first invocation of the SSP by the Bush Administration was in my case. Back then, if you had done a Google search on ‘state secrets privilege’ you would have come up with only ‘7’ results; three of them repeats. After successfully getting away with SSP invocation in my case, the administration opened the flood gates for others. Now I invite you to search all the archived news reports on SSP in the last year or so. As you will see, in every single report in which the abuses of SSP and its history are cited, you will not find this first case; my case. Further, if you were to look for other major abuses of SSP, such as the Barlow Case, you will find none. The valid cases cited are mainly limited to:

Khalid Al-Masri, Maher Arar, Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Binyam Mohamed

With a note here and there on ‘NSA’ related information and the historical Reynold’s Case from 1953.

Finally, I decided to dig further and explore the reasons behind these significant omissions and the accompanying information spin that seems to be packaged with the intention of fulfilling Washington’s objective – seeing the related campaign and activities fail. Of course, based on my own case and experience with SSP, I had my own theories as to why the issue was being narrowed down to certain ‘selected’ cases and interpretations; counterproductive to the objective shared by SSP recipients and organizations who have been truly active in seeking to have it abolished or reformed through congressional legislation. But I was also interested in getting the opinions of those who have been actually involved with these cases, either as plaintiffs or attorneys representing SSP cases, or even a few trusted insiders in Congress with direct knowledge. So I contacted several and include their views and interpretations here.

The Congressional Angle

A well seasoned congressional staff member connected to a well-known ‘Centrist’ office active in the current SSP debate, who ‘insisted’ on being granted anonymity, had the following to say:

“Contrary to what they may claim in order to pacify the recent ‘Anti State Secrets Privilege’ movement, the Congress does not want to deal with this issue. And this applies to members of both parties…of course we will hold a couple of hearings and show we have investigated and reviewed cases…”

He then went on to list several enlightening points regarding the ‘real’ factors driving the current position on SSP:

• We are being told that the president [Obama] will veto any proposed legislation dealing with State Secrets Privilege…that and that no one in Congress really wants to touch this area. Having the press limit the information to ‘War on Terror Suspects’ [Emphasis added] helps both: the President and the reluctant Congress.

• The cases before us are ‘selectively’ [Emphasis added] related to the War on Terror. A few Arab guys with their claims will not bring sympathy from the majority in this country. Not in Iowa, not in Utah…you catch my drift?

• …I am talking about cases where there are no questions of ‘Criminality’ being involved or covered up. We won’t touch those cases. No one will go for that. The reasons…obvious… Being unfair or making the wrong call to determine if someone is a terrorist does not constitute ‘criminal.’ [Emphasis Added]. As for the NSA related case, well, the new legislation took care of that…

• By the way, we don’t expect to see any cases of abuses of SSP by the Clinton Administration cited anywhere. Holder’s office in the background and the majority leaders up on the front lines are ensuring this through the media and the NGOs.

Let me recap what is being said, the reality ‘on the ground’ here:

Like any other president before him, and probably those who’ll come after him, President Obama is not going to limit his presidential powers when it comes to this draconian absolute executive power. He has made it clear to his now the majority party members and they are set to follow his guideline on this. It is a slam dunk position with a guaranteed ‘win’ since the minority in Congress also encourages and backs this position.

Somehow the Executive Branch and the Congress have managed to accomplish their objectives on SSP through the U.S. media. They want the reporting massaged and messaged in such a way that the publicity on SSP is limited to only ‘select’ cases where ‘executive criminality’ and or ‘covering up executive criminality’ will not be an issue. Those SSP cases where the executive branch used this level of secrecy to cover up criminal deeds would make the need for Congressional action on SSP far greater. After all, we even have an Executive Order that currently prohibits secrecy and classification from being used by the Executive Branch in order to conceal violations of law. Of course with the case(s) involving NSA warrantless wiretapping, as quoted by the congressional source above, they no longer have to worry, since they took care of it through retroactive legislation.

With cases involving wrongful detention and abuse of those ‘wrongfully accused’ in the government’s war on terror, it has been set up so that these cases can be written off as ‘egregious labeling, handling and treatment’ committed immediately following the September Eleven Attacks. Excuses such as ‘extraordinary’ circumstances, ‘bureaucratic bungling,’ and the previous administration’s ‘excess’ have been all lined up to be used if or when SSP makes it’s way into Congress. Further, the government also counts on bigotry to insure that there will be no major public pressure, since the involved victims are not (at least most) Americans, have Arabic names, and are of Muslim background. They believe that the majority of Americans will not be sympathetic to these plaintiffs, so there will be no problem killing any chance of restraining the long-abused SSP through meaningful legislation.

Richard Barlow and the State Secrets Privilege

Richard Barlow, an intelligence analyst and a former senior member of the Counter-Proliferation unit at the CIA lost his job when he objected internally to the George H.W. Bush Administration’s misleading Congress over Pakistan’s nuclear program. Following Congress-ordered investigations, the inspector-general at the State Department and the CIA concluded that Barlow had been fired as a reprisal. Further, a final investigation by Congress’ own Government Accountability Office completed in 1997 largely vindicated Barlow. The Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees concluded that Barlow was due Congressional relief in light of unjustified DOD actions against him and cover-ups with Congress. A relief bill was introduced but the Senate Judiciary Committee referred the bill the Court of Federal Claims for more “fact finding” in what is known as a Congressional Reference, in which the Congress still remains the deciding body. For more detailed background and related official documents on Barlow see here.

On February 10, 2000, in the Barlow Case before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, CIA signed a declaration and a formal claim of SSP. Separately, in another declaration, Michael Hayden, Director of NSA, also formally invoked SSP. The decision by the Court to accept the government’s broad invocation of SSP prevented Barlow from obtaining needed facts and evidences. With the court proceedings closed to the public, without the ability to present numerous official reports and evidence due to the court’s acceptance of the blanket SSP, Barlow’s case lost in 2002. For more legal background and facts on the court case see the memo by Louis Fisher of the Congressional Research Service.

-On ‘executive criminality & cover up’:

Top U.S. officials were allowing Pakistan to manufacture and possess nuclear weapons, and the A.Q. Khan nuclear network was violating U.S. laws. Not only that – the same officials were also lying to Congress. They were hiding these activities because the truth would have legally obligated the U.S. government to cut off its overt military aid to Pakistan.

-On Partisan Focus & Excluding other Administrations’ abuses:

Barlow’s SSP case involved four administrations: Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush.

The case involved both parties; Democrats & Republicans.

-On Congress’ bigoted view of Public Sympathy:

The invocation of SSP in Barlow’s case can not be easily written off as extreme measures for extreme situations under the ‘war on terror.’

Mr. Barlow was and is an exemplary U.S. citizen, was awarded the CIA’s Exceptional Accomplishment Award in 1988, and was considered a patriot for serving America’s interests by Congress and even by the executive branch who went after him.

When I contacted Mr. Barlow and asked for his view on the troubling trend by the media and Congress in packaging SSP related information to mislead the public and destroy any chance of reform, this is what he had to say:

“Long before the Congress even begins to address issues relating to the use of SSP in court cases involving private charities, foreigners, suspected terrorists, or any private parties, it clearly needs to first address the use of SSP by the Executive Branch to conceal crimes, abuses, or fraud by the Executive Branch against the Congress itself or against federal intelligence officers or other federal employees [who] are the victims, and especially when it involves issues [of] Congress being lied to or willfully misled regarding intelligence information.”

He then added the following:

“The media must go further than merely reporting the actions and inactions of Congress and the courts: we need investigative reporting on why the Congress has failed to address cover-ups of illegal activity by the Executive Branch and what Members of Congress are responsible for this abdication of Constitutional responsibility, particularly if Obama continues to break his campaign promises on SSP and follow in the footsteps of Bush on this and other national security matters.”

Sibel Edmonds & the State Secrets Privilege

I am not going to re-visit the many-times-repeated details of the SSP invocation in my case. The legal outline of SSP abuse by the Bush Administration invoked to cover up ‘criminal’ activities and subsequent cover up of these criminal activities can be found on the ACLU site. According to Ann Beeson, former legal director at the ACLU:

“The state secrets privilege should be used as a shield for sensitive evidence, not a sword the government can use at will to cut off argument in a case before the evidence can be presented. We are urging the Supreme Court, which has not directly addressed this issue in 50 years, to rein in the government’s misuse of this privilege.”

In my case the government also used the privilege to exclude members of the press from covering the court proceedings:

“The ACLU is also asking the Supreme Court to reverse the D.C. appeals court’s decision to exclude the press and public from the court hearing of Edmonds’ case in April. The appeals court closed the hearing at the eleventh hour without any specific findings that secrecy was necessary.”

How does this case fit the Congress’ criteria to exclude?

-On ‘Executive criminality & Covering it Up by invocation of SSP & abuses of classification:

In addition to the Dickerson Case, which was characterized by Senator Grassley as “a very major internal security breach, and a potential espionage breach,” and later confirmed by the DOJ-IG (investigation [PDF]), my case also involves espionage activities by several high-level U.S. officials, both elected and appointed. Several elected officials, an official at the State Department, and a few high-level officials in the Pentagon were involved in passing highly classified information to foreign entities connected to Turkey, Pakistan and Israel. Along with the confirmed Dickerson case involving Lt. Colonel Douglas Dickerson – who worked for Douglas Feith and Marc Grossman – other connected officials’ espionage activities were also covered up by invoking SSP.

-On Partisan Focus & Excluding other Administrations’ abuses:

• The information involved in my case covered the time period 1996-2002. It involved two administrations and two political parties.
• Similarly, information implicating several elected officials in major corruption cases also involved both parties.

-On Congress’ bigoted view of Public Sympathy

• My case does not fit the ‘War on Terror’ excuse.
• The case didn’t involve a ‘mistaken’ suspect terrorist or suspect organization.
• I, as the plaintiff, was and am a United States Citizen, thus my constitutional rights were directly violated by invocation of SSP.

I believe providing background on and an overview of these two relevant and major SSP cases will suffice to establish the reasons behind the intentional sanitization of SSP media coverage and other reports – so far successfully achieved by the executive branch and the Congress.

The recent ‘supposed’ leak of a report by the Congressional Research Service on SSP under the title of “The State Secrets Privilege and Other Limits on Litigation Involving Classified Information” is a very appropriate example:

“The Congressional Research Service has prepared a new account of the state secrets privilege, which is used by the government to bar disclosure of certain national security information in the course of civil litigation. While the CRS report contains nothing new, it is a detailed, dispassionate and fairly comprehensive account of the subject. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.”

Assuming that this report in fact was leaked (my congressional sources claim otherwise, but I couldn’t substantiate it definitively.), I invite the readers to review the ‘analyzed’ and ‘cited’ cases. Please carefully review the citations, and take note of the cases taken into examination, especially those since 2000. Here is the list:

Al-Haramain Islamic Fund v. Bush, El-Masri v. US, Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan

Not surprisingly, the ‘leaked’ report intended for Congress based on the ‘latest’ anti State Secrets Privilege movement’s pressure on Congress to act, meets the ‘qualification’ criteria.

I contacted Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who has represented many plaintiffs in SSP cases, including me, and this is what he had to say:

“The abuse of the privilege extends beyond protecting Bush Administration policies; it is often focused on covering up institutional misconduct and embarrassment that transcend political lines.”

Regarding the latest media coverage, mainstream and alternative, and their either naïve or agenda-driven case selections Mr. Zaid states:

“This provides an incomplete portrait of the dangers of the invocation of the privilege and in some ways fosters further abuse.”

Based on the ‘sanitization’ criteria as explained by the quoted congressional staff member, it is obvious why the major SSP cases provided above ‘could not’ be included in any potential/future congressional discussions and or hearings. These cases cannot be quickly written off under the excuses of ‘war on terror’ or ‘bureaucratic bungling.’ The inclusion of them would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to shrug off SSP and let its abuses continue. The coverage of these cases would likely garner outrage by the public majority regardless of political partisanship.

What is not obvious is how the press, both mainstream and alternative, has come to implement these shrewd political objectives, serving both the Congress and the executive branch. As for the mainstream media it doesn’t come unexpected. We have gotten used to it; whether from their record and coverage in leading us to war in Iraq, or the latest revelations of their inner workings when it came to the NSA warrantless wiretapping of Americans.

However, I am not ready to attach the same cynical but realistic agenda to the alternative press. The reasons may be as simple as pure ignorance, naivety, myopic partisanship, or simply stupidity. Whatever the reasons, the likely consequences of them playing into the hands of the political establishment and their agenda is to help us lose the battle against SSP when we seem to finally have momentum and a strong movement to address this draconian abuse once and for all through sound legislation with teeth.
>p

Part 3 – Gang Pressure

In 1996 Gary Webb, a prize-winning investigative journalist at San Jose Mercury News, found himself at the center of a major storm caused by his three-part investigative series published under the title “Dark Alliance.” The series connected the CIA to the contra-cocaine scandal and alleged that Nicaraguan drug traffickers had used the drug profits from selling crack cocaine in the U.S. to finance the CIA-supported Nicaraguan Contras. The connections documented by Webb did not claim ‘direct involvement’ by the CIA but thoroughly established that the CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by Contra personnel. Webb’s story was supported by hundreds of documents obtained through FOIA, transcripts, and audio interviews – all of which were published later on his website.

The attacks on and denials of Webb’s series began right away. The ‘Gang of Three’ – Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, put on a united front and viciously attempted to debunk the link between the crack epidemic in the U.S. and the Contras. A decade earlier, the same ‘Gang’ had either downplayed or dismissed the 80s contra-cocaine scandal. Despite all the facts that came out of Sen. Kerry’s half-way Contra Hearings, despite sound evidence presented in an AP article by Robert Parry and Brian Berger, the ‘Gang’ never truly followed up or provided deserved coverage of Contra Crimes.

Here is what Robert Parry had to say on this:

“Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series offered a unique opportunity for the major news outlets to finally give the contra-cocaine scandal the attention it deserved. But that would have required some painful self-criticism among Washington journalists whose careers had advanced in part because they had not offended Reagan supporters who had made an art out of punishing out-of-step reporters for pursuing controversies like the contra-cocaine scandal.”

And here is another plausible reason offered by Mr. Parry:

“There was the turf issue, too. Since Webb’s stories coincided with the emergence of the Internet as an alternate source for news and the San Jose Mercury News was at the center of Silicon Valley, the big newspapers saw a threat to their historic dominance as the nation’s gatekeepers for what information should be taken seriously.”

The ‘gang’ attacks and the pressure did not deter Webb. In fact they increased his resolve to dig deeper and pursue the story further. However, the same pressure did its magic when it came to the editors at Mercury News. After their initial support and back-patting of Webb, they bent under the pressure, made their 180 degree turn, and caved in. First, they issued their retreat in writing, which did not retract on the factualness of the report but turned it into a matter of ‘gray areas’ such as “…presented “only one interpretation of complicated, sometimes-conflicting pieces of evidence” in a “few key instances.”” Next, they refused to publish the rest of the series. Then, the paper transferred Webb from Sacramento to the paper’s outpost in Cupertino (a four-hour commute) and told him he was no longer an investigative reporter; finally succeeding in having him resign and leave the paper.

In 1996, prompted by Webb’s series, the CIA started its investigation of the agency’s involvement in cocaine sales in the U.S. The CIA released the report in 1998, and George Tenet came out publicly and denied Webb’s allegations. Interestingly, weeks prior to the release of the report, ‘mysterious leaks’ made their way, and again interestingly, into The Washington Post and The New York Times stories, alleging that ‘no direct or indirect links’ were ever found between the CIA and traffickers. Of course, once the heavily redacted report was released these publications had their field day smearing and attacking Webb’s report.

While Tenet’s statement and the report’s vaguely worded conclusion were used as weapons in Webb bashing, the ‘actual’ content of the report was completely ignored and blacked out by the MSM ‘gang.’ For example: the report described a cable from the CIA’s Directorate of Operations dated October 22, 1982, describing a meeting between Contra leaders in Costa Rica for “an exchange” (in the U.S.) of narcotics for arms, which then are shipped to Nicaragua.

Six weeks after the release of the report, the CIA IG testified before the House Intelligence Committee congress and here is an excerpt from his testimony:

“As I said earlier, we have found no evidence in the course of this lengthy investigation of any conspiracy by CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States. However, during the Contra era, CIA worked with a variety of people to support the Contra program. These included CIA assets, pilots who ferried supplies to the Contras, as well as Contra officials and others. Let me be frank about what we are finding. There are instances where CIA did not, in an expeditious or consistent fashion, cut off relationships with individuals supporting the Contra program who were alleged to have engaged in drug trafficking activity or take action to resolve the allegations.”

Almost anyone, even those with only vague familiarity of covert intelligence operations would recognize damning information like this, buried ‘in between the lines’ and delivered using a ‘bureaucratic CYA’ choice of words.

More significantly, the CIA Inspector General admitted that CIA officers were not required to report allegations of drug trafficking involving ‘non-employees,’ – defined as paid and non-paid CIA ‘assets’ such as pilots tasked with transporting supplies to the contras. Meaning, the so-called report published ‘by the CIA’ on ‘possible CIA illegal activities’ conveniently left out any incriminating report or information involving CIA ‘assets.’

In July of the same year DOJ IG Michael Bromwich also released a report which corroborated Webb’s report. It claimed that the Reagan-Bush administration was aware of cocaine traffickers in the Contra movement and did nothing to stop the criminal activity. Robert Parry nicely summarizes the key findings of the DOJ-IG report supporting Webb:

• Bromwich’s report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

• The report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb’s series.

• The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies, and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

• Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb’s series. Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses’s operation and his financial assistance to the contras.

• The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into contra-cocaine shipments moving through the international airport in El Salvador.

Despite the ‘real content’ of the CIA IG Report, the corroborating findings of the DOJ-IG Report, and various congressional hearings and investigations filled with direct or indirect admissions, the MSM never eased up on its attacks and criticism of Webb’s articles.

In March 1998 Barbara Osborn wrote a well-executed piece on the ostracizing of Gary Webb titled ‘Are You Sure You Want to Ruin Your Career,’ subtitled ‘Gary Webb’s Fate a Warning to Gutsy Reporters.’ It’s a fairly short piece and I encourage you to take the time to read it. The article cites the following ‘loaded’ exchange:

“…Gary Webb didn’t know what was at risk. When he first spoke with Bob Parry–the Associated Press reporter who, along with Brian Barger, broke the Contragate and Contra/drug stories–Webb thought Parry was being “overly cautious.” “I thought he was being kind of foolish,” Webb recalled, when Parry asked him: “Are you sure you want to ruin your career?”

Unfortunately Parry proved to be the ‘realist.’

Osborn’s piece cites several enlightening quotes from Professor James Aucoin, a former journalist and a University of South Alabama communications professor who specializes in the history of investigative reporting. Here is one:

“Another aspect of the “Dark Alliance” aftermath which strikes Aucoin as significant is who attacked the story. In the days when investigative journalist Ida Tarbell took on Standard Oil in the pages of Harper’s, Standard Oil came after Tarbell. “In the case of Gary Webb’s charges against the CIA and the Contras,” he said, “the major dailies came after him. Media institutions are now part of the establishment and they have a lot invested in that establishment.””

And finally, here are a few thought provoking quotes from Gary Webb as reported by Osborne:

“The government side of the story is coming through the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post,” he said. “They use the giant corporate press rather than saying anything directly. If you work through friendly reporters on major newspapers, it comes off as the New York Times saying it and not a mouthpiece of the CIA.”

“The only way you’re going to do effective journalism is to be truly independent. It’s a difficult thing to do, but George Seldes and I.F. Stone did it. There’s no reason modern-day journalists can’t do it too. You don’t get 401-Ks and health benefits, but at least you get to tell the truth.”

Webb’s case is only one example where the corporate media unite and gang up to smear, marginalize, and silence colleagues who dare to sidestep the conventional establishment trend, who insist on carrying out real investigative journalism independently and objectively, and who actually succeed in unveiling the truth buried in between the layers of the secrecy web created by the government. Sadly, ‘the gang’ has been effective and successful. Take a look at the field; how many Webbs do you see still standing? The last time I counted, not many.

And now it is your turn. When the MSM gangs up against these reporters:

Are they acting on behalf of the ‘establishment,’ as an extension of the government, as simply a mouthpiece; or as we discussed before on the Bernstein piece, as ‘Agents’?

Is it simply a turf battle, jealousy, and ego?

Is it the Big Corporate media v small independent media or independent investigative journalists?

Does the blame lie, partially, with ‘we the people’ for allowing this?

I am looking forward to reading ‘your’ thoughts and views on this.