RIGHTS-US: Detainee Offered Freedom for Silence on Torture

By William Fisher

NEW YORK, Mar 24 (IPS) - A British court ruled Monday that U.S. authorities had asked a Guantanamo Bay detainee to drop allegations of torture in exchange for his freedom.

A ruling by two British High Court judges said the U.S. offered Binyam Mohamed a plea bargain deal in October. Mohamed refused the deal and the U.S. dropped all charges against him later last year.

Mohamed is an Ethiopian who moved to Britain when he was a teenager. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and claims he was tortured both there and in Morocco. He was transferred to Guantanamo in 2004. He was finally returned to Britain in late February 2009, with no charges against him.

He is suing the British government, charging that its intelligence services were complicit with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in facilitating his "extraordinary rendition" and torture while in custody.

The court said the plea bargain also asked Mohamed to plead guilty to two charges and agree not to speak publicly about his ordeal.

Zachary Katznelson, legal director of Reprieve, a legal action charity that has represented Mohamed for four years, told IPS, "In Binyam Mohamed’s case, the United States clearly prized secrecy over justice. It simply did not want the truth to get out."

He added, "That has nothing to do with national security, but everything to do with the potential for national embarrassment. If we are to truly combat terrorism, we must use the tools of democracy - openness, fairness, justice - not abandon them, then desperately try to cover up our wrongs."

In their ruling Monday, the British judges revealed how the U.S. government tried to get Mohamed to sign an agreement stating that he had never been tortured, to promise not to speak with the media upon his release, and to plead guilty as a condition of his release back to Britain - all without his lawyers being allowed access to evidence that would help prove his innocence.

This annex of the British ruling was previously kept confidential by the British court because of the U.S. military commission rules, which forbade making the materials public.

The British judges said the U.S. military also wanted Mohamed to assign any rights he might have to compensation to the U.S. government. They insisted that he accept a minimum sentence of 10 years - despite the fact that the U.S. military had not told him what the charges were to be.

Mohamed was also required to waive any claim he might have to seeing any exculpatory evidence identified by the British judges. "If Mr. Mohamed was to ask to see this exculpatory evidence, the ‘deal’ would be off," a Reprieve spokesperson said.

"The facts revealed reflect the way the U.S. government has consistently tried to cover up the truth of Binyam Mohamed’s torture," said Reprieve Director Clive Stafford Smith. "He was being told he would never leave Guantánamo Bay unless he promised never to discuss his torture, and never sue either the Americans or the British to force disclosure of his mistreatment."

During his time in Guantánamo Bay, the U.S. military tried to prosecute him through the military commissions, which were characterised by the British former Lord Justice Johan Steyn as "kangaroo courts."

Reprieve said, "This proposal discussed by the British courts was made by the U.S. military at a time when he was not charged with anything. It also came after a long history of efforts to make Mohamed plead guilty to crimes he insisted that he did not commit."

"He had always been willing to enter a plea of 'no contest' - which essentially means you deny your guilt, but enter a plea because you recognise it is the only way to resolve the case - on the condition that he would be sentenced to time served, and immediately released back to Britain." By early 2009, Reprieve charges, "The U.S. military was still trying to get Mohamed to plead guilty to something - anything - in order to save face. The final ‘offer’ was that this man, originally alleged to be a most dangerous terrorist, should plead guilty and receive a sentence of only ten days in prison, less than one might expect for many driving offences. Mohamed rejected this offer, as he continued to insist that he was not guilty." "Offering a man who is protesting his innocence freedom on the condition that he pleads guilty to something and serves a 10-day sentence is face-saving on an horrific scale," said Reprieve Executive Director Clare Algar. The case has caused a furor in Britain and a problem for the U.S. State Department. Britain’s High Court refused to release seven paragraphs that the court had redacted in an earlier opinion, saying that the redacted material lent credence to the torture allegations by Mohamed. The court said it reached its decision because of what it called a threat from the U.S. to reconsider sharing intelligence with the British.

But, in a highly unusual criticism, the High Court expressed dismay that a democracy "governed by the rule of law" would seek to suppress evidence "relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be."

The court said the George W. Bush administration had made the threat in a letter to the Foreign Office last September. It called on the Barack Obama administration to reverse that position.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has denied that there was any threat from the U.S.

After Mohamed was captured, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said that he had been complicit with Jose Padilla in a plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the United States. Padilla was never charged with this plot, but was convicted on other terrorism-related charges by a federal court in 2007. Last year, the Justice Department said it was dropping the dirty-bomb charges against Mohamed, and last October all charges against him were dropped.

Mohamed is currently appealing a separate U.S. case, on behalf of himself and four other terror suspects. In that case, government lawyers from the Obama administration sought a decision not to reinstate a case that was thrown out by a lower court last year because government lawyers argued successfully that allowing the case to go forward would jeopardise U.S. national security.

In opposing reinstatement of the case, Obama’s lawyers used the same "state secrets" privilege used by Bush lawyers in the original case. The appeals court has not yet ruled in the case, which charges that a subsidiary of the Boeing Company, Jeppesen Dataplan, knowingly provided aircraft and logistical services to facilitate the Central Intelligence Agency’s rendition of Mohamed to overseas prisons.

(END/2009)

Moscow denies NATO access to Afghanistan

Russia has yet to give NATO or the U.S permission to deliver military supplies to Afghanistan through its territory. That’s according to Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Central Command Chief General Petraeus said Moscow had agreed to open a supply corridor through Russia.

In April 2008, Russia made deals with the Alliance on railway transit of non-military supplies to Afghanistan. It also made bilateral deals with France and Germany allowing air transit to Afghanistan.

Russian expert Lieutenant-General Leonid Sazhin says the U.S. needs a Russian ground transit route if it wants to reliably supply its troops in Afghanistan. Otherwise, the US may be forced to withdraw from the troubled region.

The U.S. and NATO are looking for alternative routes to transport supplies to Afghanistan after an increase in Taliban attacks from neighbouring Pakistan.

Washington has pledged to almost double its contingent in Afghanistan this year.

NATO's big failure?

By now, The U.S. operation in Afghanistan has been on for more than seven years, beginning in 2001 as a direct response to the 9/11 attacks.

Its purpose was simple: to capture Osama Bin Laden, destroy Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban regime, which according to US Bush Doctrine, was harbouring terrorists.

The US forces swooped in - and NATO needed in on the action.

Still, analysts say that the situation for the coalition forces in the country is gardually deteriorating.

”Operational updates on the ground say that we are loosing a war. The Taliban has actually increased insurgent attacks,” said Malou Innocent, a Foreign Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C.

Moreover, the coalition has yet to achieve its initial goals in this war.

Fact are speaking for themselves: Bin Laden still remains at large, Al-Qaeda is operating and the Taliban’s control over Afghanistan is increasing.

According to recent statistics published by the International Council for Security and Development, in 2007 the Taliban controlled 54 percent of Afghanistan. But already in 2008 that percentage grew to 72%.

”The situation has been deteriorating during recent year,” said Aleksandr Pikaev, an expert from the Institute of World Economy and International Relations.

”It is linked to the fact that the NATO-led forces pay very little attention to peace building to provide the Afghan population with necessary means of subsistence other than growing narcotics,” he said.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11986

Prince Harry asks pardon for 'Paki' and 'Raghead' slur

Britain's Prince Harry has issued a public apology for using racist and offensive language to describe members of his army platoon.

Prince Harry has apologized after leaked video footage from 2006 showed him making a racial slur against an army colleague from Pakistan.

Harry made the racial comments in 2006 while filming other cadets sleeping in the departure lounge of an airport terminal waiting to go to Cyprus for training.

The army lieutenant in the Household Cavalry's Blues and Royals labeled one colleague as "our little Paki friend".

Then spotting a cadet wearing a headscarf, Harry said, "you look like a raghead".

St. James's Palace — the office of Harry and his elder brother Prince William — said on Saturday that Harry was sorry for any offense caused by his use of the word "Paki".

"Prince Harry fully understands how offensive this term can be, and is extremely sorry for any offense his words might cause," spokesman Patrick Harrison said in a statement.

Prince Harry is third in line to the British throne and is the younger son of late princess Diana.

NAT/AA

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=81664&sectionid=351020601

Bush's $1 Trillion War on Terror: Even Costlier Than Expected

By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington – Fri Dec 26, 4:30 am ET Play Video Terrorism Video: Negative Consequences FOX News Play Video Terrorism Video: Pakistan moves troops toward Indian border AP Play Video Terrorism Video: Safe at Home? FOX News The news that President Bush's war on terror will soon have cost the U.S. taxpayer $1 trillion - and counting - is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times. A trio of recent reports - none by the Bush Administration - suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991's Persian Gulf War (90 percent of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on terror looks set to surpass the cost the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, to be topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion.


The cost of sending a single soldier to fight for a year in Afghanistanor Iraq is about $775,000 - three times more than in other recent wars, says a new report from the private but authoritative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A large chunk of the increase is a result of the Administration cramming new military hardware into the emergency budget bills it has been using to pay for the wars. (See pictures of U.S. troops in Iraq)


These costs, of course, pale alongside the price paid by the nearly 5,000 U.S. troops who have lost their lives in the conflicts - not to mention the wounded - and the families of all the casualties. And President Bush insists that their sacrifice, and the expenditure on the wars, has helped prevent a recurrence of 9/11. "We could not afford to wait for the terrorists to attack again," he said last week at the Army War College. "So we launched a global campaign to take the fight to the terrorists abroad, to dismantle their networks, to dry up their financing and find their leaders and bring them to justice."


But many Americans may suffer a moment of sticker shock from the conclusions of the CSBA report, and similar assessments from the Government Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service, which make clear that the nearly $1 trillion already spent is only a down payment on the war's long-term costs. The trillion-dollare figure does not, for example, include long-term health care for veterans, thousands of whom have suffered crippling wounds, or the interest payments on the money borrowed by the Federal government to fund the war. The bottom lines of the three assessments vary: The CSBA study says $904 billion has been spent so far, while the GAO says the Pentagon alone has spent $808 billion through last September. The CRS study says the wars have cost $864 billion, but it didn't factor inflation into its calculations.


Sifting through Pentagon data, the CSBA study breaks down the total cost for the war on terror as $687 billion for Iraq, $184 billion for Afghanistan, and $33 billion for homeland security. By 2018, depending on how many U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan and Iraq, the total cost is projected likely to be between $1.3 trillion and $1.7 trillion. On the safe assumption that the wars are being waged with borrowed money, interest payments raise the cost by an additional $600 billion through 2018.


Shortly before the Iraq war began, White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey earned a rebuke from within the Administration when he said the war could cost as much as $200 billion. "It's not knowable what a war or conflict like that would cost," Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld said. "You don't know if it's going to last two days or two weeks or two months. It certainly isn't going to last two years."


According to the CSBA study, the Administration has fudged the war's true costs in two ways: Borrowing money to fund the wars is one way of conducting it on the cheap, at least in the short term. But just as pernicious has been the Administration's novel way of budgeting for them. Previous wars were funded through the annual appropriations process, with emergency spending - which gets far less congressional scrutiny - only used for the initial stages of a conflict. But the Bush Administration relied on such supplemental appropriations to fund the wars until 2008, seven years after invading Afghanistan and five years after storming Iraq.


"For these wars we have relied on supplemental appropriations for far longer than in the case of past conflicts," says Steven Kosiak of the CSBA, one of Washington's top defense-budget analysts. "Likewise, we have relied on borrowing to cover more of these costs than we have in earlier wars - which will likely increase the ultimate price we have to pay." That refusal to spell out the full cost can lead to unwise spending increases elsewhere in the federal budget or unwarranted tax cuts. "A sound budgeting process forces policymakers to recognize the true costs of their policy choices," Kosiak adds. "Not only did we not raise taxes, we cut taxes and significantly expanded spending."


The bottom line: Bush's projections of future defense spending "substantially understate" just how much money it will take to run Obama's Pentagon, Kosiak says in his report. Luckily, Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to hang around to try to iron out the problem

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081226/us_time/08599186836700

Breaking: CIA Sabotage may be to blame for failed Bulava Test

MOSCOW, December 25 (RIA Novosti) - The chief of the Russian General Staff said Thursday that production flaws could be to blame for Tuesday's unsuccessful test launch of the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile.

"Either the military-industrial complex or production itself or design shortcomings could be to blame for the failure," General of the Army Nikolai Makarov said.

Makarov said the Defense Ministry would thoroughly investigate the reasons for the failure.

The submerged launch of the Bulava ICBM took place from the Dmitry Donskoi strategic nuclear-powered submarine in the White Sea, off Russia's northwest coast, targeting the Kura firing ground in Kamchatka, the Far East.

"The launch was a failure," an official at the Belomorsk naval base said. "The crew performed well. The missile left the tube, but went off course due to a malfunction after the first stage separation."

A Navy commission will investigate the cause of the unsuccessful launch, Capt. 1st Rank Igor Dygalo, a Navy spokesman, said earlier.

The latest test launch was Bulava's 10th and the fifth failure.

The previous test of the Bulava missile took place on November 28. It was launched from the Dmitry Donskoi submarine in the White Sea, effectively engaging its designated target on the Kamchatka Peninsula about 6,700 kilometers (4,200 miles) east of Moscow.

Russia earlier planned for the Bulava to enter service with the Navy in 2009. But a senior Russian Navy official said earlier this month that several more test launches would be conducted next year before a final decision to adopt it for service was made.


The Bulava (SS-NX-30), carrying up to 10 nuclear warheads and having a range of 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles), is designed for deployment on Borey-class Project 955 nuclear-powered submarines.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin earlier said the missile would be a key component of Russia's nuclear forces.



some of earlier sabotages are listed below :


CHERNOBYL catastrophe was not an accident!

21/10/2003

There is yet another opinion on the Chernobyl catastrophe. Some people say it was not an accident. Different facts and evidence show it was a full scale sabotage against the former USSR, which resulted in collapse of the world superpower.

"The Chernobyl power plant was blown up by a foreign agent! Department of Nuclear Energy, Science Academy with its research and design institutes were not ready for such an unexpected disaster. Chernobyl nuclear holocaust was not an accident. Nuclear reactors have high level of reliability proved by a number of tests. Water pumps of primary and back up cooling systems could not have been simultaneously disabled. The picture of blown up reactor was taken too opportunely by the U.S. satellite that was "accidentally" on the proper orbit above the 4th block at that very time. Logically analyzed facts and developments of "cold war" in 50th show Chernobyl catastrophe was not an accident. That was a full scale sabotage of the century, which resulted in breakdown of the USSR economic basis and "soviet" socialist system in general. The adversaries of the USSR made an effective use of the negligence and incompetence of the government headed by Gorbachev along with the lack of sufficient control of restricted areas."

V. Baranov,
Former Chief Of Staff Deputy For Special Zone Forces
in Chernobyl nuclear power plant area retired colonel


How USA uses SABOTAGE To Wreck Soviet Economy -
By David Hoffman
Washington
February 28, 2004

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676960916.html

In 1982, US president Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the Soviet Union's economy
through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later
triggered a huge explosion in a gas pipeline, according to a former White House official.

Thomas Reed, a former Air Force secretary and member of the National Security Council, describes
the episode in a book, At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War, to be published next
month.

U.S. Working To Sabotage Iran Nuke Program.

May 23, 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/23/eveningnews/main2843582.shtml

CBS News has learned that Iran is continuing to make progress on its expanded efforts to enrich uranium — in spite of covert efforts by U.S. and other allied intelligence agencies to actively sabotage the country's nuclear program.

"Industrial sabotage is a way to stop the program, without military action, without fingerprints on the operation, and really, it is ideal, if it works," says Mark Fitzpatrick, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation and now Senior Fellow in Non-Proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

US Top Brass Fed Up With F-22 Problems

Washington (AFP) Dec 10, 2008
The top US military officer raised doubts Wednesday over the future of the costly F-22 fighter jet program, noting that the economic downturn could force the Pentagon to make budget cuts.
The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor, conceived during the Cold War, is considered by its critics — including Defense Secretary Robert Gates — to be ill-adapted for use in irregular conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It's important for all of us — in the Defense Department too — to squeeze our budgets, to draw in where we can," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen told reporters at the Pentagon.

"I'm obviously discouraged by the lack of cost control that we've got in so many of our programs," Mullen said. "We are going to have to get a grip on that or we will not be able to buy them."

Concerning the F-22, "it's not a matter of, do we need it? We have it," said Mullen. "It's a question of, how many do we need for the future?"

"I am concerned that it is such an expensive system," he said, adding that the Air Force is seeking another 60 above the 183 F-22s they currently have.

The program has already cost more than 65 billion dollars — each F-22 costs 350 million dollars.

Top US air force officials however defend the program by saying the fighter jets are well adapted for use against potential US rivals such as China.

Key members of Congress are also reluctant to end the program, as it is the source of thousands of jobs across the United States.

"I think ... in the aviation world, our future is in the Joint Strike Fighter," Mullen said.

He was referring to the Lockheed Martin F-35, designed to replace the F-16 fighter, widely used in the Air Force. But the program, which also involves several other countries, also suffers from delays and over costs.

The Pentagon plans to buy some 2,400 Joint Strike Fighters through 2027.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Top_Brass_Fed_Up_With_F-22_Problems_999.html

Russia Successfully Test Launched, capable to penetrate missile defense shields, RS-24 Ballistic Missile

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081126/118554536.html

MOSCOW, November 26 (RIA Novosti) - Russia successfully test launched on Wednesday a new-generation intercontinental ballistic missile bearing multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads.

"All the warheads hit the designated areas at the Kura testing grounds on the Kamchatka peninsula. All the tasks in the test have been accomplished," a spokesman for the Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) press service said.

The RS-24 missile was launched at 4:20 p.m. Moscow time (13:20 GMT) from the Plesetsk space center in northwest Russia.

The new test was aimed at obtaining data confirming the missile's technical characteristics and its readiness to enter service with the SMF.

The RS-24 was first tested on May 29, 2007 after a secret military R&D project, and then again on December 25, 2007.

The commander of Russia's SMF, Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, said in October that the RS-24 missile system would enter service in 2009.

He also said the new system would "strengthen Russia's nuclear deterrence," including its capability to penetrate missile defense shields, and would also counter elements of a U.S. missile defense system that may be deployed in central Europe.

The RS-24 ICBM, which will replace the older SS-18 and SS-19 missiles by 2050, is expected to greatly strengthen the SMF's strike capability, as well as that of its allies until the mid-21st century.

The missile will be deployed both in silos and on mobile platforms and together with the Topol-M single-warhead ICBM will constitute the core of Russia's SMF in the future, Solovtsov said.

Not So Fast: Aides Warn Obama’s Quick Closure of Gitmo Will Be Anything But

November 10, 2008
Though newspapers have been reporting all day that President-elect Barack Obama intends to move swiftly to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office, sending detainees to face criminal trials in the US, his aides are suggesting that the incoming administration isn’t close to any such decision.

According to the Chicago Tribune, foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough says Obama shares the “broad bipartisan belief that Guantanamo should be closed,” but that there is “absolutely no truth to reports that a decision has been made” about how to do that, nor is there even any process in place to make such a decision.

The Obama Administration will be under growing pressure to act once he takes office, with the ACLU planning a $500,000 advertising campaign to pressure Obama to close the base by executive order. But obstacles will make the move politically difficult.

After years of detention in questionable conditions under dubious legality, trials in US criminal courts are likely to struggle with legal issues. He will also face political opposition from representatives in the districts where such trials would be likely to take place. Even then, he’ll be left with the question of what to do with scores of innocent people being detained there. They may face torture if sent home, and resettling them in the US would likely be unpopular after years of portraying them as dire threats to homeland security.

http://news.antiwar.com/2008/11/10/not-so-fast-aides-warn-obamas-quick-closure-of-gitmo-will-be-anything-but/

Obama to face a third war — against stateless extremist networks

By Sebastian Rotella
November 9, 2008
Reporting from Madrid — Amid the focus on the wars that President-elect Barack Obama will inherit in Iraq and Afghanistan, a third conflict gets less attention: the shadow war against stateless networks of Islamic extremists.

Terrorism greeted the previous two presidents early in their terms. President Clinton faced the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and President Bush the world-changing attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


"I fear Al Qaeda could try to test Obama," said a top Italian anti-terrorism official, who asked not to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity.

A weaker Al Qaeda, tighter U.S. borders and the apparent lack of U.S. support networks make a new strike on American soil unlikely, though not impossible, according to Western anti-terrorism officials. Instead, the foremost possible scenario is an attack on U.S. targets in Europe similar to the alleged plots against American troops in Germany last year and transatlantic flights from London in 2006.

Security officials worry particularly about Al Qaeda recruits returning to Britain and other Western countries from training in Pakistan.


The new administration will also face the threat of attacks, training hubs and radicalization in locales varying from Somalia and Yemen to Western Europe, the front line for a new generation of homegrown militants, Western officials say.

As he takes office, Obama will inherit strong anti-terrorism alliances. Many European investigations grow out of shared U.S. intercepts of online communications, leads made possible because most Internet servers are based in the United States. Cross-border teamwork has driven cases such as the roundup this year in Barcelona of an alleged Pakistani terrorist cell that was infiltrated by a French undercover operative with the help of Spanish and American spies.

"Even during the worst times of diplomatic conflict over Iraq, close cooperation continued because it was in everybody's interests," said security consultant Louis Caprioli, former counter-terrorism chief of the DST, France's lead intelligence agency.

But rifts endure. Although European security forces say they have gathered valuable intelligence from inmates at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, human rights issues concerning the island prison and the secret U.S. "rendition" program have caused bitter clashes.

In Italy, 26 Americans, most of them CIA operatives, are on trial in absentia, after being accused by anti-terrorism prosecutors of abducting an Egyptian cleric from Milan and flying him to Egypt, where he would be subject to harsh interrogation. Several top European officials have called for a more restrained American approach that emphasizes both the rule of law and equitable sharing of intelligence.

"It's essential that we restore trust and the principle of solidarity in the distribution, use and exploitation of intelligence," said Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish anti-terrorism magistrate.

Garzon and others welcome Obama's promise to shut down Guantanamo. But they foresee a long, difficult process. Governments and international organizations will have to consider what to do with any suspected hard-core militants as well as the danger to those sent back to homelands that have records of rights abuse.

"It's absolutely necessary to show U.S. society and the world that things will change," Garzon said. Guantanamo "is inhuman and must be closed, but meanwhile it should be under normal civilian control. Then we have to find places for all the inmates, either judging them in the U.S. with all guarantees, or in the countries where they broke the law."

Obama, who had his first secret intelligence briefing as president-elect Thursday in Chicago, has called for U.S. forces to go after Al Qaeda leaders in northwest Pakistan if the government in Islamabad fails to do so.

An escalating campaign of U.S. airstrikes in northwest Pakistan this year has killed at least four leaders of Al Qaeda, which did not issue a video message before the American presidential election as it had in 2004. Experts predict that Bush will press the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his deputies in hope of a last-minute triumph before his term ends.

"It looks like they want to eliminate as many Al Qaeda figures as possible to go out with history on their side," said former CIA officer Marc Sageman, now an academic and scholar-in-residence at the New York Police Department.

"Al Qaeda has been on the ropes for a while. . . ," he said. "There are not many of them: Maybe two dozen leaders, about 200 veteran militants who have been around since the 1980s. And it seems they are being picked off one by one."

But Pakistani leaders complain that American airstrikes violate their country's sovereignty and worsen instability in a nation beset by economic and security crises.

Looking elsewhere, experts cite some familiar threats and other new ones. An emerging concern: the Islamic Jihad Union, an offshoot of Al Qaeda that operates in the same semiautonomous tribal regions of northwest Pakistan. It allegedly directed a group of German converts and Turks, three of whom were arrested last year on suspicion of plotting to bomb U.S. military targets in Germany. Last month, German police asked for the public's help in tracking down another Islamic Jihad Union-trained convert who is considered dangerous and has posted videos on Turkish websites.

"It is a splinter organization trying to make its mark," Sageman said. "The only way to do that, to make their mark, is to do an attack. There is an internal rivalry among terror groups. The IJU wants to claim to be the new Al Qaeda."

Other hot spots include Yemen, the Sahel region of northern Africa, and war-torn Somalia, where an increasing number of foreign radicals go to train, officials said. Activity also has picked up in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia as the Balkans become a refuge for foreign militants who fought in Iraq, the Italian anti-terrorism official said.

Agencies have become adept at detecting plots in the making. But the new administration will inherit a persistent nightmare: self-radicalized cells that form with minimal links to established networks and strike without warning.

The Muslim doctors on trial for attempted bombings in London and Glasgow, Scotland, in 2007 illustrate such a scenario. Sageman says autonomous, Internet-driven groups are the threat of the future.

In the larger war of ideas, some experts say, Obama's election serves as ammunition against extremist propaganda.

"If the fact that the grandson of a Kenyan goatherd becomes president of the United States does not undermine the jihadi message that the United States is unjust and oppressive, I don't know what will," Sageman said.

Caprioli, for his part, says Islamic fundamentalists may see the president-elect, a Christian, as an apostate because he did not adopt his African family's Muslim faith.

"They will judge him on his policies, not on his identity," Caprioli said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-terror9-2008nov09,0,1223543.story

Biden's Son Deploys To Iraq

DOVER, Del. -- Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden told his son and other Delaware National Guard troops on Friday that his heart was "full of love and pride" as they prepared to leave for an assignment in Iraq.

"We take comfort in the knowledge that you are the best-trained, best-prepared group of citizen soldiers that our country to this day has ever sent into harm's way," Biden told members of the 261st Signal Brigade at a ceremony outside the state Capitol.

Biden's son Beau, Delaware's attorney general, serves as a captain and a lawyer in the 261st. The unit leaves Sunday for Fort Bliss, Texas, where it will train for about six weeks before heading to Iraq.

The normally loquacious senator spoke only briefly, telling his audience at the outset that his son had advised him: "Dad, keep it short. We're in formation."

"As you serve and look out for your brothers and sisters in arms, your families here at home promise you that we'll look out for one another," Biden said.

Biden's Republican rival, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, gave a similar farewell talk in Alaska last month to the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, which includes her oldest son, Track, a 19-year-old private. She told the unit that its yearlong assignment to northern Iraq would be a "defense of America, in America's cause. And it's a righteous cause."

The two candidates debated Thursday night in St. Louis. On the subject of Iraq, Palin told Biden that the timetable for troop withdrawal that he supported was "a white flag of surrender in Iraq."

Palin accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of voting against funding for U.S. troops in combat and chastised Biden for defending him, "especially with your son in the National Guard."

Biden did not immediately reply to Palin's mention of his son, but he said Obama had once voted against funding because it lacked a timetable for troop withdrawal. He then noted that McCain himself had voted against funding tied to a withdrawal timetable.

Biden did not mention the debate or the campaign at Friday's ceremony, which was similar to others he has attended, except for the heavy security presence around legislative mall and the unusually large crowd, which numbered roughly 1,000 people.

"I've come here many times before, as a Delawarean, as a United States senator. But today I come, as you prepare to deploy, as a father," he said. "Stand strong, stand together, serve honorably and come home to your families and loved ones."

While Biden received a supportive welcome, Suann Ritter of West Grove, Pa., said she was unhappy about the attention his presence drew.

"This is turning into a circus instead of what it's supposed to be, a private ceremony," said Ritter, whose husband, Sgt. Donald Ritter, is being deployed for the fourth time. She noted that other units that have deployed from Delaware have not received the same attention. "It's just not fair."

Major Gen. Frank Vavala, adjutant general of the Delaware National Guard, noted that Biden has attended several deployment ceremonies for National Guard units and said the fact that he is a vice presidential candidate can't be dismissed.

"Sen. Biden is the father of a soldier. He has every right to be here," Vavala said.

Bush intends to punish Moscow for invading Georgia

WASHINGTON - President Bush is poised to punish Moscow for its invasion of Georgia by canceling a once-celebrated deal for civilian nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and Russia.

With relations between the two nations in a nearly Cold Warlike freeze over Russia's actions against its neighbor last month, planning is under way at the White House for the largely symbolic move by Bush, according to senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision was not yet final. Action could come quickly, within days at the most, and officials see no need to wait until Vice President Dick Cheney returns next Wednesday from an overseas trip that includes stops in three former Soviet republics.

Withdrawing the agreement from Capitol Hill would have little actual impact, as the deal very likely would not gain approval during Bush's presidency.

But taking the overt and public step of pulling it would be intended to send a message to Russia and the world that its actions in Georgia last month are not acceptable and will not go unanswered.

It would require a statement by Bush to Congress that the deal is "no longer in the national security interests" of the United States. A future president could reverse that and send the agreement back to Congress.

Signed in May by the two nations, the administration originally presented the deal as a landmark breakthrough.

It represented a significant reversal in policy for the U.S. on cooperation with Russia on nuclear issues. It would give the U.S. access to state-of-the-art Russian nuclear technology and clear the way for Russia to establish itself as a lucrative center for the import and storage of spent nuclear fuel from American-supplied reactors around the world. Such a deal was seen as crucial to boosting relations with Russia, and to fulfilling Bush's vision of increasing civilian nuclear energy use worldwide as a way to combat rising energy demands and climate change.

But key lawmakers were suspicious of it even before the disastrous Russia-Georgia war.

Some feared it would undermine efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program, because of Russia's extensive business and energy — including nuclear — ties with Tehran. That has so far prevented a move to approve the deal, and now there isn't enough time left in the fall legislative calendar for the required review period to run out and have the agreement take effect without congressional action.

After years of tensions between Russia and Georgia, the recent fighting began Aug. 7 when Georgia's military tried to re-establish control over its breakaway province of South Ossetia. Russia joined the battle, brutally repelled the Georgian offensive and then pushed deep into Georgia proper, where many of its forces remain.

Both sides signed a cease-fire, but Russia has ignored its requirement for all forces to return to prewar positions.

Administration officials determined almost immediately that Russia must suffer some consequences for its actions and wanted to take punitive measures in concert with Europe. But they have been frustrated at the lack of similar resolve among allies, who have offered condemnation of Russia but little else.

If Bush decides against pulling the deal, there are other penalty options available.

The administration could insist that Russia continue to be quietly left out of any discussions among the elite Group of Eight nations, essentially denying Russia membership in the club of major industrialized democracies without actually kicking it out.

The United States also could sell sophisticated anti-aircraft and anti-tank military hardware to Georgia.

A $1 billion economic recovery package for Georgia that Bush announced Wednesday — and which puts the tiny, impoverished nation in the top tier of U.S foreign aid recipients — does not include any military aid. But the U.S. had been helping the Georgian military modernize and U.S. officials have said it is likely that more military assistance will be forthcoming at some point to help the badly routed Georgian forces rebuild again.

Moscow has greeted such talk with anger, already accusing the U.S. of instigating or even helping Georgia make its ill-fated incursion into South Ossetia.

Among the most aggressive moves in Washington's potential arsenal are withdrawing its support for Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization or trying to strip Russia of the right to host the 2014 Winter Olympics, now scheduled to be held in the Black Sea town of Sochi, near the border with Georgia. These options have been all but rejected as too harsh.

___

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_russia

Russia seizes US vehicles

Russian soldiers in a armored personnel carrier tow away a US-built Humvee, in the Black Sea port city of Poti

Russian soldiers today held blindfolded Georgian servicemen at gunpoint and commandeered US Humvees in a dramatic sequence of events in Poti, a key Black Sea port.


White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe stated that if Russia has seized any US military equipment in Georgia, it must return it immediately.

In Poti, on the Black Sea, Russian forces blocked access to the naval and commercial ports this morning and towed the missile boat Dioskuria, one of the navy's most sophisticated vessels, out of sight of observers. A loud explosion was heard minutes later.

Several hours later, an Associated Press photographer saw Russian trucks and armored personnel carriers leaving the port with about 20 blindfolded and handcuffed men riding on them. Port spokesman Eduard Mashevoriani said the men were Georgian soldiers.


The Russians also took with them four Humvees that were at the port awaiting shipment back to the United States after taking part in earlier US-Georgian military exercises.


The deputy head of Russia's general staff, Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said in Moscow that Russian forces plan to remain in Poti until a local administration is formed, but did not give further details. He also justified previous seizures of Georgian soldiers as necessary to crack down on soldiers who were "out of any kind of control ... acting without command."


A small column of Russian tanks and armored vehicles left Gori on Tuesday, and a Russian officer said they were heading back to South Ossetia and then Russia. It was the first sign of a Russian pullback of troops from Georgia.


The column, which also apparently included a mobile rocket-launcher, passed the village of Ruisi, outside Gori on the road to South Ossetia on Tuesday afternoon.


Col. Igor Konoshenkov, a Russian military officer, told The Associated Press at the scene the unit was headed for South Ossetia and, ultimately, back to Russia. He gave no timetable for when the unit would reach Russia.


Konoshenkov said it was part of the Russian pullback mandated by a cease-fire that requires both sides to return to positions held before fighting broke out Aug. 7 in South Ossetia, a separatist Georgian province with close ties to Russia.


Elsewhere, Russia they exchanged POWs with Georgia and pulled back some troops from the strategic city of Gori.

It was a day of deeply mixed messages that left the small, war-battered country full of anxiety about whether Russia was aiming for a long-term military presence in Georgia or whether it was just trying to inflict maximum damage before adhering to a EU-brokered cease-fire and troop pullout.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-seizes-us-vehicles-902432.html

Mechanic: Obama's Plane Could Have 'Lost Control' in Anomaly

By Jeff Wise

When Barack Obama's plane encountered mechanical problems during a flight on Monday, was the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate in more danger than anyone let on, including his campaign staff, a major airline, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)—or the senator himself? "Everything seemed under control," Obama told reporters onboard his charter MD-80 after an unscheduled touchdown. "The pilots knew what they were doing."

But even as the head of the NTSB called the agency's investigation of the incident "extremely serious," a veteran MD-80 flight mechanic described the onboard irregularity to PopularMechanics.com as potentially "extremely dangerous."

Officials at Midwest Airlines, which operates the campaign charter, said that the plane's pilot was merely exercising a suitable precaution when he diverted during a planned flight from Chicago to Charlotte, N.C., landing safely at Lambert–St. Louis International Airport at 9:51 am local time. The pilot's reason: the plane had exhibited "controllability issues" after encountering turbulence following takeoff, and the pilot apparently had difficulty managing the pitch of the aircraft—that is, the extent to which the nose of the aircraft is pointed up or down. Pitch is critically important to aviation safety, as it determines the speed of the aircraft and its rate of climb or descent.

Examination of the aircraft on the ground revealed that turbulence had caused an emergency slide located in the plane's tail section to deploy in flight. The inflated slide then apparently pressed against hydraulic lines leading to actuators that move the elevator at the top of the aircraft's T-shaped tail.

Midwest Airlines downplayed the significance of the event, releasing a statement that "there was never an issue as to the safety of the flight." An Obama campaign spokesman said that the landing was a "minor and precautionary" step, according to the Associated Press. The pilot did not declare an emergency when requesting clearance to the alternate airport.

However, according to a mechanic familiar with MD-80 aircraft, inadvertent deployment of the slide could have put the airplane at serious risk. Mike Hatfield, an American Airlines mechanic who has worked on MD-80s for 20 years, called the slide's deployment "extremely dangerous" in an interview this afternoon with PM. "If it had caught on any of the control lines, they would have lost control of the aircraft," he said.

Hatfield could not remember having heard of a slide deploying in flight before. Normally, the mechanism is armed on the ground by a flight attendant at the rear of the aircraft. If the rearmost door is opened when the system is engaged, a cable pulls a pin from atop a valve on a tank of compressed gas, inflating the slide, which pushes away the tail cone of the aircraft. "Usually, if it deploys accidentally, it happens on the ground when somebody accidentally hits something or opens the door improperly," Hatfield said.

In the wake of the incident, NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker announced an investigation into the surprise landing, noting that control operations onboard "could potentially make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fly the aircraft," according to ABC News.

The NTSB sought to quash speculation that it had launched the investigation because the candidate was aboard. "Whether it was a candidate or you and your mother, we would look into it regardless," agency representative Bridget Surchek told PopularMechanics.com.

Results of the preliminary investigation are scheduled to be released next week. Stay tuned right here for more.

Russian strategic bombers patrol Arctic, Atlantic Oceans

MOSCOW, June 20 (Xinhua) — Four Russian strategic bombers are conducting an aerial patrol of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, the Itar-Tass news agency reported on Friday.

Two Tu-95 MS and two Tu-22 M3 took off from the Engels airbase in the Saratov region, said Air Force spokesperson Vladimir Drik.

"Teamwork of crews and different elements of flight training are being drilled during the flights, including the most complex one - midair refueling from Il-78 tanker planes," he was quoted assaying.

Two tanker planes are taking part in the air patrol. Refueling in the air allows long-range planes to fly at least 24 hours.

All flights are being carried out in accordance with international norms, without violating the borders of other countries, Drik said.

Russia resumed strategic bomber patrols over remote areas last year, 15 years after the long-range maneuvers were suspended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russian strategic bombers have flown over the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, the Black Sea and the Pacific Ocean.


Editor: Du Guodong

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/20/content_8409733.htm

Obama's Childhood Religious Life

JERUSALEM – In an effort to combat what it calls Internet smears, Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign yesterday launched a website with the stated aimed of setting the record straight.

One of the main issues addressed by Obama's "Fight the Smears" site is the contention the Illinois senators was once a Muslim.

"Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian," states the site.

But as WND reported, public records in Indonesia listed Obama as a Muslim during his early years, and a number of childhood friends claimed to the media Obama was once a mosque-attending Muslim.

Obama's campaign has several times wavered in response to reporters queries regarding the issue of Obama's childhood faith.

Commenting on a recent Los Angeles Times report quoting a childhood friend stating Obama prayed in a mosque – something the presidential candidate said he never did – Obama's campaign released a statement explaining the senator "has never been a practicing Muslim."

The issue of Obama's personal faith has dogged the candidate amid multiple scandals involving his now former Chicago church and several spiritual advisers.

The issue re-emerged in recent months following conflicting media accounts of Obama's enrollment as a Muslim during elementary school in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.

Widely distributed reports have noted that in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta's Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as "L Soetoro Ma," worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army.

Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students but exempt them from studying religion. Obama's school documents, though, wrongly list him as being Indonesian.

After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled – also as a Muslim, according to documents – in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta.

The Loatze blog, run by an American expatriate in Southeast Asia who visited the Besuki school, noted, "All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school, and a young 'Barry Soetoro,' being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam."

Indeed, the Israel Insider online magazine points out that in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," he acknowledges studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."

"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies," wrote Obama.

The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim .

Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.

"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher, but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old.

The Kaltim Post says Obama's teacher, named Hendri, died.

"I remember that he studied 'mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze.

Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study.

Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post caught up with Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who describe Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."

"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house. If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny," Amir said.

The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did.

"We prayed, but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Adi.

Friday prayers

Aside from the new site to fight purported smears, Obama's official campaign site has a page titled "Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." The page states, "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."

But the campaign changed its tune when it issued its "practicing Muslim" clarification to the L.A. Times.

An article in March by the Chicago Tribune apparently disputes Adi's statements to the L.A. paper. The Tribune caught up with Obama's declared childhood friend, who now describes himself as only knowing Obama for a few months in 1970 when his family moved to the neighborhood. Adi said he was unsure about his recollections of Obama

But the Tribune found Obama did attend mosque.

"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia," states the Tribune article.

It quotes the presidential candidate's former neighbors and 3rd grade teacher recalling Obama "occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers."

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, notes the Tribune article – cited by liberal blogs as refuting claims Obama is Muslim – actually implies Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim and twice confirms Obama attended mosque services.

In a free-ranging interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

The Times' Nicholos Kristof wrote Obama recited, "with a first-class Arabic accent," the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.

The first few lines of the call to prayer state:

"Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet... "

Some attention also has been paid to Obama's paternal side of the family. His father, described in some reports as an atheist, polygamist and alcoholic, was buried in Kenya as a Muslim. Obama Sr., also named Barack Obama, had three sons with another woman who reportedly all are Muslim.

Obama's brother Roy is described as a practicing Muslim.

Writing in a chapter of his book describing his 1992 wedding, the presidential candidate stated: "The person who made me proudest of all was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol."

Still, Obama says he was raised by his Christian mother and repeatedly has labeled as "smears" several reports attempting to paint him as a Muslim.

"Let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance to the American flag and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I'm presiding," he told the UK's Times Online earlier this year.

Meanwhile, Obama's new anti-smear website also denies claims by bloggers and commentators of the existence of a tape in which Obama's wife Michelle is said to rail against "whitey." Other issues addressed by the site include claims Obama is hiding his birth certificate or that he won't recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

"The Obama campaign isn't going to let dishonest smears spread across the Internet unanswered," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

"Whenever challenged with these lies we will aggressively push back with the truth and help our supporters debunk the false rumors floating around the Internet. This website is an action center that allows supporters to upload their address books and send emails to all of their friends. It's not enough to just know the truth, we have to be pro-active and fight back," Vietor said.

Russia 'had laser cannons before U.S.'

MOSCOW, May 20 (RIA Novosti) - Russia started developing tactical laser weapons before the United States and has several prototypes of high-precision combat chemical lasers in its arsenal, a defense industry source said on Tuesday.

The Boeing Company said recently it had test-fired a high-energy chemical laser fitted aboard a C-130H aircraft for the first time. The successful ground tests, "a key milestone for the Advanced Tactical Laser Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program," took place on May 13 at the Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.

Commenting on the announcement, the Russian expert said: "We tested a similar system back in 1972. Even then our "laser cannon" was capable of hitting targets with high precision."

"We have moved far ahead since then, and the U.S. has to keep pace with our research and development," he added.

At the same time, the source said Boeing had achieved its success in the development of military laser technology due to massive financing from the Pentagon.

"There is no doubt that the Americans are determined to continue the rapid development of tactical airborne laser weapons," he said.

Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems, said in Monday's announcement that the company will test-fire the laser in-flight at ground targets later this year.

ATL, which Boeing is developing for the U.S. Department of Defense, can "destroy damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations."

Chavez Says Attack by the U.S. Would Cause $500 Oil

By Steven Bodzin
May 15 (Bloomberg) — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said crude oil would rise to ``$400 or $500'' a barrel in the event of a U.S. attack on his country, the biggest petroleum exporter in the Americas.

The reactivation of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in the Caribbean on July 1 and what he said is a possible U.S. base on the Guajira Peninsula, shared by Venezuela and Colombia, are both threats, Chavez said in a speech broadcast last night from the military academy. Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said his country doesn't plan to give the U.S. a base on the Guajira, EFE newswire reported yesterday.

Chavez, who has long criticized the U.S. role in Latin America and warned that oil could rise to $200 a barrel in the case of an attack on Venezuela or Iran, said that given recent price increases in the crude market, his previous estimate was too low.

``Now we're at $120 and it's continuing up, he said. ``If there's a war against Venezuela, with the oil in this soil, it won't depart from the Venezuelans, it won't go to anyone.

Crude oil for June delivery rose $1.34, or 1.1 percent, to $125.56 a barrel at 11:10 a.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Yesterday, oil fell $1.58, or 1.3 percent, to settle at $124.22 a barrel. That was the first time in eight days that oil didn't reach a record. Prices are 96 percent higher than a year ago.

Missile
Venezuela will launch its first missile from a Sukhoil jet fighter in the next week in a maritime exercise, Chavez said, after criticizing the rededication of the Fourth Fleet. The country is also buying light, fast tanks and training citizens in a reserve force to defend the country against possible threats, he said.

In July Chavez will meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow to discuss more arms purchases, which may include long and short-range anti-aircraft defense systems.

``We'll continue outfitting the armed forces, now more quickly than before,'' the Venezuelan president said, according to an e-mailed statement from the Information Ministry.

Korea: forgotten nuclear threats

By Bruce Cumings
THE forgotten war - the Korean war of 1950-53 - might better be called the unknown war. What was indelible about it was the extraordinary destructiveness of the United States’ air campaigns against North Korea, from the widespread and continuous use of firebombing (mainly with napalm), to threats to use nuclear and chemical weapons (1), and the destruction of huge North Korean dams in the final stages of the war. Yet this episode is mostly unknown even to historians, let alone to the average citizen, and it has never been mentioned during the past decade of media analysis of the North Korean nuclear problem.

Korea is also assumed to have been a limited war, but its prosecution bore a strong resemblance to the air war against Imperial Japan in the second world war, and was often directed by the same US military leaders. The atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been examined from many different perspectives, yet the incendiary air attacks against Japanese and Korean cities have received much less attention. The US post-Korean war air power and nuclear strategy in northeast Asia are even less well understood; yet these have dramatically shaped North Korean choices and remain a key factor in its national security strategy.

Napalm was invented at the end of the second world war. It became a major issue during the Vietnam war, brought to prominence by horrific photos of injured civilians. Yet far more napalm was dropped on Korea and with much more devastating effect, since the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) had many more populous cities and urban industrial installations than North Vietnam. In 2003 I participated in a conference with US veterans of the Korean war. During a discussion about napalm, a survivor who lost an eye in the Changjin (in Japanese, Chosin) Reservoir battle said it was indeed a nasty weapon - but “it fell on the right people”. (Ah yes, the “right people” - a friendly-fire drop on a dozen US soldiers.) He continued: “Men all around me were burned. They lay rolling in the snow. Men I knew, marched and fought with begged me to shoot them . . . It was terrible. Where the napalm had burned the skin to a crisp, it would be peeled back from the face, arms, legs . . . like fried potato chips” (2).

Soon after that incident, George Barrett of the New York Times had found “a macabre tribute to the totality of modern war” in a village near Anyang, in South Korea: “The inhabitants throughout the village and in the fields were caught and killed and kept the exact postures they held when the napalm struck - a man about to get on his bicycle, 50 boys and girls playing in an orphanage, a housewife strangely unmarked, holding in her hand a page torn from a Sears-Roebuck catalogue crayoned at Mail Order No 3,811,294 for a $2.98 ‘bewitching bed jacket - coral’.” US Secretary of State Dean Acheson wanted censorship authorities notified about this kind of “sensationalised reporting”, so it could be stopped (3).

One of the first orders to burn towns and villages that I found in the archives was in the far southeast of Korea, during heavy fighting along the Pusan Perimeter in August 1950, when US soldiers were bedevilled by thousands of guerrillas in rear areas. On 6 August a US officer requested “to have the following towns obliterated” by the air force: Chongsong, Chinbo and Kusu-dong. B-29 strategic bombers were also called in for tactical bombing. On 16 August five groups of B-29s hit a rectangular area near the front, with many towns and villages, creating an ocean of fire with hundreds of tons of napalm. Another call went out on the 20 August. On 26 August I found in this same source the single entry: “fired 11 villages” (4). Pilots were told to bomb targets that they could see to avoid hitting civilians, but they frequently bombed major population centres by radar, or dumped huge amounts of napalm on secondary targets when the primary one was unavailable.

In a major strike on the industrial city of Hungnam on 31 July 1950, 500 tons of ordnance was delivered through clouds by radar; the flames rose 200-300 feet into the air. The air force dropped 625 tons of bombs over North Korea on 12 August, a tonnage that would have required a fleet of 250 B-17s in the second world war. By late August B-29 formations were dropping 800 tons a day on the North (5). Much of it was pure napalm. From June to late October 1950, B-29s unloaded 866,914 gallons of napalm.

Air force sources delighted in this relatively new weapon, joking about communist protests and misleading the press about their “precision bombing”. They also liked to point out that civilians were warned of the approaching bombers by leaflet, although all pilots knew that these were ineffective (6). This was a mere prelude to the obliteration of most North Korean towns and cities after China entered the war.
China joins the war

The Chinese entry caused an immediate escalation of the air campaign. From November 1950, General Douglas MacArthur ordered that a wasteland be created between the fighting front and the Chinese border, destroying from the air every “installation, factory, city, and village” over thousands of square miles of North Korean territory. As a well-informed British attaché to MacArthur’s headquarters observed, except for Najin near the Soviet border and the Yalu dams (both spared so as not to provoke Moscow or Beijing), MacArthur’s orders were “to destroy every means of communication and every installation, and factories and cities and villages. This destruction is to start at the Manchurian border and to progress south.” On 8 November 1950, 79 B-29s dropped 550 tons of incendiaries on Sinuiju, “removing it from off the map”. A week later Hoeryong was napalmed “to burn out the place”. By 25 November “a large part of the North West area between Yalu River and south to enemy lines is more or less burning”; soon the area would be a “wilderness of scorched earth” (7).

This happened before the major Sino-Korean offensive that cleared northern Korea of United Nations forces. When that began, the US air force hit Pyongyang with 700 500-pound bombs on 14-15 December; napalm dropped from Mustang fighters, with 175 tons of delayed-fuse demolition bombs, which landed with a thud and then blew up when people were trying to retrieve the dead from the napalm fires.

At the beginning of January General Matthew Ridgway again ordered the air force to hit the capital, Pyongyang, “with the goal of burning the city to the ground with incendiary bombs” (this happened in two strikes on 3 and 5 January). As the Americans retreated below the 38th parallel, the scorched-earth policy of torching continued, burning Uijongbu, Wonju and other small cities in the South as the enemy drew near (8).

The air force also tried to destroy the North Korean leadership. During the war on Iraq in 2003 the world learned about the MOAB, “Mother of All Bombs”, weighing 21,500 pounds with an explosive force of 18,000 pounds of TNT. Newsweek put this bomb on its cover, under the headline “Why America Scares the World” (9). In the desperate winter of 1950-51 Kim Il Sung and his closest allies were back where they started in the 1930s, holed up in deep bunkers in Kanggye, near the Manchurian border. After failing to find them for three months after the Inch’on landing (an intelligence failure that led to carpet-bombing the old Sino-Korean tributary route running north from Pyongyang to the border, on the assumption that they would flee to China), B-29s dropped Tarzan bombs on Kanggye. These were enormous 12,000-pound bombs never deployed before - but firecrackers compared to the ultimate weapons, atomic bombs.
A blocking blow

On 9 July 1950 - just two weeks into the war, it is worth remembering - MacArthur sent Ridgway a hot message that prompted the joint chiefs of staff (JCS) “to consider whether or not A-bombs should be made available to MacArthur”. The chief of operations, General Charles Bolte, was asked to talk to MacArthur about using atomic bombs “in direct support of ground combat”. Bolte thought 10-20 such bombs could be spared for Korea without unduly jeopardising US global war capabilities.

Boite received from MacArthur an early suggestion for the tactical use of atomic weapons and an indication of MacArthur’s extraordinary ambitions for the war, which included occupying the North and handling potential Chinese - or Soviet - intervention: “I would cut them off in North Korea . . . I visualise a cul-de-sac. The only passages leading from Manchuria and Vladivostok have many tunnels and bridges. I see here a unique use for the atomic bomb - to strike a blocking blow - which would require a six months’ repair job. Sweeten up my B-29 force.”

At this point, however, the JCS rejected use of the bomb because targets large enough to require atomic weapons were lacking; because of concerns about world opinion five years after Hiroshima; and because the JCS expected the tide of battle to be reversed by conventional military means. But that calculation changed when large numbers of Chinese troops entered the war in October and November 1950.

At a famous news conference on 30 November President Harry Truman threatened use of the atomic bomb, saying the US might use any weapon in its arsenal (10). The threat was not the faux pas many assumed it to be, but was based on contingency planning to use the bomb. On that same day, Air Force General George Stratemeyer sent an order to General Hoyt Vandenberg that the Strategic Air Command should be put on warning, “to be prepared to dispatch without delay medium bomb groups to the Far East . . . this augmentation should include atomic capabilities”.

General Curtis LeMay remembered correctly that the JCS had earlier concluded that atomic weapons would probably not be useful in Korea, except as part of “an overall atomic campaign against Red China”. But, if these orders were now being changed because of the entry of Chinese forces into the war, LeMay wanted the job; he told Stratemeyer that only his headquarters had the experience, technical training, and “intimate knowledge” of delivery methods. The man who had directed the firebombing of Tokyo in 1945 was again ready to proceed to the Far East to direct the attacks (11). Washington was not worried that the Russians would respond with atomic weapons because the US possessed at least 450 bombs and the Soviets only 25.

On 9 December MacArthur said that he wanted commander’s discretion to use atomic weapons in the Korean theatre. On 24 December he submitted “a list of retardation targets” for which he required 26 atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the “invasion forces” and four more for “critical concentrations of enemy air power”.

In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: “I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria”. Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then “spread behind us - from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea - a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North.” He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: “My plan was a cinch” (12).
A second request

Cobalt 60 has 320 times the radioactivity of radium. One 400-ton cobalt H-bomb, historian Carroll Quigley has written, could wipe out all animal life on earth. MacArthur sounds like a warmongering lunatic, but he was not alone. Before the Sino-Korean offensive, a committee of the JCS had said that atomic bombs might be the decisive factor in cutting off a Chinese advance into Korea; initially they could be useful in “a cordon sanitaire that might be established by the UN in a strip in Manchuria immediately north of the Korean border”. A few months later Congressman Albert Gore (2000 Democratic candidate Al Gore’s father, subsequently a strong opponent of the Vietnam war) complained that “Korea has become a meat grinder of American manhood” and suggested “something cataclysmic” to end the war: a radiation belt dividing the Korean peninsula permanently into two.

Although Ridgway said nothing about a cobalt bomb, in May 1951, after replacing MacArthur as US commander in Korea, he renewed MacArthur’s request of 24 December, this time for 38 atomic bombs (13). The request was not approved.

The US came closest to using atomic weapons in April 1951, when Truman removed MacArthur. Although much related to this episode is still classified, it is now clear that Truman did not remove MacArthur simply because of his repeated insubordination, but because he wanted a reliable commander on the scene should Washington decide to use nuclear weapons; Truman traded MacArthur for his atomic policies. On 10 March 1951 MacArthur asked for a “D-Day atomic capability” to retain air superiority in the Korean theatre, after the Chinese massed huge new forces near the Korean border and after the Russians put 200 bombers into airbases in Manchuria (from which they could strike not just Korea but also US bases in Japan) (14). On 14 March General Vandenberg wrote: “Finletter and Lovett alerted on atomic discussions. Believe everything is set.”

At the end of March Stratemeyer reported that atomic bomb loading pits at Kadena Air Base on Okinawa were again operational; the bombs were carried there unassembled, and put together at the base, lacking only the essential nuclear cores. On 5 April the JCS ordered immediate atomic retaliation against Manchurian bases if large numbers of new troops came into the fighting, or, it appears, if bombers were launched from there against US assets. On that day the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Gordon Dean, began arrangements for transferring nine Mark IV nuclear capsules to the Air Force’s 9th Bomb Group, the designated carrier for atomic weapons.

The JCS again considered the use of nuclear weapons in June 1951, this time in tactical battlefield circumstances (15) and there were many more such suggestions as the war continued to 1953. Robert Oppenheimer, former director of the Manhattan Project, was involved in Project Vista, designed to gauge the feasibility of the tactical use of atomic weapons. In 1951 young Samuel Cohen, on a secret assignment for the US Defence Department, observed the battles for the second recapture of Seoul and thought there should be a way to destroy the enemy without destroying the city. He became the father of the neutron bomb (16).

The most terrifying nuclear project in Korea, however, was Operation Hudson Harbour. It appears to have been part of a larger project involving “overt exploitation in Korea by the Department of Defence and covert exploitation by the Central Intelligence Agency of the possible use of novel weapons” - a euphemism for what are now called weapons of mass destruction.
The ‘limited war’

Without even using such “novel weapons” - although napalm was very new - the air war levelled North Korea and killed millions of civilians. North Koreans tell you that for three years they faced a daily threat of being burned with napalm: “You couldn’t escape it,” one told me in 1981. By 1952 just about everything in northern and central Korea had been completely levelled. What was left of the population survived in caves.

Over the course of the war, Conrad Crane wrote, the US air force “had wreaked terrible destruction all across North Korea. Bomb damage assessment at the armistice revealed that 18 of 22 major cities had been at least half obliterated.” A table he provided showed that the big industrial cities of Hamhung and Hungnam were 80-85% destroyed, Sariwon 95%, Sinanju 100%, the port of Chinnampo 80% and Pyongyang 75%. A British reporter described one of the thousands of obliterated villages as “a low, wide mound of violet ashes”. General William Dean, who was captured after the battle of Taejon in July 1950 and taken to the North, later said that most of the towns and villages he saw were just “rubble or snowy open spaces”. Just about every Korean he met, Dean wrote, had had a relative killed in a bombing raid (17). Even Winston Churchill, late in the war, was moved to tell Washington that when napalm was invented, no one contemplated that it would be “splashed” all over a civilian population (18).

This was Korea, “the limited war”. The views of its architect, Curtis LeMay, serve as its epitaph. After it started, he said: “We slipped a note kind of under the door into the Pentagon and said let us go up there . . . and burn down five of the biggest towns in North Korea - and they’re not very big - and that ought to stop it. Well, the answer to that was four or five screams - ‘You’ll kill a lot of non-combatants’ and ‘It’s too horrible’. Yet over a period of three years or so . . . we burned down every town in North Korea and South Korea, too . . . Now, over a period of three years this is palatable, but to kill a few people to stop this from happening - a lot of people can’t stomach it” (19).

http://mondediplo.com/2004/12/08korea

China has secret nuclear submarine base in Hainan

China has built a major underground nuclear submarine base on the southern tip of Hainan Island, The Daily Telegraph reported on Friday. The newspaper said Jane’s Intelligence Review, a respected defence periodical, obtained satellite images of the base, adding that the photos were the first confirmation of its existence. “Satellite imagery, passed to The Daily Telegraph, shows that a substantial harbour has been built which could house a score of nuclear ballistic missile submarines and a host of aircraft carriers,” it said. According to the Telegraph, which published multiple satellite photos, one image shows a Chinese 094 nuclear submarine at the base. Others show several warships moored on long jetties as well as numerous entrances to what appear to be a network of tunnels. afp
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\story_3-5-2008_pg4_5

CIA Operatives Expelled from Russia

American deported from Russian Republic of Ingushetia

The court of the Ingush capital of Nazran has ruled that an American woman be expelled from Russia on the grounds of illegal status in the republic of Ingushetia. That is according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

The court concluded that Lee MacShannon’s purposes of being in the Russian Federation differed from those she had declared.

According to her documents she came to Russia on AN invitation from a non-governmental organisation MAT based in Moscow. However, having a confirmed visa for a transit from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Moscow, she unduly went to the city of Vladikavkaz in the Russian North Caucasus and later on to Nazran.

The court heard that the American was monitoring the effectiveness of projects conducted by the international non-commercial organiSation International Salvation Committee (ISC), but during the session MacShannon failed to provide any documents confirming her connections with either MAT or ISC.

According to the verdict the American was fined 2000 roubles (about $US 85) and sent back to the US via Baku.

http://russiatoday.ru/news/news/24069