The Bush family's connections to the Osama bin Laden's family seem
almost surreal. On September 28, 2001, two weeks after 9/11, the Wall
Street Journal reported that, "George H.W. Bush, the father of President
Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through
the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm."

As a representative of Carlyle, one of the investors that Bush brought
to Carlyle was the Bin Laden Group, a construction company owned by
Osama's family. The bin Ladens have been called the Rockefellers of the
Middle East, and the father, Mohammed, has reportedly amassed a $5
billion empire. According the Journal, Bush convinced Shafiq bin Laden
to invest $2 million with Carlyle.

well if cick cheney owns a fraction of it whose's his backer or
financial supporter.

so basically any man or women who is serving in Iraq and decided to make
a objectivity statement against the war is insignificant and should be
ignored. But, on the other hand if he supported the war you would be
like give that man a medal.

Poet are you for peace or for war.

Who owns the corporation called Halliburton and who is the head of it?

by Philip Martin

Global Research, April 22, 2007

I'm sick and tired of this patriotic, nationalistic and fascist crap. I
stood through a memorial service today for a young Marine that was
killed in Iraq back in April.

During this memorial a number of people spoke about the guy and about
his sacrifice for the country. How do you justify 'sacrificing' your
life for a war which is not only illegal, but is being prosecuted to the
extent where the only thing keeping us there is one man's power, and his
ego.

A recent Marine Corps intelligence report that was leaked said that the
war in the al-Anbar province is unwinnable. It said that there was
nothing we could do to win the hearts and minds, or the military
operations in that area. So I wonder, why are we still there? Democracy
is not forced upon people at gunpoint. It's the result of forward
thinking individuals who take the initiative and risks to give their
fellow countrymen a better way of life.

When I joined I took an oath. In that oath I swore to protect the
Constitution of the United States.

I didn't swear to build democracies in countries on the other side of
the world under the guise of "national security."

I didn't join the military to be part of an Orwellian ("1984") war
machine that is in an obligatory war against whoever the state deems the
enemy to be so that the populace can be controlled and riled up in a
pro-nationalistic frenzy to support any new and oppressive law that will
be the key to destroying the enemy. Example given – the Patriot Act. So
aptly named, and totally against all that the constitution stands for.

President Bush used the reactionary nature of our society to bring our
country together and to infuse into the national psyche a need to give
up their little-used rights in the hope to make our nation a little
safer. The same scare tactics he used to win elections. He drones on and
on about how America and the world would be a less safe place if we
weren't killing Iraqis, and that we'd have to fight the terrorists at
home if we weren't abroad. In our modern day emotive society this
strategy (or strategery?) works, or had worked, up until last month's
elections.

My point in this; to show that America was never nationalistic. If
anything they were giving their allegiance to the state of their
residence. This is shown in the fact that the founders created states
with fully capable and independent governments and not provinces that
were just a division of the federal government. These men believed that
America was a place where imperialistic values would be non-existent.
Where the people trying to make their lives better by working hard,
thinking, inventing and using the free market would tie up so much of
normal life that imperialistic colonization and the fighting of wars
thousands of miles away for interests that are not our own would be
avoided. They believed this expansion of power could be left to the
European nations, the England, France and Spain of their time. However
this recent, and current influx of nationalistic feeling has created an
environment where giving up your rights, going to a foreign country to
fight a people who did not ask for us to be there, nor did their leader
do anything to warrant us being there, and dying would be considered
honorable and heroic. I don't believe it anymore. I don't believe it's
right for any American to go along with it anymore. Yes I know that we
in the military are bound by the UCMJ and somehow don't fall under the
Constitution (the very thing we're suppose to be defending) but sooner
or later there is a decision that every American soldier, marine, airmen
and seamen makes to allow themselves to be sent to a war that is against
every fiber this country was founded on. I know that when April rolls
around I will be thinking long and hard on that decision. Even though we
in the military are just doing as we're told we still have the moral and
ethical obligation to choose to do as we're told, or to say, "No, that
isn't right." I believe that if more troopers like me and the
professional military, the officers and commanders, start standing up
and saying that they won't let themselves or their troops go to this
illegal war people will start standing up and realizing what the heck is
going on over there.

The sad fact of the matter is that we are not fighting terrorists in
Iraq. We are fighting the Iraqi people who feel like a conquered and
occupied people.

Personally I have a hard time believing that if I was an Iraqi that I
wouldn't be doing everything in my power to kill and maim as many
Americans as possible. I know that the vast majority of Americans would
not be happy with the Canadian government, or any other foreign
government, liberating us from the clutches of George W. Bush, even
though a large number of us would like that, and forcing us to accept
their system of government. Would not millions of Americans rise up and
fight back? Would you not rise up to protect and defend your house and
your neighborhood if someone invaded your country? But we send thousands
of troops to a foreign country to do just that. How is it moral to fight
a people who are just trying to defend their homes and families? I think
next time I go to Iraq perhaps I should wear a bright red coat and carry
a Brown Bess instead of my digitalized utilities and M16.

Notice I never once used the word homeland in any of this. I have a
secondary point I want to bring up now. Never once was the term homeland
ever used to describe the country of America until Mr. Bush began the
department of homeland security after the 9/11 attacks. Taking a 20th
century history class will teach us that the most notable countries in
the last century that referred to their country in this way were Nazi
Germany and Soviet Russia. Hitler used the term fatherland to drum up
support, nationalistic support, for his growing war machine. He used the
nationalism he created in the minds of the Germans to justify the
sacrifice of their livelihood to build the war machine to get back their
power from the oppressive restrictions the English and French had put on
them at Versailles. This is the same feeling that has been virulently
infecting the American psyche in the last hundred years. This is the
same feeling that consoles a mother after her son is killed in an
attempt to prosecute an aggressor's war 10,000 miles away. It's also
known as Patriotism these days, but I say, "No more." No more
nationalistic inanity, no more passing it off as patriotism. Patriotism
is learning, and educating oneself to understand what their country
really stands for.

I heard a lot during the memorial service about how the dead Marine did
so much good for others and how his helping others was like a little
microcosm of America helping because we have the power to do so. Well if
we have the power to help people why aren't we helping in Darfur where
hundreds of thousands of people have died in the last 10 years. Saddam
was convicted and sentenced to death for killing 143 Shiites who
conspired to assassinate him. (I know all you "patriotic" Americans
would be calling for the heads of anyone who conspired to assassinate
supreme leader Bush). And yet we spend upwards of 1 trillion dollars and
nearing 3,000 lives to help these Iraqis when they don't even want us
there. Not to mention we don't have the legal justification to be there.
I guess we should wait around for the omnipotent W Bush to decide who we
should use our superpowerdom to help next. It's about time to throw him
and the rest of the fascists out. Moreover it's about time to start
educating Americans about their past and history, and letting them know
that imperialistic leaders are not what the founders of this great
country wanted.

February 27,2007

Philip Martin has been a Marine for 2 years. He is in the infantry (a
"grunt"), and spent 7 months in the al-Anbar province of Iraq. He went
on more than 180 combat patrols in and outside of the city of Fallujah,
where he was hit with 2 IEDs (luckily never injured) and was involved in
a number of firefights. He is currently stationed in Twentynine Palms,
CA, and due to return to Iraq for a second deployment in April 2007. He
is 21-years-old.

You can send mail to Philip Martin AKA grimmythedog@netscape.net

please respect this Marine and don't disrespect him for speaking out.

Over Twenty-five national groups have endorsed a Spring 2007 impeach
Bush and Cheney drive that includes the following activities;

National Corporate Shopping Boycott April 15 (Tax Day) to April 22
(Earth Day) is set with over 1,000 community organizers signed up and
local groups formed in cities all over the US and in many foreign
countries. Supporters of ending the Iraq War and Impeaching Bush and
Cheney will forgo major purchases and shopping in corporate chain stores
and shopping malls for seven days, and instead find locally owned
community markets, coffee shops and 2 nd hand shops. For down loadable
posters and flyers to support this effort see:
http://www.wearenotbuyingit.org/




The Show It Off! Campaign Launched! April 23-27, 2007

Wear impeachment T-shirts, armbands, buttons, stickers, ties, scarves,
and become the millions all over this country - on the beach, in the
valley, on the plains, in the mountains, on the farms, in school, at
work, in the stores, on the sidewalks, in the parks, on the buses,
subways andjê trains of America saying no to Bush's war and yes to
Impeachment.

http://showitoffnow.blogspot.com/



April 28, National Impeachment Protest Day

Spell out Impeach everywhere with human bodies. Organize local people on
the beach, in the park, on campuses, and spell out the words Impeach.
Send a message to Nancy Pelosi to put impeachment back on the table and
support Dennis Kucinich in helping bring impeachment back to Congress.

http://www.a28.org/



Dennis Loo, co-editor of "Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush
and Cheney" states that; "Anyone who's been paying attention to what's
been going on for the last seven years knows that something's rotten in
D.C. Our government has arrogated to itself the right to invade
countries that pose no threat to us, to carry out indefinite detentions
and suspend habeas corpus, torture people, spy on tens of millions of
Americans without warrant, and to use hundreds of signing statements to
negate Congressional intent."

Lew Brown, national coordinator for the shopping boycott, declares the
importance of these actions, "Bear in mind all of these tactics are but
one facet of the greater movement towards peace and justice, but they
are perhaps the most potentially damaging to the power elite. Without
their flow of revenue, without millions of compliant "consumers" pumping
money into their accounts every single day there is nothing they can do
except jê watch it all slip away and into the hands of an empowered and
informed public."



Peter Phillips, co-editor of Impeach the President: The Case Against
Bush and Cheney, exclaimed, "The American people voted against the war
in November. Opinion polls show two-thirds oppose the war, and over half
support impeachment. We have the individual choice of being 'Good
Germans' and hiding our heads in the sand, or taking united action to
dethrone the imperial powers through the people's option of
impeachment."

Spring 07 Impeachment Sponsors: Gold Star Families for Peace, After
Downing Street, Backbone Campaign, Center for Constitutional Rights,
Citizens Impeachment Commission, CODE PINK Women for Peace, Constitution
Summer, Consumers for Peace, Democrats.com, Democracy Rising, Gold Star
Families for Peace, Green Party of the United States, Green Party
California, Hip Hop Caucus, Impeach the President, ImpeachBush.org,
Military Free Zone, National Lawyers Guild, Patriotic Response to
Renegade Government, Progressive Democrats of America, Independent
Progressive Politics Network,Velvet Revolution, World Can't Wait: Drive
Out the Bush Regime, Pledgetoimpeach.org.



For Information Contact:

Peter Phillips Ph.D. Professor Sociology Sonoma State University,
Director Project Censored, President, Media Freedom Foundation,
707-664-2588: peter.phillips@sonoma.edu

Dennis Loo Ph.D. Associate Professor Sociology California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona, 909-869-3892: ddloo@csupomona.edu

Lew Brown, National Coordinator: Impeach for Peace, 707-869-1712,

info@wearenotbuyingit.org



Reasons for Impeachment from Impeach the President: The Case Against
Bush and Cheney, Seven Stories Press, 2006,

1. Stealing the White House in 2000 and 2004 through outright voter
fraud.

2. Lying to the American people and deliberately misleading Congress in
order to launch an unprovoked war of aggression upon Iraq.

3. Authorizing and directing the torture of thousands of captives,
leading to death, extreme pain, disfigurements, and psychological
trauma. Hiding prisoners from the International Committee of the Red
Cross by deliberately not recording them as detainees and conducting
rendition of hundreds of prisoners to "black sites" known for their
routine torture of prisoners. Indefinitely detaining people and
suspending habeas corpus rights.

4. Ordering free fire zones and authorizing the use of anti-personnel
weapons in dense urban settings in Iraq leading to the deaths of tens of
thousands of civilians – war crimes under international law.

5. Usurping the American people's right to know the truth about
governmental actions through the systematic use of propaganda and overt
disinformation.

6. Building an imperial presidency by issuing signing statements to
laws passed by Congress that negate Congressional intent. Hiding
government decisions from public and Congressional view through
subverting the Freedom of Information Act. Illegally spying on millions
of Americans without court authorization and lying about it for years.

7. Undermining New Orleans' capacity to withstand a hurricane prior to
Hurricane Katrina; allowing New Orleans' destruction by Katrina; and
failing to come to people's aid in a timely fashion, leading to the
unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans.

8. Denying global warming, disregarding peak oil, and placing oil
industry profits over the long-term survival of the human race and the
viability of the planet.

9. Violating the constitutional principle of separation of church and
state through the interlinking of theocratic ideologies in the decision
making process of the US government.

10. Failing to attempt to prevent the 9/11 attacks, despite a wealth of
very specific evidence of a pending terrorist attack upon New York, and
the World Trade Center in particular. Using this failure as a rationale
for pre-emptive attacks on other countries and for the suspension of
Americans' fundamental civil liberties and our right to privacy.

11. Promotion of US global dominance of the world and the building and
use of illegal weapons of mass destruction.

12. Overthrowing Haiti's democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand
Aristide and installing a highly repressive regime.

For additional Information see: http://www.wearenotbuyingit.org/
http://www.impeachthepresidentnow.com/

May I remind you even Mike said it: "Attack the forum topic not each
other". If you don't like the topic make an opinion on it. If someone
doesn't like your opinion that is fair as in equal rights and freedom of
speech but, you don't have the right to label anyone as a Commie or any
other slang. The key is keep your mind's open and if you have something
to say do so. But, keep the peace.

The US has completed major military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf
within a short distance of Iranian territorial waters. This naval
deployment is meant to "send a warning to Tehran" following the adoption
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which imposes major
economic sanctions on Iran in retaliation for its non-compliance with US
demands regarding its uranium enrichment program.


The US war games off the Iranian coastline involved the participation of
two aircraft carriers, the USS John Stennis carrier group and the USS
Eisenhower with some 10,000 navy personnel and more than 100 warplanes.
The USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group, which is part of the US
Fifth Fleet, entered the Persian Gulf on March 27, escorted by
guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54). (see http://www.navy.mil/).

USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) and its air wing,
Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9 is said to have conducted "a dual-carrier
exercise" together with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike
Group (IKE CSG):

" This marks the first time the Stennis and Eisenhower strike groups
have operated together in a joint exercise while deployed to 5th Fleet.
This exercise demonstrates the importance the ability for both strike
groups to plan and conduct dual task force operations as part of the
Navy's commitment to maintaining maritime security and stability in the
region."

The war games were conducted at a time of diplomatic tension and
confrontation following the arrest by Iran of 15 British Royal navy
personnel, who were allegedly patrolling inside Iranian territorial
waters.

The British government, supported by media disinformation, has been
using this incident, with a view to creating a situation of
confrontation with Iran.

The maneuvers coupled with British threats in relation to the unfolding
"Iran Hostage Crisis" constitute an act of provocation on the part of
the Anglo-American military alliance.

TEXT BOX

These war games in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea are the
culmination of a broader process of military planning, which started in
mid-2003, with the launching of Iran Theater Near Term (TIRANNT). The
later contemplated various "scenarios" of US military intervention
directed against Iran In early 2004, the scenarios under TIRANNT were
incorporated into actual plans of aerial bombings of Iran under "Concept
Plan" (CONPLAN) 8022

In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents
remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the
deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in
compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

In 2005, the US, Turkey and Israel in liaison with NATO were actively
involved in the process of planning this military operation, with the
stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems. Israel would be
actively involved in the military operation.

Since last August, the US has conducted a number of military exercises
in and around the Persian Gulf. From September through December, a
major war games simulation entitled Vigilant Shield O7 was conducted.
The stated enemies are Irmingham (Iran), Churya (Chian), Ruebek (Russia)
and Nemesis (North Korea).

According to the US Navy, this latest round of US military maneuvers
conducted in late March was on a significantly larger scale when
compared to previous deployments. Press reports suggest that these
maneuvers constituted the largest deployment of US naval power since the
March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Almost simultaneously, Iran was also conducting large scale naval
exercises in the Persian Gulf, to the extent that both the US and Iran
are on a war footing.

Critical Crossroads

A recent Russian press report, quoting intelligence sources, has sounded
an alarm. According to a RIA-Novosti report, quoted by the European and
Israeli press (Jerusalem Post), the US is planning to initiate air
attacks on Iran under " Operation Bite", starting on Good friday, April
6th, targeting both military and civilian sites, including Iran's air
defense system:.

"Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of
activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking
security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military
preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the
official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a
final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against
Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees
at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the
first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly
before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical
Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a
massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future"

While the Russian report must be acknowledged, there is, however, no
corroborating evidence, which would enable us to pinpoint the exact
timeline of a military attack on Iran.

Moreover, there are several important factors which suggest, from a
military organizational standpoint, that unless we are dealing with a
case of sheer political madness, the Pentagon is not ready to launch an
attack on Iran.

Key Military Appointments

Several key military appointments were made in the course of the month
of March. Of significance, Admiral. William J. Fallon, was appointed
Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) on March 16 by Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates. It is unlikely that Admiral Fallon would
activate a military operation directed against Iran, within a few weeks
following his appointment as CENTCOM Commander.

Meanwhile, another major military appointment was implemented, which has
a direct bearing on Iran war preparations. Admiral Timothy J. Keating
Commander of US NORTHCOM was appointed on March 26, to head US Pacific
Command, which includes both the 5th and the 7th fleets. The 7th Fleet
Pacific Command is the largest U.S. combatant command. Keating, who
takes over from Admiral Fallon is also an unbending supporter of the
"war on terrorism". Pacific Command would be playing a key role in the
context of a military operation directed against Iran.
http://www.pacom.mil/about/pacom.shtml

Of significance, Admiral Keating was also involved in the 2003 attack on
Iraq as commander of US Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth
Fleet.

While these key appointments point to a consolidation of the
Neoconservative military agenda in the Middle East, they also suggest
that the US military would not launch a new phase of the Middle East war
prior to consolidating these command appointments, particularly those at
the level of US Central Command (CENTCOM), which is the key operational
command unit in charge of the Middle East war theater.

Admiral Fallon is fully compliant with the Bush administration's war
plans in relation to Iran. He replaces Gen. John P. Abizaid, who was
pushed into retirement, following apparent disagreements with Rumsfeld's
successor, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. While Abizaid recognized
both the failures and the weaknesses of the US military in Iraq, Admiral
Fallon is closely aligned with Vice President **** Cheney. He is also
firmly committed to the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). CENTCOM would
coordinate an attack on Iran from the Middle East war theater.

Moreover, the appointment of an Admiral is indicative of a shift in
emphasis of CENTCOM's functions in the war theater. The "near term"
emphasis is Iran rather than Iraq, requiring the coordination of naval
and air force operations in the Persian Gulf.

US Naval Power in the Region

At present there are two aircraft carrier strike groups in the Persian
Gulf region, including the Eisenhower and the Stennis.

In comparison, the deployment of naval power prior to the March 2003
blitzkrieg against Iraq was on a significantly larger scale.

In the early months of 2003, there were five US aircraft carriers within
striking distance of Iraq plus one British aircraft carrier. In the
2003 campaign, three carrier strike groups were present in the Persian
Gulf (Lincoln, Constellation and Kitty Hawk) and two other US carrier
groups (Roosevelt and Truman) were involved in coordinating the bombing
sorties from the Mediterranean.

The USS Nimitz nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and its accompanying
battle group is currently on its way to the Persian Gulf., which would
bring the number of aircraft carriers up to three.

It is unlikely that military action would commence before a third
aircraft carrier is positioned in the war theater. (Official statements,
however, have indicated that the Nimitz would take over from USS
Eisenhower and that only two carrier strike groups would be present in
the Persian Gulf Arabian Sea region
Moreover, US weaknesses in the Iraq war theater, Iran's capabilities to
retaliate and inflict significant damage on US forces inside Iraq, as
well as mounting opposition to the US presidency, have a direct bearing
on the timing of a military operation directed against Iran.

Iran is Politically Isolated

Iran is politically isolated. Unilateralism prevails within the
corridors of the UN as well as within the Middle East war theater.

The US sponsored resolution in the United Nations Security Council
received unanimous support. Proposed amendments to the draft resolution
were discarded, following US pressures. The text of the resolution was
adopted unanimously.

Neither Russia nor China, which have extensive military cooperation
agreements with Iran, exercised their veto, nor did they abstain.

This UN Security Council "consensus" was reached following crucial
shadow diplomacy by Washington to secure the unanimous support of the
entire Council including its five permanent members plus Germany, which
participated in the formulation of the draft resolution in separate
consultations.

The UN resolution has totally isolated Iran: China and Russia have been
drawn into an alliance of stealth with the US.

What is crucial in the Security Council Resolution is that neither China
nor Russia will intervene on Iran's side, if Iran is attacked. Moreover,
while Russia and China are diplomatic partners of the US in the UN
sponsored economic sanctions regime, they are the object of US military
threats as confirmed by Operation Vigilant Shield 07. The latter are war
game scenarios conducted from September to December 2006, which
explicitly target not only Nemesis (North Korea) and Irmingham (Iran)
but also Ruebek (Russia) and Churia (China),

One would expect that separate "deals" were reached respectively with
China and Russia, where certain commitments were met in bilateral
discussions by Washington. Both Beijing and Moscow, which are partners
in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are in an overtly
ambiguous situation of turning a blind eye to US military threats, while
also supporting the Iranian military in building its air and ground
defense systems in the eventuality of US-NATO-Israeli attacks on Iran,
which has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO).

Iran is the third largest importer of Russian weapons systems after
India and China. In the course of the last five years, Russia has
supported Iran's ballistic missile technology, in negotiations reached
in 2001 under the presidency of Mohammed Khatami.

Ironically, coinciding with the UN Security Council decision in late
March, the Russian press confirmed that the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) is actually considering an enlargement, which could
consist in granting full membership to countries in the SCO (e.g. Iran)
which have currently the status of observers.

Meanwhile, the US Congress is at war with the president regarding
America's Iraq war strategy, but not a word is muttered on an impending
war againsat Iran, as if it were totally irrelevant.

The threats are real, an incident could trigger a war.

The war criminals in high office desperately need this war to stay in
power.

The US Congress is unlikely to be able in a minimum way to reverse the
decision to go to war with Iran, despite the fact that this would lead
to a worldwide catastrophe, an escalation of the war, with an impending
police state in America to support the militarization of civilian
institutions

The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)

The Neocons in the Bush administration are in control of key military
appointments: specifically those pertaining to Central Command
(USCENTCOM), US Stratregic Command (USSTRATCOM) and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.

New military appointments have recently been implemented. The newly
appointed commander of USCENTCOM, Admiral Fallon will play a key role in
overseeing the military operation in the Middle East War theater.

USSTRATCOM headed by General James E. Cartwright, with headquarters at
the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, would play a central decision
making and coordinating role in the eventuality of a war on Iran. The
administration has demanded USSTRATCOM to elaborate centralized war
plans directed against Iran. CENTCOM would largely be involved in
carrying out these war plans in the Middle East war theater.

It is worth recalling that in 2004, vice President **** Cheney had
demanded that USSTRATCOM draw up a contingency plan directed against
Iran "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack
on the United States" on the presumption that the government in Tehran
would be behind the terrorist plot. The contingency plan included a
large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical
nuclear weapons.

USSTRATCOM's is described "a global integrator charged with the missions
of full-spectrum global strike".

USSTRATCOM is in charge of the coordination of command structures under
global C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). "Day-to-day planning and execution
[by STRATCOM] for the primary mission areas is done by five Joint
Functional Component Commands or JFCCs and three other functional
components:"

TEXT BOX

Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) is undergoing several important
organizational changes, which have a direct bearing on implementing war
plans in relation to Iran . According to USSTRATCOM commander General
Cartwright, USSTRATCOM is developing “new functionally aligned
organizations designed to improve our operational speed and progress” (
statement to the strategic forces subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee). “We’ve moved from the old triad construct of the
bombers, the submarines and the (intercontinental ballistic missiles) to
one that is more integrated and offers the country a broader range of
activities that can deter and assure our allies,”

" According to Cartwright’s statement, the functional components for
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; network warfare; global
network operations; information operations; integrated missile defense;
and combating weapons of mass destruction are at or nearing full
operational capability.

In addition, STRATCOM is constructing an organizational system “that can
be joint from the start, can move to combined or allied type of
configuration … so that we don’t have to build those in a time of
crisis,” Cartwright said.

“Having a balanced … defense infrastructure underpinned by command and
control and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is
critical to the strategy,” he said." (U.S. Strategic Command Refines,
Fields New Capabilities Mar 9, 2007 – By John J. Kruzel, American Forces
Press Service)



* Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the
Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research
articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For
publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms
including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
making such material available to our readers under the provisions of
"fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political,
economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted
material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission
from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007

The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070401&articleId=5247

Reuters

PARIS (Reuters) - The CIA rejected as fantasy claims in a new book that
it tried to negotiate a non-aggression pact with Osama bin Laden just
two months before the September 11, 2001 airliner attacks against the
United States.

Richard Labeviere, author of "The Corridors of Terror," released on
Thursday, says the CIA's Dubai station chief approached bin Laden while
the al Qaeda leader was being treated for a serious kidney complaint in
the United Arab Emirates.

He said the meeting took place in the American Hospital in Dubai on July
12, barely eight weeks before al Qaeda militants slammed fuel-laden
hijacked airliners into the Pentagon and New York's World Trade Center,
killing almost 3,000 people. "Such an allegation is sheer fantasy, no
such thing occurred," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said, echoing an
earlier rebuttal by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency of French media
reports in October 2001 about the alleged Dubai meeting.

Labeviere said he learned of an encounter from a contact in the Dubai
hospital, and said the event was confirmed in detail during a separate
interview in New York with a Gulf prince who presented himself as an
adviser to the Emir of Bahrain.

The prince, who the author met in a Manhattan hotel in November 2001,
appeared very well-informed about the CIA-bin Laden meeting.

Labeviere said the second contact told him the face-to-face had been
arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi General
Intelligence Department.

He quoted the second contact as saying:

"By organizing this meeting...Turki thought he could start direct
negotiations between the Saudi millionaire (bin Laden) and the CIA on
one fundamental point: that bin Laden and his supporters end their
hostilities against American interests."

In exchange, the CIA and the Saudi (intelligence) services undertook to
allow bin Laden to return to his native country, even though he was
stripped of his Saudi nationality in July 1994. The Dubai meeting was a
failure, Labeviere said.

The Saudi intelligence chief was sacked in the wake of the September 11
attacks.

Labeviere named Larry Mitchell as the CIA station chief who met bin
Laden, describing him as a colorful figure well-known on the Dubai
social circuit.

Mitchell left the Gulf state on July 15, 2001 and Labeviere said CIA
headquarters in Langley, Virginia, had told him the operative was
unavailable for interview because he was on his honeymoon.

At the time, bin Laden had a multi-million dollar price on his head for
his suspected role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East
Africa that killed 224 people.

Bin Laden was treated between July 4 and July 14 in the urology
department of a kidney specialist at the American Hospital, Labeviere
said, adding that the hospital denied this.

A recent Reuters report (11/13/03; scroll down) quoting Labeviere's book
"Corridors of Terror" points to alleged "negotiations" between Osama bin
Laden and the CIA, which took place two months prior to the September
11, 2001 attacks at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE, while bin Laden
was recovering from a kidney dialysis treatment

Enemy Number One in hospital recovering from dialysis treatment
"negotiating with CIA"?

The meeting with the CIA head of station at the American Hospital in
Dubai, UAE was confirmed by a report in the French daily newspaper Le
Figaro, published in October 2001
The "negotiations" between the CIA and Osama (a CIA "intelligence
asset") is sheer disinformation. Even though the CIA has refuted the
claim, the report serves to highlight Osama as a bona fide "Enemy of
America," rather than a creation of the CIA. In the words of former CIA
agent Milt Bearden in an interview with Dan Rather on September 12,
2001, “If they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden, they would invent one.”

Intelligence negotiations never take place on a hospital bed. The CIA
knew Osama was at the American Hospital in Dubai. Rather than negotiate,
they could have arrested him. He was on the FBI most wanted list.

According to the Reuters report: "At the time, bin Laden had a
multi-million dollar price on his head for his suspected role in the
1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa". So why did the
hospital staff, who knew that Osama was at the American Hospital in
Dubai, not claim the reward?

The Figaro report points to complicity between the CIA and Osama rather
than "negotiation". (see excerpt below). Consistent with several other
reports, it also points to the antagonism between the FBI and the CIA.

If the CIA had wanted to arrest Osama bin Laden prior to September 11,
they could have done it then in Dubai. But they would not have had a
the war on terrorism pretext for waging a major military operation in
the Middle East and Central Asia.

According to Le Figaro:

"Dubai... was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden
and the local CIA agent in July [2001]. A partner of the administration
of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that "public enemy number one"
stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July. While he was
hospitalized, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family
as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the
local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main
elevator of the hospital to go [up] to bin Laden's hospital room. A few
days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited
bin Laden. Authorized sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin
Laden returned to Quetta [Pakistan], the CIA agent was called back to
headquarters. In the pursuit of its investigations, the FBI discovered
"financing agreements" that the CIA had been developing with its "Arab
friends" for years. The Dubai meeting is, so it would seem, within the
logic of 'a certain American policy.'"
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html )

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html ,

see also
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml ]

DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United states and its allies in the war
on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive
information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in
the last hours before his followers struck the United States September
11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of
CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in
the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):
Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of
what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the
hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist
attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical
treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged
its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited
into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment.
On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity
protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology
department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was
treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up
to no good.

"The military had him surrounded," says this hospital employee who also
wanted his identity masked, "and I saw the mysterious patient helped out
of a car. Since that time," he says, "I have seen many pictures of the
man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army
officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden
had to be watched carefully and looked after." Those who know bin Laden
say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed
Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military
was often there to help before 9/11.

AHMED RASHID, TALIBAN EXPERT: There were reports that Pakistani
intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines. And the rumor
was that these were wanted for Osama bin Laden.

PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was
nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see
any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any
medical treatment on that night.

(voice-over): But it was Pakistan`s President Musharraf who said in
public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease,
saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching
this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left
hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don`t know
if bin Laden is sick or even dead.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: With respect to the issue of Osama
bin Laden`s health, I just am -- don`t have any knowledge.

PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan`s
military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe
up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So
the United States may not know if those same people might help him again
perhaps to freedom.

Barry Petersen, CBS News, Islamabad.

(END VIDEOTAPE) END

It should be noted, that the hospital is directly under the jurisdiction
of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon.
U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely with the
Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America's
best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another
"better purpose". Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge
regarding Osama's health. (see CBS transcript above).

Needless to say, the CBS report is a crucial piece of information in the
9/11 jigsaw. It refutes the administration's claim that the whereabouts
of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistan connection, it
suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their
January 2002 report. They fail to beg the question: where was Osama on
9/11? If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is obvious:
The administration is lying regarding the whereabouts of Osama.

Inpatient dialysis treatment tends to be longer than 24 hours in most
American hospitals, which suggests that Osama would have been discharged
from the Hospital on or "after" September 11.

If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the
Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of America's ally,
he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of
September, when the attacks occurred. In all probability, his
whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12,
when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with
Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden.

These negotiations, led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's
military intelligence, on behalf of the government of President Pervez
Musharraf, took place on the 12th and 13th of September in Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage's office.

For further details, see: M. Chossudovsky, Cover-up or Complicity of the
Bush Administration? The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
in the September 11 Attacks, 2 November 2001
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html , See also War and
Globalization, the Truth behind September 11 , Global Outlook, Shanty
Bay, 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html

I merely saying that it's a debate on forum of topics each one of us
have. No need to take it to a personal level or feel it has. After, all
if people all think the same then our society wouldn't be as diverse as
it is. One, thought, one mind is a major flaw.. cause now there's no
objectivity.. Have many advancements in the field of science or in what
ever man and woman has done in life just by having different views or
thoughts. You can disagree with my forums or not debate the forum not
the person. One day you never gonna realize it that some **** may come
up the pike and you **** out of luck no friends or allies simply because
you view differ from their own and you decided to make it personal. I
rather have an allies with a different view , or thought then an enemy
who thinks the same as I do...

Attack the debate not each other.

guys stop fighting with each other besides i am here fight with me.

Note: This is to Alada Saddam turn his back on us... Hmmm, let's see if
you start to look at all the Conflicts that U.S has gone into to
irradicate terroristic behaviours basically to the American Public they
see The Government as Heroes. Meanwhile, the countries that we are
invading just because of the might or have intentions of terroristic
activities. That would make us a Terrorist too. The majority of the
Nations that U.S have supported throughout history and time by either
training them or the use or suppling them with weaponary. In my personal
views and plenty more.. The U.S Government acts as if they are trying to
set up a Superior Rulership... Even though we are supposed to live in a
land of freedom and that our wishes for peace is a long time from now.
The only Solution for true world peace is to conquer the world and unite
it under one Leader. Obviously the U.S Government has come to the same
terms and have put that ploy in action. Disarmamnet of Weapons of Mass
Destruction our Government is pleading with everyone that they come in
contact with. But, i don't see us Disarming any of our Weapons of Mass
Destruction. Gee, so what do you think our government is trying to
pull????

RG-8A Condor Schweizer SA2-37B
The Schweizer RG-8A Condor SA2-37B has been point designed to meet
unique requirements for a covert day/night Surveillance Platform. The
Schweizer SA2-37B aircraft is engineered to perform covert surveillance
missions in a manner not possible with any other aircraft. Its
sophisticated suite of FLIR, EO, and Electronic Sensors enables
activities on the land or sea to be detected and monitored without
detection from below. The combination of its low acoustic signature,
large payload capacity, long range and endurance, and low operating
costs make the SA2-37B exceptionally effective.

The RG-8A plane has been used for years in secret operations and in U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG) anti-drug operations. According to some reports at
least eight of the RG-8A planes exist - three owned by the US Coast
Guard, three by CIA, and one each by Colombia and Mexico. At least two
RG-8A Condors are in use by the US Coast Guard. At least one Condor was
leased to CIA as drone control and data relay aircraft for the General
Atomics Gnat 750 Tier 1 surveillance drone. The US Army may have
additional RG-8A aircraft. One of the two original GRISLY HUNTER RG-8A
aircraft crashed at Ft. Huachuca, AZ killing its crew of two.

The Peruvian government's 22 April 1997 raid against rebel commandos
holding 72 hostages in the Japanese ambassador's residence in Lima was
reportedly carried out with the help of U.S. technology. The raid left
14 members of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) dead, along
with one hostage and at least two military officers. Aviation Week and
Space Technology reported on 05 May 1997 that an RG-8A plane operated by
CIA used a forward-looking infrared camera to monitor the movements of
the rebels and the hostages within the residence at night. The plane was
reportedly equipped with high resolution television cameras and
multispectral sensors that detected anti-personnel mines and explosive
traps set by the rebels.

The SA2-37B has outstanding range/endurance performance. On a maximum
endurance mission, it can operate for up to twelve hours. Alternatively,
it can fly a 200 nmi radius mission and still loiter on station for up
to seven hours. With its 24,000 foot service ceiling, it can also
perform missions requiring higher altitudes.

The SA2-37B is designed to carry up to 510 pounds (231 kg) of sensors
and related payload equipment in its 70 cubic foot fuselage payload bay.
A modular payload system enhances integration of the sensors and
provides the capability to quickly change mission payloads

Careful matching of the aerodynamic design with the propeller, governor,
engine, and mufflers, enables the SA2-37B to operate with engine RPMs
between 1,100 to 1,300 during the quiet mission mode. Because the
aircraft requires only about 65 horsepower (the Lycoming T10-540 engine
is rated at 250 horsepower) to maintain altitude in the quiet mode, it
is, under most circumstances, undetectable by an uncued observer when at
an altitude of 2,000 feet (610 m) above the ground and 600 feet (183 m)
above the water.

Mission versatility is designed into the SA2-37B. Its palletized payload
system provides flexibility. Some of the roles performed by the SA2-37B
surveillance platform include: counter-drug detection and monitoring,
counter-terrorism surveillance, maritime patrol, search and rescue,
environmental protection, spectrum monitoring/direction finding of
communication frequencies, and high altitude relay.

The Schweizer SA2-37B's value has been proven by more than twelve years
of operation with government customers in the United States and around
the world. For these users, the SA2-37B fulfills critical mission needs
for an airborne platform that can covertly perform day/night
surveillance missions in a cost effective manner.

Congressional staffers and members of concerned committees included
provision in Plan Colombia funding for the procurement, outfitting and
deployment of five Schweizer SA 2-37B low noise profile surveillance
aircraft in the aid package. These aircraft were known by Congressional
personnel to be highly successful in conducting airborne surveillance
operations both day and night in hot spots all over the world without
alerting those on the ground to the fact that they were being observed
and their every movement recorded on FLIR and video imagery. In fact,
these aircraft had proven their worth both when operated by elements of
the U.S. Government and by the Colombian Air Force itself, who had
purchased one of the aircraft with their own funds in 1998.

The concept of inclusion of Schweizer SA 2-37B aircraft in Plan Colombia
was embraced by State Department International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement (INL) and Department of Defense Office of Drug Enforcement
Policy and Support (DEP&S) and undertaken as a joint project under the
acronym “LANAS” for Low Acoustic Noise Signature Airborne Surveillance.
Much of the aircraft procurement was done through State INL with active
participation, particularly in the payload, training and support arena,
by the DOD Counterdrug Technology Development Program Office [CDTDPO]
Counterdrug Division at Dahlgren, which became the action arm for DEP&S.
CDTDPO personnel took an early and decisive role in helping select the
payloads and communications equipment on the aircraft, ultimately
settling on FLIR and high resolution TV equipment, which had been
recently developed by a U.S. manufacturer, and a basic COMINT/DF system
specifically designed to help cue the aircraft to communication sites
used by narco-traffickers, so the FLIR and night vision systems could be
brought into play. Based on experience gained from the Colombian Air
Force (FAC) use of their own aircraft, it was determined that given the
high terrain and high density altitudes encountered in Colombia, that
effectiveness of the LANAS platform would be enhanced by increasing the
wingspan from 67 to 74 feet, enabling the aircraft to operate at lower
power settings than normally would be required to maintain altitude in
this rarified atmosphere. The best low noise signature for LANAS
aircraft is directly proportionate to a very low RPM setting on the
propeller control (i.e., circa 1,100-1,200 RPMs v. 2,400-2,500 RPMs
normally used on piston aircraft in a cruise configuration). The very
efficient, long tapered wings and low drag fuselage of the LANAS
aircraft are based on glider technology, the initial product upon which
Schweizer Aircraft Corporation was founded. This concept allows the
aircraft to stay aloft for extended periods of time (up to 10 or 11
hours) when operating in the quiet mode.

As the LANAS procurement progressed, CDTDPO assumed the responsibility
for delivery of the aircraft, training of pilots, sensor operators and
maintenance personnel, as well as provision of much of the spares and
overhaul of major aircraft components. There had been some early
discussion between DoD and State regarding allocation of the aircraft.
State wished to give two of the airplanes to the Colombian National
Policy (CNP), while the MILGRP and SOUTHCOM pushed for giving all five
of the new aircraft to the FAC. Ultimately, the FAC did receive all the
aircraft. Their own Schweizer SA 2-37A was rolled into the support
package in a seamless manner. The training and maintenance support
contracts were awarded to Lockheed-Martin Corporation as prime under the
Rapid Response to Critical Requirements contracting mechanism.
Lockheed’s subcontractor, Integrated AeroSystems, Inc. (IAS), provided
ferry pilots, instructor pilots, sensor operator training, and
contracted in Colombia for maintenance support at the main base in
Apiay, as well as aircraft component overhaul support at Guaymaral
airport near Bogota.

Aircraft deliveries began in the last quarter of 2001, with the final
aircraft being delivered in February 2003. During this entire time,
on-site instructors were training FAC personnel in the arcane skills
needed to fly tailwheel aircraft, in instrument and night flying
techniques, and in the conduct of non-alerting surveillance missions. At
the same time, sensor operator personnel received training in the
operation of FLIR/HRTV and COMINT/DF collection systems. Locally
contracted maintenance personnel were brought in as advisors to coach
FAC technicians in proper care and maintenance of this somewhat unique
turbo-charged piston aircraft. The LANAS platform presented a very
different challenge to the FAC technicians, as most of their experience
was on turbo-jet and turbo-prop aircraft. There were some frustrations
in the training process. The monsoon weather was a bit daunting to the
relatively inexperienced FAC pilots assigned to the project and caused
many training flights to be delayed. Additionally, the FAC were
sometimes unable to release LANAS aircraft for training missions due to
the heavy press of operational requirements and demand for the unique
collection intelligence product provided by these aircraft. Of course,
U.S. instructor personnel were not authorized to participate in any
operational missions. The local maintenance support and overhaul company
proved to be wonderfully capable and quickly became dedicated to the
mission. Some early difficulties with instructor pilots were solved when
IAS was able to hire two Hispanic U.S. pilots with significant relevant
experience in other programs. This training and support activity, while
limited in cost and numbers of personnel involved, progressed at a
notably successful pace through the end of December2002 when the scope
was reduced by approximately fifty percent due to budgetary constraints.
Training and support was scheduled to terminate at the end of April
2003, when the FAC began to carry the entire program on their own.

The LANAS program has been effective, both in providing significant
tactical and strategic intelligence to the armed forces of Colombia, and
for fostering cooperation between the various Colombian services engaged
in a drug war. At Apiay, over 60 percent of the missions have been flown
in support of Colombian Army elements and a similarly high percentage of
missions flown in Cali are in support of the CNP element there. The
aircraft has provided extremely valuable actionable intelligence on the
location of drug laboratories, as well as narco-guerilla logistics
facilities and transportation networks. In one notable event, a huge
depot used for storage of precursor chemicals was located by the LANAS
aircraft. A subsequent FAC attack on the area resulted in huge secondary
explosions as these highly volatile chemicals were ignited. The LANAS
ability to locate drug labs without alerting those on the ground has
resulted in destruction of those labs and capture of significant amounts
of narcotics. Frequently, the operators of these labs were surprised at
their work and either captured or killed.

LANAS has become a prime example of how a dedicated team of U.S.
Government personnel, working with committed and involved contractors
and with the full participation of host Nation elements, can bring forth
a successful program in a cost effective manner. Lessons learned in this
program can be applied in future joint participation activities to
mutual benefit of all involved.




Specifications
Never Exceed Speed (KIAS) 165
Stall Speed (KIAS) 67
Service Ceiling 24000 FT 7315M
Mission Speed (KIAS) 85
Best Climb Speed (KIAS) 85
Take Off Distance 1473 FT
Take Off Distance (50' Obst.) 2433 FT
Landing Ground Roll Distance 1230 FT
Landing Distance (50' Obst.) 2383 FT
Endurance: Up to 7 hours
Endurance (Quiet Mode) Up to 12 hours
Dimensions
Wing Span 71.2 FT 21.7M
Wing Area 201.1FT2 18.68M2
Length 28.83 FT 8.79M
Aspect Ration 21.8
L/D 18.5 to 1
Gross Weight 4300 lbs 1950 KG
Empty Weight 2550 lbs 1156 KG
Payload 710 lbs 322KG
Fuel 600 lbs 200 KG
Pilot & Crew 440 lbs 200KG
Power Plant Lycoming TIO-540-AB1AD Six Cylinder, Direct Drive, Air
Cooled, Turbo Charged
Rated Horsepower 250 @ 2575 RPM
Constant Speed Propeller 3 Blades)
Useable Fuel 99 Gallons 374.8 Litres
Seating Capacity


Hey Doc what you think about the New Grisly Hunter CASA 212

Does the FBI really abuse the power given to them in obtaining personal
information for an investigation to possible terriorism or terroristic
behaviours?

Congress Probes FBI Abuse of Power in Gaining Personal Data

By Peter Fedynsky
Washington
20 April 2007


U.S. legislators on Tuesday heard first hand the findings of an internal
government report, which revealed that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, or FBI, abused its powers in obtaining personal
information during investigations of suspected terrorists. VOA's Peter
Fedynsky reports an FBI official acknowledged the revelations have
damaged the agency's credibility.

Nearly 80 minutes into the hearing, Judiciary Committee Chairman John
Conyers banged the gavel to restore order after a member of the audience
briefly disrupted the proceedings.

The comment "We don't trust the FBI!" underscored what the FBI's General
Counsel, Valerie Caproni, told the committee earlier in the hearing -
that the bureau needs American public support to fight terrorism,
particularly in neighborhoods susceptible to radical influence. "We need
people in those communities to call us when they hear or see something
that looks amiss. We know that we reduce the probability of that call
immeasurably, if we lose the confidence of any part of the American
public," she said.

That trust, however, has been eroded amid revelations that the FBI may
have misused so-called National Security Letters to obtain private
information about people, without getting prior approval from a judge or
a grand jury.

Controls over how the letters are used was loosened under the so-called
Patriot Act, a controversial law passed by Congress to hunt for
terrorists in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the
United States.

In his testimony, Inspector General Glenn Fine told the House Judiciary
Committee that the FBI dramatically increased the number of National
Security letters in violation of statues, and policies established by
the bureau and the U.S. Attorney General. But Fine said the FBI did not
intentionally violate the law. "We believe the misuses and problems that
we found generally were the problem of mistakes, carelessness,
confusion, sloppiness, lack of training, lack of adequate guidance and
lack of adequate oversight," he said.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, however, noted that the FBI
was aware of the abuses as early as 2004. The Inspector General conceded
that his investigation did not inquire about the actions of individuals.
He said it would be appropriate for the FBI to learn exactly who was
doing what, when and why, and to hold people accountable for any
violations.

Committee member Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat and critic of the
Patriot Act, said the FBI abuses could be attributed to the law itself.
"It is not enough to mandate that the FBI fix internal management
problems and record-keeping, because the statute itself authorizes the
unchecked collection of information on innocent Americans," he said.

But Republican Lamar Smith of Texas said the problem is due to poor
implementation. "It is clear from the report that these deficiencies are
the result of the poor implementation and administration of national
security letter authority. In other words, the problem is enforcement of
the law, not the law itself," he said.


Members of the Judiciary Committee warned the FBI that it could lose its
expanded surveillance authority, if the bureau fails to correct its
mistakes.

If everyone is bound before the President. Then who is he bound too?

According to Vermont senate and I quote you their statement as written
in Time Life Magazine which i doubt anyone is gonna say is not a
reputable source of info.

Vermont Senate: Impeach Bush
Friday, Apr. 20, 2007 By AP/ ROSS SNEYD Article (MONTPELIER, Vt.) —
Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President
Bush and Vice President **** Cheney, saying their actions have raised
"serious questions of constitutionality."

The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate — all six
Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against
it.

The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad,
including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality,
statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust."

"I think it's going to have a tremendous political effect, a tremendous
political effect on public discourse about what to do about this
president," said James Leas, a vocal advocate of withdrawing troops from
Iraq and impeaching Bush and Cheney.

Vermont lawmakers earlier voted to demand an immediate troop withdrawal
from Iraq in another non-binding resolution.

Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington has kept a similar resolution
from reaching the floor in her chamber. She argued that an impeachment
resolution would be partisan and divisive and that it would distract
Washington from efforts to get the United States out of Iraq, which she
says is more important.

In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the
resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate
President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up
the measure.

More than three dozen towns voted in favor of similar nonbinding
impeachment resolutions at their annual town meetings in March. State
lawmakers in Wisconsin and Washington have pushed for similar
resolutions

War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE

ECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking
smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the
Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The
dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has
already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own
citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens
is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most
frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of
Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war.
President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people,"
specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded
with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty
that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only
distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's
senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a
professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much
of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do
with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation
into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the
classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja
affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came
about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used
chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which
is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish
civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange.
But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United
States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a
classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community
on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas
that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the
battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however,
indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a
cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are
thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have
possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as
often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A
much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make
reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that
Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the
report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that
it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its
war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has
much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him
of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not
correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the
cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war.
There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of
them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing
on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so
keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's
impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest
reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense,
it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system
in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are
the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq
was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a
granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams
and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in
the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take
control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much
discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that
would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched
Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on
this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American
hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that
probably could not be challenged for decades - not solely by controlling
Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy
the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many
lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting,
one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis
directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that
Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in
its present debilitated condition - thanks to United Nations sanctions -
Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that
Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people.
And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American
people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein
gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish
guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities,
why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when
there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil
System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html

This is serious stuff, because the US Army War College tells us that 1.4
million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the sanctions, which is
3,000 times more than the number of Kurds who supposedly died of gassing
at the hands of Saddam. Many of my old Cold Warrior friends practically
DEMAND that we not lift the sanctions because if Saddam would gas his
own people, he would gas anyone. Now I have come across the 1990
Pentagon report, published just prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Its
authors are Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R.
Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College
at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The report is 93 pages, but I append here
only the passages having to do with the aforementioned issue:

Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East
Excerpt, Chapter 5
U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER

Introduction. Throughout the war the United States practiced a fairly
benign policy toward Iraq. Although initially disapproving of the
invasion, Washington came slowly over to the side of Baghdad. Both
wanted to restore the status quo ante to the Gulf and to reestablish the
relative harmony that prevailed there before Khomeini began threatening
the regional balance of power. Khomeini's revolutionary appeal was
anathema to both Baghdad and Washington; hence they wanted to get rid of
him. United by a common interest, Iraq and the United States restored
diplomatic relations in 1984, and the United States began to actively
assist Iraq in ending the fighting. It mounted Operation Staunch, an
attempt to stem the flow of arms to Iran. It also increased its
purchases of Iraqi oil while cutting back on Iranian oil purchases, and
it urged its allies to do likewise. All this had the effect of repairing
relations between the two countries, which had been at a very low ebb.

In September 1988, however -- a month after the war had ended -- the
State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational
manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish
population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of
Iraq's relations with the Kurds. It is beyond the scope of this study to
go deeply into this matter; suffice it to say that throughout the war
Iraq effectively faced two enemies -- Iran and the elements of its own
Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt
against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the
war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the
Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and
in the course of this operation - according to the U.S. State Department
-- gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were
killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred.
Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and
the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic
sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.

Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find
it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used
in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced.
International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey
where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there
ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the
Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were
interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the
Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the
sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at least
in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24 hours.
Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will be
discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of Iraqi-U.S.
ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a bureaucratic
technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that died before
adjournment).

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced
by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another
Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were
bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths.
Photographs of them Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the
international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even
though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals
in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian
bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.

Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism
than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse
diplomatic effects of its action. As a result of the outcome of the
Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf,
an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted
flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working
relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the
strongest

Nurenburg Principle VI:
A crime against peace, in international law, refers to the act of
military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or
waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a
territory or state, or else a military violation of relevant
international treaties, agreements or legally binding assurances.

The definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the
Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter.
This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a war crime.




Definition
No legal authority exists for the definition of the terms "territorial
integrity", "political independence" and "sovereignty". However, their
face value would seem to disclose the following:

a - The "territorial integrity" rule means that it is a crime of
aggression to use armed force with intent permanently to deprive a state
of any part or parts of its territory, not excluding territories for the
foreign affairs of which it is responsible;
b - The "political independence" rule means that it is a crime of
aggression to use armed force with intent to deprive a state of the
entirety of one or more of the prerequisites of statehood, namely:
defined territory, permanent population, constitutionally independent
government and the means of conducting relations with other States;
c - The "sovereignty" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use
armed force with intent to overthrow the government of a state or to
impede its freedom to act unhindered, as it sees fit, throughout its
jurisdiction.
This definition of the crime of aggression belongs to jus cogens, which
is supreme in the hierarchy of international law and, therefore, it
cannot be modified by, or give way to, any rule of international law but
one of the same rank. An arguable example is any rule imposing a
conflicting obligation to prevent, interdict or vindicate crimes which
also belong to jus cogens, namely aggression itself, crimes against
humanity, genocide, war crimes, slavery, torture and piracy, so that a
war waged consistent with the aim of repressing any of these crimes
might not be illegal where the crime comes within the limit of
proportionality relative to war and its characteristic effects.


Kellogg-Briand Pact
In 1927, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, known as the General Treaty for the
Renunciation of War, said:

The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their
respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of
international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of
national policy in their relations with one another.

Nuremberg Principles
In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal
defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This
definition was first used in by Finnish courts to prosecute the
aggressors in the War-responsibility trials in Finland. The principles
were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in
Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression
or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or
assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of
persons responsible for starting World War II. One consequence of this
is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that
they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of
collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law
of jus cogens. It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after
1945.

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson,
stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international
crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other
war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the
whole.

United Nations Charter
The United Nations Charter says in Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take
effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats
to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other
breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which
might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take
other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the
United Nations' Charter, which states in article 2, paragraph 4 that

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall,
first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the
parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and
security.

War crimes include violations of established protections of the laws of
war, but also include failures to adhere to norms of procedure and rules
of battle, such as attacking those displaying a flag of truce, or using
that same flag as a ruse of war to mount an attack.

Attacking enemy troops while they are being deployed by way of a
parachute is not a war crime. However, Protocol I, Article 42 of the
Geneva Conventions explicitly forbids attacking parachutists who eject
from damaged airplanes, and surrendering parachutists once landed. [1]

War crimes include such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war or
civilians. War crimes are sometimes part of instances of mass murder and
genocide though these crimes are more broadly covered under
international humanitarian law described as crimes against humanity.

War crimes are significant in international humanitarian law because it
is an area where international tribunals such as the Nuremberg Trials
have been convened. Recent examples are the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, which were established by the UN Security Council
acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that
of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which
all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning,
preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in
violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also,
participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of
any such act constitutes such a crime.


[edit] International Criminal Court
On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court
located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes
committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably
the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court, refused
to participate in it or permit the court to have jurisdiction over their
citizens. Note, however, that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations'
could still find himself before the Court if he were accused of
committing war crimes in a country that was a state party, regardless of
the fact that their country of origin was not a signatory.


[edit] Definition
War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International
Criminal Court, which includes:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or
health
Torture or inhumane treatment
Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
Taking hostages
The following acts as part of an international conflict:
Directing attacks against civilians
Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
Killing a surrendered combatant
Misusing a flag of truce
Settlement of occupied territory
Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
Using poison weapons
Using civilian shields
Using child soldiers
The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN
peacekeepers
Taking hostages
Summary execution
Pillage
Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy
However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are
"part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such
crimes" [2]


[edit] Prominent indictees
To date, the former heads of state and heads of government that have
been charged with war crimes include Karl Dönitz of Germany and Prime
Minister Hideki Tojo of Japan. Former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milošević was brought to trial for war crimes, but died in custody
before the trial could be concluded in March 11, 2006. Former Liberian
President Charles G. Taylor was also brought to the Hague for charging
war crimes and his trial is provisionally scheduled to begin on April 2,
2007.


[edit] Ambiguity
The Geneva Conventions are a treaty that represent a legal basis for
International Law with regard to conduct of warfare. Not all nations are
signatories to the GC, and as such retain different codes and values
with regard to wartime conduct. Some signatories have routinely violated
the Geneva Conventions in a way which either uses the ambiguities of law
or political maneuvering to sidestep the laws formalities and
principles.

Because the definition of a state of "war" may be debated, the term "war
crime" itself has seen different usage under different systems of
international and military law. It has some degree of application
outside of what some may consider to be a state of "war," but in areas
where conflicts persist enough to constitute social instability.

In determining the legality of acts committed during war, favoritism
toward states that were winners in wars has sometimes been alleged, and
it is sometimes stated: "History is winners' history", since certain
actions perpetrated by states that were the "winners" have not been
ruled as war crimes. Some examples include the Allied destruction of
civilian targets through the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and mass firebombing attacks on Axis cities such as Tokyo,
Kobe, and Dresden in World War II[citation needed]. Others cite the
Indonesian occupation of East Timor between 1976 and 1999.