nsa confirms it is teaming with microsoft

.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141105/NSA_helped_with_Windows_7_development

NSA helped with Windows 7 development

Privacy expert voices 'backdoor' concerns, security researchers dismiss idea

Gregg Keizer

November 18, 2009 (Computerworld) The National Security Agency (NSA) worked with Microsoft on the development of Windows 7, an agency official acknowledged yesterday during testimony before Congress.

"Working in partnership with Microsoft and elements of the Department of Defense, NSA leveraged our unique expertise and operational knowledge of system threats and vulnerabilities to enhance Microsoft's operating system security guide without constraining the user to perform their everyday tasks, whether those tasks are being performed in the public or private sector," Richard Schaeffer, the NSA's information assurance director, told the Senate's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security yesterday as part of a prepared statement.

"All this was done in coordination with the product release, not months or years later during the product lifecycle," Schaeffer added. "This will improve the adoption of security advice, as it can be implemented during installation and then later managed through the emerging SCAP standards."

Security Content Automation Protocol, or SCAP, is a set of standards for automating chores such as managing vulnerabilities and measuring security compliance. The National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) oversees the SCAP standards.

This is not the first time that the NSA has partnered with Microsoft during Windows development. In 2007, the agency confirmed that it had a hand in Windows Vista as part of an initiative to ensure that the operating system was secure from attack and would work with other government software. Before that, the NSA provided guidance on how best to secure Windows XP and Windows 2000.

According to Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronics Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the NSA's involvement with operating system development goes back even farther. "This battle goes back to at least the crypto wars of the early '90s," said Rotenberg, who remembered testifying about the agency's role in private sector computer security standards in 1989.

But when the NSA puts hands on Windows, that raises a red flag for Rotenberg, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based public interest research center. "When NSA offers to help the private sector on computer security, the obvious concern is that it will also build in backdoors that enables tracking users and intercepting user communications," Rotenberg said in an e-mail. "And private sector firms are reluctant to oppose these 'suggestions' since the US government is also their biggest customer and opposition to the NSA could mean to loss of sales."

Rotenberg's worries stem from the NSA's reputation as the intelligence agency best known for its eavesdropping of electronic messaging, including cell phone calls and e-mail.

Andrew Storms, the director of security operations at nCircle Security, didn't put much credence in the idea that Microsoft would allow the NSA to build a hidden entrance to Windows 7. "Would it be surprising to most people that there was a backdoor? No, not with the political agenda of prior administrations," said Storms. "My gut, though, tells me that Microsoft, as a business, would not want to do that, at least not in a secretive way."

Roger Thompson, chief research officer at AVG Technologies, agreed. "I can't imagine NSA and Microsoft would do anything deliberate because the repercussions would be enormous if they got caught," he said in an interview via instant messaging.

"Having said that, I think we should understand that there is every likelihood that certain foreign governments are constantly looking for vulnerabilities that they can use for targeted attacks," Thompson continued. "So if they're poking at us, I think it's reasonable to assume that we're doing something similar. But I seriously doubt an official NSA-Microsoft alliance."

The NSA's Schaeffer added that his agency is also working on engaging other major software makers, including Apple, Sun and Red Hat, on security standards for their products.

"More and more, we find that protecting national security systems demands teaming with public and private institutions to raise the information assurance level of products and services more broadly," Schaeffer said.

Microsoft was not immediately available for comment on the NSA's participation in Windows 7's development.

drugs: ketamine more dangerous than pot or xtc

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/22/teenagers-ketamine-health-risk

Teenagers risk kidney failure in drug craze

Ketamine causes irreversible damage, fear GPs

Diane Taylor and Denis Campbell

The Observer

Sunday 22 November 2009

Ketamine, a powerful tranquilliser used on horses, is being taken in growing number by young people in the UK, causing crippling health problems.

Some addicts have needed to have their bladders removed and must now wear catheters. Other users have suffered serious kidney problems, breathing difficulties, addiction, bouts of unconsciousness and trouble with urinating. The drug also involves a heightened risk of heart attack.

Some users also end up with cocaine-style damage to the inside of their nose, because the drug is often snorted in powder form, though it can also be injected, taken as a pill or swallowed as a liquid.

Experts say ketamine is increasing in popularity partly because it is cheaper than cocaine and, as the purity of cocaine falls, gives a more reliable high. It usually sells for about half the price of cocaine, at about £20 per gram, but can be obtained for as little as £5 a gram. "The quality of heroin and cocaine is so poor that people are turning to ketamine, which is cheap and available," said Dr Chris Ford, a GP and the clinical lead for substance misuse management in general practice in the London borough of Brent.

Dr Angela Cottrell, a urologist attached to the Bristol Urological Institute at the city's Southmead Hospital, has studied the health problems caused by ketamine. She saw her first patient with severe bladder problems in mid-2007 and has seen a growing number of cases since. "About one-third of ketamine users develop severe problems with the drug. There's something about the way that it's metabolised that is causing these problems," said Cottrell.

"One of the most alarming things is that the long-term effects on the body are not known. We don't know if things get better over time or whether people will develop kidney failure in the long-term." The damage to vital organs may be irreversible, Cottrell warned.

Ketamine is both a stimulant and an hallucinogenic. In 2007, Professor David Nutt, recently sacked as the chairman of the government's drugs advisory panel, published research in The Lancet which ranked ketamine as the sixth most harmful substance out of 20 studied. It came behind heroin, cocaine, barbituates, street methadone and alcohol, but ahead of cannabis and ecstasy, in 11th and 18th places.

The drug is known as K, Special K and, because of the youth of many users, "kiddie smack". The Addaction specialist drugs service in Lincoln sees about 200 children under 18 every year. In 2007, none said they used ketamine. Between June and November 2008, one teenager said it was their main drug and six said it was their secondary choice, usually behind alcohol or cannabis. But in the same period this year, four 15- to 18-year-olds said it was their preferred way of getting high, and 15 as their next most favourite.

Elliot Elam, of Addaction, said: "It's not an epidemic, but it is an emerging trend. There's a new generation for whom ketamine use is acceptable."

According to the British Crime Survey, only 1.8% of people in England and Wales have ever used ketamine, but that figure is doubled among 16- to 24-year-olds. It estimated that 113,000 people used it at least once in 2007-08. Research published last week in the journal Addiction blamed the drug for memory loss and mild delusions.

A "normal" dose of ketamine is 60mg to 100mg, but some users are taking 5g or 10g a day. Twenty-three people are believed to have died between 1993 and 2006 after walking into traffic and risking other dangers after losing their sense of reality.

uk and japan may default on debt, gold at 3000$

.
http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/thebearslairview?art_id=10307

Which big country will default first?

Martin Hutchinson

November 09, 2009

Of the world's six largest economies, three currently have budget and public debt positions that if allowed to fester will push those nations into bankruptcy (the seventh largest, Italy, also has a budget and debt position that is highly vulnerable, but its problems appear chronic rather than acute). Given the proclivities of modern politicians for delaying pain and avoiding problems, it is likely that festering is just what those positions will do. So which major country, the United States, Japan or Britain, will default first on its foreign debt?

The other three of the six top economies, Germany, China and France, appear to have fewer problems but are not out of the woods entirely. Germany has substantial public debt because of the costs involved in integrating the former East Germany, but those costs are now mostly past and the current government is highly disciplined – thus Germany is now the most stable major economy. France is less disciplined; its debt level is similar to that of Germany but its current budget deficit is much higher, at around 8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2009, according to the Economist forecasting panel. However, its problems pale in comparison to those of the deficit-ridden trio. China has huge amounts of hidden debt in its banking system, which could well collapse, but its direct public debt is small, as is its budget deficit, so it is unlikely to enter formal default.

The worst budget balance of the three deficit countries is in Britain, where the forecast budget deficit for calendar 2009 is a staggering 14.5% of GDP. Furthermore, the Bank of England has been slightly more irresponsible in its financing mechanisms than even the Federal Reserve, leaving interest rates above zero but funding fully one third of public spending through direct money creation. Governor Mervyn King has a reputation in the world's chancelleries as a conservative man of economic understanding. He doesn't really deserve it, having been one of the 364 lunatic economists who signed a round-robin to Margaret Thatcher in 1981 denouncing her economic policies just as they were on the point of magnificently working, pulling Britain back from what seemed inevitable catastrophic decline. King's quiet manner may be more reassuring to skeptics than the arrogance of "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke, but the reality of his policies is little sounder and the economic situation facing him is distinctly worse.

Britain has two additional problems not shared by the United States and Japan. First, its economy is in distinctly worse shape. Growth was negative in the third quarter of 2009, unlike the modest positive growth in the U.S. and the sharp uptick in Japan. Moreover, whereas U.S. house prices are now at a reasonable level, in terms of incomes (albeit still perhaps 10% above their eventual bottom), Britain's house prices are still grossly inflated, possibly in London even double their appropriate level in terms of income. The financial services business in Britain is a larger part of the overall economy than in the U.S. and the absurd exemption from tax for foreigners has brought a huge disparity between the few foreigners at the top of the City of London and the unfortunate locals toiling for mere mortal rewards. A recent story that the housing market for London homes priced above $5 million British pounds was being reflated by Goldman Sachs bonuses indicates the problem, and suggests that the further deflation needed in U.K. housing will have a major and unpleasant economic effect.

A second British problem not shared by the U.S. is its excessive reliance on financial services. As detailed in previous columns, this sector has roughly doubled in the last 30 years as a share of both British and U.S. GDP. In addition, the sector's vulnerability to a restoration of a properly tight monetary policy has been enormously increased through its addiction to trading revenue. The U.S. has many other ways of making a living if its financial services sector shrinks and New York is only a modest part of the overall economy. Britain is horribly over-dependent on financial services, and the painful if salutary effects of London costs being pushed down to national levels by a lengthy recession are less likely to be counterbalanced by exuberant growth elsewhere.

The other question to be answered for all three countries is that of political will. If as is certainly the case in Britain, deficits at the current levels will lead to default (albeit not for some years since the country's public debt is still quite low), then to avoid default tough decisions must be taken. Britain is in poor shape in this respect. Its current prime minister, Gordon Brown, is largely responsible for the underlying budget problem, having overspent during the boom years, largely on added bureaucracy rather than on anything productive or value-creating. However, the opposition Conservatives, likely to take power next spring, are led by a center-leftist with a background in public relations and no discernable backbone or principles.

Britain has a history of such leaders, which it has managed to survive – the ineffable Harold Macmillan, in particular, who wanted to abolish the Stock Exchange and contemplated nationalizing the banks when they raised interest rates, was a man of outlook and temperament very similar to David Cameron's. Macmillan was notoriously prone to soft options that postponed economic problems, firing his entire Treasury team in pursuit of soft options in 1958 and leaving behind an appalling legacy of inflationary bubble on his retirement in 1963. If Cameron is truly like Macmillan, his government's response to economic and financial disaster will be one of wriggle rather than confrontation. With neither party providing solutions to an economic crisis, the British public is likely to discover that, unlike in the crisis of 1976, no solutions will be found. Default (doubtless disguised as with Argentina as "renegotiation") would in that case inevitably follow.

The United States is in somewhat better shape than Britain. Its deficit is somewhat lower, at 11.9% of GDP in calendar 2009, although its debt level is higher if you include the direct debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as you should. It also has lower overall levels of public spending, although spending is rising rapidly. Furthermore, it has a much more diverse economy and a healthier real estate market, so that further likely downturns in California and Manhattan real estate and the financial services sector can be easily overcome.

U.S. pundits like to whine about the impending deficits in social security and health-care, but the former is easily overcome by adjusting the retirement age while the latter could be greatly mitigated by simple cost-containment measures, such as limiting trial lawyer depredations, making the state pay for the "emergency room" mandate to treat the indigent and allowing interstate competition for health insurance. All those changes would be politically difficult, but they are clearly visible and involve no damaging cuts in vital services, unlike the changes that would probably be necessary in Britain.

The other U.S. advantage is political: it has an alternative to overspending. Last Tuesday's election results were a useful shot across the bows of the overspending consensus that had developed in both the Bush and Obama administrations (as well as among the ineffable barons of Congress) since 2007. Whereas voter concern about spiraling deficits and public spending has no satisfactory outlet in Britain, it can now express itself clearly in the U.S., producing either a sharp change of policy by the current administration and Congress or a change of administration in 2012. Since the likelihood of a reversal of policy towards sound budgetary management is greater in the U.S. than in Britain, the probability of eventual default is less.

Japan has already had its change of government, throwing out the faction of the Liberal Democrat Party (LDP) that regarded politics as the art of creating pointless infrastructure. Unfortunately, the Japanese electorate, faced in August with a no-good-choices problem similar to that of U.S. voters last year and British voters next spring, replaced a long-serving overspending government with another committed to a different set of spending priorities rather than to ending the spending itself. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has cut back sharply on the infrastructure "stimulus" but is showing signs of replacing it with social spending. It is also committed to economically dozy policies such as reversing postal privatization, organized with such great political effort by Junichiro Koizumi in 2005.

Japan does however have a couple of advantages that may enable it to avoid default. First, its public debt carries very low interest rates, mostly below 2% per annum, and is owned almost entirely by its own citizens. What's more, state-owned entities such as the now un-privatized Postal Bank lend vast amounts of money to the government, acting as conduits to the less efficient bits of the public sector in the same way as do China's state-owned banks. This is appallingly bad for the efficiency of the economy and for living standards, but it postpones default and makes it less likely.

Second, it's not inevitable that the LDP's wasteful infrastructure spending will simply be replaced by wasteful social spending. Finance minister Hirohisa Fujii is reputed to be a budgetary hard-liner. Further, at least part of the DPJ's spending will take the form of handouts to families with children. Those may increase domestic consumption compared to exports and thereby balance the Japanese economy better, increasing its growth potential marginally. Nevertheless, since Japan's public debt is currently around 200% of GDP, Japan is much closer to the default precipice than either the U.S. or Britain. Thus, while the better structure of Japan's economy and its debt make Japan's probability of default lower than Britain's, it's likely that if both countries defaulted, Japan would do so first.

We have not experienced a debt default by a major economy since the 1930s. That three such defaults are currently conceivable indicates both the severity of the current downturn and the wrong-headedness of the policies taken to address it. If it happens, a major sovereign debt default of this kind will cause the seizure of global capital markets, prolonging downturn for a decade or more.

We'd all better hope the urge for fiscal responsibility hits London, Washington and Tokyo pretty damn soon.

The Bears Lair is a weekly column that is intended to appear each Monday, an appropriately gloomy day of the week. Its rationale is that, in the long '90s boom, the proportion of "sell" recommendations put out by Wall Street houses declined from 9 percent of all research reports to 1 percent and has only modestly rebounded since. Accordingly, investors have an excess of positive information and very little negative information. The column thus takes the ursine view of life and the market, in the hope that it may be usefully different from what investors see elsewhere.

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

http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/thebearslairview?art_id=10309

Waiting for the train-wreck

Martin Hutchinson

November 16, 2009

The rise in the gold price above $1,100 per ounce last week is a pretty good indicator that something has changed. For 18 months, the gold price had been in a trading range topping out around $1,000. It has now broken out decisively from that range. The opportunity for the world's central banks to change policy and affect the economic outcome has been lost. The world economy is now locked on to an undeviating track towards another train wreck.

At most times, the gold price is not an economically significant indicator. In 1980-2000, it declined irregularly from $850 to around $280, and movements in it seemed to have had little or no effect on the global economy. That's what you'd expect; even at $1,000 per ounce, the global production of gold is only around $100 billion annually, which would put the entire world's gold extraction industry only 17th on the Fortune 500. When Gordon Brown sold Britain's entire gold reserves in 1999, at a price below $300 per ounce, it seemed a defensible decision. I went to a meeting in 2001 hosted by a diverse group which believed that the U.S. Treasury was conspiring to suppress the gold price, and my main thought was: why would Treasury bother?

However, in relatively few periods, gold becomes of immense importance. When investors lose trust in conventional currencies, because monetary policy appears set to debauch them, gold is the immediately available safe haven. During such periods, gold's former importance as a store of value becomes uppermost in the public mind, and its price becomes a major economic indicator.

Gold became important from about July 1978 to early 1980, during which period its price rose from $185 to $850 per ounce. For that 18 month period, the price of gold was the most important factor in day-to-day market fluctuations. The gold price, more than the inflation rate directly, moved markets and by extension moved monetary and to some extent fiscal policy in the major economies. Only after Paul Volcker took over at the Fed in late 1979 did M3 money supply begin to supplant it in investors' analyses.

We now appear to be at the beginning of another such period. The exceptional monetary stimulus entered into around the world during the financial crisis last year has prevented a downward liquidity spiral, but at the cost of destabilizing markets. Both monetary and fiscal policy dials are stuck at settings that would have been unimaginable two years ago. While this has produced only the beginnings of economic recovery, it has brought a 50% bounce in the U.S. stock market, a return in the oil price to around $80 – at the top end of the historic range, adjusted for inflation – and now a breakout by gold above its historic high. The repeated previous failure of gold to break above $1,000 per ounce made it all the more significant when it finally succeeded in doing so.

Ben Bernanke's Fed is ignoring this. It insists that it will maintain interest rates at the current near-zero level for an extended period, regardless of what the gold price does. By this, it is ensuring that the present bubble in gold and commodities will play out to its full extent. Had the Fed begun to tighten gently during the late spring or early summer, when it had become obvious that the U.S. economy was bottoming out, but while stock markets remained subdued and gold remained within its 2008-09 trading range, it's possible that it could have deflated the incipient bubble, steering the U.S. and global economies back on to a sustainable growth path. The U.S. Treasury would have had to cooperate by beginning to reduce the federal deficit, but at this stage with unemployment in the 10% range, there would have been no need for draconian action on that front.

With current Fed policy, gold is headed rapidly toward $2,000 per ounce, probably within six months. The forecasters who see such a price, but suggest it would take four to five years to get there, are ignoring history. Since gold was able to get from $185 to $850 in 18 months in 1978-80, there is no reason why it cannot get from $1,100 to $2,000 in six months now. What's more, although 1980's peak seemed madness at the time, and was equivalent to nearly $2,400 today, there is no reason why gold cannot go much higher if it is given another year or so to get there. The supply of gold from new mining is around 1 million ounces per year LESS than in 1980 and the supply of speculative capital that could flow into gold is many times greater. Hence, a $5,000 gold price is possible though not certain, if present monetary policy is continued or only modestly modified – and that price could be reached by the end of 2010.

As was demonstrated by the housing bubble of 2004-06, modest rises in interest rates are not sufficient to stop a bubble once it is well under way. Given the Fed's recent track record, it is most unlikely that we will get any more than modest and very reluctant interest-rate rises. Even if inflation is moving at a brisk pace by the latter part of next year, the price rises will be explained away, or possibly massaged out of the figures as happened in the early part of 2008. Hence the bubble will inexorably move to its denouement, at which point gold will probably be north of $3,000 an ounce and oil well north of $150 per barrel. Even though there will be no supply/demand reason why oil should get to those levels, and gold has almost no genuine demand at all, the weight of money behind those commodities in a speculative situation will push their prices inexorably upwards, beyond all reason until something intervenes to stop it.

At some point, probably before the end of 2010, the bubble will burst. The deflationary effect on the U.S. economy of $150 plus oil will overwhelm the modest forces of genuine economic expansion. The Treasury bond market will collapse, overwhelmed by the weight of deficit financing. Once again, the banking system will be in deep trouble. The industrial sector, beyond the largest and most liquid companies and the extractive industries, will in any case have remained in recession – it is notable that, in spite of the Fed's frenzy of activity, bank lending has fallen $600 billion in the last year. Unemployment, which will probably enter the second downturn at around current levels, will spike further upwards. The dollar will probably not collapse, but only because it will have been declining inexorably in the intervening year, to give a euro value of $2 and a yen value of 60 to 65 yen to the dollar.

In the next downturn, the Fed will not be able to cut interest rates, because inflation will be spiraling, as in 1980. Instead it will need to raise them while dealing with a profound crisis in the bond markets. Capital in the U.S. will become still more difficult to come by, and unemployment will approach 15%. The U.S.'s only saving graces will be that the inflation will have prevented much further decline in the nominal prices of houses, while the decline in the dollar will have finally swung the payments deficit towards balance. U.S. real wages will be forced downwards by high unemployment, while banks' relief on the home mortgage front will be balanced by a tsunami of collapsed credit card debt and other consumer debt.

2011 and 2012 will be very unpleasant years, as the Obama administration struggles to get closer to budget balance without pushing up taxes so far as to cause yet a third recession. Stock prices will be at or below their March 2009 lows, and will stay there even as earnings of export-oriented companies will be robust. (Conversely, retailers dealing in cheap imported goods, such as Wal-Mart, will be devastated.) Wages will be generally declining relative to prices, although may show some growth in nominal terms as inflation will be considerable. Foreign goods and services will be inordinately expensive in dollar terms.

The danger in those years will be that Ben Bernanke will attempt yet again to refloat the U.S. economy through inflation, buying government debt to fund the deficit and forcing short term rates well below the inflation rate. This danger is exacerbated by the Obama administration's insouciance about deficits. Ben Bernanke on his own (and his predecessor Alan Greenspan) bears a large share of responsibility for the 2008 crash, but the Bernanke/Obama combination is potentially even more dangerous. If expansionary monetary and fiscal policies are pursued regardless of market signals, the U.S. will head towards Weimar-style trillion-percent inflation. That would make the government's position easier as its mountain of Treasury debt became worthless, but devastate everybody else's savings and impoverish the American people as Weimar impoverished 1920s Germany.

As I said, a train wreck. Probability of arrival: close to 100%. Time of arrival: around the end of 2010, or possibly a bit earlier. And at this stage, there's very little anyone can do about it; the definitive rise of gold above $1,000 marked the point of no return.

The Bears Lair is a weekly column that is intended to appear each Monday, an appropriately gloomy day of the week. Its rationale is that, in the long '90s boom, the proportion of "sell" recommendations put out by Wall Street houses declined from 9 percent of all research reports to 1 percent and has only modestly rebounded since. Accordingly, investors have an excess of positive information and very little negative information. The column thus takes the ursine view of life and the market, in the hope that it may be usefully different from what investors see elsewhere.

Martin Hutchinson is the author of "Great Conservatives" (Academica Press, 2005). Details can be found on the Web site www.greatconservatives.com

---

Views are as of November 16, 2009, and are subject to change based on market conditions and other factors. These views should not be construed as a recommendation for any specific security.

afpak mess: the result of us policy

.
http://www.the-diplomat.com/001f1281_r.aspx?artid=204

http://www.the-diplomat.com/aboutus.aspx

An Interview with Ahmed Quraishi

The Diplomat

16/nov/2009‎

The Diplomat speaks with Pakistani commentator Ahmed Quraishi about the country’s current military offensive in Waziristan, relations with the US and what America should do to improve its image in Pakistan.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Pakistan this month meeting key political leaders. What did you make of her comment that she finds it difficult to believe that nobody in the Pakistani government knows the whereabouts of top al-Qaeda members?

Ahmed Quraishi: It was very surprising to even the most hardened skeptics here in Pakistan to hear a US secretary of state saying this, because despite all we heard during the eight years of President [George W.] Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, no American official accused Pakistan or ‘rogue elements’ in the country of supporting or protecting al-Qaeda. If ever there were any grievances with Pakistan on this count, they were mostly focused on that Pakistan had done a very good job of cooperating with the Americans on al-Qaeda, but that progress was still lacking on the Afghan Taliban and its leadership. So in the entire eight years since September 11, no US official actually criticized Pakistan by saying Pakistan was somehow trying to protect al-Qaeda. Second, the facts contradict what the secretary of state said. Everybody knows the vast number of al-Qaeda operatives that have been arrested have been arrested in Pakistan. And the big fish names, although there is close cooperation between the CIA and ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence], were arrested thanks to crucial information coming from Pakistani intelligence sources. This is, of course, natural seeing as it is our country, and it’s only to be expected that the ISI and other Pakistani government agencies should be at the forefront of finding these people. And they did. And three, another crucial point is that if we’re going to throw blame at each other, then frankly speaking it is Pakistan that needs to complain--and complain loudly--at the failure of US intelligence and the US military back in late November and early December 2001 to corner and arrest Osama bin Laden. If you remember the battle in Tora Bora on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, that battle was instrumental at providing an escape route to the al-Qaeda chief and his lieutenants. And the biggest blame for that actually goes to US intelligence, which relied on unreliable Afghan warlords on the ground who apparently took money, probably from al-Qaeda operatives, and let Osama bin Laden escape. So if anyone should be complaining it should be the Pakistanis, who now have to deal with this country’s mess, basically because many of these people who should have been eliminated in Afghanistan were able to disperse and mostly head for Pakistan. And this is mostly because of the thin American presence in Afghanistan, the poorly secured military presence in that country and of course the poorly secured border.

One of the reasons Secretary Clinton was visiting was to try and improve the US image in Pakistan. How much of an image problem does the US have there?

Quraishi: In this whole debate about America’s image in Pakistan, and people talk of course about how America supported a military dictator [General Pervez Musharraf] and so forth, the reality is that the real grievances pertain to issues that are not really discussed very openly, especially in the American media, and which are not really known about by American public opinion. I’m talking about things like, for example, the fact that the US military and the Afghan army, which is being trained by the US army, suddenly removed all their posts from the Afghan side of the border when Pakistan began its military operation in South Waziristan. This isn’t the figment of anyone’s imagination--it has been verified by people on the ground and was raised by the Pakistani chief with General Stanley McCrystal a couple of weeks back. This story was headline news on major Pakistani news channels and in newspapers, so it’s surprising that so little time has been given over to such grievances, which provide fodder to skeptics in Pakistan who question US motives in Afghanistan. And of course we have a standing complaint that weapons and money that are sustaining terrorists are coming from Afghanistan. And it’s not just the factor of Afghan warlords and drug money and so forth. It’s beyond that. And we feel little time is given to this grievance in the US media. US officials know about it, and often discuss the issue with Pakistani officials, but they never talk about this openly. So I find it very funny when Secretary Clinton comes over here and says ‘you have some questions about our role, and we have some grievances about yours, but we need to reach some common ground.’ Sure. But this entire thing that is going on in the Af-Pak region is a result of US policy. And eight years on, this project is falling apart and isn’t showing any signs of being nearer a conclusion than it was, say, five years ago. So serious questions are arising about why in Pakistan we continue to be part of a project that shows every signs of failing, if it has not already failed.

What would you like to see the US doing differently to improve its image?

Quraishi: Two things. One is that in terms of foreign policy, on its policy on Afghanistan, it needs to take its Pakistani ally along as it moves on. What has happened over the past eight years is that Pakistan was not taken along in US planning on Afghanistan. A government was set up in Kabul that was decidedly full of anti-Pakistan elements, elements that are antagonistic to Pakistan. Now when I say this I don’t mean that the Afghan government should be pro-Paksitan. But they should not be antagonistic. So the United States and the different stakeholders in policy in Afghanistan, including the intelligence community and the military, will have to trust Pakistan and take it along as an ally, and not treat it as someone to be looked upon with suspicion, or to be used for logistical help it needs but to then not trust it on the long-term questions of what kind of government should be in Kabul and whether the Pashtuns need to be isolated from such a government or not. Number two, the United States needs to understand that it is counter productive to try and interfere in the domestic politics of Pakistan. Very few observers in the United States discuss a very interesting thing that they have been doing in Pakistan, which is to try and micromanage that country. The very government we have in Pakistan right now, the elected government in Islamabad, wouldn’t have been in place without a deal that was discussed and tailored and finalized at the US State Department with the active participation of diplomats from the United States and United Kingdom. And, of course, with the full backing of Vice President Cheney at that time. That deal resulted in tailoring the political set up that you currently see in Pakistan, and it dealt with such minute issues as who would be the coalition partner, which parties could work with the United States, and which ones could not. So this kind of micromanagement has really backfired--when the United States was tailoring this kind of deal with Musharraf, the anti-Americanism in Pakistan was not at a level it is at right now. So this tells you something at least about how the micromanagement has backfired and has produced possibly an exaggerated feeling of a threat among the ordinary Pakistani on the street.

As you mentioned, the Pakistani military recently embarked on a major offensive in Waziristan. What do you think the prospects for success are?

Quraishi: There’s no question that a ragtag army of mountain fighters who do not enjoy the full support of the people of the area they are based in--the people of that area are pouring into other parts of Pakistan where temporary camps have been set up for as long as this military operation goes on--that such a militia cannot sustain itself in the face of a large and well-organized army. Of course, when the Pakistan army began the Swat operation in the spring of this year, there was a lot of skepticism--especially when almost 2 million people from that area poured into refugee camps, people were asking how that problem would be dealt with. But now, over 1.5 million people have been restored to their towns and villages in the Swat region, and that region is overwhelmingly secure now. There’s no reason why this can’t be replicated in South Waziristan. It’s a small patch of land. The only uncertainty we really have is over the Afghan side of the border--there aren’t enough Afghan soldiers on that side, and there are no US military or ISAF on the other side. This is a constant problem and we know money and weapons are coming through from that side. The Mehsud terror militia is not sustaining itself from inside Pakistan. I understand that Pakistani officers have had assurances from General McCrystal that he will do what he can with the resources he has in Afghanistan to secure that area and ensure that such movement doesn’t occur backward and forward. But we’ll have to wait and see. At the moment though, the prospects look good.

bath university firetests straw hemp house

.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2009/11/18/balehaus-opening/

http://www.bath.ac.uk/features/balehaus/

Low carbon straw house passes fire test

18 November 2009

BaleHaus@Bath - built of pre-fabricated straw-bale and hemp panels - has fire resistance as good as houses built of conventional building materials according to new research.

Researchers at the University of Bath tested a pre-fabricated panel, as used in the construction of Balehaus@Bath, for fire safety by exposing it to temperatures over 1000°C. To reach the required standard the panel had to withstand the heat for more than 30 minutes. Over two hours later - four times as long as required - the panel had still not failed.

BaleHaus@Bath is part of a major new research project into how these renewable building materials can be used for homes of the future.

The research work on BaleHaus has been funded by Carbon Connections and the Technology Strategy Board. Researchers Dr Katharine Beadle and Christopher Gross, from the University’s BRE Centre in Innovative Construction Materials, will be monitoring the house for a year for its insulating properties, humidity levels, air tightness and sound insulation qualities to assess the performance of straw and hemp as building materials.

The ModCell BaleHaus system consists of prefabricated panels made of a structural timber frame infilled with straw bales or hemp and rendered with a breathable lime-based system. It is the creation of White Design in Bristol and Integral Structural Design in Bath, and was used last year by Kevin McCloud to build an eco-friendly house in six days for the Grand Designs Live exhibition.

ModCell is carbon negative in manufacture. Due to the high insulating properties of the panels, the BaleHaus minimises additional heating requirements reducing heating bills in housing by up to 85 per cent, and CO2 emissions by 60 per cent.

Kevin McCloud will be officially opening the BaleHaus@Bath on 19 November. A film of the opening ceremony will be available on the website.

Professor Pete Walker, Director of the University’s BRE Centre in Innovative Construction Materials said: “Straw is an ideal environmentally-friendly building material because it is renewable and is a by-product of existing farming production.

“Whilst we’ve previously done tests on individual ModCell panels, this is the first time data have been collected from a complete house. We’re hoping this will lead to these renewable materials being used more widely in the building industry for housing in the UK.

“The crop used for the straw can be grown locally, and because it absorbs carbon dioxide as it grows, buildings made from it have a very low carbon footprint.”

Craig White, Director of ModCell, said: “It is unacceptable that 27 per cent of CO2 emissions currently come from the energy we use in our homes, it is just as unacceptable to continue to emit CO2 through the energy we use to make them.

“If we are completely serious about being “carbon free” we need to rethink the design of our buildings on a large scale. The ModCell BaleHaus system is designed to deliver just such a sustainable method of construction. These tests will offer proof that sustainable building materials are a realistic option for building on a large scale.”

Kevin McCloud said: “I welcome the ongoing testing on the Balehaus. I expect the results will show people that we can minimise the use of highly processed materials in building and genuinely make use of such sustainable building materials. It’s vital that we encourage people to recycle, insulate and minimise the use of fossil fuels to keep our buildings warm.”

The project is already being followed by people across the world on the web, where visitors watched the building of the house via “Strawcam”.

The researchers at Bath have already started collecting data from the house, and have been posting online blogs on the progress of the project.

You can watch videos about the research project and the construction of the straw bale panels on the University’s website.

Other industrial partners on the research project are Agrifibre Technologies, Lime Technology, Eurban, the Centre for Window & Cladding Technology, and Willmott Dixon.

Please note the official opening today is by invitation only, however the BaleHaus will be open for staff and students to visit on Wednesday 25th November between 12 and 2 PM.

canada: mensonges sur la torture en afghanistan

.
http://www.thecanadianpress.com/english/online/OnlineFullStory.aspx?filename=N111875AU&newsitemid=181484122&languageid=2

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/dossiers/le-canada-en-afghanistan/200911/18/01-922874-les-detenus-ont-ete-tortures.php

Un ex-diplomate canadien dit que tous les détenus afghans ont été torturés

Richard Colvin.

Par Marie Vastel,

LA PRESSE CANADIENNE

OTTAWA - Tous les prisonniers transférés par le Canada aux Afghans en 2006-2007 auraient été torturés, alors que plusieurs d'entre eux étaient fort probablement innocents, a affirmé un diplomate canadien, mercredi, au cours d'un témoignage percutant.

Selon Richard Colvin, en poste en Afghanistan pendant 18 mois à cette époque, les autorités canadiennes n'ont rien voulu entendre lorsqu'il a tenté de tirer la sonnette d'alarme.

Et il est presque impossible que les hauts dirigeants canadiens, tant dans la sphère politique qu'au niveau militaire, n'aient pas été mis au courant de ces informations, a-t-il plaidé.

Car M. Colvin a affirmé que des hauts placés tels que le sous-ministre délégué aux affaires étrangères de l'époque, David Mulroney, l'ex-conseillère nationale du premier ministre pour la sécurité, Margaret Bloodworth, ainsi que l'ancien chef d'état-major, le général Rick Hillier, et le lieutenant-général Michel Gauthier, alors en poste en Afghanistan, étaient au courant des allégations de torture.

M. Colvin faisait état, dans des rapports envoyés en 2006, de problèmes "sérieux" et "alarmants" quant au traitement des détenus.

Mais à l'époque, le premier ministre Stephen Harper et son ministre des Affaires étrangères, Peter MacKay (aujourd'hui à la Défense nationale), ont maintenu pendant des mois qu'ils n'avaient aucune information crédible à cet effet.

Les conservateurs n'ont pas perdu de temps pour tenter de discréditer le témoignage de M. Colvin devant le comité spécial des Communes sur la mission canadienne en Afghanistan.

Le diplomate a expliqué aux membres du comité, lors d'un témoignage qui en a laissé plusieurs bouche bée, qu'un nombre important de ces prisonniers transférés par les Canadiens ont été battus, soumis à des chocs électriques ou agressés sexuellement.

"Pour les interrogateurs à Kandahar, il s'agissait là d'une procédure de routine standard", a-t-il lancé, dénonçant ce qu'il a constaté sur le terrain.

Ces Afghans arrêtés n'avaient pourtant pas de "grande valeur" sur le plan des renseignements secrets. Même si certains pouvaient être des combattants, plusieurs d'entre eux n'étaient que des gens locaux, des fermiers, des paysans, des personnes qui se sont "trouvées à la mauvaise place, au mauvais moment", a souligné M. Colvin.

"En d'autres mots, nous avons détenu et transféré vers un endroit où ils ont subi de la torture sévère beaucoup de gens innocents", a-t-il conclu.

Les forces canadiennes ont d'ailleurs arrêté bien plus d'Afghans que l'ont fait les militaires des autres pays de l'OTAN présents sur le terrain, soit "environ six fois plus que les forces britanniques, et 20 fois plus que les Pays-Bas", a-t-il noté.

Les députés conservateurs ont cependant fait valoir que M. Colvin n'avait pas été lui-même témoin d'actes de torture, plaidant que les prisonniers auraient pu s'infliger eux-mêmes leurs blessures et qu'ils étaient "entraînés à mentir".

Le secrétaire parlementaire du ministre de la Défense, le député Laurie Hawn, a dénoncé les nombreuses "hypothèses" et "allégations" mises de l'avant par le diplomate, tandis que sa collègue Cheryl Gallant a soutenu que son témoignage n'aurait aucun poids devant un tribunal.

"Les juges n'ont jamais de preuves directes, ils ne voient jamais les crimes au moment où ils sont commis", a rétorqué le critique libéral en matière de défense, Ujjal Dosanjh, à sa sortie du comité.

La déclaration de M. Colvin, d'une vingtaine de minutes, était néanmoins incomplète à certains égards, le diplomate ayant notamment avoué qu'il ne savait pas si les détenus qu'il a rencontrés dans une prison afghane avaient été transférés aux autorités par les soldats canadiens. Ses allégations portent pourtant sur ces détenus en particulier, ont argué les conservateurs.

Les partis d'opposition ont par ailleurs été unanimes à reprocher au gouvernement Harper de tenter de camoufler des informations dans ce dossier. Alors que tous bombardent les conservateurs de questions sur ce sujet depuis des semaines, aux Communes, le Nouveau Parti démocratique (NPD) tentera d'ordonner à son tour au gouvernement de s'expliquer, lors d'un point de presse prévu jeudi matin.

Dans son compte-rendu sur le traitement des prisonniers, M. Colvin a d'autre part révélé que la Croix Rouge avait tenté pendant trois mois, en 2006, d'aviser l'armée canadienne en poste à Kandahar de ce qui se déroulait, mais personne "n'a répondu à leurs appels téléphoniques", a-t-il déploré.

M. Colvin a également indiqué qu'on lui avait ordonné de ne mettre aucune information à cet effet sur papier. Peu après, les rapports provenant du terrain des opérations ont commencé à être "censurés", a-t-il précisé.

Quant à savoir si M. MacKay avait eu connaissance des mémos qu'il a rédigés sur le sujet, M. Colvin s'est dit incapable de répondre à la question. Mais à son avis, il est fort possible que l'information ait été étouffée avant même d'atteindre les rangs politiques et le bureau du ministre.

Selon M. Colvin, certains gestes posés par des Canadiens à Kandahar, dont "la complicité à la torture", ont miné les efforts de l'armée canadienne sur le terrain.

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

http://www.france24.com/en/node/4928639

Canada ignored Afghan torture allegations: diplomat

19 November 2009 - 04H32

AFP - Canadian troops handed Afghan detainees to local authorities in the knowledge they would be tortured, and later tried to silence critics of the practice, a senior Ottawa diplomat told lawmakers.

"According to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured," Richard Colvin, former number two at the Canadian embassy in Kabul told a parliamentary committee probing allegations of torture.

He said most of the detainees were not "high-level targets" or even Taliban, but wrongly-detained peasants and farmers.

"In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people," he testified.

Colvin also claimed his warnings, first delivered in spring 2006, were ignored by senior military commanders and government officials until prisoner mistreatment allegations were reported in the media a year later.

After that, he said, diplomats were instructed by top members of the foreign affairs department not to keep written records of discussions of torture allegations.

Colvin worked for Canada's Foreign Affairs department in Kandahar in 2006 and was later promoted to second-in-command at the Canadian embassy in Kabul until late 2007.

In both jobs, he visited detainees transferred by Canadian soldiers to Afghan prisons and reported his findings to Ottawa.

The Canadian government, which has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, has denied there is any firm evidence that detainees transferred by its officials were indeed tortured.

societe generale: "prepare for global collapse"

.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6599281/Societe-Generale-tells-clients-how-to-prepare-for-global-collapse.html

Société Générale tells clients how to prepare for 'global collapse'

Société Générale has advised clients to be ready for a possible "global economic collapse" over the next two years, mapping a strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

18 Nov 2009

In a report entitled "Worst-case debt scenario", the bank's asset team said state rescue packages over the last year have merely transferred private liabilities onto sagging sovereign shoulders, creating a fresh set of problems.

Overall debt is still far too high in almost all rich economies as a share of GDP (350pc in the US), whether public or private. It must be reduced by the hard slog of "deleveraging", for years.

"As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse," said the 68-page report, headed by asset chief Daniel Fermon. It is an exploration of the dangers, not a forecast.

Under the French bank's "Bear Case" scenario, the dollar would slide further and global equities would retest the March lows. Property prices would tumble again. Oil would fall back to $50 in 2010.

Governments have already shot their fiscal bolts. Even without fresh spending, public debt would explode within two years to 105pc of GDP in the UK, 125pc in the US and the eurozone, and 270pc in Japan. Worldwide state debt would reach $45 trillion, up two-and-a-half times in a decade.

(UK figures look low because debt started from a low base. Mr Ferman said the UK would converge with Europe at 130pc of GDP by 2015 under the bear case).

The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. "High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt," it said.

Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils.

If so, gold would go "up, and up, and up" as the only safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s.

The bank said the current crisis displays "compelling similarities" with Japan during its Lost Decade (or two), with a big difference: Japan was able to stay afloat by exporting into a robust global economy and by letting the yen fall. It is not possible for half the world to pursue this strategy at the same time.

SocGen advises bears to sell the dollar and to "short" cyclical equities such as technology, auto, and travel to avoid being caught in the "inherent deflationary spiral". Emerging markets would not be spared. Paradoxically, they are more leveraged to the US growth than Wall Street itself. Farm commodities would hold up well, led by sugar.

Mr Fermon said junk bonds would lose 31pc of their value in 2010 alone. However, sovereign bonds would "generate turbo-charged returns" mimicking the secular slide in yields seen in Japan as the slump ground on. At one point Japan's 10-year yield dropped to 0.40pc. The Fed would hold down yields by purchasing more bonds. The European Central Bank would do less, for political reasons.

SocGen's case for buying sovereign bonds is controversial. A number of funds doubt whether the Japan scenario will be repeated, not least because Tokyo itself may be on the cusp of a debt compound crisis.

Mr Fermon said his report had electrified clients on both sides of the Atlantic. "Everybody wants to know what the impact will be. A lot of hedge funds and bankers are worried," he said.

cartoon: pollution tandem

http://latuff2.deviantart.com/gallery

Images ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

waziristan: mysterious airlifts of talibans

.
http://www.pakobserver.net/200910/19/news/topstories16.asp

TTP leaders evacuated by mysterious airlifts

Akhtar Jamal

19 october

Islamabad—Mysterious airlifting of some Taliban elements from areas of Pakistan-Afghanistan border linking Waziristan have been reported by several sources and fears are growing that anti-Pakistan TTP terrorists are also being rescued by their “foreign allies” from across the border.

The unexplained movements of “un-marked” helicopters and aircraft have been reported since last few days along Pak-Afghan border and one source claimed that they were being transported to the Eastern Afghanistan.

Some experts believe that secret allies of friendly-Talibans took the action in order to secure the militants from an assault in South Waziristan by Pakistani Armed Forces while others believe the secret evacuation was part of a larger deal between some Western States and “good Taliban.”

The airlifting and evacuation of TTP leaders from South Waziristan coincided with a report by foreign news media or a similar mysterious evacuation of “militants” from South Afghanistan to North Afghanistan.

An Iranian news site on October 18 reported that “British Army has been relocating Taliban insurgents from southern Afghanistan to the north by providing transportation means.” Quoting diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity, the Iranian site claimed that insurgents are being airlifted from the southern province of Helmand to the north amid increasing violence in the northern parts of the country.

The PressTV.com also claimed that “the aircraft used for the transfer have been identified as British Chinook helicopters.”

The report suggested that the secret operation was being launched under the supervision of Afghan Interior Minister Mohammad Hanif Atmar, who “was still operating under the British guidance.”

Last week Afghanistan’s Pajhwok news agency reported that “US ambassador scotched speculation that his country was helping terrorists in the north, saying America had nothing to do with the air-dropping of armed men from helicopters in Samangan, Baghlan and Kunduz provinces.” At an October 11 news conference in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai had himself claimed that “some unidentified helicopters dropped armed men in the northern provinces at night.”

According to Pajhowk news report President Karzai revealed “the government had been receiving evidence of the air-dropping of gunmen from mysterious helicopters in the provinces over the last five months.”

A comprehensive investigation is underway to determine which country the helicopters belong to; why armed men are being infiltrated into the region; and whether increasing insecurity in the north is linked to it.

afghanistan: a 300 years battle between 2 dynasties

.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6570380/Why-we-will-lose-in-Afghanistan.html

Why we will lose in Afghanistan

What we are hardly ever told about the country is that it has been for 300 years the scene of a bitter civil war, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
14 Nov 2009

Lady Elizabeth Butler's painting 'The Remnant of an Army' depicts Dr William Brydon, sole survivor of the British retreat from Kabul in 1842

As both Britain and America are plunged into an orgy of tortured introspection over what we are doing in Afghanistan, a further very important factor needs to be fed into the discussion, because it helps to explain not only why we have got into such a tragic mess but also why our armed intervention in that unhappy country is doomed.

What we are hardly ever told about Afghanistan is that it has been for 300 years the scene of a bitter civil war, between two tribal groups of Pashtuns (formerly known as Pathans). On one side are the Durranis – most of the settled population, farmers, traders, the professional middle class. On the other are the Ghilzai, traditionally nomadic, fiercely fundamentalist in religion, whose tribal homelands stretch across into Pakistan as far as Kashmir.

Ever since Afghanistan emerged as an independent nation in 1709, when the Ghilzai kicked out the Persians, its history has been written in the ancient hatred between these two groups. During most of that time, the country has been ruled by Durrani, who in 1775 moved its capital from the Ghilzai stronghold of Kandahar up to Kabul in the north. Nothing has more fired Ghilzai enmity than the many occasions when the Durrani have attempted to impose their rule from Kabul with the aid of "foreigners", either Tajiks from the north or outsiders such as the British, who invaded Afghanistan three times between 1838 and 1919 in a bid to secure the North-west Frontier of their Indian empire against the rebellious Ghilzai.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, after years of Durrani rule, it was to support a revolutionary Ghilzai government. But this new foreign presence inspired general Afghan resistance which was why, by the late 1980s, the Americans were supporting the almost entirely Ghilzai-run Taleban and their ally Osama bin Laden. In 1996 the Taleban-Ghilzai got their revenge, imposing their theocratic rule over almost the whole country. In 2001, we invaded to topple the Taleban, again imposing Durrani rule, now under the Durrani President Karzai.

As so often before, the Ghilzai have seen their country hijacked by a Durrani regime, supported by a largely Tajik army and by hated outsiders from the West. One reason why we find it so hard to win "hearts and minds" in Helmand is that we are up against a sullenly resentful population, fired by a timeless hatred and able to call on unlimited support, in men and materiel, from their Ghilzai brothers across the border in Pakistan.

Only in towns such as Sanguin and Garmsir are there islands of Durrani, willing to support the Durrani government in distant Kabul. No sooner have our forces "secured" a village from the Taleban, than their fighters re-emerge from the surrounding countryside to reclaim it for the Ghilzai cause. Without recognising this, and that what the Ghilzai really want is an independent "Pashtunistan" stretching across the border, we shall never properly understand why, like so many foreigners who have become embroiled in Afghanistan before, we have stumbled into a war we can never hope to win.

My colleague Dr Richard North's blog (defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com) sets out this history in much greater detail

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

http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2009/11/fighting-talk.html

Fighting talk

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

As the Afghan conflict continues to exert its bloody effect, we have been exploring further the prospects of success of what is fashionably called a "counterinsurgency" campaign, in which the target is the people, the aim being to protect the people from the insurgents and to convince them to support the government.

Although we have already looked at some of the historical background to the conflict, it seems that its roots stem not from recent history but from events spanning the last 300 years.

From those events, one learns, the main antagonists – the Pashtuns - are not insurgents in the classic sense. They are a separatist movement, seeking to restore the boundaries of their ancient territory, the modern name for which is Pashtunistan, encompassing areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Our problem is that we have not fully understood that, traditionally, the very term Afghan is used to describe the Pashtun, who have a recognisable identity going back as far as 330 BC, if not before. The polyglot ethnic mix which encompasses the modern Afghanistan is a geographical construct rather than a nation.

Within that, though, is another separate and hugely important (and largely unrecognised) dynamic – the rivalry between the Pashtuns themselves, centred around the two main tribal groups, the Durranis and the Ghilzai. The modern history of Afghanistan is largely an account of the battle for power between two great dynasties, with the story effectively starting in 1709 and continuing to the present day.

For some time before 1709, most of what is now known as Afghanistan was occupied by the Persians and it was the chief of the Ghilzai Pashtuns - a man by the name of Mirwais Khan Hotak – with his followers, who rose against them in Kandahar City in 1709, to establish the Hotaki dynasty. This successful uprising established the basis of the modern Afghanistan and, briefly, controlled part of Persia itself.

The Hotaki Ghilzai dynasty, however, was replaced by Ahmad Shah Durrani, who founded a rival regime, the Durrani dynasty. This established a tension between the two groups which exists to this day.

What then followed is equally significant. At the time, the capital of a Pashtun-dominated Afghanistan was Kandahar. After the death of Ahmad Shah in 1773, he was succeeded by his son Timur Shar, a weak and inept ruler. Unable to govern effectively, and opposed by the fractious Ghilzai Pashtuns, in 1775, he moved his seat of government north to Kabul in an attempt to enlist the support of the Tajiks and other northern ethnic groups, better to control his own people.

This then sets the scene for another dynamic which resonates to this day. The traditional capital of Afghanistan is Kandahar, not Kabul. To the Ghilzai, in particular, rule from Kabul is forever associated with a Durrani ruler, using "foreigners" to impose his will.

And, in what is almost a repeat of history, we have Hamid Khazai, a Durrani president, ensconced in Kabul, supported by an Afghan Army composed mainly of Tajiks. To complete the historical parallel, the fighters in the Taleban "insurgency" are primarily Ghilzai tribesmen - led by Mullah Omah, a Hotaki Ghilzai.

Then, as now, Ahmad Shah failed to impose his will over the whole of Afghanistan and, by 1818, his successors controlled little more than Kabul and the surrounding territory within a 100-mile radius. By 1836, the Kandahar region and the Ghilzai heartlands were virtually autonomous.

What then appeared to change the course of history, apparently setting Afghanistan on course to becoming a modern state, was the emergence of another strong man. This was Dost Mohammad Khan, yet another Durrani Pashtun who, after the deposition of the then current ruler, Mahmud Shah Durrani - who had taken the throne in 1809 – had been "awarded" first Ghazni and then Kabul in 1826. He went on to defeat his rival in a battle under the walls of Kandahar in 1834, making him the effective ruler of Afghanistan.

By then, the British had appeared on the scene, with their own colonial ambitions, anxious to thwart Russian ambitions and protect the borders of the English Raj. Initial overtures to Dost Mohammad soured, and when he moved to entertain a relationship with Russia, this triggered the First Anglo-Afghan War.

In 1838, British forces occupied Kabul to depose Dost Mohammad and make him prisoner. However, while the retreat from Kabul and the destruction of the expedition in 1842 is part of the current mythology, on which the legend is built that no Western army can ever subdue Afghanistan, this was by no means the end of the war.

Later in 1842, the British actually launched a punitive expedition. Entering Afghanistan by the Khyber pass, an "army of retribution" under General Pollock marched on Kabul, joined there by 6,000 men from Kandahar destroying the famous covered bazaar of Kabul on 9 October. Three days later, the English withdrew from Afghanistan.

It was that which actually put an end to the war, leaving the UK victorious and the dominant power in the region but one temporarily resolved not to interfere in the internal politics of Afghanistan.

Dost Moḥammad was released and received in triumph at Kabul. He re-established his authority but, in 1846 he renewed his policy of hostility to the British and assumed an expansionist policy encroaching on British Indian territory. Three years later, though, after a series of defeats, he abandoned this policy, returning to Afghanistan where he devoted his energies to extending his control over the whole of this land.

To do so, in 1855, through the Treaty of Peshawar, he concluded an alliance with the British government, each proclaimed respect for each side's territorial integrity, and pledged both sides as friends of each other's friends and enemies of each other's enemies. By 1862, with the aid of the British – including generous subsidies - Dost Moḥammad had defeated a Persian army and had taken Kandahar, dying a year later shortly after capturing Herat. However, unity there was not. The Ghilzai refused to accept Durrani rule and control over the central mountain regions and the east was at best intermittent.

In historical context, this sets up another "folk" memory. Then, as now, we see the British, as a colonial power, supporting a Kabul-based Durrani ruler, attempting to exert control over unwilling Ghazi tribesmen.

This, of course, is by no means the end of the story – which has many more twists and turns, which we will explore in a later post. But, when we view the course of the current conflict, the historical parallels are absolute. Dealing with primitive and largely illiterate tribesmen, isolated from the rest of the world, their oral history is as fresh with each new telling as it ever was.

Whatever our grand aspirations, our intentions and our broader strategic objectives, the Ghilzai Pashtuns are reliving their own history. It should thus come as no surprise that when earnest young coalition officers solemnly tell tribal elders that they are from "the government" – i.e., Kabul – representing a Durrani president supported by Tajik soldiers, the "hearts and minds" message rather gets lost in translation.

It was Reagan, though, who is remembered for his famous quote: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." But the Ghilzai were there before him. And, to them, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is not "terrifying". It's fighting talk.

60 tons of gold bars "salted" with tungsten

.
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1258049769.php

further reading and update: http://www.kitco.com/ind/willie/nov182009.html

On Doing God’s Work

Thursday, 12 November 2009

Source: GoldSeek.com

By: Rob Kirby

“Gold Finger - A New Take On Operation Grand Slam With A Tungsten Twist”

I’ve already reported on irregular physical gold settlements which occurred in London, England back in the first week of October, 2009. Specifically, these settlements involved the intermediation of at least one Central Bank [The Bank of England] to resolve allocated settlements on behalf of J.P. Morgan and Deutsche Bank – who DID NOT have the gold bullion that they had sold short and were contracted to deliver. At the same time I reported on two other unusual occurrences:

1] - irregularities in the publication of the gold ETF - GLD’s bar list from Sept. 25 – Oct.14 where the length of the bar list went from 1,381 pages to under 200 pages and then back up to 800 or so pages.

2] - reports of 400 oz. “good delivery” bricks of gold found gutted and filled with tungsten within the confines of LBMA approved vaults in Hong Kong.

Why Tungsten?

If anyone were contemplating creating “fake” gold bars, tungsten [at roughly $10 per pound] would be the metal of choice since it has the exact same density as gold making a fake bar salted with tungsten indistinguishable from a solid gold bar by simply weighing it.

Unfortunately, there are now more sordid details to report.

When the news of tungsten “salted” gold bars in Hong Kong first surfaced, many people who I am acquainted with automatically assumed that these bars were manufactured in China – because China is generally viewed as “the knock-off capital of the world”.

Here’s what I now understand really happened:

The amount of “salted tungsten” gold bars in question was allegedly between 5,600 and 5,700 – 400 oz – good delivery bars [roughly 60 metric tonnes].

This was apparently all highly orchestrated by an extremely well financed criminal operation.

Within mere hours of this scam being identified – Chinese officials had many of the perpetrators in custody.

And here’s what the Chinese allegedly uncovered:

Roughly 15 years ago – during the Clinton Administration [think Robert Rubin, Sir Alan Greenspan and Lawrence Summers] – between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were allegedly manufactured by a very high-end, sophisticated refiner in the USA [more than 16 Thousand metric tonnes]. Subsequently, 640,000 of these tungsten blanks received their gold plating and WERE shipped to Ft. Knox and remain there to this day. I know folks who have copies of the original shipping docs with dates and exact weights of “tungsten” bars shipped to Ft. Knox.

The balance of this 1.3 million – 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten cache was also plated and then allegedly “sold” into the international market.

Apparently, the global market is literally “stuffed full of 400 oz salted bars”.

Makes one wonder if the Indians were smart enough to assay their 200 tonne haul from the IMF?

A Slow Motion Train Wreck, Years in the Making

An obscure news item originally published in the N.Y. Post [written by Jennifer Anderson] in late Jan. 04 has always ‘stuck in my craw’:

DA investigating NYMEX executive - Manhattan, New York, district attorney's office, Stuart Smith - Melting Pot - Brief Article – Feb. 2, 2004

A top executive at the New York Mercantile Exchange is being investigated by the Manhattan district attorney. Sources close to the exchange said that Stuart Smith, senior vice president of operations at the exchange, was served with a search warrant by the district attorney's office last week. Details of the investigation have not been disclosed, but a NYMEX spokeswoman said it was unrelated to any of the exchange's markets. She declined to comment further other than to say that charges had not been brought. A spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney's office also declined comment.

The offices of the Senior Vice President of Operations - NYMEX – is exactly where you would go to find the records [serial number and smelter of origin] for EVERY GOLD BAR ever PHYSICALLY settled on the exchange. They are required to keep these records. These precise records would show the lineage of all the physical gold settled on the exchange and hence "prove" that the amount of gold in question could not have possibly come from the U.S. mining operations – because the amounts in question coming from U.S. smelters would undoubtedly be vastly bigger than domestic mine production.

We never have found out what happened to poor ole Stuart Smith – after his offices were "raided" – he took administrative leave from the NYMEX and he has never been heard from since. Amazingly [or perhaps not], there never was any follow up on in the media on the original story as well as ZERO developments ever stemming from D.A. Morgenthau’s office who executed the search warrant.

Are we to believe that NYMEX offices were raided, the Sr. V.P. of operations then takes leave - all for nothing?

These revelations should provide a “new filter” through which Rothschild exiting the gold market back in 2004 begins to make a little more sense:

“LONDON, April 14, 2004 (Reuters) - NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd., the London-based unit of investment bank Rothschild [ROT.UL], will withdraw from trading commodities, including gold, in London as it reviews its operations, it said on Wednesday.”

Interestingly, GATA’s Bill Murphy speculated about this back in 2004;

“Why is Rothschild leaving the gold business at this time my colleagues and I conjectured today? Just a guess on my part, but suspect:”

*SOMETHING IS AMISS. THEY KNOW A BIG GOLD SCANDAL IS COMING AND THEY WANT NO PART OF IT. …”

“ROTHSCHILD WANTS OUT BEFORE THE PROVERBIAL "S" HITS THE FAN.” BILL MURPHY, LEMETROPOLE, 4-18-2004

Coincidentally [or perhaps, not?], GLD Began Trading 11/12/2004

In light of what has occurred – regarding the Gold ETF, GLD – after reviewing their prospectus yet again, it becomes pretty clear that GLD was established to purposefully deflect investment dollars away from legitimate gold pursuits and to create a stealth, cesspool / catch-all, slush-fund and a likely destination for many of these “salted tungsten bars” where they would never see the light of day – hidden behind the following legalese “shield” from the law:

Excerpt from the GLD prospectus on page 11:

http://www.spdrgoldshares.com/media/GLD/file/SPDRGoldTrustProspectus.pdf

Gold bars allocated to the Trust in connection with the creation of a Basket may not meet the London Good Delivery Standards and, if a Basket is issued against such gold, the Trust may suffer a loss. Neither the Trustee nor the Custodian independently confirms the fineness of the gold bars allocated to the Trust in connection with the creation of a Basket. The gold bars allocated to the Trust by the Custodian may be different from the reported fineness or weight required by the LBMA’s standards for gold bars delivered in settlement of a gold trade, or the London Good Delivery Standards, the standards required by the Trust. If the Trustee nevertheless issues a Basket against such gold, and if the Custodian fails to satisfy its obligation to credit the Trust the amount of any deficiency, the Trust may suffer a loss.

The Fed Has Already Been Caught Lying

Liberty Coin’s Patrick Heller recently wrote,

Earlier this year, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA), filed a second Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Reserve System for documents from 1990 to date having to do with gold swaps, gold swapped, or proposed gold swaps.

On Aug. 5, The Federal Reserve responded to this FOIA request by adding two more documents to those disclosed to GATA in April 2008 from the earlier FOIA request. These documents totaled 173 pages, many parts of which were redacted (covered up to omit sections of text). The Fed's response also noted that there were 137 pages of documents not disclosed that were alleged to be exempt from disclosure.

GATA appealed this determination on Aug. 20. The appeal asked for more information to substantiate the legitimacy of the claimed exemptions from disclosure and an explanation on why some documents, such as one posted on the Federal Reserve Web site that discusses gold swaps, were not included in the Aug. 5 document release.

In a Sept. 17, 2009, letter on Federal Reserve System letterhead, Federal Reserve governor Kevin M. Warsh completely denied GATA's appeal. The entire text of this letter can be examined at http://www.gata.org/files/GATAFedResponse-09-17-2009.pdf.

The first paragraph on the third page is the most revealing. Warsh wrote, "In connection with your appeal, I have confirmed that the information withheld under exemption 4 consists of confidential commercial or financial information relating to the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks that was obtained within the meaning of exemption 4. This includes information relating to swap arrangements with foreign banks on behalf of the Federal Reserve System and is not the type of information that is customarily disclosed to the public. This information was properly withheld from you."

This paragraph will likely be one of the most important news stories of the year.

Though not stated in plain English, this paragraph is an admission that the Fed has in the past and may now be engaged in trading gold swaps. Warsh's letter contradicts previous Fed statements to GATA denying that it ever engaged in gold swaps during the time period between Jan. 1, 1990 and the present.

[Perhaps most importantly], this was GATA's second FOIA request to the Federal Reserve on the issue of gold swaps. The 173 pages of documents received for the 2009 FOIA request all pre-dated the 2007 FOIA request, which means they should have been released in the response to the earlier FOIA request. This establishes a likelihood that the Federal Reserve has failed to adequately search or disclose relevant documents. Further, the Fed response admitted that it had copies of relevant records that originally appeared on the Treasury Department Web site, but failed to include them in its response.

Now that Federal Reserve governor Warsh has admitted that the Fed has lied in the past about the Fed’s involvement with gold. It should now be very clear to everyone why the Fed is lying and the true nature of what they are hiding / withholding.

On Doing God’s Work

An important footnote to consider is the inter-twined-ness of the U.S. Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury [can anyone really tell them apart?] as well as this duopoly’s two principal agents – J.P. Morgan-Chase and Goldman Sachs. When one truly grasps the nature of these highly conflicted relationships it gives a fuller meaning to words recently uttered by Goldman head, Lloyd Blankfein, who claimed,

“I’m doing god’s work”

Does this really mean that Mr. Blankfein believes that the Federal Reserve is god? You can judge for yourself. While the Fed prints money like no one else could - except god almighty himself [or Gideon Gono, perhaps?] – I really doubt that was the intent back in 1864, when the U.S. adopted “In God We Trust” as their official motto.

And that’s my two cents worth for today.

Got [real] physical gold yet?

Rob Kirby

virus may infect your computer with child porn

.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/tech/main5589403.shtml

Nov. 9, 2009

Viruses Frame PC Owners for Child Porn

Pranksters, Pedophiles Exploit Unsuspecting Computer Users, Leaving Many Defenseless Against Criminal Charges

(AP) Of all the sinister things that Internet viruses do, this might be the worst: They can make you an unsuspecting collector of child pornography.

Heinous pictures and videos can be deposited on computers by viruses - the malicious programs better known for swiping your credit card numbers. In this twist, it's your reputation that's stolen.

Pedophiles can exploit virus-infected PCs to remotely store and view their stash without fear they'll get caught. Pranksters or someone trying to frame you can tap viruses to make it appear that you surf illegal Web sites.

Whatever the motivation, you get child porn on your computer - and might not realize it until police knock at your door.

An Associated Press investigation found cases in which innocent people have been branded as pedophiles after their co-workers or loved ones stumbled upon child porn placed on a PC through a virus. It can cost victims hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove their innocence.

Their situations are complicated by the fact that actual pedophiles often blame viruses - a defense rightfully viewed with skepticism by law enforcement.

"It's an example of the old `dog ate my homework' excuse," says Phil Malone, director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "The problem is, sometimes the dog does eat your homework."

The AP's investigation included interviewing people who had been found with child porn on their computers. The AP reviewed court records and spoke to prosecutors, police and computer examiners.

One case involved Michael Fiola, a former investigator with the Massachusetts agency that oversees workers' compensation.

In 2007, Fiola's bosses became suspicious after the Internet bill for his state-issued laptop showed that he used 4½ times more data than his colleagues. A technician found child porn in the PC folder that stores images viewed online.

Fiola was fired and charged with possession of child pornography, which carries up to five years in prison. He endured death threats, his car tires were slashed and he was shunned by friends.

Fiola and his wife fought the case, spending $250,000 on legal fees. They liquidated their savings, took a second mortgage and sold their car.

An inspection for his defense revealed the laptop was severely infected. It was programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute - an inhuman feat. While Fiola and his wife were out to dinner one night, someone logged on to the computer and porn flowed in for an hour and a half.

Prosecutors performed another test and confirmed the defense findings. The charge was dropped - 11 months after it was filed.

The Fiolas say they have health problems from the stress of the case. They say they've talked to dozens of lawyers but can't get one to sue the state, because of a cap on the amount they can recover.

"It ruined my life, my wife's life and my family's life," he says.

The Massachusetts attorney general's office, which charged Fiola, declined interview requests.

At any moment, about 20 million of the estimated 1 billion Internet-connected PCs worldwide are infected with viruses that could give hackers full control, according to security software maker F-Secure Corp. Computers often get infected when people open e-mail attachments from unknown sources or visit a malicious Web page.

Pedophiles can tap viruses in several ways. The simplest is to force someone else's computer to surf child porn sites, collecting images along the way. Or a computer can be made into a warehouse for pictures and videos that can be viewed remotely when the PC is online.

"They're kind of like locusts that descend on a cornfield: They eat up everything in sight and they move on to the next cornfield," says Eric Goldman, academic director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University. Goldman has represented Web companies that discovered child pornographers were abusing their legitimate services.

But pedophiles need not be involved: Child porn can land on a computer in a sick prank or an attempt to frame the PC's owner.

In the first publicly known cases of individuals being victimized, two men in the United Kingdom were cleared in 2003 after viruses were shown to have been responsible for the child porn on their PCs.

In one case, an infected e-mail or pop-up ad poisoned a defense contractor's PC and downloaded the offensive pictures.

In the other, a virus changed the home page on a man's Web browser to display child porn, a discovery made by his 7-year-old daughter. The man spent more than a week in jail and three months in a halfway house, and lost custody of his daughter.

Chris Watts, a computer examiner in Britain, says he helped clear a hotel manager whose co-workers found child porn on the PC they shared with him.

Watts found that while surfing the Internet for ways to play computer games without paying for them, the manager had visited a site for pirated software. It redirected visitors to child porn sites if they were inactive for a certain period.

In all these cases, the central evidence wasn't in dispute: Pornography was on a computer. But proving how it got there was difficult.

Tami Loehrs, who inspected Fiola's computer, recalls a case in Arizona in which a computer was so "extensively infected" that it would be "virtually impossible" to prove what an indictment alleged: that a 16-year-old who used the PC had uploaded child pornography to a Yahoo group.

Prosecutors dropped the charge and let the boy plead guilty to a separate crime that kept him out of jail, though they say they did it only because of his age and lack of a criminal record.

Many prosecutors say blaming a computer virus for child porn is a new version of an old ploy.

"We call it the SODDI defense: Some Other Dude Did It," says James Anderson, a federal prosecutor in Wyoming.

However, forensic examiners say it would be hard for a pedophile to get away with his crime by using a bogus virus defense.

"I personally would feel more comfortable investing my retirement in the lottery before trying to defend myself with that," says forensics specialist Jeff Fischbach.

Even careful child porn collectors tend to leave incriminating e-mails, DVDs or other clues. Virus defenses are no match for such evidence, says Damon King, trial attorney for the U.S. Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.

But while the virus defense does not appear to be letting real pedophiles out of trouble, there have been cases in which forensic examiners insist that legitimate claims did not get completely aired.

Loehrs points to Ned Solon of Casper, Wyo., who is serving six years for child porn found in a folder used by a file-sharing program on his computer.

Solon admits he used the program to download video games and adult porn - but not child porn. So what could explain that material?

Loehrs testified that Solon's antivirus software wasn't working properly and appeared to have shut off for long stretches, a sign of an infection. She found no evidence the five child porn videos on Solon's computer had been viewed or downloaded fully. The porn was in a folder the file-sharing program labeled as "incomplete" because the downloads were canceled or generated an error.

This defense was curtailed, however, when Loehrs ended her investigation in a dispute with the judge over her fees. Computer exams can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Defendants can ask the courts to pay, but sometimes judges balk at the price. Although Loehrs stopped working for Solon, she argues he is innocent.

"I don't think it was him, I really don't," Loehrs says. "There was too much evidence that it wasn't him."

The prosecution's forensics expert, Randy Huff, maintains that Solon's antivirus software was working properly. And he says he ran other antivirus programs on the computer and didn't find an infection - although security experts say antivirus scans frequently miss things.

"He actually had a very clean computer compared to some of the other cases I do," Huff says.

The jury took two hours to convict Solon.

"Everybody feels they're innocent in prison. Nobody believes me because that's what everybody says," says Solon, whose case is being appealed. "All I know is I did not do it. I never put the stuff on there. I never saw the stuff on there. I can only hope that someday the truth will come out."

But can it? It can be impossible to tell with certainty how a file got onto a PC.

"Computers are not to be trusted," says Jeremiah Grossman, founder of WhiteHat Security Inc. He describes it as "painfully simple" to get a computer to download something the owner doesn't want - whether it's a program that displays ads or one that stores illegal pictures.

It's possible, Grossman says, that more illicit material is waiting to be discovered.

"Just because it's there doesn't mean the person intended for it to be there - whatever it is, child porn included."

geo-filtering avoids uk's libel laws

.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6908079.ece

The Sunday Times

November 8, 2009

Libel threat to force US papers out of Britain

Maurice Chittenden and Steven Swinford

American newspapers and magazines may stop selling copies in Britain and block access to their websites because of our draconian libel laws.

An article that would be regarded as free speech in America under its constitution’s first amendment becomes actionable in the High Court in London once it is deemed to have been published here, however small the readership.

Such is the UK’s reputation as a world centre for “libel tourism” that newspapers are considering whether it is still worth sending a few hundred copies to British subscribers or for sale in hotels.

The warning comes in a memorandum submitted to a Commons select committee on behalf of US newspapers including The Boston Globe, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. It says: “Leading US newspapers are actively considering abandoning the supply of the 200-odd copies they make available for sale in London — mainly to Americans who want full details of their local news and sport.

“They do not make profits out of these minimal and casual sales and they can no longer risk losing millions of dollars in a libel action which they would never face under US law.

“Does the UK really want to be seen as the only country in Europe — indeed in the world — where important US papers cannot be obtained in print form?”

David McGraw, litigation attorney for The New York Times, the Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune, said: “What the memorandum was trying to say is that the American media generally may be tempted to get out if libel suits proliferate.”

Judges here have also ruled that if even a handful of readers here have clicked on US-based websites, that is sufficient to sue for defamation. As a result US newspapers and magazines are increasingly blocking access to British internet users to avoid being sued.

The National Enquirer, based in Miami, blocked British readers after it was successfully sued in London by Cameron Diaz, the Hollywood actress. Her lawyers showed that an article she deemed defamatory had been viewed 279 times by British internet users.

Some of the most prestigious US newspapers are now considering similar moves. A source at The Washington Post said blocking British readers online could be considered to avoid defamation suits in London.

The Wall Street Journal is to stop publishing its American edition in the UK ahead of the launch of its revamped European edition on November 17. A Dow Jones spokesman said: “While the threat of lawsuits does not dictate what we publish, it certainly drains scarce time and resources in dealing with unnecessary and unwarranted litigation. We fully support any efforts that would clip the wings of libel tourists.”

Kelly Sager, legal counsel for the Los Angeles Times and a number of other titles, said: “We have had newspapers that have blocked their websites, we have magazines and book publishers that refuse to distribute their publications in the UK because of the libel laws.

“Their information may be perfectly interesting, truthful and of public value but they can’t take the risk.”

The American publishers want a change in the law so that no one can sue them in Britain unless at least 750 copies of a newspaper or magazine are in circulation.

As for online editions, they want a new rule that lawsuits can only be filed in the country where the article containing the alleged libel is uploaded.

A Commons media committee report next month is likely to recommend big changes, to limit legal actions in Britain being brought by people with no connection to the country and no reputation here to defend.

Mark Stephens, the British media lawyer who drafted the memorandum on behalf of American publishers, said: “The concern is that one libel case can wipe out 10 years’ worth of reporting. The economics of fighting for the truth have been so eroded by the huge costs piled on by lawyers.”

Paul Tweed, an Irish libel lawyer who has acted for US celebrities including the singers Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez in England and Ireland, defended Britain’s libel laws. He said: “In the US they just publish their one-sided, biased version. Do the press want a situation where it is all one-sided propaganda? If somebody has an international reputation that is damaged here they are entitled to use UK laws.

“The Americans want to impose their standards in the UK. It is grossly unfair.”

The Association of American Publishers, which has 300 book firms as members, is also hoping for changes in the law. Judith Platt, director of its Freedom to Read campaign, said: “We are in fear of litigation in the UK.”

The arrival of electronic books is causing publishers a new headache. Last week, more than a decade after it was first published, The Royals, the original version of Kitty Kelley’s coruscating book about the royal family, was made available as an electronic book — except if you live in Britain.

Neill Denny, editor-in-chief of The Bookseller, said: “We are missing out in Britain. The law of libel has become a rich man’s muzzle. It is causing an insidious kind of self-censorship, which results in flimsier books being published in the UK.”

Alan Samson, the publisher at Weidenfeld and Nicolson, said: You have to weigh up whether it is worth all the time clearing investigative books legally when you know that there are people out there circling.”

Web block

Publishers are using special software in their efforts to block British readers from viewing their websites, so that they can avoid being sued in the High Court.

The system, known as geo-filtering, enables the owner of a website to block readers from particular geographic zones. The software can limit access to whole websites or to specific articles.

When internet users visit a website they are identified by a unique number called an internet protocol (IP) address, which gives their location. The geo-filtering software ensures IP addresses from a particular country are all blocked.

The technology is already common in other fields. The BBC uses it to stop people from abroad using the iPlayer, its online TV replay service, while some online retailers use it to block foreign users.

Newspapers and magazines first used the technology to protect themselves in August 2006, when The New York Times installed a filter on a story about the arrest of British terrorism suspects. Because a trial was pending, the paper blocked UK readers from reading the article.

attentats de madrid: zapatero et l'otan suspectes

.

source:réseau Voltaire

http://www.voltairenet.org/article162639.html

6 novembre 2009

Attentats de Madrid : l’hypothèse atlantiste

par Mathieu Miquel

Après les attentats de Madrid (2004) comme après ceux de Londres (2005), la Justice a écarté la thèse Al-Qaida et soutenu que les crimes avaient été perpétrés par des terroristes islamistes autonomes. Une moitié de la presse espagnole a contesté ce verdict et exploré diverses pistes intérieures. Mathieu Miquel, qui avait retracé les événements, l’enquête judiciaire et le procès dans un précédent article, étudie ici l’hypothèse d’une opération des réseaux stay-behind de l’OTAN.

Cet article est la suite de « 11 mars 2004 à Madrid : était-ce vraiment un attentat islamiste ? »

Tout porte à croire que la version officielle de l’attentat du 11 mars 2004 à Madrid, selon laquelle il s’agirait d’un attentat islamiste sans lien avec Al-Qaïda, est une mystification [1]. Se pose alors la question des véritables coupables. Une enquête sérieuse devrait adopter une démarche systématique : dresser la liste exhaustive des pistes, puis suivre chacune d’elles en cherchant indices et mobiles. L’objet de cet article est d’examiner l’une de ces hypothèses : celle d’une opération montée sous faux drapeau par des services secrets atlantistes. Avant cela, présentons brièvement l’ensemble des pistes qui devraient être explorées si l’enquête était rouverte.

Le grand public connaît généralement deux hypothèses sur les auteurs de l’attentat : Al Qaeda, incriminé par le discours dominant, et ETA, que José Maria Aznar aurait accusé pour justifier de sa politique basque. Les journalistes espagnols ont exploré au moins quatre autres pistes, portant sur des services secrets qui auraient monté l’opération sous faux drapeaux. Les six hypothèses sont donc les suivantes :

1. Des islamistes : C’est la thèse retenue par tous les médias dominants, à l’exception de quelques uns en Espagne comme El Mundo. En français, le principal livre disponible au sujet de l’attentat La Manipulation : Madrid, 11 mars reprend ce point de vue [2]. Notons que son auteur, Jean Chalvidant, est membre du comité éditorial de la revue néo-conservatrice Le Meilleur des mondes [3], explicitement créée en lien avec la Foundation for the Defense of Democracies [4]pour servir de porte-voix aux néo-conservateurs en France et contrer l’influence du Réseau Voltaire et de ses amis [5]. Malgré toutes les incohérences qu’on a exposées dans l’article précédent, cette thèse a été entérinée par la Justice. Il faut souligner qu’il existe un décalage sur deux points importants entre les conclusions de la Justice et l’idée généralement admise dans l’opinion publique. Premièrement le commando n’a pas de lien avec Al Qaeda [6]. Et deuxièmement l’attentat n’a pas été commis en représailles à la participation de l’Espagne à l’invasion de l’Irak, puisque les préparatifs lui sont antérieurs.

2. ETA : Après 30 ans de terrorisme et plusieurs centaines de victimes, l’organisation indépendantiste basque était donnée moribonde suite à des années de coups de filets policiers. Elle est cependant apparue comme le coupable habituel et était condamnée en « une » des quotidiens et des journaux télévisés, avant que les éléments pointant vers un attentat islamiste ne prennent le pas sur cette piste. L’arrivée au pouvoir de José Luis Zapatero, plus favorable à l’autonomie des provinces espagnoles, aurait pu être l’objectif de l’attentat.

3. Les services secrets marocains : La majorité des inculpés ont la nationalité marocaine. Or les relations hispano-marocaines ont connu plusieurs épisodes d’extrême tension, le dernier en date étant la dispute de la souveraineté de l’îlot Persil en 2002, qui a impliqué les troupes des deux côtés. La chute d’Aznar au profit de Zapatero, jugé plus conciliant et opportunément brouillé avec les États-Unis, aurait bénéficié au Maroc.

4. Un secteur des services secrets espagnols proche des socialistes : La première conséquence spectaculaire de l’attentat a été l’accession au pouvoir de Zapatero, alors que les sondages le donnaient largement battu. La suspicion qui a entouré la manière dont était menée l’enquête pousse certains journalistes à penser que le plus haut personnage de l’État est derrière ce crime (bien qu’il n’ait pris ses fonctions que 5 semaines après l’attentat). C’est vers cette thèse hautement subversive que penche à demi-mot Luis del Pino, qui est l’une des références de l’investigation journalistique sur cet attentat, avec le journaliste d’El Mundo Fernando Mugica [7].

5. Des services secrets opposés à la « coalition des volontaires » intervenue en Irak : La seconde conséquence spectaculaire des attentats est le retrait des troupes espagnoles d’Irak, promesse de Zapatero lors d’une élection qu’il ne s’attendait vraisemblablement pas à gagner. Or ce retrait apparaît comme un revers pour la « coalition des volontaires », même si on verra qu’il est plus symbolique qu’effectif. Certains investigateurs suspectent donc les puissances opposées à cette coalition sous hégémonie états-unienne, comme la « vieille Europe » franco-allemande, la Russie ou la Chine [8].

6. Des services secrets partisans de la « guerre au terrorisme » : Ils auraient bénéficié du soutien d’un secteur de l’appareil d’État espagnol, au moins au moment d’orienter l’enquête dans une autre direction. C’est sur cette thèse, également défendue par le journaliste Bruno Cardeñosa [9], que nous allons nous centrer dans la suite de cet article, en commençant par exposer les indices qui relient l’attentat aux États-Unis, dont le gouvernement était le principal promoteur de la doctrine de « guerre au terrorisme ».

Les faits : l’implication d’un service secret militaire

Le sac de Vallecas et les empreintes dans la Kangoo : des pièces à conviction, falsifiées par des éléments de l’appareil d’État, qui suggèrent un lien outre-Atlantique

Un premier lien entre l’attentat et les États-Unis apparaît fin mars 2004 avec une mystérieuse photo de la bombe du sac de Vallecas. C’est le seul cliché connu à ce jour de la pièce centrale de l’enquête, objet de tant de controverse. Dans la nuit du 11 au 12 mars 2004 un agent de la police scientifique s’était rendu sur les lieux où les démineurs désactivaient la bombe de Vallecas, afin d’en réaliser un reportage photographique conformément à la procédure. La bombe n’étant pas encore neutralisée, il resta à distance, confia son appareil à un démineur et aperçut plusieurs flashs. Une fois l’engin désactivé il tenta de s’en approcher avec son appareil mais à son grand étonnement les démineurs lui en barrèrent l’accès. Puis un haut fonctionnaire de la police lui demanda de leur remettre la pellicule, dont on n’a depuis plus aucune trace [10].

En ce mois de mars 2004 aucune photo de la bombe de Vallecas n’était donc parue. Ce flou était renforcé par les explications contradictoires avancées par les médias sur la non explosion de la bombe. On a dit que les terroristes avaient oublié d’activer la carte SIM, puis qu’ils s’étaient trompés en programmant l’explosion à 7 heures 30 du soir et non du matin, ou encore que la puissance électrique fournie par le téléphone était insuffisante pour la déclencher, versions toutes démenties par la suite. L’explication la plus rocambolesque était celle qui était alors avancée pour l’arrestation de Jamal Zougam, le seul poseur de bombe supposé qui ait été incarcéré. La coque du téléphone aurait été ébréchée et la petite pièce de plastique manquante aurait été retrouvée chez lui. Concernant la composition de la bombe, la majorité des médias parlait alors d’un modèle Triumph de Motorola et non d’un Trium de Mitsubishi [11], que retiendra finalement la version officielle.

Le 30 mars la chaîne de télévision états-unienne ABC News diffusa la seule photo de la bombe connue à ce jour, reprise par tous les médias espagnols sans remise en question. Elle venait combler le vide causé par la disparition de la pellicule de la police scientifique, et redonna de la crédibilité à cette preuve gagnée par le flou. Mais le cliché pose de nouvelles questions qui n’ont toujours pas trouvé de réponses. Qui a pris cette photo ? Dans quelles circonstances ? Et pourquoi est-elle apparue aux États-Unis, loin des médias espagnols qui suivaient l’affaire étroitement ? Intrigué, Luis del Pino interrogea les correspondants d’ABC en Espagne, à qui on attribuait le cliché, mais ils nièrent en être les auteurs et ignoraient comment la direction américaine de la chaîne se l’était procuré [12].

Le 6 mai 2004 les regards se tournent à nouveau vers les États-Unis quand Newsweek révèle qu’un avocat états-unien, Brandon Mayfield, a été arrêté dans l’État d’Oregon quelques jours plus tôt. Ses empreintes digitales ont été trouvées sur l’emballage des détonateurs découverts dans la Kangoo que les terroristes sont censés avoir utilisé. Tout au long du mois de mai, et face aux doutes affichés par le New York Times, l’hebdomadaire mentionnera des sources policières assurant de la fiabilité de la preuve. Ainsi le 17 mai, « Un haut responsable du contre-terrorisme US à dit à Newsweek que l’identification de l’empreinte est irréfutable » [13]. Le FBI avait identifié l’empreinte peu après l’attentat et avait alors mis Mayfield sous surveillance. C’est la crainte de fuites dans la presse qui aurait forcé à procéder à une arrestation discrète. Mais coup de théâtre le 20 mai, la police espagnole annonce qu’elle a de son côté identifié l’empreinte comme celle d’Ouhnane Daoud, un Algérien résidant en Espagne. Les autorités US prennent acte et le jour même Mayfield est relâché, avec, fait rare, les excuses publiques du FBI, puis une indemnisation. Quant à Daoud, il est toujours en fuite à ce jour, ce qui empêche d’évaluer la fiabilité de son identification.

Force est de remarquer l’opportunité de l’identification de Daoud, passé inaperçu pendant les 2 mois suivant l’attentat, mais qui est identifié dans les semaines suivant l’arrestation de Mayfield. Le profil de ce dernier éveille également la suspicion. Avocat discret et sans grande activité, converti à l’islam, il avait défendu dans une affaire de droit familial un États-unien accusé par la suite de terrorisme. Mais c’est son lien avec l’armée US qui attire le plus l’attention : Mayfield est officier de réserve après avoir passé 8 ans sous les drapeaux dont une année dans une unité de renseignement [14].

Les deux indices qu’on a évoqués portent sur les deux principales preuves matérielles du dossier : le sac de Vallecas et la Kangoo. Avant de poursuivre notre investigation, ouvrons une parenthèse pour apporter quelques éléments de réflexion à ce qui peut apparaître comme une contradiction. Nous avons vu à quel point les pièces de l’enquête sont bancales : sac de Vallecas, Kangoo, mais aussi témoignages, données téléphoniques, etc. L’observateur est forcément étonné du fait que des protagonistes —quel qu’ils soient— puissent faire preuve d’un tel amateurisme au moment de fabriquer de fausses pistes. Plusieurs investigateurs, dont Luis del Pino [15], ont proposé l’explication suivante à ce paradoxe : le sac de Vallecas et autres preuves auraient été fabriquées précipitamment car « on » avait prévu que l’enquête se base sur les deux bombes non explosées qui ont été trouvées dans les trains ce matin-là. « On » aurait délibérément monté ces deux bombes de manière défectueuse, et « on » leur aurait fait porter des indices soigneusement choisis. Ceux-ci devaient permettre à la police de bâtir une enquête d’apparence solide. Mais de manière inattendue les deux engins ont explosé au cours de la procédure de désactivation des démineurs, détruisant les indices qu’« on » y aurait mis. Pour parer à cet imprévu « on » aurait du improviser les pièces que nous connaissons, d’où leur imperfection. Le sac de Vallecas apparaît ainsi dans un commissariat à l’intérieur d’un lot d’effets personnels pourtant préalablement fouillés, et qui aurait dû se trouver à la morgue comme tout les autres lots. Dans le même temps des éléments accusant les islamistes apparaissent dans la Kangoo une fois qu’elle a été transportée au commissariat, alors que les fouilles sur place n’y avaient rien détecté.

Cette hypothèse des deux « bombes-leurres » est confirmée par les témoignages au procès des démineurs qui ont neutralisé l’une d’elles. Ils ont découvert l’engin sur le quai et non dans le train. Et même si un policier municipal a témoigné avoir trouvé ce sac dans un wagon et l’avoir transporté à cet endroit, il est improbable qu’elle ait été laissée sans surveillance et que les démineurs l’aient « redécouverte » là. Surtout, l’aspect intact du sac contenant la bombe les a fait douter qu’il puisse provenir du train, car tous les objets qui sortaient des wagons portaient des traces dues aux chocs, à la fumée, etc. [16] Ces éléments suggèrent que ce sac a été placé sur le quai peu après les explosions, et non qu’il se trouvait dans le train comme les autres bombes. L’apparente contradiction entre le caractère bancal des pièces de l’enquête et l’implication d’un service secret trouve, avec cette hypothèse, une explication possible.

L’activation et la nature des explosifs : amateurisme ou matériel militaire ?

Poursuivons notre analyse, ajoutons deux éléments qui confirment que l’attentat a été l’œuvre d’une organisation de type militaire et non d’une bande de délinquants. Premièrement les 10 bombes ont vraisemblablement été activées à distance par des systèmes de radiocommande, et n’ont pas été programmées à l’avance avec la fonction réveil de téléphones portables comme le soutient la version officielle. En effet 3 trains ont explosé alors qu’ils étaient à l’arrêt dans les stations d’Atocha, El Pozo et Santa Eugenia, le quatrième explosant en dehors d’Atocha où il attendait le départ du premier train. À moins d’y voir une extraordinaire coïncidence, on peut en conclure que les terroristes voulaient que les bombes sautent dans les gares. Or ce résultat est extrêmement difficile à obtenir en programmant à l’avance l’heure d’activation. D’abord parce que les téléphones portables supposément utilisés ne permettent pas un réglage fin de l’horloge et du réveil : on peut régler les minutes mais pas les secondes. Et ensuite parce que les trains de banlieue ne sont pas rigoureusement ponctuels. En l’occurrence certains trains étaient en retard ce jour-là, celui d’El Pozo avait par exemple « une paire de minutes de retard » selon la déposition de son conducteur [17]. Les explosions n’ont donc pas été programmées à l’avance mais déclenchées « en direct ». Les moyens de radio transmission que cela implique suggèrent une opération sophistiquée, hors de portée de la bande de petits délinquants désignée par la version officielle. Ceci étant, pourquoi voulait-on que les trains explosent dans les stations ? La raison pourrait être qu’ils soient plus facilement et discrètement accessibles, ce qui corroborerait l’hypothèse des deux « bombes-leurres » introduites après les explosions.

Deuxièmement tout porte à croire que les bombes étaient chargées d’explosifs militaires, « qui coupent », et non de dynamite minière, « qui mord », comme on l’a montré dans l’article précédent. Dans l’explication qu’il a donnée au juge d’instruction, le chef des démineurs de Madrid évoque même l’explosif militaire C4 [18]. On rappellera au passage que c’est ce type d’explosif que la police allemande avait intercepté sur des agents états-uniens qui tentaient de l’introduire discrètement au sommet du G8 de juin 2007 [19].

La matrice de l’opération est donc bien militaire, comme le confirma Salvador Ortega, pionnier de la police scientifique en Espagne, interviewé par Bruno Cardeñosa quelques jours après l’attentat. Interrogé sur les aspects non élucidées par l’enquête en cours, il répondit qu’il manquait « certains auteurs matériels et la tête pensante. Parce que derrière ces faits, des éléments très sophistiqués ont participé, qui étaient sans doute sous la direction de quelqu’un des services de renseignement et militaire. Parce qu’en plus ça a été une opération très coûteuse » [20].

CMX 2004 : simulation ou couverture de l’OTAN ?

Ayant démontré que des éléments non-identifiés de l’appareil d’État ont falsifié des pièces à conviction pour orienter l’enquête sur une fausse piste et couvrir une opération de type militaire, il est légitime d’envisager que les attentats de Madrid aient pu être commis par un service secret militaire.

D’après l’ancien officier de renseignement de l’US Army Eric H. May [21], « la façon la plus simple de faire un attentat sous faux drapeau est d’organiser un exercice militaire simulant exactement l’attentat que l’on veut commettre » [22]. Or, comme lors des attentats du 11 septembre 2001 aux États-Unis et ceux du 7 juillet 2005 à Londres, les attentats de Madrid ont coïncidé avec une simulation d’attaque terroriste [23]. Du 4 au 10 mars 2004, l’OTAN réalisait son exercice de gestion de crise annuel, intitulé CMX 2004 [24], et au matin du 11 mars de vraies bombes explosaient à Madrid.

Le scénario mis au point cette année-là par l’Alliance atlantique était justement une vaste attaque terroriste d’Al Qaeda à travers les pays occidentaux. En Espagne, la présidence du gouvernement, le ministère de la Défense et le CNI (les services secrets) ont pris part à l’exercice. On ne sait cependant pas s’il incluait des manœuvres dans la capitale espagnole car les données qui s’y rapportent sont confidentielles. Dans une des rares évocations de cette simulation dans la presse, El Mundo écrit : « La similitude du scénario élaboré par l’OTAN avec les évènements survenus à Madrid fait froid dans le dos, et elle a impressionné les diplomates, militaires et services de renseignements qui ont participé à l’exercice à peine quelques heures plus tôt » [25]. Les détails de CMX 2004 étant classés, on ne sait malheureusement pas où s’arrête cette similitude.

Le départ précipité d’une importante équipe de la CIA

Une autre coïncidence troublante est l’escale en Espagne d’un des avions clandestins de la CIA. Ces avions ont depuis été rendus célèbres suite au scandale des enlèvements et des prisons secrètes en Europe, utilisés dans le cadre du programme état-unien des « restitutions extraordinaires » [26]. Le Boeing 737 immatriculé N313P atterrit le 9 mars 2004 à l’aéroport de Palma, sur l’île espagnole de Majorque, et en repart le 12 mars, lendemain de l’attentat [27]. Cet appareil est le plus gros utilisé pour ces vols secrets, et le principal avion cité dans le rapport du Conseil de l’Europe de 2006. Palma y est pour sa part décrite comme une « plate-forme charnière de la CIA dans le programme des restitutions » [28]

Primés pour leur enquête sur ces vols de la CIA, des journalistes du quotidien local El Diario de Mallorca furent reçus sur les ondes de la Cadena SER, la radio la plus écoutée d’Espagne. En guise de conclusion à l’interview ils lancèrent : « Le 11 mars 2004 le Boeing 737 de la CIA était à Palma. Le lendemain il est partit précipitamment parce qu’il a modifié son horaire de décollage. Il avait annoncé se rendre en Suède mais il est allé à Bagdad » [29]. À quoi était dû ce décollage précipité, seulement quelques heures après l’épisode de la découverte du fameux sac de Vallecas ? Outre cette hâte, c’est la présence même de l’avion en territoire espagnol au moment de l’attentat qui attire l’attention. Selon la commission du Parlement Européen sur les vols de la CIA, 125 vols secrets de l’agence états-unienne se sont posés sur un aéroport espagnol de 2001 à 2005 [30] (soit une période d’environ 1500 jours). Ces escales étant généralement d’un ou deux jours [31], la simultanéité des deux évènements constitue une coïncidence qui mérite d’être notée.

L’OTAN, un suspect aux lourds antécédents

Dans un pays qui, depuis son retour à la démocratie, a connu plusieurs tentatives de coups d’État militaires, il n’est pas envisageable que les forces nostalgiques du franquisme aient pu mener à bien une opération comme les attentats de Madrid sans être immédiatement démasquées. Il est par contre possible qu’un service secret militaire étranger ait pu ourdir cette opération, et au besoin recruter du personnel dans cette mouvance espagnole toujours sensible au mythe de la Reconquête.

Un rappel historique est ici indispensable. Comme dans toute l’Europe Occidentale, une structure secrète chapeautée par l’OTAN est implantée en Espagne depuis l’après-guerre [32], alors même qu’en raison de son régime politique, cet État n’a rejoint l’Alliance atlantique qu’en 1982. Dans un ouvrage de référence, Les Armées secrètes de l’OTAN [33], l’historien suisse Daniele Ganser décrit ces réseaux, qualifiés de stay-behind (c’est à dire pouvant être activés en arrière de la ligne de front lors d’une occupation ennemie) et connus sous le nom générique de l’unité italienne Gladio (le Glaive). Il établit notamment comment ils ont commis des attentats terroristes sous faux drapeaux dans le cadre de la « stratégie de la tension ». L’objectif était de justifier un renforcement de l’appareil sécuritaire et d’empêcher l’accession par la voie démocratique des communistes au pouvoir en suscitant la peur des « rouges ». L’Espagne jouait « un rôle crucial dans le recrutement des agents du Gladio », et leur servait également de refuge. Elle abrita par exemple Stefano Delle Chiaie, « le plus connu des terroristes membres des armées secrètes qui combattirent le communisme en Europe et dans le monde pendant la Guerre froide », à son actif « un bon millier d’opération sanglantes, dont environ 50 assassinats ». Le réseau agissait « contre les militants communistes et anarchistes, notamment parmi les mineurs des Asturies et les nationalistes catalans et basques » (on retrouve ici le milieu des mines Asturiennes auquel appartient Emilio Trashorras, le principal témoin à charge contre El Chino et sa bande, et par ailleurs indicateur de la police). L’homme de confiance de Franco, l’amiral Carrero Blanco, grand architecte des services secrets, était « son officier de liaison avec la CIA », et l’appareil de renseignement « l’un des meilleurs alliés de la CIA en Europe » [34].

Bien qu’ils aient été conçus pour encadrer la Résistance lors d’une invasion soviétique, rien ne permet de penser que les réseaux stay-behind ont été démantelés depuis l’effondrement du bloc de l’Est. Le commandement US en Europe (EuCom) et l’OTAN maintiennent par ailleurs en Espagne la base navale et de renseignement de Rota et la base aérienne de Moron. Enfin, le commandement Sud de l’OTAN était en train d’installer le quartier général de ses troupes terrestres à Madrid au moment des attentats [35].

Il est à noter que les services secrets de la Navy et de l’Air Force, respectivement le NCIS et l’OSI, ont joui pendant la période qui nous intéresse d’une étonnante liberté d’action en territoire espagnol. En avril 2002 José Maria Aznar et George W. Bush réformaient la convention bilatérale de défense entre leurs deux pays. Cet accord légalisa pour la première fois la présence en Espagne de ces deux services secrets états-uniens, dotés également de prérogatives policières. La rédaction délibérément confuse du texte leur donna une grande marge de manœuvre : « les autorités compétentes des deux pays devront établir les normes régulatrices sur les agissements en Espagne du NCIS et de l’OSI ». En février 2006 « l’affaire Pimienta » mit en évidence l’absence de normes régulatrices. Le NCIS avait enlevé en territoire espagnol Federico Pimienta, déserteur des Marines, sans le moindre contrôle de la part des autorités policières ou judiciaires espagnoles. C’est seulement suite à la polémique engendrée par ce viol flagrant de la souveraineté espagnole que seront rédigées des normes telles que « l’accréditation préalable des membres du NCIS et de l’OSI par les autorités espagnoles » et « la communication préalable aux autorités espagnoles de toute opération » [36].

La recherche du mobile

Dans la cas où l’Alliance atlantique serait impliquée dans des attentats comme ceux de Madrid, la décision stratégique de recourir à l’action secrète aurait dû être avalisée par le Comité de coordination des Alliés dans un but précis. La conception tactique de chaque opération, y compris celle de Madrid, aurait pu être prise par les seuls États-Unis et Royaume-Uni, sans en référer aux Alliés.

En d’autres termes, si les responsables des services secrets alliés avaient donné leur accord pour une mise en scène de la « guerre au terrorisme », le général James Jones (SACEUR) [37], l’ambassadeur Nicholas Burns (USA) [38] et l’ambassadeur Peter Ricketts (UK) [39] auraient pu décider à l’insu du gouvernement espagnol de frapper Madrid, éventuellement en requérant des éléments de l’appareil d’État espagnol pour réaliser l’opération.

La décision de recourir au terrorisme aurait dû être liée à la stratégie générale de l’Alliance et non pas à des intérêts politiciens, même si des intérêts politiciens immédiats auraient pu fausser l’évaluation de la pertinence d’une opération particulière. De ce point de vue, c’est une erreur que d’interpréter une implication des services secrets atlantiques en fonction des élections législatives espagnoles ou de l’élection présidentielle états-unienne. L’arbre cache la forêt.

L’Alliance s’interdit d’intervenir dans la vie politique des États membres dès lors que les compétiteurs sont tous atlantistes (Parti populaire et socialiste espagnols, Parti républicain et démocrate états-uniens). Sa vision est beaucoup plus large. De plus, il est erroné de considérer comme négatifs pour l’Alliance la perte du pouvoir en Espagne par le Parti populaire (dont Aznar n’avait pas souhaité briguer une nouvelle candidature) et le retrait des troupes espagnoles d’Irak. En effet, le gouvernement socialiste est un partenaire privilégié pour les travaillistes au pouvoir au Royaume-Uni. Une semaine après son élection, Zapatero déclarait que sa « priorité absolue était la lutte contre le terrorisme ». D’autre part le contingent espagnol en Irak n’était que le neuvième en terme d’effectif : 1 300 hommes, soit moins d’1 %de l’ensemble des troupes. En outre, son retrait a été compensé par un engagement accru en Afghanistan.

De nombreux auteurs espagnols se sont interrogés sur les raisons qui ont poussé les terroristes, quels qu’ils soient, à agir lors des élections législatives. Ils ont mit en évidence comment les réactions des protagonistes locaux ont été guidées par leurs intérêts propres. Cependant, cela ne nous renseigne pas sur l’intention des terroristes. Dans le cas où l’opération aurait été commanditée par l’OTAN, le contexte électoral permettait de renforcer la théorie du « clash des civilisations » : des musulmans sans lien avec Al-Qaeda veulent détruire la démocratie et les institutions occidentales. C’est précisément cette version qui a été retenue par la Justice espagnole à propos des attentats de Madrid comme par la Justice britannique à propos des attentats de Londres [40].

Si la décision de mettre en scène un terrorisme islamique a été prise par le Comité de coordination des Alliés, elle aurait pu être mise en œuvre les 15 et 20 novembre 2003 à Istanbul, le 11 mars 2004 à Madrid et le 7 juillet 2005 à Londres [41]. Pour être valide, notre hypothèse devrait pouvoir rendre compte de l’ensemble de ces crimes.

Les objectifs de l’OTAN dans cette période, étaient-ils susceptibles de motiver une telle intervention ?

En 2004, l’Alliance atlantique est en pleine réorganisation. D’un côté, elle semble en expansion : elle s’apprête à accueillir de nouveaux membres ; elle est engagée à stabiliser le Kosovo ; elle assure la sécurité de navigation en Méditerranée et au large de la Corne de l’Afrique ; elle s’est déployée en Afghanistan et commence à le faire en Irak ; elle met sur pied une Force d’intervention rapide, capable de défendre ses intérêts n’importe où dans le monde. De l’autre, elle traverse une grave crise : alors qu’en 2001, pour la première fois de son histoire, ses membres ont offert leur assistance à un des leurs victime, selon eux, d’une agression étrangère, elle s’est déchirée sur le même thème en 2003. La France et la Belgique ont nié que l’Irak représentait une menace terroriste pour les États-Unis, tandis que la Turquie a interdit aux États-Unis d’utiliser son espace aérien et les bases OTAN de Turquie pour attaquer l’Irak.

En pleine croissance l’Alliance est menacée d’éclatement. Ses membres désunis s’engagent « à la carte » en Irak. Le seul moyen de souder les rangs est d’initier de nouvelles actions communes dans la « guerre au terrorisme ».

Le renforcement du contre-terrorisme chez les Alliés

En premier lieu, l’Alliance durcit son contrôle des populations en étendant en Europe les dispositions de l’USA Patriot Act. Le sociologue Jean-Claude Paye décrit de la manière suivante la réaction de l’Union européenne au 11-Mars, dans le chapitre d’introduction de son ouvrage La Fin de l’Etat de droit :

« À l’occasion des attentats du 11 mars 2004 en Espagne, on a vu apparaître sur nos écrans de télévision un ensemble de spécialistes du terrorisme construire un amalgame entre Al-Qaeda, I’ETA et divers réfugiés politiques, faisant du “terrorisme” un terme générique devant se substituer à l’ensemble des situations concrètes.
Une des mesures unanimement réclamée, pour conjurer ce péril multiforme, fut la mise en place immédiate du mandat d’arrêt européen. Le mandat d’arrêt européen permet une remise quasi automatique, par un État membre, d’une personne demandée par une autorité judiciaire d’un autre État membre. Par rapport aux procédures d’extradition ce mandat supprime tous les contrôles politiques et judiciaires portant sur le fond et la légalité de la requête, ainsi que les recours possibles contre celle-ci. La demande est ainsi inconditionnellement satisfaite et légitimée par les autres pays, quelle que soit sa légalité ou sa conformité aux principes d’un état de droit. Le mandat devait entrer en vigueur le premier janvier 2004. Adoptée au niveau de l’Union Européenne et déjà intégrée dans la plupart des législations nationales, cette mesure peinait cependant à se mettre en place. Une des premières conséquences des attentats du 11 Mars est la fin des dernières résistances à l’utilisation de cette procédure ainsi que le renforcement des mesures incontrôlables, prises dans le cadre de la coopération judiciaire et policière entre les pays européens. On peut ainsi craindre une accélération du processus de suspension des garanties constitutionnelles, mis en place au lendemain du 11 Septembre.
Les premières mesures envisagées portent sur le renforcement de la coopération policière et judiciaire. Une "capacité de renseignement" aura pour fonction d’analyser les renseignements fournis par les services secrets et les polices des États membres. Il s’agit également d’adopter des législations permettant aux enquêteurs de plusieurs pays de travailler en équipes communes et de ratifier une convention d’entraide judiciaire en matière pénale. Il est également prévu de favoriser les échanges de données : empreintes digitales et relevés biométriques. Le Conseil des chefs d’État et de gouvernement veut également aboutir avant 2005 à la mise en place de passeports et de cartes d’identité contenant des données telles que la photographie de l’iris de l’œil et les empreintes digitales. Les transporteurs aériens seraient également dans l’obligation de communiquer aux autorités douanières et policières européennes un ensemble d’informations sur leurs passagers. Cette mesure était déjà en cours, au bénéfice des autorités américaines pour les vols transatlantiques.
Ces différentes mesures, tels les passeports ou cartes d’identité avec puce électronique contenant des données biométriques, sont en discussion depuis longtemps. Les attentats sont simplement une occasion de surmonter les résistances à de telles mesures liberticides. Si l’on se réfère aux attentats de Madrid, l’efficacité de ces dispositions est largement aléatoire, puisque les personnes arrêtées étaient installées en Espagne depuis longtemps et ne traversaient pas les frontières. Elles ne pouvaient être repérées par de tels moyens. Par contre, ces dispositions sont parfaitement adéquates à une gestion policière des populations. L’organisation Statewatch a montré que, sur les 57 mesures prévues par le Conseil des chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement des 25 et 26 mars 2004, 27 propositions n’ont rien ou très peu à voir avec le terrorisme. Elles ont pour objet d’assurer la surveillance, non de groupes déterminés, mais de l’ensemble des populations à travers le contrôle des communications » [42].

Jean-Claude Paye montre que ce contrôle des populations se fait au profit d’institutions des États membres de l’Union européenne, mais aussi des États-Unis. « Le développement de la coopération transatlantique dans le cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme dévoile le caractère organique du droit pénal dans la formation de la structure impériale. L’Union européenne se place sous l’hégémonie américaine en ce qui concerne l’organisation du contrôle des populations. Quant aux États-Unis, leurs exigences portent plutôt sur la capacité de leurs institutions policières ou judiciaires de contourner les structures formelles des pouvoirs exécutifs et judiciaires européens » [43]

L’extension de la « guerre au terrorisme » en Afrique

Le général Jones, suprême commandeur de l’OTAN et par ailleurs patron des forces états-uniennes en Europe (EuCom), s’attèle à créer un commandement ad hoc des forces états-uniennes pour l’Afrique (AfriCom). Pour justifier ce déploiement qui inquiète les Africains, il ne cesse de dénoncer le péril terroriste sur ce continent. Ce même argumentaire servira à engager l’OTAN en Afrique. On observera que, dans cette perspective, l’étrange décision du Tribunal suprême d’attribuer les attentats de Madrid à des terroristes islamistes sans lien avec Al Qaeda fait l’affaire, puisque ces islamistes sont originaires d’Afrique du Nord.

Lors de sa tournée africaine de juillet 2003, le président Bush prévient : « Nous ne laisserons pas les terroristes menacer les peuples africains, ni utiliser l’Afrique comme base pour menacer le monde » [44]. Les responsables américains multiplient les déclarations assurant de l’implantation d’Al Qaeda dans le désert du Sahel, discours mis en doute par de nombreux observateurs. Début mars 2004 c’est le commandant en chef adjoint des forces armées US en Europe (Eucom, qui supervise alors aussi l’Afrique) qui avertit : des membres d’Al Qaeda tentent de s’établir « dans la partie Nord de l’Afrique, au Sahel et au Maghreb. Ils cherchent un sanctuaire comme en Afghanistan lorsque les talibans étaient au pouvoir. Ils ont besoin d’un endroit stable pour s’équiper, s’organiser et recruter de nouveaux membres » [45].

Les 23 et 24 mars 2004, à l’initiative des États-Unis, une réunion sans précédent des chefs d’états-majors de huit pays nord-africains et du Royaume-Uni a lieu au siège de l’EuCom à Stuttgart. À cette époque tous les regards sont tournés vers l’Afrique du Nord et notamment le Maroc, où le GICM (groupe islamique combattant marocain) est suspecté d’être derrière l’attentat de Madrid. Il est décidé de lancer le TSCTP (trans-saharian counterterrorism partnership), ambitieux plan de formation des armées africaines à la lutte anti-terroriste par les États-Unis [46]. Ces plans d’entraînement permettent à ces derniers de mettre le pied sur le sol africain en encadrant discrètement les armées locales. Le choix de cette stratégie de déploiement répond à un besoin de faire baisser les pertes militaires engendrées par les invasions en Afghanistan et en Irak.

L’attentat de Madrid était arrivé à point nommé pour que Washington et Londres imposent le TSCTP aux huit pays africains. Il avait créé un climat d’incertitude, dû notamment à une rumeur qui annonçait le prochain débarquement de l’armée US dans le Nord de l’Afrique, à l’instar des invasions d’Afghanistan et d’Irak. Cette rumeur, qui s’avèrerait fausse, était entretenue par plusieurs journaux espagnols, algériens et marocains [47]. L’important quotidien espagnol La Razon écrivait par exemple le 21 mars 2004 : « Des unités des forces spéciales états-uniennes et des troupes militarisées de la CIA sont attendues dans les prochains jours dans la région du Sahel (Sahara Nord). Elles participeront à la plus grande opération antiterroriste menée par les États-Unis depuis la guerre d’Irak. On prévoit que les combats durent plusieurs semaines. Les armées des pays de la zone, qui ont déjà accepté d’ouvrir leur espace aérien à l’US Air Force, participeront aux combats sous commandement américain (…) Le début de l’opération militaire, décidé à la suite des attentats de Madrid le 11 mars pourrait coïncider avec (...) le 26 mars prochain » [48]. Cette rumeur de débarquement a des airs de manœuvre d’intoxication visant à forcer la main aux dirigeants africains concernant le TSCTP. L’arrivée de formateurs militaires états-uniens et britanniques pouvait en effet apparaitre à leurs yeux comme un moindre mal, en comparaison d’un débarquement de l’armée US dans leurs pays.

Quoi qu’il en soit, l’OTAN en tant que telle n’a pas souhaité s’impliquer dans le TSCTP. Les États membres n’ont consentis à envoyer des troupes en Afrique qu’à partir de 2005, en appui aux opérations de l’Union africaine au Soudan et en Somalie. L’attentat de Madrid, présenté comme une punition d’Aznar pour son implication dans la guerre d’Irak (ce qui fut démenti longtemps après par la Justice), a permis d’intégrer indirectement le conflit irakien dans la « guerre contre le terrorisme » dans la continuation logique du discours mensonger du secrétaire d’État US Colin Powell au conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies [49]. La vague de grands attentats islamiques en Europe s’est quant à elle interrompue avec l’opération avortée de Barcelone, en janvier 2008 [50].

Conclusion

Au terme de cette analyse, nous pouvons affirmer que la décision du Tribunal suprême répond à des exigences politiques et non à la réalité. Des éléments de l’appareil d’État espagnol sont intervenus pour falsifier des pièces à conviction et orienter l’enquête sur une piste fabriquée, celle des islamistes. Les attentats ont été commis par une organisation militaire disposant de complicités dans l’appareil d’État. L’OTAN, dont le passé terroriste est établi, avait le savoir-faire, les moyens logistiques et le mobile pour réaliser cette opération. Elle devrait être considérée comme le suspect principal si une nouvelle enquête judiciaire devait être entreprise.

---

[1] « 11 mars 2004 à Madrid : était-ce vraiment un attentat islamiste ? », par Mathieu Miquel, Réseau Voltaire, 11 octobre 2009.

[2] La Manipulation : Madrid, 11 mars, par Jean Chalvidant, Cheminements éd., 2004. L’auteur a présenté son argumentaire sur son blog.

[3] Site de la revue Le Meilleur des mondes.

[4] « Les trucages de la Foundation for the Defense of Democracies », Réseau Voltaire, 2 février 2005.

[5] Cf. le premier numéro de la revue.

[6] Verdict en appel du procès de l’attentat, pages 581-582.

[7] Fernando Mugica est le précurseur de la critique de la version officielle dans la presse, auteur d’une quarantaine d’articles intitulés « les trous noirs du 11 mars » publiés par El Mundo. S’il n’a jamais dit clairement quelle piste il privilégiait, il écrivit dans son article du 11 mars 2005 intitulé « Las piedras de Pulgarcito » : « Le travail de terrain effectué pour un ami, écrivain à succès, en vu d’un possible roman, m’a amené à enquêter à la fin de l’automne 2003 sur toutes les données entourant l’attentat du 11 septembre aux États-Unis (...) Je ne vais pas révéler mes conclusions sur le 11 septembre, mais je peux affirmer que sans ce travail préalable, les trous [noirs du 11 mars] n’auraient jamais vu le jour. »

[8] Cette thèse est notamment défendue par Ernesto Mila dans son livre 11-M los perros del infierno (Pyre, 2004), dans lequel il donne également un témoignage de l’intérieur des milieux d’extrême droite sur la stratégie de la tension durant la Guerre froide.

[9] Bruno Cardeñosa a également écrit sur les mystifications du 11 septembre, voir « Le 11 septembre, vu d’Espagne », par Sandro Cruz, Réseau Voltaire, 13 septembre 2004.

[10] Témoignage au procès de cet agent de la police scientifique, témoin protégé 17054, 3 mai 2007.

[11] C’est notamment le cas d’El Pais, dans ses éditions du 13, 14, 19 et 24 mars 2004

[12] « Historia de la mochila numero 13 », par Luis del Pino, El Mundo, 19 mars 2006

[13] « An American Connection », par Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, 17 mai 2004

[14] Ibid. et « Arrest in Bombing Inquiry Was Rushed, Officials Say », par Sarah Kershaw et David Johnston, New York Times, 8 mai 2004

[15] Los enigmas del 11M, par Luis Del Pino, (Libroslibres éd, 2006), chapitre 11 « Atando cabos ».

[16] Témoignage au procès d’un de ces démineurs, témoin protégé 54868, 19 mars 2007

[17] Acte d’inculpation du procès de l’attentat, page 4

[18] Acte d’inculpation du procès de l’attentat, page 53.

[19] « La police allemande déjoue une tentative d’attentat états-unienne contre le G8 », Réseau Voltaire, 11 juin 2007

[20] 11-M Claves de una conspiracion, par Bruno Cardeñosa (Espejo de tinta, 2004), page 123.

[21] Son portrait : « Capitaine Eric H. May », par Alan Miller, Réseau Voltaire, 9 juin 2009

[22] « False Flag Prospects, 2008 - Top Three US Target Cities », par Eric H. May, Globalresearch.ca, 23 fevrier 2008

[23] « Attentats de Londres : le même scénario se déroulait simultanément sous forme d’exercice ! » et « Ces exercices de simulations qui facilitent les attentats », Réseau Voltaire, 13 juillet et 13 septembre 2005.

[24] Communiqué de presse de l’OTAN, 1er mars 2004

[25] « La OTAN simuló un atentado en Europa con 200 muertos », par Carlos Segovia, El Mundo, 14 mars 2004

[26] « La CIA "directement responsable" des "restitutions extraordinaires" de prisonniers en Europe, selon les députés européens », Réseau Voltaire, 14 juin 2006

[27] « La investigación halla en los vuelos de la CIA decenas de ocupantes con estatus diplomático », par Andreu Manresa, El Pais, 15 novembre 2005

[28] Allégations de détentions secrètes et de transferts illégaux de détenus concernant des États membres du Conseil de l’Europe, rapport du sénateur Dick Marty au Conseil de l’Europe, Réseau Voltaire, 12 juin 2006. Voir la partie intituéle « La "toile d’araignée" mondiale ».

[29] « El Diario de Mallorca gana el premio Ortega y Gasset de periodismo », Cadena Ser, 12 avril 2006, interview disponible en écoute en ligne

[30] « Un informe de la Eurocámara eleva a 125 los vuelos de la CIA que hicieron escala en España », El Mundo, 15 juin 2006

[31] « La investigación halla en los vuelos de la CIA decenas de ocupantes con estatus diplomático », par Andreu Manresa, El Pais, 15 novembre 2005

[32] « Stay-behind : les réseaux d’ingérence américains », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 20 août 2001.

[33] Les Armées secrètes de l’OTAN, par Daniele Ganser (Demi-lune, 2007). Ce livre est publié en feuilleton par le Réseau Voltaire.

[34] Les Armées secrètes de l’OTAN, par Daniele Ganser (Demi-lune, 2007), chapitre 7.

[35] Site officiel du CC-Land-Madrid.

[36] « Defensa rechaza que los servicios secretos de EE UU actúen por su cuenta en suelo español », 16 avril 2006, et « España autorizará a los espías de EE UU a actuar bajo supervisión en territorio nacional », 18 fevrier 2007, par Miguel Gonzalez, El Pais.
On notera que, durant la période 2004-08, les États-Unis ont signé de nombreuses conventions avec leurs alliés afin que leurs services secrets puissent agir à leur guise dans ces États. A titre d’exemple pour la France : « La France autorise l’action des services US sur son territoire », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 8 mars 2004.

[37] Le général Jones, qui a refusé par deux fois de devenir secrétaire d’État adjoint dans l’administration Bush, a été nommé conseiller de sécurité nationale de l’administration Obama.

[38] Aujourd’hui en semi-retraite, l’ambassadeur Burns est au cente d’une polémique : selon des documents rendus publics par le Hamas, il aurait été l’un des principaux organisateurs de l’empoisonnement du président Yasser Arafat.

[39] Peter Ricketts, ancien président du Comité joint du Renseignement, est devenu secrétaire général du Foreign Office.

[40] « Attentats de Londres : le rapport officiel écarte la piste "Al Qaïda" », Réseau Voltaire, 10 avril 2006.

[41] « Londres renoue avec la stratégie de la tension », par Thierry Meyssan ; « Attentats de Londres : Rachid Aswat est un agent britannique », Réseau Voltaire, 13 juillet et 5 septembre 2005

[42] La Fin de l’État de droit, par Jean-Claude Paye (La Dispute, 2004), pages 13 à 15.

[43] Ibid, page 12.

[44] « Activisme militaire de Washington en Afrique », par Pierre Abramovici, Le Monde Diplomatique, juillet 2004

[45] « Enquête sur l’étrange "Ben Laden du Sahara" », par Salima Mellah et Jean-Baptiste Rivoire, Le Monde Diplomatique, février 2005

[46] Présentation du TSCTP sur le site du commandement des forces états-uniennes en Afrique.

[47] Voir notamment les articles « Des soldats US dans le Sahel », par Lounés Guemache dans le quotidien algérien Liberté, 17 mars 2004 ; « EE UU lanza en el Sahara una gran operación antiterrorista tras los atentados del 11-M », par Pedro Canales, La Razon, 21 mars 2004 ; « Les USA se préparent à mener une grande opération contre le terrorisme au sud du Sahara » dans le quotidien marocain Al Ahdath al Maghribiya, 22 mars 2004.

[48] « EE UU lanza en el Sahara una gran operación antiterrorista tras los atentados del 11-M », par Pedro Canales, La Razon, 21 mars 2004

[49] « Discours de M. Powell au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU », Réseau Voltaire, 11 février 2003.

[50] « Comment la DGSE a déjoué une nouvelle vague d’attentats d’Al-CIA en Europe », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 7 février 2008.

new forms of money: the dutch way

.
http://www.gelre-handelsnetwerken.nl/index.shtml

http://www.henrymakow.com/dutch_barter_system_angers_ban.html

Dutch Barter System Challenges Bankers

November 3, 2009

"Believe it or not, but De Nederlandsche Bank (Dutch central bank,) run by Nout Wellink who is on the board of BIS and a member of the Trilaterals) shut down my on-line telebank service. A clear sign I was on the right track :-). "

By Anthony Migchels

My name is Anthony Migchels and I am the initiator of the "Gelre," the first Regional Currency in the Netherlands.
My organization is a foundation, not for profit, not a company, because I believe credit should be a public facility, serving the people that actually OWN the credit, instead of milking them dry with what is rightfully theirs. The Gelre foundation is run by a board of three.

We now have almost a hundred companies participating and the break even point should come at about 300, after that we can get an income out of it. But the real goal is, to hook up 66% of all companies in Gelderland, a province in the Netherlands with 1.2 million inhabitants and 60k companies. A GDP of about 40 billion Euro.

It is clear that interest bearing debt to a bank as money is a vicious hoax, but strangely enough, few have been developing a viable alternative.

Ellen Brown and the Money Master people, whom I both regard very highly, have reasonable
propositions, but they are still considering reform at the state-level and that is simply not going to happen. Not here in Europe and not before having survived WW3, anyway.

State Level real money implies the end of the New World Order Central Banking Vampires.
There is Bernard Lietaer, but his biggest point seems to be that 'complementary currencies' complement the 'national' (banking, really) currencies. He has correctly analyzed the negative aspects of interest, but is completely oblivious (or pretends to be) to the nefarious nature of the powers behind the printing press. It is clear that real alternative currencies have only one goal: to destroy the credibility of humanities greatest plague and its metal based successors. The goal is clearly NOT to play second fiddle.

I like Thomas Greco, who is very knowledgeable. He suggests mutual credit, facilitated by Market Players as a solution, but even he has not pinpointed what is to my mind the most crucial challenge for anybody wanting to create a viable currency, able to truly compete with Dollar or Euro

That challenge is as follows:

Barter units allow for interest free credit, but are not convertible to major currencies and convertible units don't allow for non interest bearing credit.
Combining these two features, convertibility and interest free credit, is essential for non state/non bank monies to have a real impact.

It is the way of the not so distant future :-)

Most barter schemes have prohibitive transactions costs. Also, and even more importantly, they are not convertible to Euro/Dollar. They usually are OK for swapping excess inventory or goods and services with low marginal cost, but not for high powered capital intensive industry.
The Euro/Dollar/Pound based Berkshares (http://berkshares.org/) , Lewes Pound
(http://www.thelewesPound.org/) and German Regional Currencies (www.regiogeldverein.de) are stronger, because they are based on national currencies: you give up a Dollar and in return you get a Berkshare, that can be spent within the network. In effect the Dollar remains in the network. Because there is a Dollar in the bank, companies can convert excess local currencies (units that they cannot usefully spend in the network) to Dollar/Euro The problem is, there can never be more of the local currency in circulation, than the supplying organization has Dollars/Euro in the bank. Therefore they cannot supply any credit.

This is also the basic architecture of the current Gelre. Another conceptual problem with this approach is that you are basing real, loving money on the most toxic commodity known to man: interest bearing bank debt as money.

There is also a legal problem here, in Europe, anyway:

Believe it or not, but De Nederlandsche Bank (Dutch central bank,) run by Nout Wellink who is on the board of BIS and a member of the Trilaterals) shut down my on-line telebank service. A clear sign I was on the right track :-). They did so because of a prohibition on collecting 'reclaimable money' (a direct translation of judicial lingo, I'm not sure an English speaking lawyer will know what this means).

You can, however, manage reclaimable money if you give a paper voucher in return. This is a loophole designed for book vouchers and the like.

Now we have only paper money in circulation. Of course, this law is to 'protect consumers' (wink wink). You have to realize this was going on last year, 2008. The people from the Dutch Central Bank are telling me they are very worried about the couple of thousand Euro that we manage as deposits for circulating Gelres. The same people that have been supervising and in effect organizing the credit crunch that has cost taxpayers in the west trillions
of Dollars.

Now, being confronted by men and women (kind and intelligent people!) in expensive suits destroying and enslaving the people I love, including myself, who are telling you they are protecting consumers by putting me out of business, kind of pisses me off BIG TIME.
Brainwashed or not, you start to dislike them even more than you already did.
Its probably not the same with everybody, but if somebody starts playing with my family jewels,
smiling all the time and speaking very correctly gets me thinking. To be honest, it was an experience that inspired.

By creating a unit that combines both strengths, cheap credit AND convertibility, we believe it is possible to actually compete with Euro Creating money out of thin air that will buy Euro and eventually gold, it sure gets me excited :-)

We'll buy the world back :-))). we won't, but the people using the Gelre will!
The only problem is: how to do it and inspiration makes answering this elusive question easy: you create convertibility not by reclaimable deposits, but by creating an open marketplace where your unit can be traded!

In this way, you create convertibility not by having Euro or Dollars deposited, but by more classical means: foreign exchange markets have been around for quite some time, but only for bank money Speculation is out of the question, because in the network 1 Gelre=1 Euro always.

My foundation simply always sells Gelre for 95 cents, so it is no use offering your Gelres for more.

And because 1 Gelre has a purchasing power of 1 Euro in the network, there is always a natural demand for Gelre because its buyer gets a de facto discount of at least 5%.
Of course you want a stable rate for the Gelre, close to its target of 0,95 cents. This is achieved by correctly managing the amount of Gelre you issue. If you issue to many, people will dump it on the market and your unit goes down the drain: nobody will accept it if its rate goes down too much.

But you can, and we have, create a stabilization fund. Because we sell Gelre for 0,95 cents, we have Euro. We could simply pocket them, but then we would be ripping off the system. It would be a goldmine. Nobody would even notice, people are gullible, but the idea is to help, not to steal. No, the Euro we get in this way go into the stabilization fund and we use them to buy back Gelres if the rate goes down to much.

In effect this means we can almost guarantee a stable exchange rate. Almost, because every adult has to awaken to the fact that there is only one guarantee in life: you die.
It is childish to look for guarantees from institutions. That is part of what is called 'arrested
development'.

At this moment we are programming the on-line exchange. Its not complicated at all, thankfully.

Naturally all this needs to be managed correctly. And of course the idea is very simple. But also revolutionary. A breakthrough that has the potential to create very powerful currencies that can compete globally and locally in many diverse networks against the far to expensive (because of interest) '(supra)national' currencies.

We have chosen a regional scope, because one of our main goals is to stop centralization of power. Since most local economic area's are 80% self sufficient, it is natural that they are monetarily as well.

And because 'The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it' and also because 'the process of money creation is so simple, it repels the mind' transparency is essential in any real money system.

Therefore we have created the Gelre monitor, which reports real-time to all parties involved, on-line, all the key indicators of the Gelre. Turnover, amount in circulation, percentage that is taken by the issuing organization for costs, number of participants, etc, etc. All this information will be available with just a few mouse clicks.

End of this year, maybe early next, our new system will be on-line, hopefully. And it is going to work. Despite the many unknowns to the public. You know why?
Because we are going to print some money and GIVE IT AWAY!

We are going to give away millions of Gelre (1 Gelre = 1 Euro). Why not? We print it for nothing! We don't use that money to stuff these piggybanksters, but we hand it over to the people!! And they can spend it at the businesses that join. These businesses can actually convert their Gelre income to Euro (at a small cost).

We are going to play Santa Clause and all that money is going to circulate forever, continuing to create business. A skyrocketing Gelre Economy in the depths of a very severe depression.
Nobody can get a Eurodime, but we give away millions of Gelre!!

Of course most of the Gelres we put into circulation will be lent out (without interest, but of course with some (very cheap) price, we have bills to pay) in a mutual credit kind of scheme, or sold for Euro (for the benefit of the stabilization fund), but a reasonably small percentage can be simply given away.

You know, the Dutch have a reputation, well deserved, for being the Jews of the Gentiles. If GIVING THEM MONEY FOR NOTHING is not going to convince them, I'm just gonna give up and let the wolves do their thing.

As a final note: one of the most painful delusions many well informed and well intentioned people suffer from, is that the problem is paper money. And that gold is the solution. It is not. Gold is controlled by the same scoundrels that control the current printing presses.
The problem is inflating and deflating an interest bearing money supply. By fraudulent criminals. This is the same for gold as it is for paper. Where do people think all the depressions before 1913 came from?

Of course, gold DOES have a function as the great, eternal tell tale of paper manipulation. That is why it has been manipulated at an unimaginable scale. If it had not been, gold would probably already be at 5k Dollars per ounce. Real inflation (as opposed to the FED figures) has been that bad, the last few decades.

But as a means of exchange it is worthless. Impractical and with an unstable, non-transparent supply. Stable, transparent supply is a core indicator of high quality money.

To be honest, the bankers couldn't care less about the paper, if they can replace it by gold.
Money is one of the few commodities that we can produce infinitely at virtually no cost. The art of the trade is to create plentiful money, without overdoing it. Even a limited amount of inflation is OK, as long as people are aware of it, are compensated for it and don't save the money.

Saving money is always a bad idea anyway, because it withholds money from circulation, but that is another story.

The point is, that if you have a reasonable entity issuing the money, its supply will be stable and cheap.

The Gelre will also prove that gold is as big a hoax as is interest bearing debt.
You can tell I'm excited about it, I can hardly believe we are actually going to do this, and sometimes I am afraid, not only of success, but also of the banksters.
We are going to do it, though.......

china will race for armed space

.
http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2009-11/02/content_4072043.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6486030/Space-arms-race-inevitable-says-Chinese-commander.html

Space arms race inevitable says Chinese commander

An arms race in space is an "historical inevitability", a senior Chinese air force commander has warned, marking an apparent shift in Beijing's opposition to weaponising outer space.

Peter Foster in Beijing

02 Nov 2009

China, which hopes to put a man on the moon by 2020, has long stated that it supported the peaceful uses of outer space and opposed the introduction of weapons there.

However Xu Qiliang, a senior Chinese air force commander, said it was imperative for the PLA air force to develop offensive and defensive operations in outer space.

"As far as the revolution in military affairs is concerned, the competition between military forces is moving towards outer space," he told the People's Liberation Army Daily in an interview to mark last month's 60th Anniversary of Communist China, "this is a historical inevitability and a development that cannot be turned back."

Although Beijing has also sought to establish an international treaty to control the deployment of weapons in space, China surprised the world in 2007 when it shot down one of its own weather satellites in a test seen by many, including the United States, as a possible trigger of an arms race in space.

"The PLA air force must establish in a timely manner the concepts of space security, space interests and space development," Mr Xu added, "We must build an outer space force that conforms with the needs of our nation's development (and) the demands of the development of the space age."

Superiority in outer space can give a nation control over war zones both on land and at sea, while also offering a strategic advantage, Xu said, noting that such dominance was necessary to safeguard the nation.

"Only power can protect peace," the 59-year-old commander added.

China is currently in the process of rapidly modernising its armed forces, investigating the construction hardware such as aircraft carriers as well as cyber warfare techniques that could paralyse enemy's command and control systems.

Last year's annual Pentagon report to the US Congress warned that Chinese militarisation was changing the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region.

China, however, dismisses such talk as alarmist and says that its rise will be peaceful. China currently spends 1.4 per cent of GDP on its armed forces, compared with two per cent in Britain and France and four per cent in the United States.

cartoon: us aid to pakistan

.



Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff’

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/sundays-toon-us-aid-to-pakistan/

legal pot already a californian reality

.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6897958.ece

From The Sunday Times

November 1, 2009

On the quiet, the US is legalising marijuana

The humble joint can save lives. We look forward to the end of senseless prohibition

Andrew Sullivan

You know things are shifting in America when Fortune magazine, the bible for business journalism, runs a cover story titled “Is pot already legal?”. You also know it when Barack Obama’s Department of Justice publishes a long-expected memo signalling that the federal government will no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries if they are legal under state law. That happened formally this month.

It was not, moreover, a symbolic gesture. Marijuana for medical reasons — to tackle chemotherapy-induced nausea or Aids-related wasting or glaucoma, among other conditions — is now legal in 13 states, including the biggest, California. Next year, 13 more states are planning referendums or new laws following suit. Last week a California legislative committee held the first hearings not simply on whether medical marijuana should remain legal, but on whether all marijuana should be decriminalised, full stop. The incentive? The vast amounts of money the bankrupt state could raise by taxing cannabis.

Now look at the polling on the question. In 1970, 84% of Americans supported keeping marijuana illegal. Today, that number has collapsed to 54%. The proportion believing that marijuana should be legal has gone from 18% at the end of the 1960s to 44% today. On current trends, a majority of Americans will favour legalisation by the end of Obama’s first term. In the western states, 53% already favour legalising and taxing the stuff. Support for legalisation is strongest among the young — the Obama generation — but has climbed among self-described Republicans as well.

But the reality is already ahead of the polls. Take a trip, so to speak, to Los Angeles today, where one would be forgiven for thinking that marijuana was already legal. There are more than 800 marijuana dispensaries in the city — and an estimated 7,000 in the state of California as a whole (many times more than in Holland).

Getting a doctor’s recommendation for marijuana is easier than getting health insurance — just look at the ads in the papers, where a consultation costs about $200. The dispensaries range from the dime store to elaborate palaces of capitalist taste. Seminars are held for entrepreneurs who want to start a business selling medical cannabis. On display are sophisticated strains that can provide exquisitely tailored effects: some best for countering nausea, some for building appetite, others for going to sleep, others for staying alert or for watching movies or for general relaxation.

The concentration of THC, the active compound, is much higher than in the past. But since no one has ever overdosed on marijuana, it’s difficult to say why that matters. Yes, if someone has a history of mental illness, it’s not that smart to experiment with the cannabinoid receptors in the brain. But it isn’t smart for such people to take any drugs — or too much alcohol — for that matter. For most people, stronger pot merely translates into a need for less of it to get the same effect. Too much and you’ll likely nod off — and wake up later with no hangover. If pubs served pot rather than beer, crime rates would plummet.

Americans, for whom the use of marijuana is almost a rite of passage in most colleges, know all this. And at some point they stopped pretending otherwise. The past three presidents smoked marijuana in their earlier days, even if only one has openly written about it. (Obama, when asked the Clinton question — if he had inhaled — responded: “I thought that was the point.”) In an online press conference with his younger supporters, the first question was about whether legalising and taxing pot would be a good thing to help raise revenues. Obama laughed it off. With an annual deficit of more than a trillion dollars, he may not be able to laugh it off much longer.

The key to the shift has been the emphasis on marijuana’s medical properties. Human beings have used marijuana as medicine for millennia. It was once sold in the States by Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical manufacturer. Allowing this compassionate use for a few soon revealed, accidentally, how harmless it is. It is not chemically addictive, although some mild withdrawal can happen if you are a regular pot-smoker and go cold turkey. Its side-effects are minimal compared with those of most authorised drugs for similar conditions. It is far less addictive than tobacco or alcohol. It leads to no measurable degree of antisocial behaviour, as is the case with, say, crystal meth or cocaine or heroin. Many of its users are successful, productive members of society who simply prefer it to alcohol as a relaxant in the evening or as a way to get through cancer treatment.

Denying Aids patients a tool to stay alive tips the balance. I have one friend who would never have been able to tolerate the medications that saved his life without it. That’s pretty persuasive stuff and lots of people have similar first-hand experiences. A gateway drug? Yes, many users of hard drugs smoked pot in the first place. But almost all started out with alcohol as well — and that is not illegal.

Of course, nothing is inevitable. The police still police it and hundreds of thousands of Americans — disproportionately black and poor — are in jail for it. Los Angeles’s failure to regulate adequately its hundreds of dispensaries may lead to connections with organised crime that could come back to delegitimise the whole thing.

I give it a couple of years to become a non-issue or to go into reverse. And my bet is that in a decade’s time, the banning of cannabis will seem as strange as the banning of alcohol. In the end, unnecessary prohibition undermines itself. And this time around, there are millions of cancer and HIV patients who are on the side of legalising and some truly desperate branches of government looking to see what they can tax next. In fact, I’ll go further: sooner rather than later, marijuana may be more acceptable than tobacco.

The need for taboos is eternal. But the object of the taboo is always shifting. The age of tobacco may be ending; and the millennium of marijuana may be about to begin.

uk: prohibitionist brown against scientific truth

.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091031/tuk-uk-britain-science-politics-fa6b408.html

British drugs sacking fuels science, politics row

8 hours 12 mins ago

Reuters

Kate Kelland

The government's sacking of its chief drugs adviser highlights the tense relationship between scientists who see evidence as objective data and politicians who want use it to woo voters.

Britain's scientific community reacted with dismay to Home Secretary Alan Johnson's decision to push David Nutt out of his job as head of the independent drugs advisory body, saying it undermined the integrity of science in policy.

Scientists said the decision to sack Nutt, who criticised Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government for ignoring scientific advice on cannabis and ecstasy, could devalue policy-making in areas including health, environment, education and defence.

Climate change, healthcare and tackling the H1N1 swine flu pandemic are all high on the political agenda as Brown -- whose Labour party trails way behind the Conservatives -- prepares for an election due by June next year

Nutt said Brown's was the first government in the history of Britain's 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act -- the main law covering illegal drugs and categorising them into risk groups -- to have gone against the advice of its scientific panel.

Analysts say playing politics with science may prove to be dangerous.

"Scientific data and their independent interpretation underpin evidence-based policy making -- and nobody rational could possibly want a government based on any other type of policy making," said Chris Higgins, chair of an advisory committee on spongiform encephalopathy, or "mad cow" disease.

The Labour government downgraded cannabis' legal status on the advisory body's advice in 2004 but Brown reversed that decision last year saying he wanted to send a strong message that use of the drug was unacceptable.

Nutt publicly criticised this decision, and was told by ministers Friday to quit his job.

"Some aspects of science...should not be subject to petty party politics," he told BBC radio Saturday. "There's no point in having drug laws that are meaningless or arbitrary just because politicians find it useful and expedient occasionally to come down so-called hard on drugs."

What angers scientists most is what they see as cherry-picking of evidence by politicians who use data when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't.

Nutt said that of the hundreds of recommendations made by his committee, the government has chosen to ignore just two. He accused ministers of misleading the public about the dangers of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy for purely political reasons.

Maurice Elphick, a professor of animal physiology and neuroscience at Queen Mary, University of London, said politicians should look elsewhere if they wanted data to back social policies and allow science to maintain objectivity.

"If, however, politicians really do want to have an objective assessment of the relative risks to health of different recreational drugs, then they should listen to what the medical scientist has to say, not sack him." he said.

(Additional reporting by Michael Holden, editing by Dominic Evans)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20091029/tpl-alcohol-cigarettes-more-harmful-than-5b839a9.html

Alcohol, cigarettes more harmful than LSD: scientist

Thursday, October 29

04:04 pm

AFP


Alcohol and cigarettes are more dangerous than illegal drugs such as cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, the government's top drugs advisor said Thursday.

Professor David Nutt of Imperial College London called for a new system of classifying drugs to enable the public to better understand the relative harm of legal and illegal substances.

Alcohol would rank as the fifth most harmful drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone, he said in a briefing paper for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London.

Tobacco would come ninth on the list and cannabis, LSD and ecstasy "while harmful, are ranked lower at 11, 14 and 18 respectively". The ranking is based on physical harm, dependence and social harm.

"No one is suggesting that drugs are not harmful. The critical question is one of scale and degree," said Nutt, the chairman of the government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

He added: "We have to accept young people like to experiment -- with drugs and other potentially harmful activities -- and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives.

"We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong."

Nutt criticised ministers for their decision to upgrade the classification of cannabis in January from class C -- which includes tranquillisers and some painkillers -- to the higher class B alongside amphetamines.

The decision, which increases the penalties to a maximum 14 years in jail for dealing and five years for possession, was against scientific advice and came just five years after cannabis had been downgraded from class B to C.

Nutt said such policies "distort" and "devalue" research evidence and lead to mixed messages to the public.

While he acknowledged that cannabis was "harmful", he said its use does not lead to major health problems. Users faced a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness compared to the risks of smokers contracting lung cancer.

Nutt caused controversy earlier this year by saying that taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than horseriding, a claim he repeated in his paper.