Posts Tagged ‘CIA’
In Scott Ritter’s latest piece at Truthdig, he covers the ongoing covert operations inside Iran and the long partnership of the CIA and MEK and the potential coming coup, again.
The current situation concerning the MEK would be laughable if it were not for the violent reality of that organization’s activities. Upon its arrival in Iraq in 1986, the group was placed under the control of Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat, or intelligence service. The MEK was a heavily militarized organization and in 1988 participated in division-size military operations against Iran. The organization represents no state and can be found on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, yet since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK has been under the protection of the U.S. military. Its fighters are even given “protected status” under the Geneva Conventions. The MEK says its members in Iraq are refugees, not terrorists. And yet one would be hard-pressed to find why the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees should confer refugee status on an active paramilitary organization that uses “refugee camps” inside Iraq as its bases.
The MEK is behind much of the intelligence being used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in building its case that Iran may be pursuing (or did in fact pursue in the past) a nuclear weapons program. The complexity of the MEK-CIA relationship was recently underscored by the agency’s acquisition of a laptop computer allegedly containing numerous secret documents pertaining to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Much has been made about this computer and its contents. The United States has led the charge against Iran within international diplomatic circles, citing the laptop information as the primary source proving Iran’s ongoing involvement in clandestine nuclear weapons activity. Of course, the information on the computer, being derived from questionable sources (i.e., the MEK and the CIA, both sworn enemies of Iran) is controversial and its veracity is questioned by many, including me.
read Scott’s complete article at Truthdig
from Raw Story
Surge: 2007 saw double number of bombings of any year ever recorded
Suicide bombings have risen to their highest levels in recorded history since the invasion of Iraq, according to a new report buried on page A18 of Friday’s Washington Post.
Of the 1840 suicide bombings since 1983, the year a suicide bomber attacked the US Embassy in Lebanon, 920 — or 50 percent — of suicide bombings have occurred since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.
More than 82% of the suicide bombings last year were in Iraq. The number of bombings last year, 658, was more than twice the number of attacks at any point in the last 25 years.
The unpublished research was compiled by US government experts and leaked on condition of anonymity.
Suicide bombers engaged in 658 strikes across the globe in 2007; 542 were in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq.
Full Story and link to WaPo article here
from Press TV
Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:24:34
The reports conducted by the Government Accountability Office also says the US can not prevent the Pakistan’s tribal region from being used for launching terrorist attacks on the United States.
President Bush and his senior lieutenants frequently claim that eradicating the threat that Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network poses to US and its allies is their top national-security priority.
“No comprehensive strategy for meeting US national-security goals” in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas has been developed even though the administration’s counter-terrorism policy, congressional legislation and the mission of the National Counter-Terrorism Center mandate such an approach, the report says.
Combating Terrorism: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas
Also, On AntiWar Radio: Charles Goyette talks with Ray McGovern about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet and much more.
mp3 here [58:23]
Yoo’s on First?
by Ray McGovern
Weren’t Yoo’s co-conspirators careful to keep their fingerprints off the more blatantly offensive memoranda? Sure they were.
But there was one problem. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and then-CIA Director George Tenet could not get their people to torture folks without written, signed authorization by the president.
And we have a copy of that authorization? Yes, it’s been available for years. You have to download it to believe it.
In his Feb. 7, 2002, memorandum, Bush wrote: “I determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al-Qaeda or Taliban detainees.” (Common Article 3 bans “torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”)
Then, drawing on the lawyerly legerdemain, Bush did something really dumb. Using words drafted by Vice President Dick Cheney’s lawyer, David Addington, for a memo dated Jan. 25, 2002, signed by then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the president ordered that detainees be treated, “humanely… to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity.”
Tacked onto the end of that sentence is a classic circumlocution: “in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.” But that is not what Geneva says, and there is no way to square that circle.
This is the giant loophole through which Rumsfeld and Tenet drove the Mack truck of torture … yes, signed by the president.
The rotten apples were – demonstrably – at the very top of the barrel.
In an article on the WTOP website, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer has some recent comments on the war/occupation of Afghanistan and the all to familiar contradiction of how things are progressing there.
“What we managed to do was what invaders of Afghanistan always do. We took the cities and declared victory, but we didn’t kill the enemy,” Scheuer tells WTOP.
“The enemy escaped, the Taliban and al Qaida, now we have a growing insurgency in Afghanistan. And, we certainly don’t very many more troops to send there.”
think that was supposed to be: [don’t have very many], but anyway…
Laura King wrote in the LATimes (via Urukunet) that things are indeed heading in that direction, as the ‘guys in black turbans” return from winter.
The first-time arrival in the south of a large force of Marines, the 24th Expeditionary Unit based in Camp Lejeune, N.C., has provided what commanders say is a much-needed infusion of firepower. The Marines have doubled the coalition’s air capacity; Harrier jump jets, lumbering cargo planes and combat helicopters line the freshly laid tarmac.
Just as crucially, commanders say, Marines’ deployment may at last give NATO-led troops the muscle and reach to choke off the flow of Taliban fighters and weaponry into neighboring Helmand province, consistently the most violence-racked in Afghanistan. It is the country’s epicenter of opium production and narco-trafficking, whose enormous profits help fuel the insurgency.
In this unforgiving environment, British troops, considered to be among the alliance’s most effective fighters, have been forced to confine their efforts largely to the province’s northern tier, making the south of Helmand, with its plethora of infiltration routes from Pakistan, a likely zone of deployment for the Marines.
Although allied commanders express satisfaction with the battlefield edge the Marines will bring, the Taliban professes unconcern.
“We have heard all about these Americans, and we are waiting — let them come,” said a Taliban field commander, reached by phone in the Panjwai district outside Kandahar. “They will learn what others before them have learned.”
someone should’ve been reading and listening to what Michael Scheuer has been doing on AntiWar.com.