Eveniment

Mos Grigore
2006-01-17 23:08:16

Ba astia sint ca inecatul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Au dovezi o LAIE si nici nu resulta care e ilegalitatea! US face ce vrea cu teroristii capturati, aia nu sint prizonieri de razboi, poate sa-i faca TURU LUMII! Avioanele US au dreptul sa aterizeze oriunde cu permisiunea localnicilor.

CE DRACU MAI VOR ASTIA DACA NU CUMVA SA-SI FACA DE LUCRU SINGURI?

Dan Bostan
2006-01-17 23:22:31

Human Rights Fifth Column (Coloana a Cincea...)

Human Rights Fifth Column
By Michael Radu
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 26, 2002

It is an almost daily occurrence that someone — usually but not always from the self-proclaimed "progressive" Left — accuses the Bush administration or its predecessors or the United States in general, of moral inconsistency, incoherence (that, on good days) or, more seriously and frequently, hypocrisy. The main argument is that America is or claims to be built upon principles of extensive individual human and democratic rights, but behaves abroad as if democracy and respect for human rights were matters of political convenience. The evidence they present is supposed to show both the irrationality and incoherence of U.S. policies, and the pernicious impact they have upon some elements of the American body politic and overseas opinions about the United States. Let us take a closer look at one of those.

Over the past decade or so the "human rights establishment" in the U.S. and abroad, made up of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW), have continually accused various military regimes in South America's Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay) as well as Brazil and Bolivia, of engaging in a genocidal conspiracy, "Operation Condor," in the mid-1970s. The human rights establishment labels Operation Condor a "crime against humanity" under what its members hopefully describe as "evolving international law," but that is all an ideological claim and no more.

Operation Condor was an informal arrangement among South American military governments and their countries' intelligence services to exchange intelligence and co-operate against the then deadly and internationally coordinated threat from Marxist-Leninist terrorist groups in those countries.

Furthermore, the "progressives" and human rights activists claim, naturally enough, that all this "criminal activity" was at the very least condoned, and probably actively encouraged, by Washington. For public relations purposes, the groups have a poster boy for America's complicity in Operation Condor: it was all the fault of Henry Kissinger, national security adviser and then secretary of state between 1969 and 1977, who according to Christopher Hitchens' The Trial of Henry Kissinger (Verso Books: May 2001; excerpted in The Guardian, Harper's Magazine and at the Third World Traveler website), was an immoral, reactionary war criminal.

Operation Condor was simply an agreement between the intelligence organizations of anti-communist regimes to exchange data, extradite or arrest terrorist suspects trying to take advantage of regional freedom of movement, and, yes, in some cases, and often outside the law, to deal with them — to murder them for a partner country. Hence, Chilean terrorists of the MIR (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) were often found dead in Argentina, Montoneros Marxist Leninist terrorists were "disappeared" in Chile or Paraguay, Uruguayan Tupamaros in Argentina, and so on. Some of the countries or regimes involved — Chile and Argentina being the best example — were traditional enemies. But under the precept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," the countries were unified by the Castroist menace to their countries. That menace, coordinated and organized from Havana, was even more international. A Revolutionary Coordinating Junta between Uruguayan, Bolivian, Argentine, and Chilean Marxist terrorist groups was established in Paris in 1976, largely paid for by Havana (and so indirectly probably with Soviet money). Moreover, ever since the mid-1960s Havana was openly organizing, training, and arming sympathetic "revolutionary" groups throughout Latin America.

The clear, violent, and totalitarian threat to both the undemocratic and democratic (e.g. Uruguay) regimes in South America was inherently international. Why was Operation Condor a "crime against humanity" under international law, but not the Tricontinental, OSPAAL (Organization in Solidarity with Peoples of Africa and Latin America), JCR (Revolutionary Coordinating Junta) and other organizations Castro paid for, sponsored, and controlled? Perhaps because the New York Times et al. in the mainstream American and European media have bought the notion that illegally murdering totalitarian terrorists and their logistical supporters is more illegal than Marxist terrorists killing policemen, military personnel, and their families. Or that Fidel Castro is a "progressive" and thus untouchable for the human rights establishment, or that violent totalitarian terrorists are to be seen as "leftist dissidents." "Dissidents" indeed-who killed police, army, and government officials and their families, as well as innocent passersbys, and sought a Stalinist "solution" in the Southern Cone.

Aside from the goals of the "victims" of the 1970s, there are their methods. The Montoneros planted booby traps in infants' cradles. Nor does it seem to matter to AI & Co. that it was the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua that was responsible for the assassinations of Commander Bravo in Honduras and Somoza in Paraguay. The human rights establishment never seems to have considered accusing the Sandinistas of Somoza's or Bravo's murder, nor appreciating

Operation Condor as simply an answer to an equally international, and even more dangerous, threat to national survival than that expressed by such leftist caricatures as Pinochet. etc. The civil wars of South America during the 1970s were wars, and rights get trampled by all combatants in wars-in this case by military gorillas as well as the Castro-backed terrorists.

Ultimately, the fight over who was culpable for Operation Condor is not a matter of "human rights" by any rational definition, but a fight over history. He who controls the interpretation of the past controls the present-and, one may add, has an advantage in defining the terms for the future. Hence, "truth commissions" — whether in South Africa or Guatemala, Peru, or Spain — are simply attempts to manipulate "human rights" fundamentalism in order to reclassify terrorists as "innocent victims," make anti-communism a crime per se, and thus legitimize a long lost and historically defeated "progressive" cause. The issue is not criminality as such-Argentina's military rulers of the 1970s snatched children and completed the ruin of their country started by the "progressive" Juan Peron, and they should have paid for that. But that is not the goal of their "human rights" enemies. Their goal is cleaning up the image of the Marxist terrorists, and such pseudo-human rights groups as the Madres de Plaza de Mayo make no secret of it.

That previously legitimate groups like AI, of which this author used to be a member, give credibility to these schemes only demonstrates how much the rot inside the human rights establishment has advanced, and why its claims to moral authority have to be questioned.
Michael Radu is Senior Fellow and Co - Chair, Center on Terrorism and Counterterrorism, at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.

anonymous
2006-01-18 00:08:42

Re: Ba astia sint ca inecatul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Europeanul
2006-01-18 00:38:44

Re: Ba astia sint ca inecatul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

La 2006-01-17 23:08:16, Mos Grigore a scris:

> Au dovezi o LAIE si nici nu resulta care e ilegalitatea! US face ce
> vrea cu teroristii capturati, aia nu sint prizonieri de razboi, poate
> sa-i faca TURU LUMII! Avioanele US au dreptul sa aterizeze oriunde cu
> permisiunea localnicilor.
>
> CE DRACU MAI VOR ASTIA DACA NU CUMVA SA-SI FACA DE LUCRU SINGURI?



Ah nimic, bat si ei toba... numai asa, de flori de mar. Dar sper ca-ti aduci aminte reactia unor politicieni europeni (chiar si din Londra) in urma telefaxului ala curios transmis din Cairo (si interceptat de catre elvetieni) Dar mai cateva zile si vom afla raportul.

Dar oricum cred ca trebuie sa fie naspa cand te are cineva la mana.

Oriana
2006-01-18 00:56:05

Re: Ba astia sint ca inecatul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anonymous
2006-01-18 01:32:16

Re: Ba astia sint ca inecatul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sobru
2006-01-18 01:40:16

Re: Ba astia sint ca inecatul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oriano unde bombe peste tot? Cate bombe au dat aia si cate americanasii, ca abia mai omorara cateva zeci de civili. Asta nu se pune a?

gili
2006-01-18 01:48:45

Mai anonimule ,

La 2006-01-18 00:08:42, anonymous a scris:

> Pai tocmai aici e problema. Au fost torturati oameni cu complicitatea
> Romaniei? A permis Romania aterizarea unor avioane USA care
> transportau detinuti spre a fi torturati?
>
> Daca Romania a fost complice, de ce nu confirmam? Daca nu a fost,
> atunci nu avem pentru ce sa ne temem.
>
>
>
> La 2006-01-17 23:08:16, Mos Grigore a scris:
>
> > Au dovezi o LAIE si nici nu resulta care e ilegalitatea! US face ce
> > vrea cu teroristii capturati, aia nu sint prizonieri de razboi, poate
> > sa-i faca TURU LUMII! Avioanele US au dreptul sa aterizeze oriunde cu
> > permisiunea localnicilor.
> >
> > CE DRACU MAI VOR ASTIA DACA NU CUMVA SA-SI FACA DE LUCRU SINGURI?
> >
>
>
Ca care oameni neica ?
Aia da puie bombardeaua la civili pa ascunselea ?(era sa zic anonim , da nu zic )
Aia de te anunta in avion ca o sa aterizezi taman in poala lu Al da Sus cind tu ai belet doar pina la Berlin ?
Daca neica tu numesti oameni asa ceva e treaba matale si io zic ca poti sa ne scapi de dinsii , ia-i acasa .

Vasco da Gama
2006-01-18 02:44:32

Doamna Sarah

In circumscriptia ei din Londonstan sunt destui islamici. Nimic rau ca isi apara electoratul, okay, dar daca se poate, nu pe spinarea noastra si a polonezilor, bine?

Cat despre snapanul ala mic de la HRW, poate ar trebui sa ii aduca aminte cineva ca artistii lui Zawahiri nu isi pun problema daca este sau nu adevarat ce apare in presa. Daca aud ca au fost detinuti fratii intru Allah in Romania, probabil ca o sa le treaca prin minte puna de-o bomba. CIA a priceput atata lucru, HRW nu, ca au nevoie de funding iar figurantul de publicitate. Sau poate l-au convertit talibanii cat a stat cu ei.

FB
2006-01-18 04:46:14

Americanii!

Nu cred sa fi fost vreo tara din Europa de Est ,sa-i fi asteptat cu atata ardoare.(naivitate). Pe americani .In special in timpul cruntei perioade staliniste de dupa razboi, romani eroi de neam refugiati prin munti au luptat cu arma in mana impotriva bolshevicilor. La inceput le-au fost parasutate afise incurajatoare. Apoi ,pe calea undelor radio,poate si o parte a americanilor se gandea la o interventie. In orice caz cand ar fi fost o minune,nu s-a intamplat. Sa vina. De debarcat nu au debarcat in Balcani. Sa opreasca inaintarea rusilor. Eu cred ca le-a fost frica.De armata rosie.
In fine cand ne asteptam mai putin au venit. Sau vor veni.(pana una alta a venit numa' D'soara Rice.
O.K mai bine mai tarziu decat niciodata. Dar ce ne facem ca de data asta romanii ce i-au asteptat pe americani ca pe niste eliberatori,constata ca ei aduc cu ei probleme. Ale lor. Si fac probleme. Pe unde trec.
Pai sa le luam pe rand. Ostasii romani sunt in Iraq,Afghanistan sunt si in Bosnia ,dara aici hai sa spunem ca e si o treaba europeana.
Fiind in Iraq, ne facem dusmani. Printre cei ce ne-au fost prieteni. Nastase ,amabil pe banii tarii s-a oferit sa semneze contractul pentru autostrada. Fara licitatie. Se supara europenii. Culmea cerem europenilor bani sa dam lucrarea americanilor. Favorizati.
Iar acum ,americanii isi fac metehnele si in Romania,punand sub semnul intrebarii intrarea tarii in ue. Pai ue ne tot finanteaza de cativa ani buni ,ne va sponsoriza cu o caruta de bani intrarea,iar noi inchidem ochii la marlaniile cowboilor.
Asa ca sa ne aibe #teroristii# in vizor. Pe noi si prin noi intreaga Europa.
Asadar dupa ce i-am asteptat mai bine de 50 de ani,cand vin americanii pana una alta ne fac probleme. Si nu orice fel de probleme.


P.S. Imi place termenul de #teroristi# dat talibanilor prizonieri.
Mai cei ce scrieti terorist= musulman,astia au fost aliatii americanilor.
Cand interesele americanilor s-au schimbat ,au devenit #teroristi#

negru voda
2006-01-18 04:52:54

Batrana doamna...

Inca odata batrana doamna care este Europa demonstreaza ca are nostalgia tineretii sale plina de pete!Actuala isterie cu drepturile omului este de fapt o isterie anti-americana.Si de fapt care oameni? Teroristii sunt oameni?

cosor ion
2006-01-18 05:25:57

teroristii

in primul rind trebuie data o definitie acceptata de toata lumea teroristului.apoi sa vedem daca teroristul are drepturile unui cetatean pasnic,nu un criminal.cred ca si cr iminalii trebuiesc impartiti in mai multe categori.criminal care te omoara pentru a te jefui,criminal in legitima apare,criminal bolnav mintal,criminal din gelozie,criminal la betie etc,dar un criminal care comite crime in masa fara discernamint in numele unei religii sau ideologii,nu ar trebui sa beneficieze de drepturile omului,pentru acestia,daca sunt dovediti singura pedeapsa ar fi trimiterea la Alah,de complete de judecata competente,iar astia cu drepturile omului sa-si vada de munca lor de favorizarea infractorului,care in loc sa se teama,gindesc ca-i apara aceasta organizatie creiata nustiu cum si cum poate fi ea motivata.

zokibis
2006-01-18 07:02:07

Terorismul a aparut in Balcani

Terorismul a aparut in Balcani la sfirsitul secolului XIX. Prima organizatie terorista a fost VMRO (Organizatia revolutionara interna a Macedoniei) si avea ca scop eliberarea Macedoniei de sub ocupatia turca. La vremea respectiva era echivalarea Macedonean - Terorist. Goce Delchev, liderul miscarii (omorit de turci) este astazi erou national in Bulgaria si FYROM. Acum 100 de ani (dupa Proclamatia de la Ilinden) ziarele occidentale erau pline de injurii la adresa lui. In '41-'45 presa germana vorbea de "Serbische teroristen und Banditen" cu referire la atacurile subversive ale partizanilor. Deci e relativ cine e terorist!

Dan Bostan
2006-01-18 08:44:33

Depre dublul standard: unul pentru republicani, unul pentru liberali

Al Gore's 'Living Constitution' Leaves U.S. Vulnerable to Another 9/11

by Terence P. Jeffrey
Posted Jan 18, 2006



When Al Gore ran for president in 2000 he said "our Constitution is a living and breathing document" that changes its meaning over time. This week we learned that among the things changing in Gore’s Constitution is the war power. It meant one thing when Bill Clinton was president, but means another thing now.

Seven years ago, then-Vice President Gore supported Clinton in launching a war Congress didn’t authorize. Now, he says the Constitution denies President Bush the power merely to intercept an enemy’s communications in and out of the U.S.--without permission from a federal judge--in the midst of a war Congress did authorize.

The program in question has been described by Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director for national intelligence, as yielding information about terrorists that could not have been gleaned through court-ordered wiretaps, while intercepting only international communications involving persons linked to al Qaeda.

Yet, on Monday, Gore described the program as "eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens" and claimed it "virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently."

While the liberal ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights are bringing lawsuits against the program, Gore is calling for a special counsel to investigate Bush.

Now flash back to 1999--the year when only a failed Senate impeachment prosecution stood between Gore and the presidency.

On March 23, 1999, President Clinton ordered U.S. forces to begin bombing Yugoslavia because of its treatment of people in Kosovo. Clinton bombed for three months. The day the war started, then-White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart was asked whether Clinton believed congressional support was "constitutionally necessary." Lockhart said, "Well, I don’t think he believes it’s constitutionally necessary because we don’t believe that."

Congress, in fact, declined to authorize it. The Senate voted 58 to 41 for a resolution "authorizing the President of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." But the House defeated the resolution, 213 to 213.

Gore aggressively backed Clinton’s unauthorized war, suggesting its critics were guilty of "politics." "I think the American people want to see politics removed from any kind of action where our military forces are involved overseas," he said on the April 2, 1999 edition of CNN’s "Larry King Live."

Was the Clinton-Gore Kosovo War constitutional? No.

As I have argued before, citing Louis Fisher’s Presidential War Power, the Framers unambiguously denied the President the power to initiate offensive military action. But as Framers James Madison and Elbridge Gerry, authors of the war-powers clause, explained at the Constitutional Convention, they did leave "to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks."

In the Founding era no one doubted Congress needed to approve any act of war beyond what was necessary for the President "to repel sudden attacks." In the 1801 case Talbot v. Seeman, involving a ship seized as a war prize, Chief Justice Marshall explained: "The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that Congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation; or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must be noticed."

Was Clinton repelling a sudden attack on the U.S. when he bombed Yugoslavia? Even Gore never claimed that.

In the war against al Qaeda--including his order for the NSA to intercept al Qaeda-linked communications in and out of the U.S.--was President Bush acting either under a congressional war authorization or his own authority to repel sudden attacks?

He was doing both.

After 9/11, Congress authorized the President to make war against "those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks." If this authorized the President to invade Afghanistan, surely it authorized him to intercept communications between the U.S. and suspected terrorists in Afghanistan.

But even if Congress hadn’t authorized a war, it is reasonable to conclude the President could intercept al Qaeda-linked communications in and out of the U.S. even in circumstances where a court-order could not be secured. Surely, the President’s authority to repel sudden attacks includes the authority to listen at our frontier for sounds from the enemy.

But--at least so long as there is a Republican in the White House--it seems that Gore’s "living and breathing" Constitution would put earplugs in the sentries who guard the border between us and the next 9/11.

Terence Jeffrey is Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.

If you would like to send a comment to Mr. Jeffrey you can reach him by email at terencejeffrey@eaglepub.com

Dan Bostan
2006-01-18 08:49:49

Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security

Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security

By Ann Coulter

Jan 4, 2006

It seems the Bush administration -- being a group of sane, informed adults -- has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.

During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.

That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory -- like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.

The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the Treason Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words "ties to Osama bin Laden," we're still left with those words -- "ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be watching that person.

The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.

On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.

If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)

To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number.

That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)

Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.

Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.

The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.

Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today.

Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined."

In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify -- much less reject -- one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.

What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al Qaeda were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.

Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson.

Ann Coulter is a popular syndicated columnist for Universal Press Syndicate.

Copyright © 2006 Universal Press Syndicate

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/anncoulter/2006/01/04/181091.html

Dan Bostan
2006-01-18 08:54:52

De pe vremea lui Clinton...

Spies Like US: Spies, Lies, Echelon, Economics, & People - S.L.E.E.P.
Diane Alden
February 28, 2000

The question was: "Why was a nice girl like you working in a place like that?" Former Lockheed-NSA employee and member of the team that developed Echelon, Margaret Newsham, had quite an answer.

Her life history is similar to that of other nice women who came to adulthood in the fifties and early sixties. Marriage, kids, divorce, finding a good job and remarriage. However, in Newsham's case a series of life's twists found her sucked into the gothic "black world" of intelligence.

For Margaret "Peg" Newsham the twist of fate, which led her to Building 19 in Ford Aero's Sunnyvale, California plant, was only the beginning of a long road that ended in a sense of betrayal by her government and her employers.

Peg doesn't complain much and she has a marvelous self-deprecating sense of humor, telling stories on herself and her family. Faced with a series of serious physical problems, including a stroke in 1986 and cancer presently, she persists in challenging the tangled world of the intelligence system. Additionally, she endures the trials and tribulations of all whistleblowers.

Appearing in a recent 60 Minutes special she talked about her experience with Echelon, the super-secret spy project which is alleged to have the capability to intercept data on a massive scale.

The CBS series flew her to Menwith Hill, Yorkshire, England, which journalist and expert Duncan Campbell describes as "the largest electronic spy center in the world." Newsham maintains that when she was there in the 80s there were only 3 "domes"; now there are about 25. These domes are alleged to house the vacuum cleaner like equipment that monitors data flowing in and out of Europe.

Newsham has related her experiences few times. First at closed door, top-secret congressional hearings in 1988; to Danish journalists Bo Elkjaer and Kenan Seberg; to 60 Minutes; and to me.

For ten years, Newsham worked for the US munitions and computer firms Signal Science, Ford Aerospace and Lockheed Martin. They had contracts for the development and upgrading of Echelon satellites and computers, which the companies designed for the intelligence agency NSA. The NSA cooperates closely with the CIA and NRO (National Reconnaissance Organization).

It all began in Building 19 at the Sunnyvale plant where a job opportunity ushered her into the world of NSA and Echelon. After an interview and a clearance process, Newsham received her final clearance. " I was briefed by Tom Akashi the security officer for the Project Silkworth, Sire Moonpenny and another that I have not seen in print anywhere.

"As far as the job and projects go I can only tell you what I have seen in print and have all the necessary document to verify everything that I tell you. After the briefing I was shocked, stunned and said I need to think about this for a while. Went home and was told that I could NEVER tell anyone what I did, where I went etc. But the project was on the cutting edge of technology and so intriguing that I agreed to stay with the project only if I could advance to another position with the computers."

From 1974 to 1984 Peg Newsham worked on the satellites and the computer programs developed at Lockheed's headquarters in Sunnyvale, and in 1977, she was stationed at the largest listening post in the world at Menwith Hill, England.

"On the day at Menwith Hill when I realized in earnest how utterly wrong it was, I was sitting with one of the many "translators". He was an expert in languages like Russian, Chinese and Japanese. Suddenly he asked me if I wanted to listen in on a conversation taking place in the US at an office in the US Senate Building. Then I clearly heard a southern American dialect I thought I had heard before."

"Who is that?" I asked the translator who told me that it was Republican senator Strom Thurmond. 'Oh my gosh!' I thought. We're not only spying on other countries, but also on our own citizens."

American Gothic

Study the "black world" of intelligence gathering and you will find it littered with so much information and disinformation that it tends to put one in a semi-hypnotic state -- overwhelmed by the amount and complexity of the data.

In this secret world, words mean more than one thing. Technology is or is not state of the art, people lie without blinking because it is part of the job, and no one seems to be in charge. The mix of corporate and government back scratching offers too many opportunities for corruption and the rationale seems to be that everyone does it and it is in the name of "national security."

In this world of high tech espionage it is also a realm where the Constitution of the United States seems to be less important than maintaining bureaucracies and keeping them supplied with top of the line high tech toys. Last but not least there is no accountability to speak of.

Recently, the Congress passed Public Law #105-272 and it was signed into law by President Clinton. One of the few protesting this new law was Georgia Representative Bob Barr. What the new law does is make it possible for the FBI to have basically unrestricted wiretapping ability. At one time each wiretap had to be approved by a court order: No more.

The new wiretap laws allow the government carte blanche under some perceived "emergency" as determined by the Attorney General without a court order. This has effectively shifted the power from the judiciary to the executive branch thus profoundly damaging what used to be called the "separation of powers."

"Roving wiretaps are a major expansion of current government surveillance power," said Alan Davidson, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. "To take a controversial provision that affects the fundamental constitutional liberties of the people and pass it behind closed doors shows a shocking disregard for our democratic process."

Add that to the growing controversy surrounding the National Security Agency and the surveillance web known as Echelon. Echelon is not some fantasy in the minds of crazy conspiracy buffs. Echelon is real and in declassified documents we know it exists.

At a recent meeting of the European Parliament an uproar began when investigator Duncan Campbell's report on NSA spying via Echelon alleged that a great deal of information was nothing more than economic and political espionage. Allegedly, economic data is routinely handed over to the Commerce Department, which in turn hands it over to American Fortune 500 companies.

Nonetheless, analysts indicate that the Europeans are doing it too. The French are considered the worst offenders. With the alleged backing of the German government, there is system in place euphemistically known as "Frenchelon."



Restul:

http://www.newsmax.com/commentmax/get.pl?a=2000/2/28/135441

Diane Alden is a research analyst and writer for numerous online publications. She also writes for the western journal, Range Magazine, and does commentaries for Georgia Radio, Inc. Reach her at Wulfric8@aol.com.

Dan Bostan
2006-01-18 08:56:39

Ipocrizie democrata...

Al Gore Led Effort to Tap Every Phone in America

Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2006



Big Brother Al

There are times when Al Gore should sit down and shut up. Former Vice President Al Gore called for an independent investigation into President Bush's domestic spying program, insisting that the president "repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.

What Al Gore forgot to tell his audience was that he not only supported eavesdropping on Americans without court approval – he also chaired a project designed to execute just that in total secrecy. In short, Al Gore wanted to bug every phone, computer and fax in America.

In 1993 Al Gore was charged by then President Bill Clinton to run the "Clipper" project. Clipper was a special chip designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) to be built into all phones, computers and fax machines. Not only would Clipper provide scrambled security, it also contained a special "exploitable feature" enabling the NSA to monitor all phone calls without a court order.

In 1993, VP Al Gore went to work with a top secret group of Clinton advisers, called the IWG or Interagency Working Group, and delivered a report on the Clipper project.

Story Continues Below

"Simply stated, the nexus of the long term problem is how can the government sustain its technical ability to accomplish electronic surveillance in an advanced telecommunications environment," states the TOP SECRET report prepared by Gore's Interagency Working Group.

"The solution to the access problem for future telecommunications requires that the vendor/manufacturing community translate the government's requirements into a fundamental system design criteria," noted the Gore report.

"The basic issue for resolution is a choice between accomplishing this objective by mandatory (i.e., statutory/regulatory) or voluntary means."

The documented truth is that America was to be given no choice but to be monitored by Big Brother Al. This awful conclusion is backed by several other documents. One such document released by the Justice Department is a March 1993 memo from Stephen Colgate, Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

According to the Colgate memo, Vice President Al Gore chaired a meeting with Hillary Clinton crony Webster Hubbell, Janet Reno, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and Leon Panetta in March 1993. The topic of the meeting was the "AT&T Telephone Security Device."

According to Colgate, AT&T had developed secure telephones the U.S. government could not tap. The Clinton-Gore administration secretly contracted with AT&T to keep the phones off the market. Colgate's memo noted that the administration was determined to prevent the American public from having private phone conversations.

Vanguard's Nasty Secret-Free Independent Rpt.
U.S. Comptroller: Financial Collapse Looming
Mel Gibson, Tom Selleck, Bo Derek Make Heroes List
Can Pheromones Fix Your Relationship?

"AT&T has developed a Data Encryption Standard (DES) product for use on telephones to provide security for sensitive conversations," wrote Colgate.

"The FBI, NSA and NSC want to purchase the first production run of these devices to prevent their proliferation. They are difficult to decipher and are a deterrent to wiretaps."

Buried in the Colgate memo is the first reference to government-developed monitoring devices that would be required for all Americans.

According to the March 1993 Colgate memo to Hubbell, "FBI, NSA and NSC want to push legislation which would require all government agencies and eventually everyone in the U.S. to use a new public-key based cryptography method."

Gore Lied

Al Gore quickly embraced the Clipper chip and the concept of monitoring America at all costs. In 1994, Gore wrote a glowing letter supporting the Clipper chip and the government-approved wiretap design.

"As we have done with the Clipper Chip, future key escrow schemes must contain safeguards to provide for key disclosures only under legal authorization and should have audit procedures to ensure the integrity of the system. We also want to assure users of key escrow encryption products that they will not be subject to unauthorized electronic surveillance," wrote Gore in his July 20, 1994 letter to Representative Maria Cantwell.

However, Gore lied. In 1994, federal officials were keenly aware that the Clipper chip design did not have safeguards against unauthorized surveillance. In fact, NASA turned down the Clipper project because the space agency knew of the flawed design.

In 1993, Benita A. Cooper, NASA Associate Administrator for Management Systems and Facilities, wrote: "There is no way to prevent the NSA from routinely monitoring all [Clipper] encrypted traffic. Moreover, compromise of the NSA keys, such as in the Walker case, could compromise the entire [Clipper] system."

Ms. Cooper referred to Soviet spy John Walker, who is serving life in prison for disclosing U.S. Navy secret codes. In 1993 Ms. Cooper did not know of Clinton Chinagate scandals, the Lippo Group, John Huang or Webster Hubbell, but her prophetic prediction was not so remarkable in retrospect.

Yet, Al Gore pressed ahead, continuing to support a flawed design despite warnings that the design could "compromise" every computer in the U.S.

A 1996 secret memo on a secret meeting of CIA Directer John Deutch, FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno states, "Last summer, the Vice President agreed to explore public acceptance of a key escrow policy but did not rule out other approaches, although none seem viable at this point."

According to the 1996 report to V.P. Gore by then CIA Director Deutch, Reno proposed an all-out federal takeover of the computer security industry. The Justice Department proposed "legislation that would ... ban the import and domestic manufacture, sale or distribution of encryption that does not have key recovery. Janet Reno and Louis Freeh are deeply concerned about the spread of encryption. Pervasive use of encryption destroys the effectiveness of wiretapping, which supplies much of the evidence used by FBI and Justice. They support tight controls, for domestic use."

Share With China, Syria and Pakistan

Declassified documents from the CIA and the U.S. State Department also show that the Clinton-Gore administration considered sharing Clipper code "keys" with foreign powers including China, Syria and Pakistan.

"Are Clipper devices likely to be permitted for importation and use in the host country?" asked a secret 1993 CIA cable addressed to the U.S. embassies in Beijing, Damascus and Islamabad.

"Would the host country demand joint key holding or exclusive rights to Clipper keys for law enforcement or intelligence purposes?"

The secret 1993 CIA cable is one of 69 documents released by the U.S. State Department on the secret Clipper chip project. The documents were forced from the State Department through the Freedom of Information Act.

In addition, the State Department refused to release 12 documents as classified "in the interest of national defense or foreign relations." The documents show that the Clinton-Gore administration considered sharing secret Clipper surveillance keys with China and other hostile powers in order to monitor worldwide communications for "law enforcement" purposes.

Al Gore called the Bush anti-terrorism program "a threat to the very structure of our government." The former vice president's memory of his own threat to American privacy is flawed and filled with lies. I only hope that Gore elects to come clean with documented history. Until then he can fade into the oblivion of a lying, second-rate ex-presidential candidate.

Olive
2006-01-18 09:17:52

Raul a fost deja facut.

Daca teroristii si-au pus in gand - Doamne fereste ! - sa ne dea o lectie, cu sau fara aceasta cenzura au deja o idee cam ce fel de malai se macina prin morile romanesti.

serios-glumetul
2006-01-18 09:22:15

Adeca chiar asa sa fii bre? Cam grieu di criezut bre drajii miei!

Ma rog poati asa iaste ca-n poviaste!

Oriana
2006-01-18 10:36:58

"Cetatenii europeni simt ca UE este ipocrita" ??? gogosi umflati !

Mergi unde vrei, vorbeste cu cine vrei, de la brutarul tau pina la cercurile cele mai selecte, n-ai sa auzi altceva, in toata Europa, de la un capat la altul decat:
" F. BINE AU FACUT!".
Europenii se umfla de ras la anchetele astea penibile. Astea-s IPOCRITE !!!

Europenii stiu bine ce fac teroristii cuibariti prin toata Europa, sub false acoperiri de moschei, centre culturale, copios forjate de banet greu, ce voi nici nu vi-l puteti imagina - presa este peste masura de explicita, de ani de zile.

Ce e mai scandalos e ca tocmai MINORANTA araba, de tot respectul, din Europa, urla de ani de zile: "Atentie Europa, pe cine primesti in casa, selecteaza, verifica cui ii dai permis de sedere, cui ii dai permis de a deschide moschei si centre culturale! " (clocitori de fanatici).

La tv mereu dau parinti disperati de-ai tinerilor arabi, incercuiti si indobitociti de cate vreun dement de imam, parinti care cer autoritatilor europene sa-i gaseasca pe fiii astia disparuti, de luni de zile: de cele mai multe ori, tinerii au ajuns kamikaze, de asta n-au mai dat nici un semn de viata. Dau de ei dupa DNA.

Cand mai vad si atatia romani obtuzi, care-i justifica pe teroristi, fara sa aiba minima perceptie de enormul risc in care traim, cu bomba la c.. in orice moment, imi vine-n minte un singur calificativ:
TRADATORI COLABORATIONISTI.

Oriana
2006-01-18 12:31:32

"Mai cei ce scrieti terorist= musulman"

G.B.
2006-01-18 13:03:57

Re: Ohooooooo! Deschide si celalalt ochi!

Tirnacop
2006-01-18 14:13:31

Ia nu mai cenzurati, ma, presa americana!

Cu o cenzura nu se face primavara si siguranta noastra nationala e deja periclitata de cind s-au aprobat zborurile. Mai bine spune-ti adevarul, ne asumam raspunderea, spunem ca nu mai facem si poate scapam de atentate. Dam vina pe Iliescu (ca oricum el e vinovat), il punem pe Basescu sa-si revizuie atitudinea si intram intr-o era noua, a adevarurilor chiar daca platim ceva acuma.

PANTAGRUEL
2006-01-18 14:14:37

Drepturile omului = drepturile teroristilor

sa ne scuteasca MINCINOSII astia, ca ei numai de drepturile teroristilor, criminalilor si ucigasilor se intereseaza, asa ziselor minoritati (de fapt in scurt timp majoritati- este suficient sa te uiti in curtile scolilor), homosexualilor etc.iar cand vine de majoritatea cetatenilor, platitori de taxe si care respecta legea acestia nu au drepturi. Acesti mincinosi, in general de stanga, de o ignoranta nebuna, de o rautate intrinseca asupra valorilor civilizatiei, prost camuflati anarhisti se erijeaza drept purtatorii adevarului.mai rai decat popii si aiatolahii,vor sa ne vare pe gat religia lor sinucigasa. Unde esti tu Tepes Doamne...

Tirnacop
2006-01-18 14:16:37

Re: Batrana doamna...

Pina la proba contrarie, au luat infatisare de oameni. De aia e greu sa-i distingi...

Tirnacop
2006-01-18 14:24:32

Re: Drepturile omului = drepturile teroristilor

Da' de adevarurile neo-conservatoare ce mai zici? In rest, de acord cu tine.

lucid
2006-01-18 14:55:39

Re:Dom Pantagruel.. Drepturile omului = drepturile teroristilor

Pe mine m-au cenzurat azi la acest subiect, poate imi raspunzi cum e cu dreptul la viata al cetatenilor romani deveniti potentiale tzinte ale razbunarii rudelor celor temporar " cazati" si "interogati" la noi, fara ca macar cineva sa ne fi cerut macar parerea? Personal te-ai sacrifica aruncat in aer pentru triumful noului umanism bushist? Aud?
La 2006-01-18 14:14:37, PANTAGRUEL a scris:

> sa ne scuteasca MINCINOSII astia, ca ei numai de drepturile
> teroristilor, criminalilor si ucigasilor se intereseaza, asa ziselor
> minoritati (de fapt in scurt timp majoritati- este suficient sa te
> uiti in curtile scolilor), homosexualilor etc.iar cand vine de
> majoritatea cetatenilor, platitori de taxe si care respecta legea
> acestia nu au drepturi. Acesti mincinosi, in general de stanga, de o
> ignoranta nebuna, de o rautate intrinseca asupra valorilor
> civilizatiei, prost camuflati anarhisti se erijeaza drept purtatorii
> adevarului.mai rai decat popii si aiatolahii,vor sa ne vare pe gat
> religia lor sinucigasa. Unde esti tu Tepes Doamne...
>

George-Felix
2006-01-18 15:16:19

Re: Re:Dom Pantagruel.. Drepturile omului = drepturile teroristilor

Radu Ioan
2006-01-18 15:19:41

EUROPA nu e pregatita pentru un Atac Terorist

E.U.'s Patchwork Of Policies Leaves It Vulnerable to 9/11-Style Attack

By Craig Whitlock - Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; A01

BRUSSELS -- The capital of the European Union was in the midst of a historic celebration on May 1, 2004, when security officials learned of a sudden emergency: An airliner that had departed Norway with 186 passengers aboard had possibly been hijacked and was headed this way.

On the same day that the union expanded its borders to admit 10 new member countries, an Air Europa Boeing 737 en route to Spain did not respond to an urgent series of radio calls from air traffic controllers as it flew over Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands before entering Belgian airspace.

With fears mounting that the plane might launch a kamikaze attack on E.U. or NATO headquarters in Brussels, three countries scrambled fighter jets but had trouble intercepting the aircraft as it rapidly crossed one national border after another.

Then a flight attendant looked out the window of the airliner and saw two French Mirage 2000s flying alongside, prompting the Air Europa pilots to get on the radio and report that everything was fine. The incident ended peacefully but exposed Europe's vulnerability to a Sept. 11-style hijacking and the difficulties in coordinating a multinational response to a fast-breaking terrorist threat.

The European Union exists in large part to harmonize policy among its members. But when it comes to dealing with a hijacked airliner, those countries cling to a patchwork of contradictory rules and regulations.

Four East European countries lack their own air forces and rely on neighbors to patrol their skies, making the chain of command still more complicated. Some other countries won't divulge their policies, citing national security.

On a continent where many countries are so small that planes can pass through their airspace in minutes, aviation and security officials say the conflicting approaches make it almost impossible to prepare an adequate defense against hijackers bent on crashing a plane into a target.

"It's a very, very complex issue to come to a conclusion on because there are so many partners involved," said Bo Redeborn, director of security affairs for Eurocontrol, the agency that oversees European air traffic. "We're not there yet, that's clear. Some states are much more ready than others. We are best prepared to fight the last war. We're seldom prepared to address threats we haven't seen before."

Europe has some of the busiest air traffic corridors in the world. With passenger flights on the increase and a heightened sensitivity toward security since Sept. 11, 2001, there's also been a big jump in the number of hijacking false alarms. Reports of traffic controllers losing radio contact with pilots for a prolonged period have roughly doubled since 2002, according to Eurocontrol.

There are no hard statistics on how many such cases in Europe have escalated to the point where military intervention resulted, because countries don't pool the information. But Eurocontrol said fighter jets have been scrambled 19 times in the past two years to intercept airliners that lost touch with its air traffic control center in Maastricht, the Netherlands. The center monitors air traffic in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and parts of Germany, tracking about 25 percent of the flights that pass through Europe each day.

During the Cold War, West European nations relied on NATO to defend against a Soviet air attack. While NATO has since expanded to take in many of the former Communist states of Eastern Europe, it lacks the authority to shoot down hijacked civilian airliners, now a far more likely threat than attack by a foreign military. That decision is explicitly left to individual countries.

"This is an awfully difficult subject," Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, said in a September meeting with a small group of reporters in Berlin. "The notion of national sovereignty is very strong. To go after civilian airlines with passengers on them, we'll defer on that."

NATO still monitors the skies for intruders, civilian or military, and will scramble jets on the orders of local officials. It has also supplied AWACS surveillance aircraft to guard against terrorist attacks at more than 20 high-profile international events since the Sept. 11 attacks, such as the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens and the funeral of Pope John Paul II at the Vatican last year.

"We are very well served by our ability to identify threats. We've got the communications, we've got the radars," said a senior NATO official in Brussels who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Our ability in Europe to see and understand what is going on is probably as good as anywhere in the world. Our ability to put an aircraft in the sky very quickly is also very good. The difficult bit comes when you have identified a renegade aircraft."

"Let's assume some jihadist group did get their hands on a civilian plane and they were headed to the Eiffel Tower," Merritt said. "And that there was enough time for a French leader to make a decision on how to respond. No politician wants to be the guy to pull the trigger on 200 innocent people, just on the suspicion that it will crash into something. His career would be over."

European counterterrorism officials said they don't take the threat of a hijacked airplane lightly, however. French investigators believe that an Algerian radical group schemed to fly an airplane into the Eiffel Tower in the mid-1990s; the iconic structure is still considered a major target for a terrorist attack.

British and U.S. officials said last fall that they had uncovered an al Qaeda plot to hijack an airplane in Eastern Europe and crash it into Heathrow Airport in 2003. Details of that case remain sketchy.

After a man commandeered a small plane in Frankfurt in 2003 and threatened to crash it into the European Central Bank in the city's downtown, Germany approved a law that gives its military the green light to shoot down a hijacked airliner. Last year, a suicidal pilot crashed a small plane in front of the Reichstag, the German Parliament building in Berlin. No bystanders were hurt, and investigators ruled out terrorism as the motive.

The German air force said it scrambled jets 20 times last year to chase after planes that had lost radio contact for prolonged periods; none of the incidents turned out to be a hijacking. But many lawmakers have expressed misgivings about the new law, citing a clause in the German constitution that forbids the state to take the life of any German citizen. The Federal Constitutional Court, Germany's highest judicial body, is scheduled to rule on the measure later this year.


"If I get on an airplane, I don't like the idea that the minister of defense has the right to shoot me down," Hirsch said. "There's a difference between government and God. God knows what our fate is. The military and flight controllers do not. Nobody on earth has the right to play God."

Oriana
2006-01-18 15:44:32

Re: Terorismul a aparut in Balcani, dar nu in gari, autobuze si nu DECAPITATORI

PANTAGRUEL
2006-01-18 15:44:53

Re: Re din cotidian

PANTAGRUEL
2006-01-18 15:46:44

Re: Re:Dom Lucid

cand imi veti prezenta dovezi clare, irefutabile, ca aceste avioane au fost pe teritoriul Romaniei, ca inauntru s-a practicat tortura, si ca statul Roman a fost in cunostinta de cauza am sa raspund intrebarii dvs.

lucid
2006-01-18 16:13:45

Re:Pantagruel Re:Dom Lucid

Poate acum nu ma mai cenzureaza. De acord cu ce spui, eu puneam in mesajele cenzurate problema impunerii de catre autoritatile romane a suveranitatii tzarii prin dreptul la acces in orice coltz al acestor baze si in orice avion care aterizeaza aici. Daca asa ceva se va face in viitor vom sti ce se petrece cu adevarat. Iar in functie de asta putem sa luam o pozitie fata de necesitatea sau nu a acestor baze vis-a-vis de interesul national si de securitatea personala a fiecarui dintre noi.
La 2006-01-18 15:46:44, PANTAGRUEL a scris:

> cand imi veti prezenta dovezi clare, irefutabile, ca aceste avioane au
> fost pe teritoriul Romaniei, ca inauntru s-a practicat tortura, si ca
> statul Roman a fost in cunostinta de cauza am sa raspund intrebarii
> dvs.
>

Robin
2006-01-18 17:25:35

Re: Re:Pantagruel Re:Dom Lucid

Oriana
2006-01-18 18:37:36

Re: EUROPA nu e pregatita pentru un Atac Terorist

Adrian v.D.
2006-01-18 18:40:16

Re: Domnule Tarnacop,

S
2006-01-18 19:20:58

Vai, vai,

Ce grijulii au devenit serviciile americane cu Romania, au ajuns sa-si cenzureze propria presa ca in Uniunea Sovietica! Pai daca sunt asa grijulii, cum au ajuns informatiile respective in mana presei, ca si informatiile astea nu se scurg asa...de flori de cuc ?
Noroc ca ridicolul nu omoara !

ingineru
2006-01-18 19:58:42

Re: Noroc ca ridicolul nu omoara !... norocul tau, intr-adevar !

anonymous
2006-01-18 19:59:40

Re: "Mai cei ce scrieti terorist= musulman"

anonymous
2006-01-18 20:03:59

Re: Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security

anonymous
2006-01-18 20:09:36

Re: Ipocrizie democrata ... demascata de un partizan republican? haha

zokibis
2006-01-18 20:37:45

Re: Terorismul a aparut in Balcani, Oriana

Este pentru ca teroristii ceceni sunt identici cu UCK, adica lupta pentru eliberarea poporului cecen. Deci pot fi priviti si ca luptatori pentru libertate si ca teroristi. Si in fond Menahem Begin nu era terorist evreu ce lupta impotriva britanicilor!