Archive for August, 2007
August 29th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
A lot has been written about the increasing role of “military contractors” in Iraq. Blackwater, CACI, and others have made headlines. So many contractors are being used by both the U.S. military and intelligence branches that Amnesty USA (5/23/06) claimed that the U.S. was “outsourcing the war on terror.”
According to an article at The Strategy Page, Blackwater is purchasing five Super Tucano fighter planes from Brazil. The planes can be are used for fighting and bombing. Colombia uses them for “counter-insurgency” missions. According to the article, Blackwater already has armed helicopters in Iraq.
One has to wonder where (and if there is a) line between “contractors” and troops in Iraq (and Afghanistan and elsewhere) any more. It has been clear from the beginning that contractors were being used to “free up” US troops. It allowed the U.S. to shift its troops from such things as strategic communications and supply to infantry. Of course, many of those troops had only the most basic of infantry training as they were specialized in other areas. Then we heard that the contractors were being used for “security.” I would say that attack helicopters and planes capable of mounting 1.5 tons of weaponry move them from “security” to offensive operations.
There is every reason to be concerned about the amount and significance of contracting being done by the U.S. government. According to a presentation done by Terri Everett - Senior Procurement Executive in the DNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence), 70 percent of the U.S. intelligence budget is now going to private contractors.
I recently read R. J. Hillhouse’s new novel . In an interview with DemocracyNow, Hillhouse had talked about national intelligence, the CIA, and the use of private contractors. She said that she wrote the novel because some things can only be said (at this point) fictionally. In “Outsourced,” Hillhouse paints a picture of military and intelligence contractors intimately involved and entwined with Pentagon intelligence, the military and special ops, and the CIA. In the book (and this is reinforced by other reports) these “contractors” are doing far more than security and “support.” They are actively engaged ion operations. The purchase of fighter planes by Blackwater is only another indication of the types of “activities” in which “contractors” are involved.
I believe this is a direction that not only makes us less secure, but damages the U.S. image around the planet. From the constantly increasing costs for intelligence and the “war on terror,” it is also incredibly expensive. Contractors in intelligence and military operations are not accountable in the same way as government entities. The oversight is lacking or missing entirely. It put highly sensitive material (purportedly the most protected information critical to U.S. security) in the hands of private corporations and operators. This seems criminally stupid to me. While such an “arrangement” also allows the executive branch and the military to effectively engage in activities that are illegal on both a national and international level, that very “benefit” undermines the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.
The other “threat” posed by the “contracting” spree is that an infrastructure of control is being put in place that can be pointed anywhere including -and particularly - the United States.
Thanks to Bill for forwarding the article on Blackwater’s fighter plane purchase.
Of Interest
Warriors for Hire: Blackwater USA and the rise of private military contractors. Mark Hemingway. Weekly Standard. 12/18/2006, Volume 012, Issue 14
. R. J. Hillhouse. 2007.
. Jeremy Scahill. 2007.
The corporate takeover of U.S. intelligence. Tim Shorrock. Salon. 6/01/07.
US Intel Budget May Reach 60 Billion Dollars. Shaun Waterman. UPI. 6/11/07.
August 23rd, 2007
By: Carolyn Baker of Speaking Truth To Power
The U.S. government is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices. ~ David Walker, U.S. Comptroller General
Anyone who hasn’t watched “Money As Debt,” an animated DVD by Paul Grignon, should consider purchasing this extraordinary explanation of money’s origin in an economy totally dependent on debt. Almost everyone has seen footage of federal printing presses cranking out paper money, and some of us have even visited a government mint or two and have observed the process firsthand. But like so many other illusions with which the U.S. economy is replete, money is not created by government printing presses.
During the first few minutes of “Money As Debt” I began feeling my eyes glazing over in anticipation that I would soon begin viewing photo footage instead of animation. I then realized that I, like the masses of Americans who demand that every video experience provide them with entertainment, was unconsciously holding the same expectation. I then promptly hit the rewind button and started over, this time listening and watching attentively.
“Money As Debt” is not entertainment-far from it. The film offers amazingly elementary facts about the creation of money in the United States, narrated by a soothing voice, which could make for a bland presentation, yet the film’s message is anything but vapid. In fact, if it doesn’t leave your blood boiling, it behooves you to check your vital signs.
Beginning with the most fundamental question of all, Grignon asks: Where does money come from? The answer to this question will almost never be found in grammar school-or even college. What we aren’t told in formal education is that money is created by central banks.
Banks create money, not from their own earnings or from the funds deposited by customers, but from the borrowers’ promises to repay loans. Most importantly, borrowers not only promise to repay, but to repay with interest, and the bank writes the amount of money of both into the borrower’s account.
Grignon opens with a story from antiquity. In the days before paper money, goldsmiths produced gold coins and kept them safe for the purchaser in the same way that banks hold deposits today. These goldsmiths soon noticed, however, that purchasers rarely came in for their actual gold and almost never all at the same time. So the gold merchants began issuing claim checks for the gold which made the exchange of gold in the marketplace easier and less cumbersome. Thus, paper money was born which made doing business much more convenient. Eventually, goldsmiths began loaning money to customers and charging interest on the loans, and borrowers began asking for their loans in the form of claim checks. The goldsmith shared interest earnings with depositors, but since no one actually knew how much gold he was holding, he got the idea that he could lend out claim checks on gold that wasn’t actually there and soon started becoming enormously wealthy from the interest paid on gold that didn’t exist.
Thus began the power to create money out of nothing, but it wasn’t long before bank runs began, and banking regulations evolved regarding how much money could be lent out. However, the regulations allowed a ratio of 9 to 1-that is, banks could lend out 9 times the amount of the deposits that were already there. This policy has come to be known as Fractional Reserve Banking. Regulation also arranged for central banks to support local banks with emergency infusions of gold, and only if there were many runs at once would the system crash.
Fast forward to 1913 when that so-called progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, signed into law the Federal Reserve Act which created the banking cartel now in charge of America’s money system. For those who have not seen Aaron Russo’s DVD “From Freedom To Fascism” run don’t walk to see or purchase it. It is required viewing for understanding the Federal Reserve System and the power it has over the U.S economy and over our individual lives. Very few Americans know how money is created and even fewer know how the Fed originated and what it actually does. Does anyone really believe this is an “accident”? As the media guru Marshall McLuhan is reported to have said, “Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.”
Whereas U.S. paper currency used to be backed by gold, that is no longer the case, and we have instead a fiat currency backed by nothing except the word of the Federal Reserve that the money is worth its stated value. Moreover, money today is created as debt, that is, money is created whenever anyone takes a loan from a bank. In fact, every deposit becomes a potential for a loan-a process which can be and is repeated many times, ultimately creating infinite amounts of money from debt.
Whereas the 9 to 1 ratio reigned at the beginning of banking regulation, today in some banks, ratios are as high as 20 to 1 or 30 to 1, and frighteningly, some banks have no reserves at all!
The bottom line is that banks can create as much money as we can borrow!
One wonders how individuals, banks, governments, and other entities can all be in debt at the same time, owing astronomical amounts of money. This question is answered when we consider that banks don’t lend actual money; they create it from debt, and since debt is potentially unlimited, so is the supply of money.
But what is so wrong with this scheme? Hasn’t it been working all these years? Actually, there are several things very wrong with it.
The first issue is that the people who produce the real wealth in the society are in debt to those who lend out the money in that society. Moreover, if there were no debt, there would be no money.
Most of us have been taught that paying our debts responsibly is good for ourselves and for the economy. We imagine that if all debts were paid off, the economy would improve. In terms of individual debt, that’s true, but in terms of the overall economy, the exact opposite is true. We are continually dependent on bank credit for money to be in existence-bank credit which supplies loans. Loans and money supply are inextricably connected, and during the Great Depression, the supply of money plummeted as the supply of loans dried up.
Secondly, banks only create the amount of the principal of loan. So where does the money come from to pay the interest? From the general economy’s money supply, most of which has been created in the same way.
A visual image is helpful. Imagine two pools of water-one full and one empty. The pool with water in it represents the amount of the principal of a loan; the empty pool represents principal plus interest. The pool of principal has only a certain amount of water in it, so that it can’t possibly fill up the other pool of principal plus interest. The rest of the water needed to fill the pool doesn’t actually exist and has to be acquired from somewhere.
The problem is that for long-term loans, the interest far exceeds the principal, so unless a lot of money is created to pay the interest, a lot of foreclosures will result. In order to maintain a functional society, the foreclosure rate must be low, so more and more debt must be created which means that more and more interest is created, resulting in a vicious and escalating spiral of indebtedness. Furthermore, it is only the lag time between the time money is created to the time debt is repaid that keeps the overall shortage of money from catching up and bankrupting the entire system. It takes only a few second of reading the headlines of the financial pages during this month, August, 2007, to notice that foreclosure rates and lag time are threatening to meltdown the entire U.S. economy. The preferred method of the Federal Reserve and central banks addressing this calamity is, yes, you guessed it: to create more debt. The lowering of interest rates in recent years, the bombardment of credit card applications we find regularly in our mailboxes, the red ink in which the United States government is drowning are all an attempt to stave off the collapse of the entire system.
Can any sane human being believe that this situation can persist forever? What is the inevitable outcome of a fiduciary game of musical chairs? Monetary historian, Andrew Gause, answered this question:
One thing to realize about our fractional reserve banking system is that, like a child’s game of musical chairs, as long as the music is playing, there are no losers.
And finally, a system based on fractional reserve banking is, to say the least, not sustainable because it is predicated on incessant growth. Perpetual growth requires perpetual use of resources and the constant conversion of precious resources into garbage just to keep the system from collapsing.
Grignon suggests that in order to begin addressing and resolving the nightmare of money as debt, we must ask four pivotal questions:
1) Why do governments choose to borrow money from private banks at interest when governments could create all the interest-free money they need themselves?
2) Why create money as debt at all? Why not create money that circulates permanently and doesn’t have to be perpetually re-borrowed in interest?
3) How can a money system, dependent on perpetual growth, be used to build a sustainable economy? Perpetual growth and sustainability are fundamentally incompatible.
4) What is it about our current system that makes it totally dependent on perpetual growth? What needs to be changed to allow the creation of a sustainable economy?
A crucial assumption that must be questioned is the practice of usury or the charging of interest for lending money. Grignon asserts that it is a moral and a practical issue because it necessarily results in lenders ending up with all the money, particularly when foreclosures happen. Not only is debt deplorably profitable for lenders in terms of interest and service charges, but when borrowers cannot pay, as in the case of housing foreclosures, lenders walk away with the proceeds. In a recent article “Panic On Wall St.“, Andrew Leonard explains how obscenely advantageous subprime and liar loans have been for lenders and provides damning evidence to support the long-time assertions by Catherine Austin Fitts that the housing bubble has been engineered by centralized financial systems.
In a transformed economy, which I do not anticipate happening in the twenty-first century, banks would exist as non-profit services to society-lending without charging interest at all. But, as Grignon says, if it’s the fundamental nature of the system that’s causing the problem, then tinkering with the system can’t solve the problem. It must be replaced.
One solution might be the replacement of paper dollars with precious metals, which of course, could once again become cumbersome and inconvenient, unless the economic system had experienced collapse and digital and paper transactions were no longer possible.
Perhaps the best solution offered by “Money As Debt” is the creation of locally-based barter money systems in which debt is repaid by hours of work valued at a dollar figure. Additionally, government spending on infrastructure, not using borrowed money, would also create value locally and nationally.
The Federal Reserve banking cartel has been shrouded in secrecy and lack of information among the American people regarding its creation and functioning. One American president appeared to have understood it very well:
Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate. ~James Garfield, 20th President Of U.S. Assassinated, 1881
“Money As Debt” is not only a must-see for any American who wants to be politically and economically literate, but is particularly crucial for high school and college students to see in order for them to understand how the money works in the United States. Yet we should not assume that the film’s simplicity of presentation ranks it as less than adult because most adults in this nation are clueless regarding the connection between money and debt.
I personally hold no hope of changing the money/debt system which is truly the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the American economic landscape. What I do envision, and what must happen, in my opinion, is its total collapse, whether gradual or sudden, so that the transformation and relocalization of the nation’s economic system will be possible, which it is not in the current milieu. However, what we are presently witnessing in the bursting housing bubble and credit crisis may well be the beginning of the end of “money as debt.”
Suggested Reading:
, by G. Edward Griffin
, by William Greider
August 23rd, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
What do you do with an administration that refuses to follow the law? Apparently not a damn thing. We have a situation where the Constitutional balance of powers have been disrupted, and where the opposition party cannot even rally all of its own members - much less a majority - to institute its responsibility of checks and balances. Instead, we have an administration which has challenged constraints since its first day in office, which now blatantly states that it will not recognize any constraints on its actions. What country is this?
Like me, you are probably outraged that the Dems let the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) pass. While one could argue that it is only a 180 day authorization (6 months friends), it has already been argued by numerous pundits that it not only legalizes the illegal surveillance already being done, but radically expands it to include physical searches.
To add insult to injury, aside from telling his top aides that they don’t need to even show up if they are subpoenaed by Congress, he uses his refusal to respond to subpoenas if Congress further expands The PAA, essentially giving hem a blank check for any kind of warrantless surveillance, search, and seizure he sees fit (Ward, Wa. Times).
Bush is also arguing that the White House Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This is in spite of the fact that the White House web site says that they are (Eggen).
Want to see who was at a meeting? Screw you.
Want to have someone testify on a possible criminal act? Screw you.
Want to see documents? Screw you.
Want to change direction in Iraq? Screw you.
Want us to stop illegal surveillance? Screw you.
What does Congress do? They . Oh DUH! Do ya think?
Should they be starting impeachment hearings? You better believe it. However, it does not look like they will, and there is every signal that the Administration is attempting to build a case for attacking Iran. They’ve been drooling for almost three years to do exactly that, and I have a feeling that if they can finagle it before Bush is out of office, they will.
Will the Dems act? Will Republicans look beyond party to country? Maybe or maybe not.
So what does that leave us? Well, there are various versions of a push for direct democracy. One is the Friends of the Article V Convention. Another is being pushed by presidential candidate Mike Gravel which is the The National Initiative for Democracy. Certainly, we should be pushing ALL representatives and candidates to step up to the plate and stop a rogue presidency.
8/05/07 White House press release. President Bush Commends Congress on Passage of Intelligence Legislation
8/07/07 Dan Froomkin, Wa. Post. Who’s Afraid of George W. Bush?
8/08/07 Dan Froomkin, Wa. Post. Chief Spy or Chief Enforcer?
8/09/07 Paul Elias, AP. Eavesdropping Law Illegal, Lawyers Say
8/10/07 John Dean, FindLaw. The So-Called Protect America Act: Why Its Sweeping Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Pose Not Only a Civil Liberties Threat, But a Greater Danger As Well
8/16/07 David Kravets, Wired. Is Bush Administration Redefining New Spy Law?
August 20th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
This is a review and recommendation of by Benjamin Orbach. Orbach, at the time an American grad student, traveled to Jordan on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. The book chronicles his journey and insights.
Overall, I am impressed with what Orbach brings to us in deepening our understanding of events in the Middle East, and particularly in Jordan. While sometimes reading a bit like a personal journal, some of his insights are excellent.
Orbach, a Jew, largely presented himself as a Muslim in his journeys through Jordan, Syria, Egypt and surrounds. What he brings to us, in part, is the view and life of the so-called “Arab Street.” Unlike news reports, and government studies, one gets a feel for the lives and thoughts of the people. I believe this is a tremendously valuable contribution for Americans whose government has focused on this region as central to U.S. “interests.” These are real people living their daily lives.
One of the things that he discusses about his visit to Turkey is the “duality” between the public and private lives of the people he interacted with. Turkey has a secular government (though this is under challenge at this time); however, it also has a high level of tourism which makes a more “cosmopolitan” environment. Religious edifices exist side by side with discos. Personal discussions of religion seem largely taboo (from Orbach’s description). This is hauntingly familiar to what used to be the norm in the U.S. where polite conversation avoided religion, politics, and sex. However, in Turkey, this creates a more stark contrast between the public and private lives of the people.
Orbach grapples with tough issues from cultural issues, to regional conflicts, to perceptions of the United States. His discussion counters and refines some of the generalizations that make up the political rhetoric of neo-conservatives. For example, Orbach discusses “America haters” as follows:
… there are two different streams of anti-American thought that should not be lumped together into one generalization. A more nuanced approach reveals two generalizations instead: America haters and America policy critics.
America haters are the “Arab Basement” drifters of Osama bin Laden nihilists. … They seek the overthrow of regional governments that they consider heretical…
American policy critics have a different agenda, and to a varying degree, a different source of displeasure than bin Laden nihilists or haters. Policy critics oppose the substance of American foreign policies rather than America’s character as an immoral and aggressive power. For them, it is more the unjust nature of American policies that deserves criticism and not the actual act of “interfering” that is so loathed by America haters. (164)
One of the things that I appreciated in Orbach’s work was the unexpected broader insight that stretched far beyond the body of the work while being pertinent to it. Such was the case with “duality” mentioned above, but another example came in the midst of a discussion of Palestine.
From the perspective of people and a people’s history, existence and history do not depend upon official sovereignty and independence. To be sure, the actions of government institutions and the relationship between the ruler and the ruled are key parts of any history. They influence the quality of a people’s life; however, they are not the exclusive components to a formula that determines a people’s history.
The absence of functioning and sovereign government institutions that are internationally recognized do not prevent Palestine from existing as a fact on the ground, a place. … If we were classifying these people by nationality, we’d call them by the nationality they’ve chosen as a people–Palestinian. So what of the official name of the land that they live on? Why do we insist that it be called the West Bank or Gaza? In the breathing world of humans, it is Palestine, the place of the Palestinian people. Official stationery, passports, and voting rights at the United Nations will not change the history of Palestinian life. It will add a new and positive change, but it will not make Palestine exist for the first time. Palestine is already a place with a history and a people. The passports and papers will make it a state. (199)
I highly recommend this work for those who want to get a feel for the lives, perspectives, and conditions of the people of the Middle East (and particularly of Jordan). I found the book thoughtful, but it also encouraged me to reflect on other issues from political to philosophical. While Orbach is not successful in stepping totally outside the American world view, it is useful for us all to follow his growth and change as his exposure and experience emerges. “Live from Jordan” is a journey for the reader as much as it was a journey for Benjamin Orbach.
August 19th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
It seems that the militarization of police forces in the United States is taking giant leaps forward with military robots and spy satellites on the newest toy list. While the militarization is not new - it has been going on since the “war on drugs” started - the use of more sophisticated military technology is new.
Two recent articles captured my attention. The first related to the use of spy satellites by police. The second was the marketing of the new robot weapons platforms to police.
Each of these developments is alarming in its own way. However, since police are supposed to keep the peace, and the military is supposed to pacify using deadly force, the use of something like a weapons platform by police is beyond unnerving. In fact, it was once illegal to transfer military technology to local police forces. But … as the saying goes … 9/11 changed everything.
The Bush administration has approved a plan to expand domestic access to some of the most powerful tools of 21st-century spycraft, giving law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers.(Wa. Post)
Beyond the fact that these “spy” satellites are largely used by the military, why are they being pointed into the United States? Isn’t this an invasion of privacy? What are the controls for police looking into buildings and underground?
These are not pictures like GoogleEarth on steroids. These are real time, controllable target and focus images.
But spy satellites offer much greater resolution and provide images in real time, said Jeffrey T. Richelson, an expert on space-based surveillance and a senior fellow with the National Security Archive in Washington.
“You also can get more coverage more often,” Richelson said. “These satellites will cover during the course of their orbits the entire United States. They will be operating 24 hours a day and using infrared cameras at night.”
Other nonvisual capabilities can be provided by aircraft-based sensors, which include ground-penetrating radar and highly sensitive detectors that can sense electromagnetic activity, radioactivity or traces of chemicals, military experts said. Such radar can be used to find objects hidden in buildings or bunkers.
Apparently the plan was originally authorized by Mike McConnell (Director of National Intelligence) through Michael Chertoff (head of Homeland Security). So nice to know they “play well” together. The plan creates yet another agency within Homeland Security - the National Applications Office. (Whatever happened to the Republican’s love of “small government?) Conveniently, the program will have oversight from “officials” in both Homeland Security and the office of DNI. What no warrants necessary to take a peek inside anyone’s house?
One would assume that the “National Applications Office” will be dealing with more “applications” than letting local police forces use spy satellites. At the head of “applications” may be all the that Congress just gave the Bush Administration (e.g. collection of business records, physical searches, and possible narrowing of the scope of electronic surveillance necessitating a FISA warrant).
(Picture and description from Foster-Miller - the manufacturers of the Talon: “A soldier from the 752nd EOD Co. places a block of C4 explosive in the gripper of a TALON robot in Fallujah.)
Now. What about those robots? The equipment being marketed to police departments is very similar to the robot platforms that were put in use by the military in Iraq in 2005. These robots are designed for urban environments and may be deployed for reconnaissance, with an assortment of weapons, or to deploy explosives (as in the picture), or for bomb disposal. The robots are remotely controlled from several thousand feet away. They cost about $230,000 a piece, but that can vary depending on how it is outfitted. The Talon is yet another “force magnifier” technology. The U.S. military strategy of the future seems to be (in part) to use remote operators of lethal arms. For those forces on the ground, they will be “modified” in a variety of ways to either be “super soldiers,” or the meld with the equipment they are operating.
Move that scenario into a domestic police force. The image certainly gives me the chills.
It is critical to point out that police and soldiers are not interchangeable.
U.S. troops have become “warfighters” in most of the literature. What shall we call the police of the future? Will they also be “warfighters”? Or perhaps “civilian controllers.”
We live in a time of both erosion of rights and Constitutional protections on the one hand, and the advancement of technological, governmental and corporate intrusion on the other hand. Increasingly the line between military and police, and the jurisdiction of the U.S. military are intentionally being blurred. The basis of all of it is fear. We are being “protected” into a police state.
Global Security. TALON Small Mobile Robot. Good description of the Talon.
Gizmag. Talon robot soldiers shipped to Iraq.
David Crane. Defense Review. Armed/Weaponized Infantry Robots for Urban Warfare and Counterinsurgency Ops
August 18th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
The New York Police Department released a report today “Radicalization in the West: the homegrown threat” (UTJ link). The report focuses on “Islamic” terrorism with an extended series of case studies. I am not at all surprised that it has raised the ire of a variety of social justice groups.
Perhaps more interesting than the report itself is that the NYPD met with “private security executives” to present report. Also frightening are the unscripted comments by Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. In the interests of education and informed discussion, I have included the original article by Tim Hays of the Associated Press as this is what many other news sources were drawing on at the end of this article.
Campbell’s remarks seemed much broader and more loosely interpreted than the actual report would predict. The internet is pointed to as a “radicalizing” agent. However, so are student associations, bookstores, non-governmental organizations, and cafes. In other words, places where people might gather and converse with each other, or organize to address social issues, are potential hotbeds of radicalization.
As an activist (non-governmental organizations), a researcher (use the internet and even sponsor a political site), teacher and sponsor of student groups, who eats out from time to time, I find the breadth of NYPD’s list stunning and alarming. It is particularly alarming within the context of the loss of Constitutional protections; the extension of the “terrorist” label; and the “liberalization” of data gathering and surveillance. Not surprisingly, the report was seen by Homeland Security (AP article) contributing to understanding radicalization.
But back to the fact that the report was specifically released to “private security executives.” Why would the police brief this “clientel” on this type of report? Why would they be interested in the so-called “process of radicalization?” Exactly who were these private security executives? Who do they contract out to, and for what services? Do they perhaps contract with the NYPD for infiltrating suspected terrorist recruiting centers (like cafes or student groups)? Or perhaps they provide private data to the NYPD - or even the U.S. government. Am I missing something, or does it seem strange that apparently the first group briefed on a report researched and written on the public’s dime, is to a group of corporate executives? None of the articles I have found thus far detail who was at the briefing.
This whole thing is disturbing in so many ways. Look at it yourself. Perhaps I am just getting jaded and paranoid.
Other Related Articles
Above article also available at
MSNBC, 8/15/07 NYPD warns of homegrown terrorism threat. This article lists a few different comments than the AP article.
Sewell Chan of the NY Times offers a more detailed article with an extended statement from the from The Council on Arab-American Relations. Police Issue Report on ‘Homegrown’ Terror Threat
NYPD Warns of Homegrown Terror Threat Tim Hays, Associated Press 8/15/07
NEW YORK (AP) — They preferred bookstores or hookah bars to mosques. They stopped listening to pop music and instead surfed Web sites promoting radical Islam. They threw away their baseball caps and grew beards.
New York Police Department intelligence analysts have concluded those were some of the telltale signs of homegrown terrorists in the making - a mounting threat as grave as that from established terrorist groups like al-Qaida.
An NYPD report released Wednesday warns of a “radicalization” process in which young men - otherwise unremarkable legal immigrants from the Middle East - grow disillusioned with life in America and adopt a philosophy that puts them on the path to jihad.
“Hopefully, the better we’re informed about this process, the more likely we’ll be to detect and disrupt it,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said while presenting the findings at a briefing of private security executives at police headquarters.
The findings drew swift criticism from Arab-American civil rights groups, which accused the NYPD of stereotyping and of contradicting recent federal warnings that the chief terrorism threat remains foreign.
In a statement, Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said federal authorities “appreciate efforts to better understand the phenomenon of radicalization.”
“We are fortunate that radicalization seems to have less appeal in the U.S. than in other parts of the world,” he said, “but we do not believe that America is immune to homegrown terrorism.”
The FBI declined to comment.
Police officials said the study is based on an analysis of a series of domestic plots thwarted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including those in Lackawanna; Portland, Ore.; and Virginia. It was prepared by senior analysts with the NYPD Intelligence Division who traveled to Hamburg, Germany; Madrid; and other overseas spots to confer with authorities about similar cases.
The report found that homegrown terrorists often were indoctrinated in local “radicalization incubators” that are “rife with extremist rhetoric.”
Instead of mosques, those places were more likely to be “cafes, cab driver hangouts, flop houses, prisons, student associations, non-governmental organizations, hookah bars, butcher shops and bookstores,” the report says.
The Internet also provides “the wandering mind of the conflicted young Muslim or potential convert with direct access to unfiltered radical and extremist ideology.”
The report warns that potential terrorists are difficult for law enforcers to detect because they blend in well with society. It also argues that more intelligence gathering is needed to thwart potential terror plots at their earliest stages.
Potential homegrown terrorists “are not on the law enforcement radar,” the study says. “Most have never been arrested or involved in any kind of legal trouble.”
They “look, act, talk and walk like everyone around them,” the study adds. “In the early stages of their radicalization, these individuals rarely travel, are not participating in any kind of militant activity, yet they are slowly building the mind-set, intention and commitment to conduct jihad.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations accused the NYPD analysts of distorting the innocent behavior of observant Muslims.
“Is Islamic attire or giving up bad habits … now to be regarded as suspicious behavior?” asked the group’s chairman, Parvez Ahmed.
Kareem Shora, legal adviser for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, called the findings faulty and inflammatory.
“The report is at odds with federal law enforcement findings, including those of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, and uses unfortunate stereotyping of entire communities,” Shora said in a statement. “The use of such language by the NYPD is un-American and goes against everything for which we stand.”
The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Osama bin Laden’s network had regrouped and remains the most serious threat to the United States.
Kelly insisted the NYPD report made no effort to provide a “cookie-cutter” profile for terrorists. He also argued that the NYPD report “doesn’t contradict the National Intelligence Estimate - it augments it.”
August 13th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Last summer I was interviewed by Janaia Donaldson of Peak Moment TV. Peak Moment is a weekly community television program which explores the issues and solutions of a “changing energy future.” Janaia and Robyn took a tour last year to interview folks across the country or various aspects of peak oil and gas. I was honored to be one of the people they interviewed. The interview with me has now been released. The 28 minute interview is now available at . It will also be available from Free Speech TV and Global Public Media. You may also access other programs and specials from the Peak Moment TV, Free Speech TV or Global Public Media links.
In this interview, I discuss some of the social effects of peak oil - particularly in the context of social inequality on both a national and international level.
August 11th, 2007
By Jason Miller
“Children are completely egoistic; they feel their needs intensely and strive ruthlessly to satisfy them.” –Sigmund Freud
Frightening as it may be, the Earth’s fate rests in the hands of children. With incredibly formidable military firepower at its disposal, the United States could catalyze Armageddon at any time. And while they may be adults chronologically, our sociopolitical structure is dominated by emotional infants.
Nietzsche once pronounced God dead. In the United States, we have a more readily demonstrable (and perhaps related) problem. Our collective id has rendered its governing superego impotent, and perhaps dead. Our prevailing moral standards, as inconsequential as they have become, are of the Jerry Falwell variety. They are mean-spirited, self-serving, judgmental, narrow-minded, selfish, and belligerent. As far as US Americans are concerned, Christ may as well have preached the Sermon on the Mount from the lowest recesses of Death Valley.
Recall that our basic drives such as libido, hunger, and aggression flow from the infantile dimension of our psyche known as the id. In terms of psychodynamics, the superego’s role is to counter-balance the irresponsible, amoral, and essentially sociopathic nature of the id with a healthy degree of conscience and guilt. Yet in the United States, we are inculcated with a deep sense of our exceptionalism and entitlement from the moment we emerge from the birth canal, thus crippling our ability to empathize and seriously impeding the development of our superego.
Consequently, conscience, guilt, personal discipline, and delaying gratification are barely extant in the toxic cesspool of our sociocultural environment.
Let’s examine some of the spiritually corrosive social forces which have molded our malleable natures in such a way that our behavior as a nation closely resembles that of a depraved miscreant:
While counseling and therapy are essential tools to heal from psychic wounds, emotional disorders, and mental illnesses, many mental health professionals offer their patients palliative “ego strokes” rather than the remedial brutal honesty and tough love they truly need. Instead of giving their clients the tools they need to heal themselves, they enable their ids to continue running rampant, unfettered by that “nasty old superego” and its “toxic guilt.”
Even those who don’t seek professional help are absolved of the pangs of conscience by the high priests and priestesses of the corporate media. Prostitutes to the establishment like Oprah pat them on the head, reassure them that their pathological self-absorption is wonderful, and tell them to further immerse their minds in pernicious idiocy by reading instruction manuals on narcissism like The Secret.
Commit a crime? No problem. We have a legal system, not a justice system. If you have money enough to hire a shrewd attorney, you are unlikely to face the consequences you deserve, regardless of the egregiousness of your crime. Unfortunately, if you don’t have money, you will face the equivalent of electrocution for stealing a loaf of bread, which means several brutal, dehumanizing years in the most populous prison industrial complex in the world for “crimes” like self-medicating to escape your already miserable circumstances.
Lack the cash to buy the $2,000.00 flat screen you “have to have” to watch the obscenely commercialized and over-hyped Super Bowl? No problem. In the advanced stages of our savage economic system, finance capital reigns supreme. There are untold thousands of lenders prepared to let you use their money, provided you agree to pay their usurious interest rates.
Want it yesterday? Not to worry. We have fast food, one hour photo, instant credit approval, movies on demand, pills to chase the blues and blue pills to give you an erection, instant coffee, microwave meals, zero down loans, and a host of other means to satisfy the relentlessly impatient demands of our ids.
Feeling bored, lonely, or depressed? Turn on the television. Fill your mind with inanity, brain candy, infotainment, and potent affirmations that your tenacious adherence to the reprehensible “American Way” is justified, patriotic, and admirable.
Need a career, training, money for college, the indoctrinated belief that you are risking your life for a noble cause, and the false security that your government will support you once they are done with you? “Join the people who have joined the Army” (or Marines, Navy, or Air Force). Our moneyed elite (desperately) need willing pawns to wage their wholesale terror operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
While it may sound a bit conspiratorial, before we go dismissing the notion that the erosion of our moral restraint (superego) has been intentionally engineered and orchestrated, let’s consider the question, “Cui bono?”
Having stunted, retarded, corralled, or in some cases, disabled the superegos of the “unwashed masses,” there is almost no end to the malevolence our sociopathic plutocracy, upper level military careerists, “religious” leaders, AIPAC, and reactionaries can commit in our names (with our overt or tacit approval) to further enrich and empower themselves.
Consider but a few examples of abominations for which we, as a nation, are responsible:
We have committed war crimes analogous to those of Nazi Germany through our pre-emptive invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. How many hundred thousand or million civilians must die before we realize that “collateral damage” is an Orwellian euphemism for mass murder?
We have long been complicit in the brutal oppression of the Palestinians. When the final Palestinian is imprisoned, obliterated, or driven out of Gaza and the West Bank will we then recognize that we facilitated an ethnic cleansing?
We employ economic tyranny and manipulation to make de facto colonies of developing nations, harvesting and consuming 25% of the world’s resources to “sustain” 5% of the world’s population. Isn’t gluttony one of the Seven Deadly Sins?
We listened to the likes of Ronald Reagan (a reactionary who never met a socially redeeming policy, law or public initiative he didn’t want to eliminate) when he moronically asserted that enacting universal health care would undoubtedly lead to “Godless Communism.” So we continue embracing a system enabling cynical wealthy elites and amoral corporations to generate outrageous profits derived from the administration of health care. As a result, there are 50 million uninsured US Americans, we have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, we are 37th in the world in health care quality, HMO’s and managed care entities often refuse to provide necessary medical procedures, insurance companies routinely deny claims based on technicalities, and hospitals dump indigent patients on Skid Row rather than treating them.
On the subject of indigents, how is it that a nation awash in prosperity has over a million homeless human beings on any given night? Or that cities like Orlando and Las Vegas have made homelessness a crime? How can a significant percentage of those condemned to sleep under bridges and eat from dumpsters be veterans who fought for our country? Could it be that chicken hawk ruling elites like Dick Cheney used them as cannon fodder in their wars necessitated by capitalism’s endless demand for new markets, cheaper labor, and more resources, and then disposed of them like so much rubbish when they came home?
We strong-arm developing countries into implementing neoliberal economic policies and free trade, deepening the impoverishment of their citizens to further enrich ourselves. This leaves them little choice but to migrate here, where virtually all of the money and resources are flowing. Now that 12 million “illegals” have established residence in the US, we are arrogantly preparing to perpetuate their employers’ capacity to exploit them or to implement a draconian plan to rip their families and lives apart, imprison them, and eventually send them back to the abject poverty we created.
Climate Change? We simply deny we bear an ounce of responsibility and rev up our gas-guzzling SUVs, pick-ups, and Hummers.
Yes, in spite of the extreme moral poverty reflected in the myriad wounds we continue to inflict upon the Earth and its sentient inhabitants, we have the audacity to call ourselves a Christian nation. Whether it is conscious or not, we organize our existences around the abhorrent beliefs that “it’s all about me,” “get them before they get me,” “he who dies with the most toys wins,” and “blessed are the rich, the joyous, the well-fed, the aggressive, the merciless, the heartless, and the warmongers,” thus manifesting the virtual antithesis of Christ’s teachings.
But what can you expect from a nation of unsupervised ids?
Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed himself intellectually and spiritually. He is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s associate editor ( https://bestcyrano.org/) and publishes Thomas Paine’s Corner within Cyrano’s. You can reach him at
August 11th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
As the sea ice melts in the Arctic, conflict heats up over who it belongs to. The Russians wasted no time at all in sending a submarine to to plant the flag on the ocean floor.
Expand | There are five nations with Arctic claims - Russia, Canada, United States, Denmark, and Norway. According to the Struck article, these nations had ten years (1982-1992) to agree on the boundaries. They have not, and Russia claims that it the Arctic is theirs.
Of course, Canada claims it is theirs. Further, that Russia is trying to claim territory beyond the 200 mile international limit. The Canadian response is to announce that they are building two military bases in the region.
Not to be outdone, Denmark is launching an expedition to see if they have a claim to some of the region.
Once again, we have the merging issue of hydrocarbons (oil and gas) and global warming. The Arctic ice is . This is making accessible portions of the ocean floor that have not been accessible for thousands of years. The decreasing global supplies of oil and gas raise the stakes on any of those resources that might be claimed.
The irony of the burning of hydrocarbons causing increased CO2 which is a major contributor to global warming is unavoidable. Using fossil fuels accelerates global warming which causes more ice melt exposing more of the Arctic for exploitation of potential oil and gas reserves. It is nuts, but it is a sure indicator that:
- there is no near term plan to move away from fossil fuels, and
- there is no serious commitment to addressing global warming.
Can there not be any place on the planet that belongs to everyone (or no one)?
Some might laugh at the “quaintness” of planting the Russian flag on the ocean floor. However, be assured that military conflict over who claims what in the Arctic is not a far fetched fantasy.
August 10th, 2007
BY Joel S. Hirschhorn author of Delusional Democracy and Friends of the Article V Convention
All over the Internet are sincere efforts to reform and improve America’s political-government system. The downside is fragmentation of the subpopulation that has escaped brainwashing, cultural distraction, and self-delusion. Strategy solidarity is missing, but is possible.
Millions of discontent, dissident and truly patriotic Americans see our federal government as corrupt and untrustworthy, disrespectful of our Constitution, under the grip of moneyed interests, subservient to corporate and globalization elites, unresponsive to the needs of ordinary people, and very much on the wrong track. But they are not united.
This subpopulation no longer believes that electing different Democrats or Republicans will turn around the nation. Many have stopped voting. Some believe violent revolution is necessary. Some think that only national economic disaster will produce necessary change. Most find hope in a particular reform strategy that has attracted their attention and respect. However, so many reform efforts reduce prospects for success.
I am talking about political-government reforms, not party reforms. Many successful websites often described as “progressive” seek changes in the Democratic Party. On the political right others hope to reform the Republican Party. Party reform is not the same as reversing the many declines in American democratic institutions. Devotees of popular sites like dailykos.com, moveon.org and huffingtonpost.com, for example, still believe that electing different Democrats is the solution, while true dissidents have given up on that. Being passionately anti-Bush/Cheney does not change their loyalty to the two-party system.
For the dissident subpopulation, fragmentation impedes building a critical mass that can precipitate a tipping point for revolutionary change that solves systemic national problems. Fragmentation results in large measure because of the ease of creating new groups with their own websites. Dissidents align with some web group (and sometimes several), hoping and perhaps praying for success, even if they admit the probability is low.
Admittedly, our monumentally negative and complex national situation will not receive some quick magic-bullet solution. And many will argue that we need multiple strategies and that many of them are complementary. Yet the fragmentation-critical mass issue must not be ignored any longer. Especially when we acknowledge the myriad, powerful forces supporting our ugly, oppressive status quo system and their demonstrated capability over many decades to beat back serious reform attempts. Success requires solidarity. If we do not take the fragmentation problem seriously, untold numbers of micro-reform groups will remain marginalized. Just what status quo forces want.
Realistically, reaching consensus will be resisted by many reform-groups that would not be selected as the priority, solidarity option. One cannot ignore the considerable egos of activists that have energetically created a web group, and that have attained supporters - though rarely in significant numbers. They sincerely believe that their strategy is the best one and having relatively few supporters does not deter them. Many are as opposed to alternative reform strategies as those in the status quo establishment, but not all. Most celebrate their long shot status with a religious zeal bordering on obsession. We need passion for a solidarity strategy.
This requires maturity and open-mindedness from entrepreneurial activists to acknowledge that some other strategy offers more promise of wide scale success. Joining together in common cause is necessary to save our nation.
Umbrella Strategy: What we can strive for is that many reform advocates can support another strategy that does not contradict or oppose their own one. In seeking a solidarity strategy, we want the capacity to serve as an umbrella movement that ultimately can assist others to succeed or at least fairly compete against each other for public support.
Unlikely Mass Action: The solidarity strategy should not be dependent on changing the behavior of enormous numbers of people. Many sincere groups believe that millions of converts will change more than their thinking or values - they will change their behavior. They trust that their information stimulus will produce their desired response. One group aims at convincing people to have only one child per couple as the planet-wide solution. Another preaches voting out incumbents. Another wants supporters for replacing our representative democracy with direct democracy - despite being antithetical to our constitutional republic framework. Such micro-movements hope that true believers will voluntarily choose to behave in the desired fashion. But how can one person confidently believe that millions of others will behave likewise? Such groups typically exist for years despite no objective evidence that their message is causing millions of people to behave similarly.
Unlikely Lawmaking: Many other groups, such as those pursuing specific electoral reforms, base success on Congress eventually passing the desired law. But if we are talking about profound reforms, passage is unlikely. Powerful moneyed interests spend whatever is necessary to preserve the status quo through lobbying and campaign funding. Getting dissidents to send letters to members of Congress, sign petitions and participate in street protests are tactics that rarely succeed against the corrupt power of money. Moreover, many of these groups pursue beneficial but narrow reforms that will not profoundly change our system. Note that I am not talking about worthy issue-specific actions that often mobilize large numbers, such as the recent success to kill the attempt to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and as yet unsuccessful attempts to impeach Bush and Cheney, stop the Iraq war, and stop globalization.
It comes to this: Is there a solidarity strategy for achieving deep reforms? Yes. Some time ago I anguished over the decision to dedicate my time, energy and money to a movement that I had researched and concluded had the capacity to produce many major reforms. An Article V convention could be the successful solidarity strategy. The Framers of our Constitution created this option exactly because they anticipated the loss of public confidence in the federal government. That day has arrived.
This strategy is a clear constitutional right. An Article V convention, moreover, would provide a legal venue for consideration of many possible amendments. Indeed, when I examined countless reform groups, the clearer it became that many goals could be instituted through constitutional amendments - our ultimate lawmaking opportunity.
Why so many failed attempts to get an Article V convention? Powerful groups on the political left and right had opposed the convention. They wanted to retain their ability to greatly influence public policy and feared a convention that circumvented all three branches of the federal government. The great hypocrisy was that those professing to honor and love our Constitution opposed using exactly what our Constitution offers us.
I first wondered why Congress had not proposed an amendment to remove the convention option. But then I realized that Congress has chosen to conceal its opposition to a convention. But two of our greatest presidents backed it: Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
I linked up with other conventionists and now we have a major web presence for Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org. We are nonpartisan and will not endorse specific amendments. We have shown the potential for wide scale success by achieving remarkable rapid growth in membership in just a few months and have begun building state chapters.
If you are a true dissident looking for major political-government reforms come with an open mind to our website. Access a wealth of information and analysis that refute any fears you may have about a convention (because of propaganda from anti-conventionists). If you have a reform group or are committed to one and can envision a constitutional amendment to reach your goal, consider affiliate membership for your group.
In solidarity there is strength. Much strength is needed to meet our common reform goal of restoring American democracy and rebuilding a trustworthy government.
Previous Posts
