Congress Goes Along in Iraq, Gates Says Not So Fast
Has the President made a huge mistake in appointing Robert M. Gates as Secretary of Defense?
The President unveils a new Iraq strategy - put aside for a moment whether it is really new - and he has a new leadership team to carry it out.
Soldiers are seemingly flowing over to Iraq to accelerate the U.S. effort.
The Iraqi government is supposedly turning over a new leaf, pressured by American decisiveness and the new plan.
But what if every proposition about Iraq is fundamentally wrong? What if the new strategy is just a hope? What if the Secretary is a cookie-cutter bureaucratic player who lacks the President's fire in the belly and thus has no survival instinct? What if the new team is just for show? And what if the Iraqis are as duplicitous and as fumbling as they were before the White House saw the light?
We now have the strange reality of the President and Vice President making a case for time, continuing sacrifice and eventual victory in what they claim is the central battlefield and fundamental challenge of our time, and the Secretary of Defense says, oh well maybe we won't need all the troops and they could come home early anyhow and we'll wait and see how the Iraqis do, and even more, it's not really a surge, because we are walking and not running to get to the battlefield.
Everyone is ever so happy to pin all of the problems of the past on former Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the big bad man who wouldn't allow more troops, who wouldn't let the military fight, who starved the military, that no one is really watching what Gates is conveying, most important, to the Iraqis and the bad guys.
And if Rumsfeld was the epitome of a confident man with strong views and one who was willing to stand up to the uniformed military and decide for himself what was needed, Gates is a management marshmallow of a man, sweet and soft and reassuring, ultimately the perfect centrist to preside over the end but exactly the wrong person to represent the White House's crusade.
In various radio call-in shows I did last week, I heard people left and right hoping for change, hoping that more would make a difference, hoping that the new team and new strategy would indeed turn the corner.
"What would you like to see the 20,000 additional American troops do," one host asked callers. The question was tinged with promise, almost as if Marines would be storming the beach or paratroopers would be filling the sky.
But the surge, I'm afraid, isn't anywhere near so impressive. Not only won't there be one single and immediate deployment, but many of the supposed 20,000 are soldiers who are merely being extended in Iraq: it is like a corporate RIF where the numbers are attained through retirements and attrition. Others, moreover, are merely a surge on paper; the number of actual immediate fighters in Baghdad is only about half what the President suggests.
If there is any hope for a turn around in Iraq, of course we all know it depends completely on what the Iraqis themselves do. The President's new plan acknowledges the al-Maliki government's own sectarian biases and articulates a shared commitment to change. In other words, it is pure-Gatesian, saying all of the right things and assuming that everyone will be reasonable when ideology is expunged. But Iraq is all about ideology, about allegiances and power struggles. Every move is a back-stabbing Mafia-like protection of the family, and though there are hundreds of thousands of reasonable Mohammed Gates', they are as feckless at breaking the ideologues and the enemy, and will continue to operate in the same manner.
Six months from now, with Congressional acquiescence - expect no less - people will again ask 'what ever happened to the effect of the surge?' The answer then is already obvious now: It is just too little, too late.
Here are the details of the actual U.S. deployments:
The 1st Brigade of the 34th Infantry Division, a unit of the Minnesota Army National Guard that is already in Iraq, will have its tour extended at least until August 2007.
Two Marine Corps infantry battalions will extend their tours in Iraq for 45 days.
The 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable), another battalion size unit, will extend its tour in Iraq for 60 days.
The 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is moving into Iraq from Kuwait right now.
The 4th Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division from Fort Riley, Kansas, will deploy as scheduled in February. The unit has been vigorously training to assume the "embed" mission, that is, to provide trainers and advisors to Iraqi units down to the battalion level.
The 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division from Fort Benning, Georgia will deploy to Iraq in March, the first actual new independent combat unit to flow to the theater.
The 4th Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division from Fort Lewis, Washington will deploy in April.
The 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division from Fort Stewart, Georgia will deploy in May.
Additional combat support units and a Patriot surface-to-air missile battalion will go to Iraq, and the USS Stennis carrier strike group will deploy to the Persian Gulf to provide additional strike capacity.
By May, when the Army will finally meander into position, the three Marine Corps units - a brigade-plus equivalent - will be long gone.
Secretary of Defense Gates admitted last week that the "surge" would not "unfold overnight."
"There will be no D-Day," he said, "It won't look like the Gulf War" (that would be 1991, the ancient Gulf War of "overwhelming force," remember that one?).
The absence of urgency is seen in the fact that the great Gen. David Petraeus, the vaunted counter-insurgency guru and the lynch-pin of the new strategy, isn't even in Iraq for the opening moves. What is more, though new operational arrangements are being set up to put more pressure on the Iraqi army and government and place more responsibility into their laps, the real changes aren't scheduled until later this year and many of the command arrangements remain ambiguous, confusing, even contradictory. In other words, at least for now, U.S. forces will still be hostage to political orders from a Shi'a government. Even when the new Iraqi command take charge in the summer, with a joint Iraqi-American advisory board, the arrangements and the rules of engagement for the embedding and twinning process are still an open questions.
Military sources say that 7,000 or so U.S. soldiers will arrive in Baghdad by mid-February, some newly deployed some repositioned, ready, in theory to operate with the additional 8,000 Iraqi troops that have been promised. The other 10,500 U.S. troops who are eventually for Baghdad will move through "the pipeline" but could still be held back if the Iraqis do not come through or if there are not positive signs that the new arrangement is working.
The week-to-week and month-to-month measure is sure to be highly controversial in terms of whether progress is being made, but the overall message to the enemy could not be clearer. Explicit or not, there is a timetable. Hold out long enough, or more important, hold back, and everyone will be able to declare victory and the Americans will then pull back and eventually go home.
That is certainly what the new Secretary of Defense offered Congress last week in his monotone defense of the plan for victory. Gates attempted not only to dampen expectations with regard to the purely military impact of more U.S. forces, stressing that the surge was a combination of military and non-military measures, but he insisted that the leisurely effort was in fact intentional. "The timetable for the introduction of additional U.S. forces will provide ample opportunity early on ... to evaluate the progress of this endeavor and whether the Iraqis are fulfilling their commitments to us," he said.
"We are going to have a number of opportunities to go back to the Iraqis and point out where they have failed to meet their commitments," the new Secretary said. If the Iraqis don't meet expectations or if the strategy doesn't produce results, he lamely added then the U.S. would "have to re-look at the strategy."
Doesn't sound like a man who has a fire in his belly or buys into the central battlefield argument.
It isn't as if Gates is lying about the realities: If the United States indeed plans on leaving -- which is what I take the Bush plan to be all about -- then authorities have to be turned over to the Iraqis. U.S. forces operating independently might turn the tide in the short term, but that wouldn't stress the Iraqis and it would merely inflame the situation. In other words, there is no real new strategy. We having surging forces and a soothing Secretary of Defense in place to symbolize our resolve while we wait.
So, either the current al-Maliki Iraqi government miraculously transforms from being a Shi'a oriented and sympathetic coalition into a national, integrated and even-handed force or it's no dice.
No dice?
Is the Bush administration saying that if Iraq doesn't live up to its part of the bargain, the United States will then decide to withdraw? Are they saying that in this place, Iraq, that they also say we can not lose, where we are in a battle for our very security, we will also leave if things don't pan out?
The surge then is worst than mission impossible: it is a fairy tale plan with a cynical ending. The only outcome I see is the President asking for an "extension" after May, arguing that progress is indeed being made - we'll be arguing ferociously inside the Beltway about the metrics - and that U.S. troops might be able to draw down or leave eventually but a timetable is quite tricky and undesirable now at the critical juncture.
The other possibility is that the President will argue that the Iraqis have failed to carry out their commitments: "progress," he will say, hasn't been as rapid or as successful as anticipated and U.S. forces must stay and indeed maybe even be augmented, because a timetable can't be established for withdrawal and defeat is not an option. Who knows, maybe we'll be at war with Iran by then - JOKE - which is to say, who knows what the future holds.
American forces are thus hostage to Iraqi success, a fate worse than Rumsfeld.
One gets the impression, listening to Gates and other senior officials in Iraq, that they don' even particularly see the May or summer or end of 2007 deadlines. When they say "over time" they mean it. The President might assert that there is no open-ended commitment to Iraq, but there is nothing in the plan to suggest a timetable or a vision that is any but as open as Congress and the American people will allow.
By William M. Arkin |
January 16, 2007; 8:38 AM ET
Previous: Secretary Rice on the Threat to Iran |
Next: All Over the Globe, the New, New Strategy is to Pile On
Posted by: sex dvds | February 4, 2007 12:01 PM
xxx dvd
Posted by: xxx dvd | February 4, 2007 12:01 PM
adult dvd
Posted by: adult dvd | February 4, 2007 11:59 AM
Here's another non disclosed side to this Iraq story. Browse the web for articles on such sites as the Washington Post - and other distinqushed sites -
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0501/S00274.htm
It appears that the three Bush brothers (Jeb, Marvin, Neil - and probably George Jr.) have had their greedy hands in the Iraq situation from before the war started!
Posted by: A Watcher | January 19, 2007 2:57 PM
Surge? What a joke. As you correctly analyzed the "surge", there are no new 20,000 troops. This "surge" or new strategy in Iraq is all about TIME (18 months or so), which the "new" congress has given so willingly. This arrogant, deceiving front-man acting as president - along with Cheney - have just pulled an old rabbit from an invisible hat: can't you see, we have "Stay the course" in new rhetoric! Wake up America! This isn't what the November election was all about. Impeach the lot!
Posted by: A Watcher | January 19, 2007 2:36 PM
Arkin wrote: "Are they saying that in this place, Iraq, that they also say we can not lose, where we are in a battle for our very security, we will also leave if things don't pan out?"
My sense is that if there is one thing that the President believes in his gut its that America IS in a life or death struggle. So I take the talk of Iraqi cooperation this way: if the Maliki government doesnt cooperate then the US will root about for a new government that would promise that they could give the President what he wants. US troops would not ever leave and compromise American security from the terrorists---plus the troops are necessary to dissuade Iran from its alleged regional ambitions.
In the President's Jan 10 speech he never said if the Iraqi government doesnt hold up their end that US troops would withdraw, he said, 'America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.' Which means the consequence of non-compliance is the Iraqi government leaves, not US troops.
Arkin wrote: "If the United States indeed plans on leaving -- which is what I take the Bush plan to be all about"
Uh, no kidding, the Bush plan is about WINNING and then leaving, thanks for the analysis. On the plus side, you later nail the two most likely scenarios which, of course, dont have the US leaving.
Posted by: sm | January 18, 2007 12:20 AM
There's no doubt that Bush and Cheney and the civilian leaders have botched the two wars. But what about the military? Frankly I am sick of the kneejerk "supporting the troops" talk constantly. When are "the troops" going to be held accountable? From mismanagement at the top levels to poor performance and brutal attacks on civilians in the field even at the lowest levels of sergeant and private, I'm sick of it. Let's ABOLISH the military, recognize that war is NEVER the solution, and instead put the money into a Department of Peace that will send peacekeepers, civil engineers, educators and micro-loan financiers around the world to help people! Then we may truly see people come to respect and admire America. If they attack us here at home, so be it. We must stop living in fear and find some courage and integrity.
Posted by: | January 17, 2007 10:21 AM
Please recind the Patriot Act.
Please.
Posted by: William L Roberts | January 17, 2007 9:34 AM
Please recind the Patriot Act.
Please.
Posted by: William L Roberts | January 17, 2007 9:33 AM
It seems that the real intentions is to stay the course by all means. The so called 'surge' is just a distraction of the attention to buy time to get until 2009 and pass the mess to the next president. Success or victory is not the objective because the administration knows that those are not achievable. There is no real plan to succeed at all since that will mean withdrawal. The real plan is a permanent presence in Iraq to control the oil production.
Posted by: j.moreno | January 17, 2007 8:51 AM
FUBAR is all she wrote
Posted by: Hal | January 17, 2007 8:08 AM
Unleven bread. No yeast. A *surge* with no new troops. Appease the Base without admitting the Army is tapped out. No new, effective, rested troops on the ground when needed to quell the violence that mounts daily. And not just in Baghdad. My, what a tangled web you weave, Mr. President. My what you risk that is not your own. It worked your first six decades. Why change now? Why are todays promises more credible than the ones you made to your former shareholders, or us, or the troops?
Posted by: mbbsdphil | January 16, 2007 10:51 PM
Iraqnaphobia...
That will be the name of the movie that will be based on Bushes war om Iraq. The movie probably won't be released for another 10 years from now; no one wants to give away the ending ahead of time, although we all know how this thing will end.
President Bush will be played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Cheney will insist on playing himself. however, Danny DeVito will ultimately get the part; type cast. And a new and unknown star from American Idol will likely play the vivacious and lovely Secretary of State Dr. Rice.
Theme of the movie: War in the Desert.
Plot: A superpower nation illegally invades a much smaller nation, based upon the illicit desires and lies of their fanatical leader.
Viewing time: 1 hours, much of the screenplay is repetitious, and the 'mission will have been accomplished in the first 15 minutes.
The remainder of the movie will be more of the same. There will be shooting, lying by the President, misrepresentations and occasional appearances by the lovely Secretary of State.
Other titles considered for this movie: The Never Ending Story, and that is exactly what we are getting; as people are needlessly dying.
Mr. Bush was neither forthright before this whole fiasco began; he admitted that he has misled the nation several times since the fiasco began; and who can put any confidence in what he is saying now.
I am certain that he has something, other than the obvious, up his bloody sleeves!
Posted by: The Rev | January 16, 2007 5:38 PM
This war has been a mess from the beginning. There was no real plans or achieveable goals such as advocated by the Weinberger/Powell Doctines. We see now why Saddam Hussein was not taken down in the first Gulf War, with Iraq fast becoming a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorism. I don't remember his name, but there was one general who was regarded as a logistical genius who made sure the needs of the troops and Commanders were met on time and efficiently. With this war, we had multinational companies in charge of the logistics, and effiency was lost, along with the needs of the troops. We are looking at privatization gone mad when it comes to the military. War requires tight organization and control. Units should be able to turn on a dime when necessary.
While I did oppose this war, but I want our troops out Iraq also because these idiots in the Bush Administraion do not have a clue about what they are doing. They will get our people killed because of their stupidity.
Posted by: P. J. Casey | January 16, 2007 3:19 PM
Eileen writes:"It is like seeing a car overturn on your friend - knowing that you cannot possibly lift the car -- but you try anyway."
Agree, I doubt very much yr a right wing neocon, you sound like a realist who cares.
Posted by: Alex | January 16, 2007 3:18 PM
This war has been a mess from the beginning. There was no real plans or achieveable goals such as advocated by the Weinberger/Powell Doctines. We see now why Saddam Hussein was not taken down in the first Gulf War, with Iraq fast becoming a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorism. I don't remember his name, but there was one general who was regarded as a logistical genius who made sure the needs of the troops and Commanders were met on time and efficiently. With this war, we had multinational companies in charge of the logistics, and effiency was lost, along with the needs of the troops. We are looking at privatization gone mad when it comes to the military. War requires tight organization and control. Units should be able to turn on a dime when necessary.
While I did oppose this war, but I want our troops out Iraq also because these idiots in the Bush Administraion do not have a clue about what they are doing. They will get our people killed because of their stupidity.
Posted by: P. J. Casey | January 16, 2007 2:59 PM
If and when we leave, the countries in that region will certainly have a bit more responsibility then they have shown. Maybe its about time the saudi's did some heavy lifting to counter Iran. Should Syria really think of Iran as a friend ?. Moderates like Egypt and Jordan may find new allies besides the US. I'm not sure the common Iranian is all too happy about Iran's doling out of millions in aid to solve arab problems. It certainly wont be status quo and business as usual. At times it sounds dangerous but change usually entails some type of risk. Was status quo better ? some would have you believe that.
Posted by: Alex | January 16, 2007 2:37 PM
I spent 22 months working in Iraq to help Iraqi women participate in whatever economic benefits would come from reconstruction. I am no apologist for the war; however, I do support the President's decision to put more troops into Iraq. We dragged the Iraqis into this horrible war - and we created the escalation of violence by not having enough troops on the ground and allowing the lawlessness to proliferate. Walking away will create a situation in the Middle East that will be much worse for us -- and for them.
I think we will see a change. We should be listening to the front line troops and they believe we need more troops - sure it would be nice to have more, but if 20,000 is all we got, then it is our responsibility to try.
Unfortunately, now that the Administration has finally realized that a new strategy is necessary, the American people have lost confidence in their President, in their government and in their media -- with good reason. But the fact remains that it is our responsibility to do whatever we can to quell the violence by forcing the Iraqi government to step up to the plate and by putting more US troops into Baghdad. It is like seeing a car overturn on your friend - knowing that you cannot possibly lift the car -- but you try anyway.
At least it is something. But I ask you, who is writing the playbook for the next Iraq - and believe me, there will be a next one.
I fear that we are definitely not learning from our mistakes.
Posted by: Eileen E. Padberg | January 16, 2007 2:26 PM
Iraqi Self-Determination.
We have no true allies in the middle east: Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Sunnis or the Shia. All middle-eastern alliances are partnerships of convenience, and not of conviction. Maybe in another generation there will be enough common ground between Iraqi and American societies for us to be true allies, but until then we are fooling ourselves with wishful thinking.
What America truly believes in is self-determination, and it is only the Kurds in Iraq (midwifed by 11 years of American air power against the outside oppressor, Saddam's Iraq) who have made the societal choice for self-determination. The Sunnis and the Shia are locked in a struggle to impose their will upon one another, the Sunnis getting help from radicalized Muslims from outside Iraq and the Shia from Iran, and both sides being propelled into conflict by petrodollars. Neither the Sunnis nor the Shia leaders at this point are willing simply to self-determine; they are marching to conquest. And supporting foreign conquest has never made American foreign power projection worthwhile.
The time has come for America to allow itself to step back and allow decisions on the ground in Iraq to be made by Iraqis, and not Americans. Perhaps it will mean a federal structure, a confederation, or even a dissolution into separate states. But the political decisions about Iraq are by definition IRAQI decisions.
Posted by: Steven | January 16, 2007 1:49 PM
---The only outcome I see is the President asking for an "extension" after May, arguing that progress is indeed being made [...] The other possibility is that the President will argue that the Iraqis have failed to carry out their commitments: "progress," he will say, hasn't been as rapid or as successful as anticipated and U.S. forces must stay and indeed maybe even be augmented, because a timetable can't be established for withdrawal and defeat is not an option.---
So no matter what lie the president tells us we will stay in Iraq? I actually agree. This president is a boy who needs to feel good about himself. He needs to land in a jet on a carrier and tout Mission Accomplished. He needs to borrow money from China so Americans do not feel the pain of this war, yet, and complain. He needs to have those around him tell him he's doing the right thing because he cannot admit a mistake.
Here's my prediction: By this summer the surge will have been touted as having made "tremendous" progress whether that is true or not. The 20K troops will remain (they can;t leave while progress is being attained!) and Bush will then employ Condi, who just recently the Isreali/Palestinian issue for the first time, to begin diplomatic negotiations with the surrounding countries (except Iran but including Syria) as well as the Sunni insurrgents, to broker an agreement for powersharing. Come 2008 and we will see smart people, people who should have been in the job a long time ago, working politically to get the Shia and Sunnis to share power. Bush will also be vetoing every spending bill the congress sends him claiming he is now fiscally responsible. He will leave office with his bloated head held high, believing he has brought Iraq under control, brought the defecit under control, and having ensured his place in history as one of American's great presidents. At least that's what he wants to believe and will work toward for the next two years. Expect lots of lies, lots of hand waving, lots of ignored questions, congress shunned and maybe a scandel or two involving domestic surveilence for political purposes. The only question I have is whether congress will continue to keep its newfound spine.
Posted by: Sully | January 16, 2007 12:52 PM
For uncensored news please bookmark:
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
White House propaganda campaign: Bush, Cheney smear opponents of US war in Iraq
By Patrick Martin
16 January 2007
In remarks broadcast Sunday on national television, President Bush and Vice President Cheney brushed aside the mass opposition to their war policy among the American people, declared that the US government would do "whatever it takes" to win a military victory in Iraq, and suggested that Iran could well be the next target for American military aggression.
As they reiterated their plans for expanding the war, Bush and Cheney expressed the outlook--a hallmark of dictatorship, not democracy--that the government has the right to defy the expressed will of the people on the most serious of political issues, a war in which thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have already died.
As part of a coordinated public relations offensive by the White House, Cheney appeared on the morning interview program "Fox News Sunday," while Bush was interviewed for the CBS program "60 Minutes," broadcast the same evening.
Both sought, in slightly different ways, to intimidate the majority of Americans who oppose the continuation of the US occupation of Iraq and want a rapid withdrawal of all American troops.
Bush painted a picture of the devastating impact of a US "failure" in Iraq, saying it would "embolden the enemy," whom he defined as "Al Qaeda and extremists," as well as Iran. He painted a picture of slaughter and mass suffering throughout the Middle East, although that is the catastrophic outcome already set into motion by the US invasion.
Hinting at the huge economic and strategic interests at stake in control of the oil-rich region--and contrasting them to the stakes involved in the US defeat in Vietnam--Bush said, "What happens in the Middle East matters to the homeland. And that's different than in some past engagements."
Cheney, as befits his role as the administration bully, warned that those who advocate a US withdrawal from Iraq would "revalidate the strategy that Osama bin Laden has been following from day one, that if you kill enough Americans, you can force them to quit, that we don't have the stomach for the fight."
While Cheney suggested that those opposed to the Bush administration's war policies are capitulating to terrorism, Bush claimed that there was broad agreement within the United States on the need for "success" in Iraq, and maintained that critics of his plans to escalate the war were obliged to provide an alternative scenario to achieve an American victory.
For the rest of this article please go to:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/congress_goes_along_in_iraq_ga.html#comments
Posted by: che | January 16, 2007 12:24 PM
A man surrounded by 'yes men', will never accept no for answer'. Author unknown
1. This is a politically initiated and managed war, just like Vietnam; America was not attacked in either war.
2. The stakes are much higher, however, this reminds me of a sports team where the owner, won't permit the team to do what it knows how best to do what it does; and there are those cases where the team knows that it is time to throw in the towel.
3. There has been too much micro-managing by a President who doesn't know the first thing about war.
4. The next second problem is that the President hand-picks people who will say 'yes', and get he gets rid of those who will question his judgment (Colin Powell).
President Bushes judgment, now there's an oxymoron, and in the interim, PEOPLE CONTINUE TO DIE!
Posted by: The Rev | January 16, 2007 11:58 AM
Very Clear that Gates a -chickenhawk- ex CIA Deputy Director -Administrator-.... Is Being -SandBagged- By Military, who Have Decided -No IRAQ Military Victory Possible- And Are Following Letter of Orders.... And DRAGGING THEIR BUREAUCRATIC FEET... To Save The Lives of Their Soldiers from Mad King Georges BLOODLUST!!
Posted by: Mac | January 16, 2007 11:25 AM
Why isn't anyone angry? Bush has changed the entire counry, (and not for the better) but no one seems to care.
Posted by: Jerry Gettinger | January 16, 2007 11:23 AM
All the new laws, acts, signing statement, executive orders are being put in place for a reason.
Two words will bring the entire puzzle together: NATIONAL EMERGENCY.
Congress will be shelved, the Supreme Court will mean less than it does now and CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT shall rule.
MARTIAL LAW IS THE GOAL.
Our Military cannot help us from the other side of the world.
UN, NATO and Private Security Firms will become our keepers.
Dissenters will be removed.
Does anybody really think that the current administration is going to allow Barak Obama to waltz into the the Whitehouse and undo all they have set in place?
Indicators suggest this will play out before the 2008 election and shall be brought on by another false flag terrorist attack.
Good Luck fellow Americans....you've been had.
Posted by: KARLA LINDQUIST | January 16, 2007 10:59 AM
Dear Sir: Please settle the reports about a FEMA CAMP being built slightly north of Austin, TX.. I know there are more but this one will do! www confidentialsources com Fema/Constitution being negated and/or neutralized.
Posted by: FEMA CAMP CONSTRUCTION | January 16, 2007 10:52 AM
Dear Sir: Please settle the reports about a FEMA CAMP being built slightly north of Austin, TX.. I know there are more but this one will do! www confidentialsources com Fema/Constitution being negated and/or neutralized.
Posted by: FEMA CAMP CONSTRUCTION | January 16, 2007 10:51 AM
It is foolish to rely on the Persian-dominated government of Iraq for any sort of outcome that might be in our interest. Our interests lie with Sunni Arabs; always have, always will. Ultimately our forces will act to protect the Sunni minority from the Shia militias. This will be the real battle for Baghdad. We are going to be there for a very long time.
Posted by: David Mendelin | January 16, 2007 9:52 AM
For uncensored news please bookmark:
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
Military, CIA prying into Americans' financial records
By David Walsh
16 January 2007
The American military and the Central Intelligence Agency have a "long-standing" policy of obtaining banking and credit card information on US citizens, according to news reports published over the weekend.
The New York Times revealed Sunday that the Department of Defense had issued more than 500 National Security Letters (NSLs) requesting information on financial transactions to banks, credit card companies and other institutions since September 11, 2001. In fact, because each investigation often results in multiple requests, the number of letters probably runs into the thousands.
The CIA also has issued NSLs to obtain personal financial records and other types of information, although agency officials claim to have issued fewer than the military.
That the US military and the CIA are now conducting domestic surveillance, building up their own independent intelligence records on US citizens without any judicial oversight whatsoever, is a significant step in the direction of a police state.
National Security Letters are administrative subpoenas that have been used primarily by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The use of such subpoenas, first authorized in the 1970s, was greatly expanded by the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. That law allowed the letters to be issued in connection with the surveillance of US residents or visitors who were not the immediate targets of an investigation, and it allowed other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, to use NSLs. The act did not mention the CIA or the military.
Recipients of NSLs--i.e., banks or other institutions--are placed under a gag order. They are forbidden to reveal the contents of the NSLs or even acknowledge their existence. Those whose personal financial records have been requested by the government and turned over by their banks, credit card companies, etc. are never informed. Unlike other subpoenas and warrants, no approval from a judge is required for the issuance of these letters.
The expanded use of NSLs by the FBI since 2001 has been well known and is the subject of several court cases. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has challenged the gag order in two cases, one involving requests for library records and a second for Internet records--and in each case the gag order was ruled unconstitutional.
In July 2003, the ACLU declared that the NSLs "allow the FBI to obtain certain kinds of sensitive personal records without obtaining any kind of court order . . . The absence of judicial oversight means that, when it comes to the use of NSLs, the FBI has a free hand . . . Before the Patriot Act became law in October 2001, the FBI could issue an NSL against you only if it had reason to believe that you were a foreign spy. Now, however, the FBI can issue an NSL against you even if it knows you are completely innocent of any such activity. The only requirement is that the NSL be 'sought for' an ongoing investigation."
In April 2006, the Department of Justice reported that in 2005 "the Government made requests for certain information concerning 3,501 United States persons pursuant to National Security Letters (NSLs). During this time frame, the total number of NSL requests . . . for information concerning US persons totaled 9,254."
The NSLs issued by the military and the CIA are "noncompulsory." Both organizations have attempted to obtain the power to issue mandatory letters, but Congress has so far rejected their efforts. It is doubtful, in any event, that any financial institution would rebuff the Defense Department or the CIA when either comes seeking information.
The CIA has been sharply restricted by law in its gathering of domestic intelligence, while the Pentagon is allowed to investigate only direct threats to military bases, as well as possible criminal conduct by military personnel. To justify its use of NSLs, Defense Department officials, along with Vice President Dick Cheney, claim that the Pentagon's security letters have been issued only when there is the possibility of terrorist attacks on military installations.
With the information the military and intelligence agencies compile, they
For the rest please go to:
Posted by: che | January 16, 2007 8:48 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
sex dvds