Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: September 2007
Loading...

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Impeachable Protect America Act











THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT This Issue Is Not A Dead And Gone Concession To The Administration.
The Fight Has Just Begun. The Fact That This Administration Has Sought These Powers And Fully Intends To Exercise Them Is Grounds For Impeachment.
Please Don’t Bother Me With The Argument Or Retort: “But The Congress… “, Because I’ll Concede As Fact That They Are Complicit, Accomplices In This And Other Criminally Tragic Legislative Enactments.

Though that is part and parcel of the larger problem; that component will have to be dealt with separately in due course. This War must be fought on one front and we cannot be squandering our energies in the division and dilution of a multi-front campaign. It does not work given the level of fear, ignorance/stupidity and apathy with which we are confronted!

The focus must be “IMPEACHMENT FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE”, after which we can be about the task of purging the Congress, selecting a President with Integrity, and that list grew painfully small this week given the vote on The Kyl/Lieberman Amendment.

I do not give a damn if your if your favored candidate was among those who voted Yes or DID NOT vote; if they fall in either column they must be abandoned in all support, verbal, financial, and vote. They are not to be trusted; they are not part of a solution; they are part of the problem and they must be stopped and their ambitions defeated/destroyed.

It is frustrating to have to repeatedly present, argue and explain issue upon issue in isolation, (and even taken alone this way things are bad enough to warrant the most severe acts of rebellion available t0 us), when my fondest hope is that some how Americans will wake up and digest the totally of the perversions that have been visited upon our system of government as the entirety of our foundation principles, fundamental laws, sacred institutions and our Constitution have been consigned to sewer by one Bush flushing after another after this administration has literally shit on them and us WHILE ARROGANTLY LYING, SPYING AND SMILING AS THEY HAVE GIVEN “WE THE PEOPLE”, THE CONGRESS, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE WORLD THE FINGER!

A Small Collection From The “TOTALITY PACKAGE”.

http://thepetitionofimpeachment.blogspot.com/2007/06/alexandria-city-virginia-petition-of.html

http://thepetitionofimpeachment.blogspot.com/2007/07/alexandria-petition-of-impeachment.html

http://thepetitionofimpeachment.blogspot.com/2007/07/summary-of-causes-outline.html

http://thepetitionofimpeachment.blogspot.com/2007/08/eds-memorial-notes-jefferson-manual.html

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/06/impeachment-impeach-bush-and-cheney_2868.html

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/08/this-is-intolerable.html

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/06/impeachment-nspd-51-and-hspd-20-are.html

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/06/impeach-bush-and-cheny-high-noon-in-dc.html

PROTECT AMERICA LINKS:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01927

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110augYHT

THE ACT

To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

THIS ACT MAY BE CITED AS THE `PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007'.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 105 the following:

CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.

ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them, that—

(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to section 105C of this Act;

(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance;

(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communications service provider, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person of such service provider, custodian, or other person) who has access to communications, either as they are transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store such communications;

(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and

(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition activity meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h).

This determination shall be in the form of a written certification, under oath, supported as appropriate by affidavit of appropriate officials in the national security field occupying positions appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, or the Head of any Agency of the Intelligence Community, unless immediate action by the Government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification. In such a case, the determination of the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General shall be reduced to a certification as soon as possible but in no event more than 72 hours after the determination is made.

(b) A certification under subsection (a) is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which the acquisition of foreign intelligence information will be directed.

(c) The Attorney General shall transmit as soon as practicable under seal to the court established under section 103(a) a copy of a certification made under subsection (a). Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice of the United States and the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the acquisition under section 105B.

(d) An acquisition under this section may be conducted only in accordance with the certification of the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, or their oral instructions if time does not permit the preparation of a certification, and the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate under section 108(a).

(e) With respect to an authorization of an acquisition under section 105B, the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may direct a person to—

(1) immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, and assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition in such a manner as will protect the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such person is providing to the target; and

(2) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished that such person wishes to maintain.

(f) The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, a person for providing information, facilities, or assistance pursuant to subsection (e).

(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall issue an order requiring the person to comply with the directive if it finds that the directive was issued in accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt of court. Any process under this section may be served in any judicial district in which the person may be found.

(h)(1)(A) A person receiving a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e) may challenge the legality of that directive by filing a petition with the pool established under section 103(e)(1).

(B) The presiding judge designated pursuant to section 103(b) shall assign a petition filed under subparagraph (A) to one of the judges serving in the pool established by section 103(e)(1). Not later than 48 hours after the assignment of such petition, the assigned judge shall conduct an initial review of the directive. If the assigned judge determines that the petition is frivolous, the assigned judge shall immediately deny the petition and affirm the directive or any part of the directive that is the subject of the petition. If the assigned judge determines the petition is not frivolous, the assigned judge shall, within 72 hours, consider the petition in accordance with the procedures established under section 103(e)(2) and provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for any determination under this subsection.

(2) A judge considering a petition to modify or set aside a directive may grant such petition only if the judge finds that such directive does not meet the requirements of this section or is otherwise unlawful. If the judge does not modify or set aside the directive, the judge shall immediately affirm such directive, and order the recipient to comply with such directive.

(3) Any directive not explicitly modified or set aside under this subsection shall remain in full effect.

(i) The Government or a person receiving a directive reviewed pursuant to subsection (h) may file a petition with the Court of Review established under section 103(b) for review of the decision issued pursuant to subsection (h) not later than 7 days after the issuance of such decision. Such court of review shall have jurisdiction to consider such petitions and shall provide for the record a written statement of the reasons for its decision. On petition for a writ of certiorari by the Government or any person receiving such directive, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.

(j) Judicial proceedings under this section shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible. The record of proceedings, including petitions filed, orders granted, and statements of reasons for decision, shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice of the United States, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

(k) All petitions under this section shall be filed under seal. In any proceedings under this section, the court shall, upon request of the Government, review ex parte and in camera any Government submission, or portions of a submission, which may include classified information.

(l) Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section.

(m) A directive made or an order granted under this section shall be retained for a period of not less than 10 years from the date on which such directive or such order is made.'.

SEC. 3. SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF PROCEDURES.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 105B the following:

`SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW OF PROCEDURES

`Sec. 105C. (a) No later than 120 days after the effective date of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the Court established under section 103(a), the procedures by which the Government determines that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The procedures submitted pursuant to this section shall be updated and submitted to the Court on an annual basis.

`(b) No later than 180 days after the effective date of this Act, the court established under section 103(a) shall assess the Government's determination under section 105B(a)(1) that those procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The court's review shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is clearly erroneous.

`(c) If the court concludes that the determination is not clearly erroneous, it shall enter an order approving the continued use of such procedures. If the court concludes that the determination is clearly erroneous, it shall issue an order directing the Government to submit new procedures within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under section 105B that are implicated by the court's order.

`(d) The Government may appeal any order issued under subsection (c) to the court established under section 103(b). If such court determines that the order was properly entered, the court shall immediately provide for the record a written statement of each reason for its decision, and, on petition of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision. Any acquisitions affected by the order issued under subsection (c) of this section may continue during the pendency of any appeal, the period during which a petition for writ of certiorari may be pending, and any review by the Supreme Court of the United States.'.

SEC. 4. REPORTING TO CONGRESS.

On a semi-annual basis the Attorney General shall inform the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, concerning acquisitions under this section during the previous 6-month period. Each report made under this section shall include—

(1) a description of any incidents of non-compliance with a directive issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under section 105B, to include—

(A) incidents of non-compliance by an element of the Intelligence Community with guidelines or procedures established for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence authorized by the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence concerns persons reasonably to be outside the United States; and

(B) incidents of noncompliance by a specified person to whom the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence issue a directive under this section; and

(2) the number of certifications and directives issued during the reporting period.

SEC. 5. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) In General- Section 103(e) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(e)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `501(f)(1)' and inserting `105B(h) or 501(f)(1)'; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `501(f)(1)' and inserting `105B(h) or 501(f)(1)'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents in the first section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 105 the following:

`105A. Clarification of electronic surveillance of persons outside the United States.

`105B. Additional procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions concerning persons located outside the United States.

`105C. Submission to court review of procedures.'.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION PROCEDURES.

(a) Effective Date- Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by this Act shall take effect immediately after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Transition Procedures- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any order in effect on the date of enactment of this Act issued pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall remain in effect until the date of expiration of such order, and, at the request of the applicant, the court established under section 103(a) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall reauthorize such order as long as the facts and circumstances continue to justify issuance of such order under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as in effect on the day before the applicable effective date of this Act.

The Government also may file new applications, and the court established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall enter orders granting such applications pursuant to such Act, as long as the application meets the requirements set forth under the provisions of such Act as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act. At the request of the applicant, the court established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)), shall extinguish any extant authorization to conduct electronic surveillance or physical search entered pursuant to such Act.

Any surveillance conducted pursuant to an order entered under this subsection shall be subject to the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act.

(c) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) Authorizations in Effect- Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).


PULL CONGRESS BACK INTO THE WIRETAPPING FIGHT TO RESTORE YOUR RIGHTS

In August, Congress passed legislation that broadly expands the National Security Agency's authority to spy on Americans without warrants. Now Congress needs to undo the damage as soon as possible, and to make it do that, your representatives need to hear from you.

By capitulating to the President's demands for sweeping new surveillance powers, Congress not only trampled on your Constitutional rights but also disregarded its own Constitutional duties. The law permits warrantless surveillance of “persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States,” even when they are U.S. citizens or are communicating with U.S. citizens, with no prior court approval and only minimal court oversight. Rather than setting meaningful boundaries on the Executive, Congress essentially handed him a blank check to invade Americans' privacy.

The most important check on government surveillance still remains though. It's you. Tell your representatives to repeal this legislation and restore your rights now.

More info:

Text of the bill (off-site)

Analysis by Center for National Security Studies (off-site), and round-up of op-eds

EFF's case against AT&T for its role in the NSA's domestic spying

Protect us from the Protect America Act

ACLU fact sheet on the Protect America Act

Executive Summary of Grave Concerns about the FISA bill, S. 1927 from the Center for National Security Studies

EFF class action lawsuit against AT&T - including links to legal documents

List of Senate Democrats who voted for the Protect America Act

List of Democrats in the House of Representatives who voted for the Protect America Act

http://www.irregulartimes.com/2008reasonsmain.html
The So-Called Protect America Act: Why Its Sweeping Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Pose Not Only a Civil Liberties Threat, But a Greater Danger As WellBy JOHN W. DEAN

Congressional Democrats are getting a lot of well-earned heat from rank-and-file members of their party, not to mention editorial writers and bloggers, for their lack of spine in refusing to reject the Bush/Cheney Administration's sweeping amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Just before Congress departed for its August recess, the Administration jammed through in five days - from start to finish -- the dubiously titled Protect America Act (PAA) of 2007, over the protest of the Democratic leadership. The only thing good about the PAA is that it is temporary - with a six month expiration date (although surveillance programs authorized under it can operate for up to one year.)

On her Democracy NOW daily program, Amy Goodman's (streaming video) interviewed Salon.com's law blogger, Glenn Greenwald, and the president of the National Lawyers Guild, Marjorie Cohn, about the PAA. The interview nicely sets forth what happened and its broad implications. Simply stated, Bush threatened to make a political issue of any effort by Congressional Democrats to protect the civil liberties of American. Bush surely succeeded beyond his most fervent hope in his intimidation of sixteen Democratic members in the Senate and forty-one Democratic members in the House, earning these members a place on "the roll of shame" in the blogosphere.

A THREAT GREATER THAN THAT TO CIVIL LIBERTIES: EXECUTIVE AGGRANDIZEMENT

The Washington Post, the New York Times, and politically-diverse organizations ranging from the John Birch Society and the Cato Institute to the American Civil Liberties Union all agree that the PAA is a serious mistake, and threat to the civil liberties of Americans. They point out that the law ignores the Fourth Amendment while, at the same time, hiding its actual operations in national security secrecy. Indeed, Congress was not even certain about the full extent of what it has authorized because President Bush and Vice-President Cheney refused to reveal it.

It is not likely that law-abiding Americans will even know that the U.S. Government's intelligence gathering operations are listening in on their calls to and from foreign countries, or similarly scanning emails. For this reason, it is not to be expected that many Americans will care about what the Democratic Congress has given a Republican president who has proven himself insensitive to anyone's privacy other than his own.

There is, however, a threat in this new law even greater than its robbing Americans of their communications privacy, which commentators and critics have virtually ignored. This law is another bold and blatant move by Bush to enhance the powers of the Executive branch at the expense of its constitutional co-equals.

Congress was willing to give Bush the amendments to FISA that would make this law effective under current technology. The 1978 law did not account for the fact that modern digital communications between people outside the United States often is routed through the United States, yet the FISA Court said surveillance of such routed communications required a warrant. Nevertheless, Bush rejected the legislation proposed by the Democrats because it also contained checks on the use of surveillance powers.

This, of course, is consistent with Bush and Cheney's general drive to weaken or eliminate all checks and balances constraining the Executive. This drive was evidenced by countless laws enacted by the Republican-controlled Congresses during the first six years of the Administration, and in countless signing statements added by the President interpreting away any constraints on the Executive. Thus, when even the GOP Congresses required presidential compliance and reporting, they were thwarted.

The most stunning aspect of the Democrats' capitulation is their abandoning of their institutional responsibility to hold the president accountable. The Protect America Act utterly fails to maintain any real check on the president's power to undertake electronic surveillance of literally millions of Americans. This is an invitation to abuse, especially for a president like the current incumbent.

Fixing the Dangerously Deficient Albeit Quickly Sunsetting Protect America Act And Ignoring the White House's Requests For Even More Power.

Though it is quite certain abuses of the surveillance powers under the Protect America Act will occur, they have not yet occurred. The failure to provide a check on such potential abuses, however, has already occurred. It represents the greatest failing of the Democratic Congress in acceding to the demands of Bush and Cheney. It is this failure that should be a paramount concern of the Congress when it next addresses this temporary law.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to the chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, requesting they develop legislation "addressing the many deficiencies" of the temporary law as soon as Congress returns from its recess.

Even though the White House got everything it demanded from Congress, it is requesting even more. When signing the Protect America Act, Bush said, "When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Bush also wants legislative immunity for the American companies, and government officials (including himself), to protect them from criminal prosecution for violating the criminal provision of FISA. As readers will recall, before Congress caved and gave Bush power to conduct this surveillance, he - and telecommunication companies simply opted to do so illegally. Now, Bush will claim, with some justification, that because Congress has now made legal actions that were previously illegal, it should retroactively clear up this nasty problem facing all those who broke the law at his command.

If the Democrats fail to stand up to the bullying of this weak president, and ignore his demands for more unaccountability, they might as well start looking for another line of work. Not only are their fellow rank and file Democrats going to turn on them in 2008, but the overwhelming numbers of independents who assisted them in regaining power are going to desert them in droves.

At bottom, Democrats truly only need to add one fix to this dangerous law: meaningful accountability. They must do so, or face the consequences.

No one wants to deny the intelligence community all the tools it needs. But regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, no Congress should trust any president with unbridled powers of surveillance over Americans. It is not the way our system is supposed to work.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html

For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretaryAugust 6, 2007

Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007 President Bush Signs Legislation Modernizing Foreign Intelligence Law ToBetter Protect America

White House News

In Focus: National Security

"We know that information we have been able to acquire about foreign threats will help us detect and prevent attacks on our homeland. Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, has assured me that this bill gives him the most immediate tools he needs to defeat the intentions of our enemies. And so in signing this legislation today I am heartened to know that his critical work will be strengthened and we will be better armed to prevent attacks in the future."

President George W. Bush, 8/5/07

The Protect America Act Modernizes The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) To Give Intelligence Professionals The Tools They Urgently Need To Gather Information About Our Enemies, While Protecting The Civil Liberties Of Americans. The Act, passed with bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, restores FISA to its original focus on protecting the rights of Americans, while not acting as an obstacle to conducting foreign intelligence surveillance on foreign targets located overseas.

Changes In Technology Since 1978 Had The Effect Of Expanding The Scope Of FISA's Coverage To Include Intelligence Collection Efforts That Congress Excluded From The Law's Requirements. This unintended expansion of FISA's scope meant the government, in a significant number of cases, needed to obtain a court order to collect foreign intelligence information against a target located overseas. This created an unnecessary obstacle to our Intelligence Community's ability to gain real-time information about the intent of our enemies overseas and diverted scarce resources that would be better spent safeguarding the civil liberties of people in the United States, not foreign terrorists who wish to do us harm.

The Government Should Not Have To Obtain A Court Order To Conduct Surveillance On Foreign Intelligence Targets Located In Foreign Countries. This was not Congress' intent when it enacted FISA. As the Director of National Intelligence stated, continuing to operate under this outdated law meant our intelligence professionals were "missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country."

The Protect America Act Modernizes FISA In Four Important Ways

1. The Act Permits Our Intelligence Professionals To More Effectively Collect Foreign Intelligence Information On Targets In Foreign Lands Without First Receiving Court Approval. The Act clarifies that the definition of electronic surveillance in FISA shall not be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. This clarification restores FISA to its original intent and means intelligence professionals will not have to go to court in order to collect foreign intelligence on an overseas target who may be planning to attack the U.S.

2. The Act Provides A Role For The FISA Court In Reviewing The Procedures The Intelligence Community Uses To Ensure That Surveillance Efforts Target Persons Located Overseas. The Attorney General is required to submit to the FISA court the procedures by which intelligence professionals will determine that the authorized acquisitions of foreign intelligence do not constitute electronic surveillance that is, the procedures by which the government determines that the acquisitions are directed at persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States.

3. The Act Provides For The FISA Court To Direct Third Parties To Assist The Intelligence Community In Its Collection Efforts. The Act permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to direct third parties to provide the information, facilities, and assistance necessary to conduct surveillance of foreign intelligence targets located overseas.

4. The Act Protects Third Parties From Private Lawsuits Arising From Assistance They Provide The Government. No cause of action may be brought in any court against any person for complying with a directive to provide the Government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition of foreign intelligence information.

Our Work Is Not Done — This Act Is A Temporary, Narrowly Focused Statute To Deal With The Most Immediate Needs Of The Intelligence Community To Protect The Country. When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

President Bush Discusses the Protect America Act of 2007

President Bush on Wednesday said, "...I call on Congress to make the Protect America Act permanent. The need for action is clear.www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070919.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

protect america act of 2007
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1927es.txt.pdf - Similar pages - Note this

Protect America Act of 2007
To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence ...cryptome.org/s1927.htm - 25k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Orwellian Legislation: Stop the Unconstitutional "Protect America" Act
The tools provided by the Protect America Act are scheduled to expire in early February 2008 – it is essential that Congress act to make the legislation ...www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6831 - 51k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Fact Sheet on the “Police ...
The so-called “Protect America Act of 2007," which we are calling the “Police America Act," allows for massive, untargeted collection of international ...www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/31203res20070807.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Disinformation :: Stop The Unconstitutional 'Protect America' Act
The single largest anti-Constitutional contribution to the Bush Regime by the Protect America Act (PAA) is its effective cancellation of legislative and ...www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle20509.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Digg - ACTION ALERT: Stop the Unconstitutional "Protect America" Act
Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. From the biggest online destinations to the most obscure blog, ...digg.com/political_opinion/ACTION_ALERT_Stop_the_Unconstitutional_Protect_America_Act - 65k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
[PDF]

P.L. 110-55, the Protect America Act of 2007: Modifications to the ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLThe Protect America Act provides for review by the ..... Protect America Act of 2007, P.L. 110-55, Sec. 105B(a), 121 Stat. 552 (August 5, 2007) ...www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34143.pdf - Similar pages - Note this

House Approves Amendment to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Regrettably, the Protect America Act includes a 180-day sunset, .... This is the Protect America Act of 2007. The American people expect to be protected and ...www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_cr/h080407.html - 120k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Commentary: The Protect America Act and Legislation Related to the ...
Beth Wellington's commentary examines the rapid introduction and passage of the Protect America Act, and the impact of related legislation on civil ...www.llrx.com/extras/nsa.htm - 30k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Threat Level - Wired Blogs
The bill, known as the Protect America Act, removes the prohibition on ..... Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, Protect America Act; Who the hell do they ...blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/analysis-new-la.html - 99k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

S. 1927: Protect America Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)
A bill in the US Congress: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain ...www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1927 - 20k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Bush: Make ...
FORT MEADE, Md., 19 (UPI) -- President George Bush called upon the U.S. Congress Wednesday to make permanent the Protect America Act reforms to U.S. ...www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/19/bush_make_protect_america_act_permanent/5159/ - 43k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Protect America Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide ... and for other purposes also known as the Protect America Act of 2007 (Pub. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007 - 58k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

D 110 1st U.S. House of Representatives 836 S 1927 On Passage YEA ...
D 110 1st U.S. House of Representatives 836 S 1927 On Passage YEA-AND-NAY Passed 4-Aug-2007 10:20 PM Protect America Act Party Yeas Nays Answered “Present” ...clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml - 82k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

beSpacific: Questions and Answers on the Protect America Act of 2007
Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007, August 6, 2007 · Fact Sheet: Combating Terrorism Worldwide, August 6, 2007 ...www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/015643.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Protect America Act, S. 1927 - Council on Foreign Relations
Protect America Act, S. 1927. Published August 4, 2007. This bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It allows the U.S. government to ...www.cfr.org/publication/13982/protect_america_act_s_1927.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

'Protect America Act' Set to Expire - Politics - CBN News
President Bush says the nation's security team is at risk of losing critical tools needed to protect the US.www.cbn.com/CBNnews/234696.aspx - 18k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Take Action: Stop Unlimited Wiretap Authority
Tell Congress to reconsider the Protect America Act of 2007! ... The Protect America Act passed Congress Aug. 5, surrendering privacy and government ...ga6.org/campaign/ProtectAmericaAct - 49k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Data-Mining Our Liberties
The Protect America Act of 2007--the title alone ought to be warning that unsavory motives ... The key term in the Protect America Act is its licensing of ...www.thenation.com/doc/20070813/huq2 - 38k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

New law expands power to wiretap - The Boston Globe
Just before midnight on Saturday, Congress passed the Protect America Act of 2007, which was largely drafted by the White House and received no committee ...www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/06/new_law_expands_power_to_wiretap/ - Similar pages - Note this

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The hearing on “Strengthening FISA: Does the Protect America Act Protect Americans' Civil Liberties and Enhance Security?” scheduled by the Senate Committee ...judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2942 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Analysis of the Protect ...
ACLU Analysis of the Protect America Act (8/29/2007). SECTION BY SECTION S. 1927, “The Protect America Act”. AG= Attorney General ...www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31496leg20070829.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Congress approves sweeping surveillance powers
But the hastily-enacted legislation, dubbed the Protect America Act, does more than permit the interception of foreign-to-foreign communications. ...arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070806-congress-approves-sweeping-survellance-powers.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
[DOC]

protect america act
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTMLS. 1927 — Protect America Act of 2007. Summary of the Bills Under Consideration Today:. Total Number of New Government Programs: 0 ...www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/LB_080407_FISA_Rev.doc - Similar pages - Note this

ANALYSIS

TALON Spy Database To Continue Operation Under Alberto Gonzales

Government Activates Behavior Detection Agents

John Michael McConnell Authorizes Spy Satellites Against American Citizens

Government Attorney Confirms Hepting v. AT&T is connected to the Protect America Act

Too Busy Partying to Protect the Bill of Rights?

Does Claire McCaskill Have No Will?

James Webb Bullshits the American People

Four out of Five Republican Candidates Don't Want to Protect America

Democratic Presidential Candidates Stand By Liberty

Is Protect America Act About Hepting v. AT&T?

The Protect America Act and Total Information Awareness

Update on Total Information Awareness Cases and Protect America Act

Critical Questions About The Protect America Act

Third Case Bush Had To Squelch With Protect America Act

A Mighty Big Coincidence in Warrantless Surveillance

It's About the Timeline

Protect America Act Linked to Total Information Awareness

Summing Up A Fishy Timeline for The Protect America Act

Why The Protect America Act Lawsuit Link Matters

Protect America Act Sunset is Not a Sunset

FISA: But Americans Are Protected, Right?



https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr004=5ks34s1xv1.app13b&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=270

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks

Sign the petition to repeal the Protect America Act

From The Irregular Times (There Are No Internal Links In This Source That Are Not Worth Opening And Following)

It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection. These are the times when maps fade and direction is lost. Forwards is backwards now, so we glance sideways at the strange lands through which we are all passing, knowing for certain only that our destination has disappeared. We are unready to meet these times, but we proceed nonetheless, adapting as we wander, reshaping the Earth with every tread. Behind us we have left the old times, the standard times, the high times. Welcome to the irregular times.

Keeping the Promise?

The Oath of Office of the House of Representatives:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

This is the central commitment of every member of the United States House of Representatives: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not to support and defend the American people. Not to support and defend the land itself. To support and defend the binding contract we Americans make with ourselves and each other, the American Constitution.

The Irregular Times Oath Of Office Index measures the extent to which our Representatives actually support and defend the Constitution in their legislative actions. Does your member of Congress support or oppose the central tenet of Americanism: support for the Constitution? Or in opposition to the Constitution has your Representative embraced an unAmerican agenda? Has your member of Congress been faithful to or broken his or her solemn oath of office? Check our index for the 110th Congress of 2007-2008m and find out.

Progressive Rankings and Contact Information for Members of the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress Brought to you by Irregular Times

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

http://progressivepatriots.com/house/index.html

http://progressivepatriots.com/house/conservativerank.html

http://progressivepatriots.com/house/oathofofficeindex.html

Subsection Categories

Extraordinary Support and Defense of the U.S. Constitution

Relatively Strong Support of the Constitution:

Moderately Pro-Constitution

Weak Support for the Constitution

An Utter Lack of Support for the Constitution

THE UNITED STATES SENATE

http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/110byranking.html

http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/rightwingindex110.html

http://www.progressivepatriots.com/senate/senateoathindex110.html
SOME CLOSING SHORT SUBJECTS

Sometimes, Republicans Really Are Nazis

With the Nationalist slogans, scapegoating of ethnic minorities, and widespread attacks against the liberty of citizens that have taken place under the Republican government here in the United States over the last five years, a lot of people have found themselves thinking to themselves, Those Republicans are a bunch of Nazis. Well, now, as chance would have it, there’s proof that sometimes, Republicans really are Nazis.

The official, unchallenged Republican nominee for the 76th district seat in the Montana State legislature this year is a Nazi. That’s not just some rhetorical point. He really is a Nazi. His name is Shawn Stuart, and he wants to represent the area around Butte, Montana in the state legislature. In addition to being a Republican candidate for the Montana State House, Stuart is the leader of the National Socialist Movement, also known as the Nazi Party of America. The local Republicans didn’t bother to run any candidates against Stuart, and so have given him their nomination.

The Republican Party needs to do some serious soul searching about why it is that Nazis find such a comfortable place on the Republican Party line. There’s a reason Nazis run as Republicans instead of as Democrats.

Buoyed by Shawn Stuart’s electoral success, the American Nazis say that they’re going to run a candidate for President in 2008. Will that be on the Republican Party line?

Right Wingers Argue War is Better Than Faded Patriotism
The latest in the growing list of 2,008 reasons to elect a progressive President in 2008 comes from a right wing supporter of the lobbyist corporation Unity08. It’s a quote from John Stuart Mill:

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

Consider what this means, for a moment. John Stuart Mill is actually claiming that it’s a good idea to go to war in order to keep people to feeling patriotic. It’s better to bomb, shoot and stab people in massive numbers, John Stuart Mill says, than to allow people’s patriotic feelings to wane a little bit. Sending your own countrymen off to the deaths is better, from this point of view, than seeing some people wave the flag a little bit less fervently.
This isn’t a theoretical argument. It’s one of the main justifications behind the invasion and military occupation of Iraq by the United States.

Please, don’t vote for a candidate that supports this bloody and wasteful philosophy of war.

Filed under War and Peace, Moral Values, irregular questions by Peregrin Wood at 6:44 am
If Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are terrorists, how are the US Army and the CIA not terrorist?
The Army and CIA go into countries around the world which America is NOT at war with, kidnap people and torture them and threaten them with execution, and even show some of the prisoners on international television as a warning to others. They go around the world dropping bombs, invading other countries, resulting in immense civilian deaths and woundings, not to mention destruction of people’s homes.

How are Iran’s Revolutionary Guards worse than this?

The US Congress passed resolutions declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization.
Now, Iran’s legislature has returned the insult, and declared the US Army and CIA to be terrorist organizations.

If we are to say that the US Army and CIA are not terrorist organizations, how is it justifiable to say that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is?

Filed under War and Peace, 2008 Reasons by Peregrin Wood at 1:31 pm
If you ever need a reminder of how important it is to vote progressive, just take another look at Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman has now come out on the record as saying that he thinks it would be a good idea to start bombing Iran.

Lieberman says that bombing Iran would be an effective way to calm down the violence in Iraq. Iran, on the other hand, has promised to enter into no holds barred open warfare with the United States if it is attacked by the U.S. military. So, with the United States waging war in Iran in order to try to get the initial mess of Iraq under control, what would Lieberman’s next suggestion be? Would he say that we ought to start bombing Azerbaijan in order to get the violence in Iran under control?

Lieberman’s plan to win one war by starting a new war would lead to war around the world. It’s not a plan for victory. It’s a plan for magnifying the humiliation of America’s defeat.
Joseph Lieberman is going to be promoting his crazy ideas in the United States Senate for at least five more years. In 2008, we need to elect a President who is willing to stand against the Lieberman pro-war agenda, not help it become official American foreign policy.
(Source: Financial Times, June 11, 2007)

NEED FURTHER READING AND RESEARCH MATERIAL LINKS? KEEP GOING!

http://irregulartimes.com/election2008resourcecenter.html

Friday, September 28, 2007

IMPEACH THEM BEFORE THE NEXT SHOT IS NOT A BENT SPEAR, BUT A STRAIGHT MISSLE INTO IRAN








BENT SPEAR THE WASHINGTON POST (WITH THANKS TO STEVE FOR THE REMINDER AS THIS ISSUE NEEDS REVISITED IN LIGHT OF THIS WEEK’S DEVELOPMENTS)

NATIONS , THEIR ACTIONS AND USE OF WEAPONS IS LIKE A SUICIDAL PERSONALITY. THERE IS A LOT OF TALK, A LOT OF WARNING SIGNALS THAT MAKE SENSE AFTER THE FACT; AFTER SOMEONE IS DEAD, AND IN THIS CASE IT WILL BE A HORRENDOUS NUMBER....SO WAKE UP, LISTEN AND INTERVENE!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/09/23/GR2007092300032.html

PREVIOUS INDEPTH POST RUSSIAN AND ISRAELI VIEW POINTS
http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/09/views-from-moscow-and-jerusalem-us-and.html

As if Bush Etal. Need Encouragement!
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092707.html

-- SPECIAL REPORT -- Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theaterBy Wayne MadsenSept. 24, 2007Author's website

WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.

Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventionalweapons.

The Washington Post story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration. WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and may still be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE.

Just as this report was being prepared, Newsweek reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's recently-departed Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, told a small group of advisers some months ago that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. Cheney reasoned that after an Iranian retaliatory strike, the United States would have ample reasons to launch its own massive attack on Iran. However, plans for Israel to attack Iran directly were altered to an Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria.

WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel's attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. The neo-conservative propaganda onslaught was to cite the cooperation of the George Bush's three remaining "Axis of Evil" states -- Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- to justify a sustained Israeli attack on Syria and a massive U.S. military attack on Iran.

WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran.

PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the /Times of London/, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a "decapitating" blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident.

Kass' area of speciality is cyber-warfare, which includes ensuring "information blockades," such as that imposed by the Israeli government on the Israeli media regarding the Syrian air attack on the alleged Syrian "nuclear installation." British intelligence sources have reported that the Israeli attack on Syria was a "true flag" attack originally designed to foreshadow a U.S. attack on Iran. After the U.S. Air Force push back against transporting the six cruise nuclear-armed AGM-129s to the Middle East, Israel went ahead with its attack on Syria in order to help ratchet up tensions between Washington on one side and Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang on the other.

The other part of CHECKMATE's brief is to ensure that a media "perception management" is waged against Syria, Iran, and North Korea. This involves articles such as that which appeared with Joby Warrick's and Walter Pincus' bylines in yesterdays /Washington Post/. The article, titled "The Saga of a Bent Spear," quotes a number of seasoned Air Force nuclear weapons experts as saying that such an incident is unprecedented in the history of the Air Force. For example, Retired Air Force General Eugene Habiger, the former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, said he has been in the "nuclear business" since 1966 and has never been aware of an incident "more disturbing."

Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.

CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD would have provided the cover for a pre-emptive U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran had it not been for BENT SPEAR involving the B-52. In on the plan to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran involving nuclear weapons were, according to our sources, Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley; members of the CHECKMATE team at the Pentagon, who have close connections to Israeli intelligence and pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington, including the Hudson Institute; British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a political adviser to Tony Blair prior to becoming a Member of Parliament; Israeli political leaders like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu; and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who did his part last week to ratchet up tensions with Iran by suggesting that war with Iran was a probability. Kouchner retracted his statement after the U.S. plans for Iran were delayed.

Although the Air Force tried to keep the B-52 nuclear incident from the media, anonymous Air Force personnel leaked the story to /Military Times/ on September 5, the day before the Israelis attacked the alleged nuclear installation in Syria and the day planned for the simultaneous U.S. attack on Iran. The leaking of classified information on U.S. nuclear weapons disposition or movement to the media, is, itself, unprecedented. Air Force regulations require the sending of classified BEELINE reports to higher Air Force authorities on the disclosure of classified Air Force information to the media.

In another highly unusual move, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked an outside inquiry board to look into BENT SPEAR, even before the Air Force has completed its own investigation, a virtual vote of no confidence in the official investigation being conducted by Major General Douglas Raaberg, chief of air and space operations at the Air Combat Command.

Gates asked former Air Force Chief of Staff, retired General Larry Welch, to lead a Defense Science Board task force that will also look into the BENT SPEAR incident. The official Air Force investigation has reportedly been delayed for unknown reasons. Welch is President and CEO of the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA), a federally-funded research contractor that operates three research centers, including one for Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President and another for the National Security Agency. One of the board members of IDA is Dr. Suzanne H. Woolsey of the Paladin Capital Group and wife of former CIA director and arch-neocon James Woolsey.

WMR has learned that neither the upper echelons of the State Department nor the British Foreign Office were privy to OPERATION ORCHARD, although Hadley briefed President Bush on Israeli spy satellite intelligence that showed the Syrian installation was a joint nuclear facility built with North Korean and Iranian assistance. However, it is puzzling why Hadley would rely on Israeli imagery intelligence (IMINT) from its OFEK (Horizon) 7 satellite when considering that U.S. IMINT satellites have greater capabilities.

The Air Force's "information warfare" campaign against media reports on CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD also affected international reporting of the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution asking Israel to place its nuclear weapons program under IAEA controls, similar to those that the United States wants imposed on Iran and North Korea. The resolution also called for a nuclear-free zone throughout the Middle East. The IAEA's resolution, titled "Application of IAEA Safeguards in the Middle East," was passed by the 144-member IAEA General Meeting on September 20 by a vote of 53 to 2, with 47 abstentions. The only two countries to vote against were Israel and the United States. However, the story carried from the IAEA meeting in Vienna by Reuters, the Associated Press, and Agence France Press, was that it was Arab and Islamic nations that voted for the resolution.

This was yet more perception management carried out by CHECKMATE, the White House, and their allies in Europe and Israel with the connivance of the media. In fact, among the 53 nations that voted for the resolution were China, Russia, India, Ireland, and Japan. The 47 abstentions were described as votes "against" the resolution even though an abstention is neither a vote for nor against a measure. America's close allies, including Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and Georgia, all abstained.

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater

NOTICE THE MORE COMPLETE TEXT HERE

by Wayne Madsen

Global Research, September 27, 2007
Wayne Madsen Report

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran, Not For Decommissioning: Airforce Refused
Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theaterBy Wayne MadsenSept. 24, 2007
Author's website

WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.

Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons.

The Washington Post story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration. WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and may still be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE.

Just as this report was being prepared, Newsweek reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's recently-departed Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, told a small group of advisers some months ago that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. Cheney reasoned that after an Iranian retaliatory strike, the United States would have ample reasons to launch its own massive attack on Iran. However, plans for Israel to attack Iran directly were altered to an Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria.

WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel's attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. The neo-conservative propaganda onslaught was to cite the cooperation of the George Bush's three remaining "Axis of Evil" states -- Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- to justify a sustained Israeli attack on Syria and a massive U.S. military attack on Iran.

WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran.

PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the /Times of London/, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a "decapitating" blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident.

Kass' area of speciality is cyber-warfare, which includes ensuring "information blockades," such as that imposed by the Israeli government on the Israeli media regarding the Syrian air attack on the alleged Syrian "nuclear installation." British intelligence sources have reported that the Israeli attack on Syria was a "true flag" attack originally designed to foreshadow a U.S. attack on Iran. After the U.S. Air Force push back against transporting the six cruise nuclear-armed AGM-129s to the Middle East, Israel went ahead with its attack on Syria in order to help ratchet up tensions between Washington on one side and Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang on the other.

The other part of CHECKMATE's brief is to ensure that a media "perception management" is waged against Syria, Iran, and North Korea. This involves articles such as that which appeared with Joby Warrick's and Walter Pincus' bylines in yesterdays /Washington Post/. The article, titled "The Saga of a Bent Spear," quotes a number of seasoned Air Force nuclear weapons experts as saying that such an incident is unprecedented in the history of the Air Force. For example, Retired Air Force General Eugene Habiger, the former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, said he has been in the "nuclear business" since 1966 and has never been aware of an incident "more disturbing."

Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.

CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD would have provided the cover for a pre-emptive U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran had it not been for BENT SPEAR involving the B-52. In on the plan to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran involving nuclear weapons were, according to our sources, Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley; members of the CHECKMATE team at the Pentagon, who have close connections to Israeli intelligence and pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington, including the Hudson Institute; British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a political adviser to Tony Blair prior to becoming a Member of Parliament; Israeli political leaders like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu; and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who did his part last week to ratchet up tensions with Iran by suggesting that war with Iran was a probability. Kouchner retracted his statement after the U.S. plans for Iran were delayed.

Although the Air Force tried to keep the B-52 nuclear incident from the media, anonymous Air Force personnel leaked the story to /Military Times/ on September 5, the day before the Israelis attacked the alleged nuclear installation in Syria and the day planned for the simultaneous U.S. attack on Iran. The leaking of classified information on U.S. nuclear weapons disposition or movement to the media, is, itself, unprecedented. Air Force regulations require the sending of classified BEELINE reports to higher Air Force authorities on the disclosure of classified Air Force information to the media.

In another highly unusual move, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked an outside inquiry board to look into BENT SPEAR, even before the Air Force has completed its own investigation, a virtual vote of no confidence in the official investigation being conducted by Major General Douglas Raaberg, chief of air and space operations at the Air Combat Command.

Gates asked former Air Force Chief of Staff, retired General Larry Welch, to lead a Defense Science Board task force that will also look into the BENT SPEAR incident. The official Air Force investigation has reportedly been delayed for unknown reasons. Welch is President and CEO of the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA), a federally-funded research contractor that operates three research centers, including one for Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President and another for the National Security Agency. One of the board members of IDA is Dr. Suzanne H. Woolsey of the Paladin Capital Group and wife of former CIA director and arch-neocon James Woolsey.

WMR has learned that neither the upper echelons of the State Department nor the British Foreign Office were privy to OPERATION ORCHARD, although Hadley briefed President Bush on Israeli spy satellite intelligence that showed the Syrian installation was a joint nuclear facility built with North Korean and Iranian assistance. However, it is puzzling why Hadley would rely on Israeli imagery intelligence (IMINT) from its OFEK (Horizon) 7 satellite when considering that U.S. IMINT satellites have greater capabilities.

The Air Force's "information warfare" campaign against media reports on CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD also affected international reporting of the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution asking Israel to place its nuclear weapons program under IAEA controls, similar to those that the United States wants imposed on Iran and North Korea. The resolution also called for a nuclear-free zone throughout the Middle East.

The IAEA's resolution, titled "Application of IAEA Safeguards in the Middle East," was passed by the 144-member IAEA General Meeting on September 20 by a vote of 53 to 2, with 47 abstentions. The only two countries to vote against were Israel and the United States. However, the story carried from the IAEA meeting in Vienna by Reuters, the Associated Press, and Agence France Press, was that it was Arab and Islamic nations that voted for the resolution.

This was yet more perception management carried out by CHECKMATE, the White House, and their allies in Europe and Israel with the connivance of the media. In fact, among the 53 nations that voted for the resolution were China, Russia, India, Ireland, and Japan. The 47 abstentions were described as votes "against" the resolution even though an abstention is neither a vote for nor against a measure. America's close allies, including Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and Georgia, all abstained.

Suspiciously, the IAEA carried only a brief item on the resolution concerning Israel's nuclear program and a roll call vote was not available either at the IAEA's web site -- www.iaea.org -- or in the media.

The perception management campaign by the neocon operational cells in the Bush administration, Israel and Europe was designed to keep a focus on Iran's nuclear program, not on Israel's. Any international examination of Israel's nuclear weapons program would likely bring up Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu, a covert from Judaism to Christianity, who was kidnapped in Rome by a Mossad "honey trap" named Cheryl Bentov (aka, Cindy) and a Mossad team in 1986 and held against his will in Israel ever since.

Vanunu's knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons program would focus on the country's own role in nuclear proliferation, including its program to share nuclear weapons technology with apartheid South Africa and Taiwan in the late 1970s and 1980s. The role of Ronald Reagan's Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Ken Adelman in Israeli's nuclear proliferation during the time frame 1983-1987 would also come under scrutiny.

Adelman, a member of the Reagan-Bush transition State Department team from November 1980 to January 1981, voiced his understanding for the nuclear weapons programs of Israel, South Africa, and Taiwan in a June 28, 1981 /New York Times/ article titled, "3 Nations Widening Nuclear Contacts." The journalist who wrote the article was Judith Miller. Adelman felt that the three countries wanted nuclear weapons because of their ostracism from the West, the third world, and the hostility from the Communist countries. Of course, today, the same argument can be used by Iran, North Korea, and other "Axis of Evil" nations so designated by the neocons in the Bush administration and other governments.

There are also news reports that suggest an intelligence relationship between Israel and North Korea. On July 21, 2004, New Zealand's /Dominion Post/ reported that three Mossad agents were involved in espionage in New Zealand. Two of the Mossad agents, Uriel Kelman and Elisha Cara (aka Kra), were arrested and imprisoned by New Zealand police (an Israeli diplomat in Canberra, Amir Lati, was expelled by Australia and New Zealand intelligence identified a fourth Mossad agent involved in the New Zealand espionage operation in Singapore). The third Mossad agent in New Zealand, Zev William Barkan (aka Lev Bruckenstein), fled New Zealand -- for North Korea.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Phil Goff revealed that Barkan, a former Israeli Navy diver, had previously worked at the Israeli embassy in Vienna, which is also the headquarters of the IAEA. He was cited by the /Sydney Morning Herald/ as trafficking in passports stolen from foreign tourists in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. New Zealand's One News reported that Barkan was in North Korea to help the nation build a wall to keep its citizens from leaving.

The nuclear brinkmanship involving the United States and Israel and the breakdown in America's command and control systems have every major capital around the world wondering about the Bush administration's true intentions.

NOTE: WMR understands the risks to informed individuals in reporting the events of August 29/30, to the present time, that concern the discord within the U.S. Air Force, U.S. intelligence agencies, and other military services.

Any source with relevant information and who wishes to contact us anonymously may drop off sealed correspondence at or send mail via the Postal Service to: Wayne Madsen, c/o The Front Desk, National Press Club, 13th Floor, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC, 20045.

Report: US Military Forms Group to Forge Plans for Potential ...FOX News - Sep 22, 2007Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign, was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon in June, according to ...

Air Force Team Prepares for Iran StrikesNewsMax.com, FL - Sep 24, 2007Called Project Checkmate, it is a successor to the group that planned the air campaign for the 1991 Gulf War, and was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon ...

Secret Air Force Team Planning for IranNewsroom America, New Zealand - Sep 24, 2007The planning group, Project Checkmate, was initially formed before the 1991 Gulf War. It was reestablished in secrecy in June, said the Times. ...

Cheney seeks pretext for war as US reestablishes elite Air Force wingRaw Story, MA - Sep 23, 2007The Times of London, meanwhile, reports that an elite Air Force unit called "Project Checkmate" was resurrected in June. The unit reports directly to US Air ...

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to ...Center for Research on Globalization, Canada - 11 hours agoThere is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented US Air Force program that has

Project CHECKMATE - SourceWatch
Project CHECKMATE is a "highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with 'fighting the next war' as tensions rise with Iran" that was "quietly ...www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_CHECKMATE - 34k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Project Checkmate the Invasion of Iran
Perhaps, you've already read the story from the Sunday London Times by Sarah Baxter which revealed a secret Pentagon planning group named "Project Checkmate ...globalissueforum.com/terrorism/project_checkmate_the_invasion_of_iran-t193.0.html - 54k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Secret US air force team to perfect plan for Iran strike - Times ...
Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign, was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon in June. ...www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2512097.ece - Similar pages - Note this

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22467862-2703,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2512097.ece

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html

Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on Iran?Guardian Unlimited, UK - Sep 15, 2007The Observer's Foreign Affairs Editor attempts to unravel the truth behind Operation Orchard and allegations of nuclear subterfuge The head of Israel's ...

Why single out Iran? What about Israel?Guardian Unlimited, UK - Sep 22, 2007In his careful analysis of what is and is not known about the reason for Operation Orchard, the Israelis' 6 September bombing raid into northern Syria, ...

Israel’s Air Raid On Syria: Another Threat To IranCounterCurrents.org, India - Sep 19, 2007The information, from an Israeli participant in “Operation Orchard”, points to a sizeable and sophisticated operation, involving Israel’s war planes ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia•


Israeli F-15I from the 69th Squadron

Operation Orchard[1][2] was an Israeli airstrike on a target in the Deir ez-Zor[3] region of Syria carried out just after midnight on September 6, 2007. According to news reports, the raid was carried out by the Israeli Air Force's 69th Squadron of F-15Is,[4] F-16s, and an ELINT aircraft; a total of as many as eight aircraft. The fighters were equipped with AGM-65 Maverick missiles, 500lb bombs, and external fuel tanks.[1][5] One report indicated that a team of IAF Shaldag commandos arrived at the site the day before so that they could highlight the target with laser beams.[6]

According to The Sunday Times, members of Israel's Sayeret Matkal covertly raided the suspected Syrian nuclear facility before the September 6 airstrike and brought nuclear material back to Israel. Once the material was tested and confirmed to have come from North Korea, the US gave Israel approval for an attack.[7] The Times also reports that the mission was "personally directed" by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

first reported that the airstrike targeted weapons "destined for Hezbollah militants" and that the strike "left a big hole in the desert."[8] On September 13 The Washington Post reported that US and Israeli intelligence have gathered information on a nuclear facility constructed in Syria with North Korean aid, and that the target was a "facility capable of making unconventional weapons."[9] According to The Sunday Times, the target was a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea.[6] A North Korean ship had docked in Syria just a few days earlier,[10] and after the strike North Korea publicly condemned the raid; North Korea rarely comments on international events.[11]

The ship was later identified as the Al Hamed, a 1,700-tonne cargo ship that was previously owned by a North Korean business. The ship registered itself as South Korean when it traveled through the Suez canal and docked at the Syrian port Tartous on July 28. It returned on September 3, when it was said to have unloaded cement. Records do not indicate where the vessel is as of September 17.[12]

This reporting was challenged on September 24 by The Raw Story, which said that US intelligence officials told them that the actual target were North Korean No-Dong missiles. According to the report, the missiles were an "older generation" that Syria was attempting to "chemically weaponize."[13]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39304

WHY THE IRAN ATTACK MAY BE IMMINENT

WHY THE IRAN ATTACK MAY BE IMMINENT Compilation of recent reports: AIRCRAFT CARRIER/BATTLE GROUP DEPLOYMENTS War Signals? ...
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2300091 - 442k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Iran Attack Imminent?
Iran Attack Imminent? Written by Liam Bailey Published March 06, 2007. See also: » Ann Coulter and Conservative "Discourse" ...blogcritics.org/archives/2007/03/06/172249.php - 75k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

On A7radio: Military Attack against Iran Now Imminent - On A7 ...
On A7radio: Military Attack against Iran Now Imminent. (IsraelNN.com) World renowned investigative reporter and terror expert Kenneth R. Timmerman, ...www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=96976 - 11k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Atlas Shrugs: Iran Attack Imminent....
This claim of imminent attack, as IAEA watchdogs watchdoes arrived in Iran today to continue the fruitless circle jerk. Five inspectors from the United ...atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/04/iran_attack_imm.html - 187k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Lebanonwire.com A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
White House insider report "October Surprise" imminent ... The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush ...www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp - 13k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Edgeing: Iran Attack Imminent?
Iran Attack Imminent? via truthout this morning: Bush Setting America Up for War With Iran By Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman ...edgeing.blogspot.com/2007/09/iran-attack-imminent.html - 230k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Another Bush 'Imminent' Attack On Iran Prediction
The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on ...www.rense.com/general58/attkc.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

VDARE.com: 01/07/07 - Bush’s War Heating Up—Attack on Iran Imminent
Bush’s War Heating Up—Attack on Iran Imminent. By Paul Craig Roberts. Most Americans believe that Bush’s Iraqi misadventure is over. ...www.vdare.com/roberts/070107_war.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

MiddleEast.org - Mid-East Realities
IRAN Attack Imminent? (October 24, 2004) Though few in the world may fully realize it, international society is now at a historic moment and the future, ...www.middleeast.org/read.cgi?category=Magazine&num=1154&standalone=0&month=10&year=2004... - 55k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

THE BLACK JEWISH EXPERIENCE: Iran Attack Imminent?
Comments on "Iran Attack Imminent?" Anonymous said ... (1:42 AM) :. ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO LOVES WARS, AND PROFITS FROM IT WILL ANSWERN A UNIVERSAL ...blackjew.blogspot.com/2007/09/iran-attack-imminent.html - 32k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Hidden U.S. Plans for War on Iran:Imminent Danger...and Strategic Stakes

People close to Bush are telling you—if you listen to what they are saying—that the Bush regime is undertaking serious preparations for a war on Iran in 2007. A U.S. attack on Iran may very well involve nuclear weapons, and in any event would take the initial form of a massive bombing attack, with terrible human consequences, and terrible political consequences.

The horrible destruction in Lebanon, the murder of a thousand people and the displacement of a quarter of the population of the country, has been described by Condoleezza Rice as “the birth pangs of a new Middle East.” And an attack—again, very possibly a nuclear attack—on Iran would be of far greater magnitude, with the prospect of much greater suffering and death.

The political consequences, in their own way, are just as terrible. In the absence of a visible, powerful movement in this country opposed to the whole Bush Regime, the U.S.-backed Israeli invasion drove even non-religious people in Lebanon into the arms of Islamic fundamentalists. Imagine what a nuclear strike on the world's largest and most powerful Islamic theocracy would set in motion! All this would further strengthen the two poles of U.S. imperialism rampaging the world with Bibles and nukes—on the one hand—and obscurantist religious-fundamentalist forces who are setting the terms for oppositional forces in many of the oppressed nations of the world.

Neither of these two “alternatives” poses anything positive for people of the world. Part of creating conditions for the people of the world to break free of that framework—both in the imperialist countries and in the oppressed nations—is a powerful movement right here, now, against this war and against the whole Bush Regime.

On another level, bringing forward real resistance in this country - resistance that breaks out of the mold of just trying to “register our complaints” with those in power - helps create conditions, along with all-around communist ideological work by revolutionaries - for people to be open to, and to take up a real alternative model for how society can be run. Where people are envisioning and fighting for a world where the tremendous productive resources, and people themselves, are not subordinated to the dog-eat-dog process of extracting profit (including through wars against rebels and rivals), but instead are organized and mobilized to serve the needs of humanity in a way that unleashes individuality and creativity while people consciously change themselves and the world.

The Threat of War on Iran in 2007

In the August 21 issue of The New Yorker magazine, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed information leaked anonymously by people close to, or formerly close to, the Bush administration. Hersh's piece exposed the role of the Bush administration in planning Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and that the war in Lebanon was viewed by the Bush administration as preparation, and a trial run, for a U.S. attack on Iran. Speaking of the Israeli attack on Lebanon, a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel told Hersh. “Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.” (our emphasis)

Hersh reports that “according to a former senior intelligence official, the Israeli plan for Lebanon was ‘the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran.’” He reports that this includes, in part, “U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran.” Hersh writes that the Bush administration sees its mission as carrying out this war before it leaves office.

A former senior intelligence officer told Hersh that Vice President Cheney’s office pushed Israel to move quickly against Lebanon in the framework of a timetable for U.S. moves against Iran. Hersh says this source told him that Cheney's office “told Israel, ‘Look, if you guys have to go, we’re behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later—the longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office.’”

While Bush called Hersh's article “wild speculation” (note that he did not say it wasn't true!), political operatives close to Bush are sending signals themselves, and interpreting Bush's position in a way that confirms a war on Iran is a real possibility in early 2007.

William Kristol's newspaper, the Weekly Standard, is a neo-conservative insider's journal for the Bush Regime. In July, he laid out the case for smashing the Islamic Republic of Iran as the key link in the larger Bush/neocon agenda of establishing the U.S. as the sole, unchallenged, and unchallengeable superpower:

“Regimes matter. Ideological movements become more dangerous when they become governing regimes of major nations. Communism became really dangerous when it seized control of Russia. National socialism became really dangerous when it seized control of Germany. Islamism became really dangerous when it seized control of Iran—which then became, as it has been for the last 27 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria (a secular government that has its own reasons for needing Iranian help and for supporting Hezbollah and Hamas), little state sponsorship of Hamas and Hezbollah. And no Shiite Iranian revolution, far less of an impetus for the Saudis to finance the export of the Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam as a competitor to Khomeini's claim for leadership of militant Islam—and thus no Taliban rule in Afghanistan, and perhaps no Hamas either.”

On Fox News (August 22), after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon produced mixed results at best, for the U.S., as a warm-up for a war on Iran, Kristol said, “I think we could be in a military confrontation with Iran much sooner than people expect. I don’t think this is an issue that’s going to wait two and a half years until President Bush leaves the presidency. I think he will decide at some point next year—in 2007—he’ll have to make some very tough decisions about what the U.S. and the world can tolerate in terms of this regime…”

MSNBC's Chris Matthews summed up the situation : “I keep hearing from people on the right—Robert Kagen and Bill Kristol, the guys who are the most hawkish and the most articulate in making their case and they may be right—that at the end of this administration, this hawkish administration—that was willing to go into Iraq and Afghanistan—if this president is not willing to knock out those facilities no future president is likely to do it.

We’ll be stuck with a nuclear armed Iran which can rant and rave around that region, threatening Israel, Saudi and everybody else. And we’ll be stuck with it. So their argument is try the diplomatic route, try everything but in the end we have to hit ‘em.” (August 23)

The Nuclear Terror Nightmare—a U.S. Nuclear Attack on Iran

Basic facts: Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, and is not threatening to use nuclear weapons against the United States. The United States does have nuclear weapons, and is not only threatening their use, but a nuclear attack appears to be a significant element of current U.S. war planning against Iran.

Seymour Hersh’s August 21 piece in the New Yorker reveals that the tactic of mass bombing of civilian infrastructure was a model and test for a U.S. attack on Iran. The strategy was to create enough terror and death that Christian and Sunni Muslim forces in Lebanon would be driven to align with the United States. U.S. military strategists are focused on death from the skies as their strategic approach to a war on Iran. Iran, of course, presents a much more formidable target than Lebanon, and even the massive air assault on Lebanon was not enough to achieve the goals of that attack.

Hersh reported that, “One of the [U.S.] military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran.” And Hersh writes that, “The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.”

Hersh's August 21 piece also says that less extreme tactics (other than nuclear weapons) might be effective if the U.S. knew more about the location and construction of Iranian nuclear energy facilities. But according to Hersh's sources, the U.S. does not have good enough military intelligence for those options to work. He writes that, “The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons.”

It appears from Hersh's article that some of his sources are connected with forces in or around the top ranks of elements of the U.S. military who are skeptical that any amount of bombing, even nuclear bombs, will destroy the capacity of the Iranian regime to retaliate and resist a U.S. attack, and are very concerned that the over-stretched U.S. ground forces will get even more deeply bogged down in conflict in the region. But, Hersh reports, in spite of this resistance, “[T]he idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.”

Such weapons of mass destruction would create death, destruction, and horrors far beyond what was seen in Israel's U.S.-sponsored war on Lebanon. A former intelligence official told Hersh, “We’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years.”

Who's NOT Gonna Stop This War…

There is a logic to an attack on Iran not only from the standpoint of the neocons and Bush, but for the “opposition” Democratic Party as well. For the neocons, a U.S. dominated Iran is key to radically reshaping the Middle East, come what may. It is a critical part of their articulated vision of the U.S. as the world's new Roman Empire—a sole, unchallengeable superpower.

For the Democrats, who may have had reservations about embarking on this adventure in Iraq, or may have regrets about how it worked out, they are—in the words of Al Gore—“lashed to the mast of our ship of state.” Like it or not, they are along for the ride because to bail now would—judged by the interests of U.S. imperialism —represent a major and destabilizing setback for U.S. imperialism.

A revolutionary understanding of the forces driving all this is explored in a very in-depth and strategic way in recent talks by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA—in particular in the talk “Why We’re in the Situation We're In Today…And What To Do About It: A Thoroughly Rotten System and the Need for Revolution.” That talk, and six other critical recent talks by Bob Avakian, are available for download at bobavakian.net, or revcom.us.

Nobody with any serious impact in the Democratic Party is even raising serious concerns or reservations about the potential horrors and dangers involved in a war against Iran. Look, for example, at the Democrats’ response to the House Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy's report of U.S. intelligence on Iran. (The report was mainly written by a former CIA officer who had been a special assistant to UN Ambassador John R. Bolton, who opposes any negotiations with Tehran.

The New York Times wrote that “the report seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran.” Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern characterized the report as a “challenge set before the Intelligence Community ... to get religion, climb aboard, and 'recognize' Iran as a strategic threat.” [See “WMD Lies All Over Again”])

Did the Democrats in Congress immediately denounce this report as a call for concocted “evidence” justifying a war with Iran? Did they at least express worry and concern that this was the WMD hoax all over again? No. Most said nothing, but they let the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence subcommittee, Rush D. Holt, represent for the Democrats. He said, “What you have that is new here is an attempt to bring the body of information that is available into one place to present to the American people.” (Time magazine, 8/24). And the New York Times quoted Holt saying that “some in the intelligence community are a bit gun-shy about appearing to be warmongering.” (8/24).

Holt's endorsement of the report, and concerns that the “intelligence community” is “gun-shy” about “appearing to be warmongers” might sound simply mealy-mouthed if the whole context is not taken into account. But it represents an endorsement of this whole approach by the Democratic Party. Here you have the hawks in Congress demanding that the intelligence services “get religion,” as Ray McGovern insightfully put it, and cook the books to justify war on Iran a la the role they played in the whole “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lie that was used to justify the war against Iraq. In this context, Holt's endorsement of the report—the only substantial response by congressional Democrats—aligns the Democrats with the whole “let's create a new hoax to start a war” process.

The Wall Street Journal wrote in an August 24 editorial, “Anyone who still thinks a nuclear-armed Iran won't pose a serious, and perhaps mortal, threat ought to consult this week's bipartisan staff report from the House Intelligence Committee.” (our emphasis).

The endorsement, or endorsement in the form of silence, from leading Democrats, is in line with the Democrats’ strategy of positioning themselves as tougher on “national security.” In mid-August, the Democratic Party ran a TV ad claiming that Iran is "developing nuclear weapons.” (The ad was withdrawn after protests by Latino organizations who objected to the ad's association of Latino immigrants with terrorism.)

In spring 2004, Senator John Kerry told the Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not “been tough on the [Iran] issue…” (May 29, 2004), and Nancy Pelosi’s position earlier this year was that “For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.” (Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, May 24, 2005.)

And Democratic Senator Barack Obama, who many progressive people have deluded themselves into seeing as an opponent of the Bush agenda, told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point…if any, are we going to take military action?”

Who CAN put a HALT to all this…and HOW

In his powerful protest song “Ohio,” written in response to the National Guard murder of protesters at Kent State University in Ohio in 1970, Neil Young sang, “How can you run when you know?”

If you've read this far, you know. A terrible danger confronts the world—as we said in the beginning of this article, a terrible cost in human life, and a terrible political setback in terms of locking the world into a confrontation between McCrusade and Jihad.

There is no opposition to this from the Democratic Party. Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, and Obama are on record demanding that Bush get tough with Iran!

The initial call from World Can't Wait—Drive Out the Bush Regime included the following:

“That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn—or be forced—to accept. There is no escaping it: the whole disastrous course of this Bush regime must be STOPPED. And we must take the responsibility to do it.”

And the statement “October 5: There is a Way! There is a Day!” from World Can't Wait says:

“Imagine if, from out of this huge reservoir of people, a great wave were unleashed, moving together on the same occasion, making, through their firm stand and their massive numbers, a powerful political statement that could not be ignored: refusing that day to work, or walking out from work, taking off from school or walking out of school—joining together, rallying and marching, drawing forward many more with them, and in many and varied forms of creative and meaningful political protest throughout the day, letting it be known that they are determined to bring this whole disastrous course to a halt by driving out the Bush Regime through the mobilization of massive political opposition.

“If that were done, then the possibility of turning things around and onto a much more favorable direction would take on a whole new dimension of reality.

“It would go from something only vaguely hoped for, by millions of isolated individuals, and acted on by thousands so far, to something that had undeniable moral force and unprecedented political impact.”

Right now, a bad dynamic is in effect—and far too many people feel paralyzed. They don't see any “cracks” in the ruling structure. The “options” for people are still framed as choosing between McWorld and Jihad. People don't see a force of people like themselves out there creating the “undeniable moral force” that World Can't Wait is calling for.

But if everyone who said “I wish there was such a force” throws themselves heart and soul into the movement to Drive Out the Bush Regime, takes up building for the October 5th mobilizations—which will put the movement to drive out the Bush Regime on a whole new level—then there would be such a force. And the emergence of a massive movement determined to drive out the Bush Regime would in turn impact the situation among the rulers of this society, opening up more potential for the movement of the people to develop that would actually bring the whole Bush agenda to a HALT.

There are a thousand and one reasons calling out to people to build a powerful movement to bring the crimes of the Bush Regime to a halt, and to launch that movement onto a whole new level on October 5th. But the real, imminent danger and potential horrors of a U.S. attack on Iran, very possibly involving nuclear weapons, is reason enough for everyone with a critical mind and conscience to throw themselves whole-heartedly into that movement. Now.

Errors Behind Warheads' Flight Unfold

Nuclear and Nonnuclear Missiles Were Stored in Same Bunker, Lawmaker Says
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 28, 2007; Page A02

An Air Force decision to store nuclear-armed cruise missiles in the same North Dakota bunker as missiles containing dummy warheads played a key role in the unrecognized transport of six nuclear devices from North Dakota to Louisiana last month, according to the head of a congressional oversight committee.

Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic weapons, said the decision "created a mistake waiting to happen."

Tauscher said she has been briefed on the interim conclusions of two Air Force investigations into the troubled Aug. 30 flight of a B-52 bomber over the country with six nuclear-armed, air-launched AGM-129 cruise missiles under its wing. "We still don't know exactly what happened," she added.

It was the first known flight by a nuclear-armed bomber over U.S. airspace without special authorization in nearly 40 years. As previously reported in The Washington Post, the six nuclear warheads, each with the explosive power of more than 10 Hiroshima atomic bombs, were unnoticed -- and without safeguards -- for 36 hours.

Tauscher said her subcommittee will hold hearings in the next two weeks to examine the results of two Air Force investigations now underway. "We are going to be looking into inventory controls of the weapons," she said. She referred to the elaborate nuclear safeguards, requiring multiple orders and checklists supervised by trained personnel, that have governed any nuclear weapon's movements.

Summing up the briefings to date, Tauscher described as the "antecedent problem" the dismantling of some AGM-129s whose nuclear warheads were replaced with metal dummies of the same size and weight.

"You can't leave them in the same facility [as missiles with nuclear warheads] and expect people to tell the difference, . . . not from five feet away," she said.

One focus of her inquiry will be when and why the Air Force dropped a policy of keeping nuclear weapons separate from nonnuclear ones. Another will be how related security protections "fell apart at two different bases," Tauscher added. "We are going to check the checkers," she said.

She said the committee also plans to look at the process of decommissioning nuclear weapons. In the past, retired nuclear weapons were sent to the Pantex facility in Texas, where the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) oversees the assembly and the disassembly of warheads.

In this case, the W80 warheads being removed from AGM-129s were stored by the Air Force before they were turned over to the NNSA.

"I want to see NNSA involved in this process," Tauscher said. In addition, she plans to look at why the Air Force turned the delivery of the missiles into a training flight.

The B-52 crew that flew from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana to Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to pick up the missiles did not include personnel trained in the handling of nuclear weapons. Tauscher confirmed that one of the crew members performed an inadequate check of the missiles after they were loaded onto the plane, looking only at those without the warheads and skipping the nuclear-armed missiles on the other side.

The most important person in the flight crew, she said, was the one assigned to look through a five-eighths-inch hole in each missile to determine whether the warhead inside was a dummy or a nuclear one.

Referring to the series of errors, Tauscher said: "We are lucky it didn't happen before."

The ACM is a low-observable, air- launched, strategic missile with significant improvements over the ALCM-B in range, accuracy, and survivability. Armed with a W80 warhead, it is designed to evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike heavily defended, hardened targets at any location within any potential enemy's territory. The ACM is designed for B-52H external carriage.
Missile procurement is complete. Procurement of the AGM-129 was halted at 460 missiles in lieu of the originally planned 1,460. FY 96, FY 97 and FY98 funds are required to complete the last 15% of mission support development work.

Specifications:
Length
6.35 m (20 ft 10 in)
Wingspan
3.10 m (10 ft 2 in)
Diameter
70.5 cm (27.75 in)
Weight
1680 kg (3700 lb)
Speed
subsonic
Range
3000 km (1865 miles)
Propulsion
Williams F112-WR-100 turbofan; 3.25 kN (732 lb)
Warhead
W-80-1 thermonuclear (5-150 kT)