Dr Aafia's case

If anyone ever thought the US system of justice delivers justice, this case should open his/ her eyes.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=223448

The truth about US justice

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 By Yvonne Ridley Many of us are still in a state of shock over the guilty verdict returned on Dr Aafia Siddiqui. The response from the people of Pakistan was predictable and overwhelming and I salute their spontaneous actions. The truth about US justice From Peshawar to Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and beyond they marched in their thousands demanding the return of Aafia. Even some of the US media expressed discomfort over the verdict returned by the jurors there was a general feeling that something was not right. Everyone had something to say, everyone that is except the usually verbose US Ambassador Anne Patterson who has spent the last two years briefing against Dr Aafia and her supporters. This is the same woman who claimed I was a fantasist when I gave a press conference with Tehrik-e-Insaf leader Imran Khan back in July 2008 revealing the plight of a female prisoner in Bagram called the Grey Lady. She said I was talking nonsense and stated categorically that the prisoner I referred to as “650” did not exist. By the end of the month she changed her story and said there had been a female prisoner but that she was most definitely not Dr Aafia Siddiqui. By that time Aafia had been gunned down at virtually point blank range in an Afghan prison cell jammed full of more than a dozen US soldiers, FBI agents and Afghan police. In a letter dripping in untruths on August 16, 2008, she decried the “erroneous and irresponsible media reports regarding the arrest of Aafia Siddiqui”. She went on to say: “Unfortunately, there are some who have an interest in simply distorting the facts in an effort to manipulate and inflame public opinion. The truth is never served by sensationalism.” When Jamaat Islami invited me on a national tour of Pakistan to address people about the continued abuse of Dr Aafia and the truth about her incarceration in Bagram, the US ambassador continued to issue rebuttals. She assured us all that Dr Aafia was being treated humanely had been given consular access as set out in international law ... hmm. Well I have a challenge for Ms Patterson today. I challenge her to repeat every single word she said back then and swear it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s trial got underway, the US ambassador and some of her stooges from the intelligence world laid on a lavish party at the US Embassy in Islamabad for some hand-picked journalists where I’ve no doubt in between the dancing, drinks and music they were carefully briefed about the so-called facts of the case. Interesting that some of the potentially incriminating pictures taken at the private party managed to find the ambassador was probably hoping to minimize the impact the trial would have on the streets of Pakistan proving that, for the years she has been holed up and barricaded behind concrete bunkers and barbed wire, she has learned nothing about this great country of Pakistan or its people. One astute Pakistani columnist wrote about her: “The respected lady seems to have forgotten the words of her own country’s 16th president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865): “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” When injustice is the law it is the duty of everyone to rise up and challenge that injustice in any way possible. The response -- so far -- has been restrained and measured but it is just the start. A sentence has yet to be delivered by Judge Richard Berman in May. Observers asked how the jury could ignore the science and the irrefutable facts ... there was absolutely no evidence linking Dr Aafia to the gun, no bullets, no residue from firing it. But I really don’t think we can blame the jurors for the verdict -- you see the jury simply could not handle the truth. Had they taken the logical route and gone for the science and the hard, cold, clinical facts it would have meant two things. It would have meant around eight US soldiers took the oath and lied in court to save their own skins and careers or it would have meant that Dr Aafia Siddiqui was telling the truth. And, as I said before, the jury couldn’t handle the truth. Because that would have meant that the defendant really had been kidnapped, abused, tortured and held in dark, secret prisons by the US before being shot and put on a rendition flight to New York. It would have meant that her three children -- two of them US citizens -- would also have been kidnapped, abused and tortured by the US. They say ignorance is bliss and this jury so desperately wanted not to believe that the US could have had a hand in the kidnapping of a five-month -old baby boy, a five-year-old girl and her seven-year-old brother. They couldn’t handle the truth ... it is as simple as that. Well I, and many others across the world like me, can’t handle any more lies. America’s reputation is lying in the lowest gutters in Pakistan at the moment and it can’t sink any lower. The trust has gone, there is only a burning hatred and resentment towards a superpower which sends unmanned drones into villages to slaughter innocents. It is fair to say that America’s goodwill and credibility is all but washed up with most honest, decent citizens of Pakistan. And I think even Her Excellency Anne Patterson recognizes that fact which is why she is now keeping her mouth shut. If she has any integrity and any self-respect left she should stand before the Pakistan people and ask for their forgiveness for the drone murders, the extra-judicial killings, the black operations, the kidnapping, torture and rendition of its citizens, the water-boarding, the bribery, the corruption and, not least of all, the injustice handed out to Dr Aafia Siddiqui and her family. She should then pick up the phone to the US president and tell him to release Aafia and return Pakistan’s most loved, respected and famous daughter and reunite her with the two children who are still missing. Then she should re-read her letter of August 16, 2008 and write another ... one of resignation.

The Powerful Testimony of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

THE POWERFUL TESTIMONY OF Dr. Aafia Siddiqui


As captured by El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan


Aafia Siddiqui – a daughter, a sister, a mother of three, committed Muslim, social scientist, hafiz of Qur’an – needed to be heard. For years she had suffered in virtual silence…aching to be heard, to be understood, to have certain malicious untruths corrected and exposed for the lies they were.



That day finally came on Thursday, January 28, 2010!


The high drama of that day’s proceedings revolved around the question of whether or not U.S. District Judge Richard Berman would grant Aafia’s repeated demand to take the stand in her own defense.


Aafia’s lawyers appeared to be animate in their opposition to her taking the stand, while the prosecution appeared (on the surface) to be in favor of Aafia being entitled to her Fifth Amendment right. Her brother (Muhammad) was apprehensive about her taking the stand, leaning more in favor of her following the advice of her lawyers. Even Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani became involved. During a short visit he was allowed with the defendant, he reportedly advised Aafia to follow the advice of her lawyers.

Aafia’s response to this collective concern was that she would make istiqhara (a supplication to ALLAH Almighty for guidance on the matter); and in the end Aafia Siddiqui would be heard.



While I understood the reservations of those who were concerned about Aafia taking the stand (given all that she had already been through), I fully supported our sister’s right to be heard, and was guardedly optimistic about the potential outcome. More than anything, however, I knew that Aafia – like two young Muslim men in an Atlanta courtroom, and several young Muslim men in a New Jersey courtroom (who were eager, but manipulated into not taking the stand in their own defense not long ago) – needed to be heard! Aafia needed to have her day in court!



The process began with a preliminary (test) examination, with Aafia taking the witness stand in the absence of the jury – a kind of hearing within a hearing – to see how she would respond to that type of intensive and focused examination. After the judge determined that she was capable enough to enjoy her constitutional “right” to take the stand in her own defense, the jury was brought back into the courtroom, and it was on. (And what truly spectacular courtroom drama it turned out to be!)


The following summary is based on my notes from January 28th


Open court proceedings began late in the morning, due to a number of procedural issues that needed to be addressed behind closed doors. Once proceedings began, it did so with the judge explaining Aafia’s right, and the possible risks, of her taking the stand. There was extensive discussion about the course and extent of cross examination should Aafia decide to testify.


The government’s support of Aafia taking the stand was full of irony, given the fact that the government had repeatedly argued (during pre-trial and trial proceedings) that Aafia should not even be allowed to remain in the courtroom, because of her periodic outbursts and “uncontrollable” nature (in their view).





The First Witness


It was noted by the government that over a 12 day period, while Aafia was at the Craig Field Hospital at Bagram for critical care medical treatment, following her near fatal re-arrest in July 2008, two FBI agents had continuous access to the injured prisoner (a male and female who did not identify themselves to Aafia as FBI personnel).

FBI Special Agent Angela Sercer was the first to testify. She spoke about how she interrogated Aafia on a daily basis for the purpose of gathering “intelligence.” She described how she sat with Aafia for an average of eight hours each day, and of how they discussed the shooting incident and other related matters (discussions she said Aafia would always initiate). Agent Sercer prepared written reports, and disclosed during testimony that Aafia was never Mirandized (i.e. informed of her rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney before questioning), nor did she have access to a Pakistani consular official.


According to Sercer, Aafia mostly enjoyed her discussions with this special agent. Sercer maintained that she treated Aafia with respect and did her best to respond to Aafia’s needs – i.e. when she requested food, water, bathroom access, or when she requested a Qur’an and a scarf, or when she would complain that the “soft restraints” were too tight and needed to be loosened, etc.


Between 7/19/-8/4/08, FBI agents were posted inside and outside Aafia’s room 24 hours a day, ostensibly to insure that Aafia could not escape and to provide security for hospital personnel – despite the “soft restraints” which secured her hands and legs to the bed (in what Aafia later described as very uncomfortable positions) during her stay at this field hospital in Bagram.


The second witness


The second agent to testify was FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman, who had reportedly been assigned on 7/21/08. He claimed that Aafia made numerous statements, that she seemed lucid and to not be in much pain. He also insisted that there was never any coercion. He testified that Aafia had no visitors, and that no Afghan staff attended to her. He also claimed that there were occasions when Aafia would declare that her children were dead, and other times when she stated they might be living with her sister.

Following the testimony of the second agent, a hearing within the trial was held so that Aafia could give testimony (in the absence of the jury).


Aafia testified that when she first realized she was in a hospital she had tubes everywhere. She was in a narcotic state resulting from the administration of powerful drugs (one or two she could remember by name, others she couldn’t). She recalled how her hands and feet were secured uncomfortably apart. She said the agents never identified themselves as FBI, except for “Mr. Hurley.”


Aafia accused Agent Bruce Kamerman of subjecting her to “psychological torture.” She accused him of being immodest whenever he was present and medical personnel needed to examine her, and complained of how he would stand right outside the bathroom door whenever she needed to use it. She testified that Kamerman would sometimes come in the middle of the night (when he wasn’t supposed to be there), and encourage the person assigned to take a break. Aafia said she remained in a sleep deprived state as a result of his frequent presence.


During this period she never had any contact with family, nor with any Pakistani authorities. She thought that [FBI Agent] “Angela was just a nice person.”

During the cross examination Aafia spoke about being “tortured in the secret prison,” and of how she kept asking about her children. She insisted that she never opined that they might be with her sister.


(I should note here that Aafia’s testimony was consistent with information contained on an audio CD that we’ve produced on the case. On the CD, former Bagram and Guantanamo prisoner Moazam Beg recounts how the un-identified female prisoner at Bagram, known only as Prisoner 650, was identified as a Pakistani national who appeared to be in her 30s, and as someone who had been torn away from her children and who didn’t know where they were.)


Aafia also testified that she had multiple gunshot wounds; and that in addition to the gunshot wounds she had a debilitating back condition (resulting from being thrown on the floor after she was shot), persistent headaches, and an intubation tube. She also emphasized that she was in and out of consciousness; and, at times, mentally incoherent.

The video testimony of an Afghan security chief (by the name of Qadeer) was received by the court. While I had to briefly leave the court, and missed this testimony, it is my understanding that what Qadeer had to say about events at the Afghan National Police station in Ghazni – leading up to the shooting of Aafia – contradicted the testimony of a number of the government’s main witnesses.


Later in the afternoon, when Aafia testified in front of the jury, the overflow courtroom (where I was seated) was full of observers. The majority appeared to be non-Muslims in professional attire – a probable mix of court and Justice Department personnel (including interns), law students, and a few journalists. I would estimate that roughly a quarter of the observers in this overflow courtroom were made up of solid Aafia supporters – and yet the reaction to the testimony at times was both interesting and edifying.


When I returned to the courtroom (about 10 minutes into Aafia’s testimony), she was describing her academic work leading up to the achievement of her PhD at Brandeis University. She testified that after completing her doctorate studies she taught in a school, and that her interest was in cultivating the capabilities of dyslexic and other special needs children.


During this line of questioning, the monstrous image that the government had carefully crafted (with considerable support from mainstream media) of this petite young woman, had begun to be deconstructed. The real Dr. Aafia Siddiqui – the committed muslimah, the humanity-loving nurturer and educator, the gentle yet resolute mujahid for truth and justice – began to emerge with full force.


Testimony then proceeded to the events of July 17-18, 2008. Aafia testified that she remembered being concerned about the whereabouts of her missing children. She also remembered a press conference in an Afghan compound.


She testified about being tied down to a bed until she vigorously protested, and was later untied and left behind a curtain. She later heard American and Afghan voices on the other side of the curtain, and concluded that they [Americans] wanted to return her to a “secret prison” again. She testified about how she had pleaded with the Afghans not to let the Americans take her away.


She testified about peaking through the curtain into the part of the room where Afghans and Americans were talking, and how when a startled American soldier noticed her, he jumped up and yelled that the prisoner had gotten loose, and shot her in the stomach. She described how she was also shot in the side by a second person. She also described how after falling back onto the bed in the room, she was violently thrown to the floor and lost consciousness.


She testified that she was in and out of consciousness, and vaguely recalled being placed on a stretcher, a helicopter, and receiving a blood transfusion – which she protested, drawing laughter in the courtroom when she recounted how she had “threatened to sue” her medical attendants if they gave her a blood transfusion. During this testimony, Aafia animatedly rejected the allegation that she picked up a [M-4] rifle and fired it (or that she even attempted to do so).


The Cross Examination


This is the time when every eye and every ear was riveted on the proceedings. It was the moment that Aafia’s defense attorneys, her brother, and a host of Muslim and non-Muslim supporters (seated within both courtrooms) dreaded. It was also the point in the proceedings that had the prosecution salivating for what opportunities would come there way – or so they thought!


Cross examination began with Aafia revisiting the degrees that she received at MIT and Brandeis universities. She acknowledged that she took a required course in molecular biology; but emphasized that her work was in cognitive neuroscience. When questioned on whether she had ever done any work with chemicals, her response was, “only when required.”


(This opening line of questioning was significant for its prejudice producing potential in the minds of jurors. While Aafia is not being charged with any terrorism conspiracy counts, the threat of terrorism has been the pink elephant in the room throughout this troubling case!)

The prosecutor attempted to draw a sinister correlation between Aafia and her [then] husband being questioned by the FBI in 2002, and leaving the U.S. a week later. Aafia noted that there wasn’t anything sinister about the timing; they had already planned to make that trip home before the FBI visit. To underscore this point, she noted how she later returned to the U.S. to attempt to find work in her field.


One of the most heart-wrenching moments in the cross-examination was when Aafia described how she was briefly re-united with a young boy in Ghazni (July 2008) who could have been her oldest son. She spoke of how she was mentally in a daze at that time, and had not seen any of her children in five years. As a result she could not definitively (than or now) determine if that was indeed her son, Ahmed.


When asked whether she had incriminating documents in her possession on the day she was arrested, Aafia testified that the bag in her possession on the day that she was re-detained was given to her. She didn’t know what was in the bag, nor could she definitively determine if the handwriting on some of the documents was hers or not. She also mentioned on a number of occasions (to the chagrin of the prosecutor) how she was repeatedly tortured by her captors at Bagram.


She was also questioned on whether she had taken a pistol course at a firing range while a student in Boston. Her initial reaction was that she did not have any recollection of taking such a course, and when pressed further, answered “No.” When the prosecutor continued to press the issue (infusing sinister motivations in the process), Aafia admonished the prosecutor in the strong, clear voice that was heard throughout her testimony: “You can’t build a case on hate; you should build it on fact!”


Aafia testified that all she was thinking about at the time of her re-arrest in Ghazni, was “getting out of that room and not being sent back to the secret prison.” While discussions were going on between the Afghans and Americans, Aafia was searching for a way out. She repeated her assertion that she startled one of the soldiers who hollered, “She’s free! – before shooting her.


Aafia also elicited an approving reaction in the courtroom when she opined, in reaction to the government’s narration of events, she could not believe a soldier would be so irresponsible as to leave his M4 rifle on the floor unsecured.


In response to government questioning she again took the opportunity to strongly rebuke Agent Kamerman, while rejecting most of his testimony revisited by the prosecutor.

Aafia spoke highly of a number of nurses (and a doctor) who took care of her at Bagram. There was one nurse in particular that Aafia promised to mention favorably if she ever wrote a book. She then produced laughter in the courtroom again when she stated, “Since I don’t think I’m going to write a book, I’m mentioning her now.”


One of the most powerful and revealing moments in the testimony was when she spoke about the people who systematically abused her in the “secret prison” – denouncing them as “fake Americans, not real Americans.” (Because of the way their actions both violated and damaged America’s image!)


She spoke again, under cross examination, about the strong pain medication she was on, and some of the effects this medication had on her.


Aafia also mentioned how she was instructed to translate and copy something from a book while she was secretly imprisoned. During the course of this testimony which repeatedly drew the ire of an increasingly frustrated prosecutor, Aafia noted how she can now understand how people can be framed (for crimes they are not guilty of).


At this point in the proceedings, the judge ordered a brief recess. Clearly the government had thought that they would be able to control and manipulate Aafia in manner that would work in their favor; this ended up being a MAJOR MISCALCULATION. The purpose of this break in the proceedings, in my humble opinion, was to allow the prosecutor to regain her composure, and consult with fellow prosecutors for a more effective line of attack.

When testimony resumed, Aafia spoke of how she was often forced-fed information from one group of persons at the secret prison, and then made to regurgitate the same information before a different group of inquisitors. While it was presented to her as a type of “game,” she spoke of how she would be “punished” if she got something wrong.

On defense cross, Aafia was shown pictures and asked to identify herself in them. She reluctantly did so, but with a little levity, citing how unattractive and immodest the photos were.


I could not see the photos from the overflow courtroom where I was sitting, but I assume that these were the photos of an un-covered, emaciated and emotionally disfigured Aafia Siddiqui – after her horrific ordeal at the hands of American terrorists.


A final note: I sincerely believe that Aafia Siddiqui’s time spent on the witness stand on January 28th was a cathartic experience for her – but one that the prosecution, in retrospect, now deeply regrets. For any truly objective and fair-minded person who witnessed that day’s proceedings, the U.S Government’s case against Aafia Siddiqui was exposed for what it always was…a horrific and profoundly tragic miscarriage of justice!


The struggle continues…


El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan

more massacre of children by US mercenaries

Were Afghan Children Executed By US-led Forces?Why Aren't The Media Interested?

By Media Lens

January 16, 2010 "Media Lens" -- Ignoring or downplaying Western crimes is a standard feature of the corporate Western media. On rare occasions when a broadcaster or newspaper breaks ranks and reports 'our' crimes honestly, it is instructive to observe the response from the rest of the media. Do they follow suit, perhaps digging deeper for details, devoting space to profiles of the victims and interviews with grieving relatives, humanising all concerned? Do they put the crimes in perspective as the inevitable consequence of rapacious Western power? Or do they look away?
 One such case is a report that American-led troops dragged Afghan children from their beds and shot them during a night raid on December 27 last year,


 
leaving ten people dead. Afghan government investigators said that eight of the dead were schoolchildren, and that some of them had been handcuffed before being killed. Kabul-based Times correspondent Jerome Starkey reported the shocking accusations about the joint US-Afghan operation. But the rest of the UK news media have buried the report.


After details of the massacre first emerged, Afghan President Karzai sent a team of investigators to the alleged scene of the atrocity in the village of Ghazi Kang in eastern Kunar province. Assadullah Wafa, a former governor of Helmand province, led the investigation. He told The Times that US soldiers flew to Kunar from Kabul, implying that they were part of a special forces unit:

"At around 1 am, three nights ago, some American troops with helicopters left Kabul and landed around 2km away from the village. The troops walked from the helicopters to the houses and, according to my investigation, they gathered all the students from two rooms, into one room, and opened fire." (Jerome Starkey, 'Western troops accused of executing 10 Afghan civilians, including children', The Times, December 31, 2009; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6971638.ece)

Wafa continued:

"I spoke to the local headmaster. It's impossible they were al-Qaeda. They were children, they were civilians, they were innocent. I condemn this attack."

The Times reporter interviewed the headmaster who told him that the victims were asleep in three rooms when the troops arrived:

"Seven students were in one room. A student and one guest were in another room, a guest room, and a farmer was asleep with his wife in a third building.

"First the foreign troops entered the guest room and shot two of them. Then they entered another room and handcuffed the seven students. Then they killed them. Abdul Khaliq [the farmer] heard shooting and came outside. When they saw him they shot him as well. He was outside. That's why his wife wasn't killed."

A local elder told the Times reporter: "I saw their school books covered in blood."

The dead children were aged from 11 to 17.

In Kabul, the massacre sparked demonstrations with protesters holding up banners showing photographs of dead children alongside placards demanding "Foreign troops leave Afghanistan" and "Stop killing us".

Nato's International Security Assistance Force told The Times that there was "no direct evidence to substantiate" Wafa's claims that unarmed civilians were harmed in what it described as a "joint coalition and Afghan security force" operation. The spokesperson claimed:

"As the joint assault force entered the village they came under fire from several buildings and in returning fire killed nine individuals."

The slippery military response did not even get the number of victims right: it was ten, not nine.

Jerome Starkey published a follow-up report, recounting President Karzai's vain plea for the gunmen to face justice. ('Karzai demands that US hands over raiders accused of village atrocity', The Times, January 1, 2010).

But the rest of the British media appear to have shown virtually zero interest in either refuting or confirming the report of schoolchildren being executed. As far as our media searches can determine, there were only three press reports in major UK newspapers that mentioned it; and even then, only in passing.

In a brief weekly news digest, the Sunday Telegraph devoted 45 words to accusations of the atrocity, repeating the propaganda version of it as "a raid in which US forces shot dead 10 people at a suspected bomb factory." (Walter Hemmens and Alex Singleton, 'The Week; that was', Sunday Telegraph, January 3, 2010).

A 136-word item in the Mirror led, not with accusations of the execution of schoolchildren, but with the deaths of American civilians killed elsewhere in a suicide attack at a military base in Afghanistan (Stephen White, 'Base blast kills Eight US civilians', The Mirror, January 2, 2010).

The Guardian spared 28 words at the end of a report on the death of a British bomb disposal expert to note that: "The Afghan government says that 10 people were killed, including eight schoolchildren, in a village in eastern Kunar province in a night raid by international forces last weekend." (Adam Gabbatt, 'British bomb disposal expert dies after Afghan blast: "His sacrifice and courage will not be forgotten": Death brings the total toll to 245 since war began' Guardian, January 2, 2009). As ever, the headline summed up the priorities precisely: British lives count; Afghan lives are of lesser importance.

To the corporate media's shame, it was left to the US-based journalist Amy Goodman to interview Times correspondent Jerome Starkey on her excellent independent news programme, Democracy Now! The programme reported that a preliminary investigation by the United Nations reinforced Afghan claims that most of the dead were schoolboys. (Jerome Starkey interviewed by Amy Goodman, 'US-Led Forces Accused of Executing Schoolchildren in Afghanistan', Democracy Now!, January 6, 2010; http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/6/us_led_forces_accused_of_executing)

Goodman asked Starkey what had been the response of NATO forces to the allegations. He said

"Well, initially, US and NATO forces here were very slow to say anything at all, and that possibly reflects the most secret nature of this raid. The fact that, according to Afghan investigators, these troops appear to have flown to the scene from Kabul appears to confirm speculation that this was an operation carried out by some sort of Special Forces unit, possibly even by some sort of paramilitary unit attached to one of the intelligence agencies, the foreign intelligence agencies, which operate occasionally out of the capital."

Starkey emphasised again that he had spoken to the headmaster who had given him the names and school registration numbers of all of the dead pupils. An additional tragic detail was that the headmaster was an uncle of the eight children.

The Times correspondent was candid that it had not proven possible to verify all of the details of the reported massacre:

"Given the nature of the environment, we haven't been able to travel there ourselves, and we've been relying on telephone interviews with people who are there and people who've visited the scene."

But he also made it clear that the US-led occupation authorities were giving out very little information, and had refused Afghan requests to provide details of the gunmen or to hand the men over.

The reported events are sickening. But we have been unable to find a single mention of the alleged atrocity on the BBC website. We emailed news editors at the BBC, ITN and Channel 4 News, asking why they had not reported these serious allegations of schoolchildren being executed in a US-led operation. None of them have replied. The lack of interest shown by the British news media in pursuing this story is damning indeed.

The famous maxim of the three wise monkeys who 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' is an apt description of the corporate media's response to evidence for Western atrocities.
SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Mark Thompson, BBC director general
Email: mark.thompson@bbc.co.uk

Helen Boaden, BBC news director
Email: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk

Please send a copy to the Chair of the BBC Trust which is responsible for ensuring that the BBC upholds its obligations to the public:

Michael Lyons
Email: michael.lyons@bbc.co.uk

David Mannion, editor-in-chief, ITV News
Email: david.mannion@itn.co.uk

Jim Gray, editor, Channel 4 News
Email: jim.gray@itn.co.uk

A fuller list of media contacts can be found at:
http://www.medialens.org/contacts/

Please copy your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org

CIA and Xe Corporation (Blackwater)!

WILL THE REAL CIA PLEASE STAND UP?

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Were the seven CIA employees killed in the recent terror attack at Camp Chapman in Afghanistan really CIA? Sources now tell us that some were Blackwater operatives, not CIA at all.

Is the CIA and Blackwater one in the same? Are either one or both working for the United States or has the disease of privatization created a culture of greed and incompetence that has left the United States vulnerable and defenseless? Are we simply "out of our depth" in Afghanistan?




WHO IS PULLING THE STRINGS?

Blackwater/Xe is a multinational corporation with endless divisions who, not only work for the CIA but governments and intelligence agencies around the world. No one has ever successfully penetrated their cover organizations to find who they really are or who they really represent. The Blackwater operations run from Camp Chapman could have been for anyone, Iran, Israel, India or one of their dozens of clients.

We don't know, the CIA certainly doesn't know, nobody knows. Was the attack that killed Americans an attack on the CIA, an attack on Blackwater or a carryover from a local drug war? All we do know is that everything we have been told is subterfuge and not necessarily meant to serve the intelligence and security interests of the United States of America.

The secret base in eastern Khost province in Afghanistan is in an area convenient to move personnel and "other things" in and out of Pakistan. The base itself is supposed to be designated for the use of USAID, a division of the State Department meant to aid foreign governments but which has been a front for covert operations for decades, one of the worst kept secrets in the world.

The camp itself is guarded by Afghani tribesmen, not US personnel. No information about their ethnic affiliations, training or qualifications is available. However, the idea of a highly secure CIA compound being guarded under such circumstances is an absurdity beyond human comprehension.

American military and civilian operations inside Afghanistan have proven to be utterly incapable of finding any group within Afghanistan to work with that is free of penetration by Taliban elements. Many lives have been lost already from numerous incidents of Afghani military, police and security personnel turning on American allies.

THE REAL FACE OF TERRORISM

The region of Camp Chapman is a staging area for terrorist operations, not only against Americans in Afghanistan but against Pakistan as well. Some of the terrorist groups are working for India and Israel, some for the Taliban and, frankly, most are working for both.

America and the CIA are totally out of their depth, ill informed, uninformed and being played, not only by our supposed Kabul allies, but by India, Israel and our private contractors who are playing both sides against the middle.

BLACKWATER AND PAKISTAN

Camp Chapman, now identified as a Blackwater command post near the Pakistan border has an unclear mission. Continual reports coming out of Pakistan indicate that Blackwater and/or other US contracting firms have become involved in criminal activities and terrorism.

Top Pakistani military analyst, Brigadier General Asif Haroon Raja has tied Blackwater and other US contractors to the assassination of Pakistani army officers, attacks on government installations and ties to terrorist groups who have killed hundreds of civilians.

Raja has indicated that, rather than being employed as CIA contractors in search of high profile terrorists, these contractors are working with, among others Israel and India coordinating terrorist operations meant to destabilize the government of Pakistan, America's only military ally in the region.

If US contractors are working inside Pakistan, under cover of the CIA but actually serving the intelligence services of India or Israel, primary enemies of Pakistan, but also countries who are doing nothing to aid the US in Afghanistan, this would represent a serious threat to US security.

It has been reported that US personnel have been arrested carrying explosives and weapons near Pakistani nuclear facilities. Are they working for Israel or are they working for Iran? How would we know?

WHAT DRUGS?

Is there a danger in having unsupervised privateer mercenary operators working in the midst of the world's largest narcotics production area? What if such a company also owned private airlines that can fly from country to country without any supervision by customs or drug enforcement organizations?

With the press filled with reports of organized crime activities tied to mercenary contractors working for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, reports of murder, drug running, money laundering and arms smuggling, is there some possibility that tying groups involved in these acts to CIA intelligence gathering capabilities a poor strategy for success?

Why are the papers filled with accusations of every imaginable crime from mowing down civilians with automatic weapons to blowing up mosques and yet no mention of the remote possibility of participation in the regions $50 billion plus per year drug industry?

In fact, is participation in drug production, smuggling and related money laundering the only real secret we seem to be keeping?

THE BUSINESS OF FAILURE

America mourns 7 dead citizens, victims of an attack, maybe terrorism, maybe "business," now uncertain as to who were loyal Americans and who were private contractors working for the highest bidder. CIA secrecy keeps us from knowing our heroic dead. Criminal absurdity keeps us from knowing the truth.

Decades ago, the CIA got involved with the Mafia in an attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro, someone who has outlived everyone sent to kill him.

We are told that we never hear of the successes, only the failures. However, the failures are of such a devastating and catastrophic nature, the communist takeover of Cuba, the fall of Iran and the Iran/Contra scandal, the Chile coup, bungled buddies: Noriega and bin Laden, the Russian coup against Gorbachev, Vietnam, 9/11, the Ames spy case, the Iraq War, Afghanistan and so many others, that the "secret successes" are unlikely to measure up.

What could possibly be done to take a failed organization and make it worse? We only need to sit and watch, you can be assured that everything possible, humanly and otherwise, will be done as it always has.

Is it possible that decades of claimed incompetence and bungling is simply a cover for serving masters other than the United States of America? Can 70 years of consorting with dictators, swindlers, gangsters, war criminals, drug lords and politicians have blurred the CIA's vision?

WIll the real CIA please stand up

Don't they know you can't kill CIA officers?

CIA Killings Spell Defeat In Afghanistan

By Douglas Valentine

January 08, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Why?

“Why?” The grieving family members ask. “Why did the terrorists kill our loved ones?”

The hardnosed colleagues of the four fallen CIA officers comfort the wives and children (and one husband). They shake off their sorrow, huddle together by the graves, and vow vengeance. They bathe themselves in their seething anger like it was the blood of the lamb.

Why? The American public and its officials ask. Why? The media repeats, adding in shock and awe, “Don’t the terrorists know that you can’t kill CIA officers?”

Why, everyone wonders, did a Jordanian suicide bomber target the CIA, knowing that the wrath of the biggest, baddest, bloodthirstiest Gang on Planet Earth is going to start dropping bombs and slitting throats until its lust for death and suffering is satisfied?

Over the course of its sixty year reign of terror, in which it has overthrown countless governments, started countless wars costing countless lives, and otherwise subverted and sabotaged friends and foes alike, the CIA has lost less than 100 officers.

On a good day, one CIA drone, and one CIA hit team, kills 100 innocent women and children, and nobody bats an eye.

...

Don't they know you can't kill CIA officers?

Banned by confused Muslimah

I have just been banned from jannah.org forum

Of late the sweet young lady running that forum has been turning into an apologist for US special status claims.

Well, she is welcome to this freedom. However, such freedom is not available to dissenters on her forum, not any more.

I don't grudge her this banning. Life in non-Muslim countries is harsh for Muslims, with the media and society and agencies all ballistic about the Islamic threat (!). Muslims engaged in Dawah work cannot tolerate the view that non-Muslim militaries and intelligence agencies are fair targets. It makes them susceptible to charges of unpatriotic and subversive attitudes.

Good luck to jannah and her efforts to survive in the jungle that is the United States of America.

Now about the confused part:

This is not about ABCD or BBCD - American Born or British Born Confused Desis. Those are outdated terms.

This is about those Muslims who confuse Jihad with Terrorism.



There have been many Muslims who were so incensed with the non-Muslim invasions, occupations and overall treatment of Muslims that they resorted to or sided with terrorist techniques - bombings of places of worship, killings of non-combatant civilians etc. They forgot the injunctions against taking innocent lives.

In time they graduated to killing of fellow Muslims. This has resulted in a violence within Muslim societies for which at present there seems no end in sight.

Apologists will claim that this is the doing of non-Muslim agent provocateurs. In some cases this is true, but in many cases it is not. Even where it is true, they have found among Muslims people who have been willing to resort to these techniques.

This has been a grave mistake among many Muslims who see freedom from occupying non-Muslim powers as justifying any means. Some have a hatred of non-Muslim powers due to a colonial past, and this hatred makes them unable to see the true path.

Then there is the opposite end of the spectrum. Many Muslims living in the West have been subjected to such discrimination and insecurity that they have had to adopt the non-Muslim establishment view of Jihad as terrorism.

Attacking the military, intelligence or mercenaries of an occupying power is a valid form of resistance. And why should this resistance be restricted to the territory under occupation? Why should an occupying power have the freedom to hunt its opponents everywhere in the world, but those under occupation be limited to their own territory?

Answers please.

Musharraf, the clean guy

Everyone, except the army, was corrupt, he said, and set about cleaning the system. Here is a sample of Mr. Clean_Guy's actions:

Documents reveal power scandal in Chak Shahzad palaces
Government found illegally subsidising Musharraf, Shaukat’s electricity bills

Saturday, May 23, 2009
By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: Former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf and former prime minister Shaukat Aziz, who have built up multi-million rupee palaces in the name of farmhouses in Chak Shahzad bordering Islamabad, are getting subsidy on their electricity bills and are charged at the cheapest agricultural rates, copies of their bills obtained by The News have revealed.

A selected few amongst the other highly influential and well-connected residents of Chak Shahzad are also paying the cheapest rates with the connivance of the Islamabad Electric Supply Company (Iesco).

While the whole world knows that Musharraf has constructed a modern house on the farm, obtained for breeding poultry and vegetables, the Iesco is still allowing him to enjoy the cheapest of power tariff D-2(1), which is meant for agriculture tube-wells and lift irrigation pumps and is even subsidised by the government from the taxpayers’ money.




Because of Iesco’s generosity, Musharraf was charged, at least, Rs 50,000 less than the ordinary consumer for April 2009. He has been enjoying similar tariff concession for the last few years which, according to the Iesco sources, is illegal and nothing but cheating and fraud.

Sources in the Iesco reveal Musharraf is one of those over a dozen influentials who are misusing the D-2(1) tariff in their respective farmhouses, which are either used for residential purposes or for industrial and commercial purposes.

Such influentials, besides Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz who fled from the country within weeks after completing his tenure, includes former PML-N senator Saifur Rehman and top parliamentarians and retired defence officers.

The area SDO, Mian Jamil, when approached confirmed to The News that those using the farmhouses for residential purposes were charged at A-1(a) tariff, which is meant for domestic consumers.

He said such residences if using D-2(1) tariff, were involved in illegality and their power connections should be disconnected.Although, an Iesco source insists that this cheating is going on with the connivance of the authority officials, and SDO Jamil, while admitting that he knows that the agriculture tariffs are being used by Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz, said action would be taken against the violators once The News highlighted the issue.

Iesco spokesman Chaman Khan was not immediately available but a senior Iesco officer Executive Engineer Rashid, while talking to The News, said residential meters were installed at the residences of Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz.

When told that according to the electricity bill of these two farmhouses (see attached copies) the tariff type is given as D-2(1) which is for agricultural use, he said it was not in his knowledge. When asked whether there was any policy of Iesco to give concession to influential or government persons, Rashid said there was no such policy and he would investigate the issue tomorrow.

In the case of Saifur Rehman, whose Chak Shahzad farmhouse is also being used as Redco’s site office, SDO Jamil said his connection was changed a few months back and given industrial tariff. The Admin officer at Rehman’s site office when contacted did not offer any comment.

However, the electricity bill of Saifur Rehman’s place shows that the D-2(1) tariff is still intact at his residence though it was showing not to have consumed even one unit of electricity since January this year. An Iesco source said at least 24 air conditioner units are fixed in the Redco farmhouse buildings.

The SDO also confirmed that a former ISI chief, who is also residing in the same locality, was provided free-of-cost transformer and poles, etc., following orders of the then-Iesco chief Brigadier Shahbaz.

Normally every farmhouse is supposed to pay for Rs 700,000 to Rs 1,000,000 for transformer, which is mandatory for each connection. However, this retired general is using normal domestic connection.

Iesco sources say Gen (retd) Musharraf’s farmhouse was also provided a free-of-cost transformer and other equipment in 2006, which was of higher cost than the one offered to the former ISI director-general. These sources said some senators, including a former Senate chairman, a retired admiral, and a former brigadier, a business group, etc., are also using the D-2(1) connections.

Gen (retd) Musharraf’s electricity bill for the month of April for which the reading was done on May 2 shows that despite consuming 5,600 units, his current bill was calculated at Rs 25,841 at the flat rate of Rs 4 per unit.

On this amount, which includes a general sales tax of Rs 2,763, Musharraf was given tariff subsidy of Rs 8,010, which reduced the bill to Rs 17,831. This is only possible because of the special connection given to the former general. In case of a normal domestic connection, Musharraf would have been charged a much higher rate according to the tariff for domestic consumers.

If an ordinary domestic consumer consumes 5,600 units per month, he would be charged at the following rates: Up to 100 units @ Rs3.29 unit; from 101-200 units @ Rs4.96 per unit; from 201-400 units @ Rs8.03 per unit and above 700 units @ Rs10 per unit. The total would thus be Rs 73,498. It shows Musharraf had saved more than Rs 50,000 in just one month because of this illegal connection and fraudulent use of concessional tariff.

The war on Muslims - III

comment on previous two posts by JustOne

I agree with you, but...

Do you think maybe it starts from a far more micro level then what you have proposed?

The muslim world is faced either with things like dwindling literacy rates and minimal health care OR with mismanaged resources.  Not to mention petty corruption, broken homes, and a preoccupation with western popular culture that is spacing out both the youth and adults.

I mean I point the finger at myself first.  Currently, I am a part of the problem, if only by lack of action to bring about a lasting change.

timbuktu's reply:

Of course, the problems do stem from the individual, whether of the elite or the common man.



I am not sure if it is true that there is dwindling literacy and health care rate. True that the government funded services have failed to keep with the rising needs brought on by increased population, urbanization, improved infrastructure and hence demand, and increased expectations. In the private sector, however, both indicators have gone up, unless the increase in population has caused a decline in the percentage of those covered.

The economy, literacy rate, and health care can be improved if there is investment in the Ummah. As I have mentioned on other threads, consider the 3.1/2 trillion dollars of only Saudi money parked in the US. $2.3 trillion of this was private money, and $0.8 trillion was Saudi government's. Who are the Saudi individuals who have that kind of money? They are the princes and associated tycoons, of course. Where did they get this money from? From sale of the oil and execution of infrastructure projects at inflated rates. To whom does the oil belong? It should belong to the Saudi people, but since this is a kingdom, it is usurped by the royal family.

Imagine what just the investment of this 3.1 trillion dollars can do to the Ummah. There are other Muslims with large amounts of money - the Kuwaitis, the Emiratis, etc. And here the external factors come into play. If Suhartu had not been placed in power in Indonesia by the CIA, the murder of over a million Indonesians would not have taken place, and the oil money from Indonesia would have been invested in Indonesia, not in the US. Similarly, the history of Iran would have been different if Musaddiq had not been deposed by CIA.

The leadership of Pakistan has been mostly feudal, and it pays only lip service to Islam, which it uses with either direct assumption of peership, or co-opts the local peer to control the rural population.

There are other players here, too: Musharraf and other generals before him, Zardari and other corrupt people before him. If the money they had swindled from their nations had not found safe havens in the West, it would have to stay in their homelands, and would have to be invested there.

Since these generals and politicians and business leaders come from the ordinary citizen class, it is indeed our failure at the micro level. We are not just good Muslims. Having accepted that, is it necessary to become good Muslims in order to defeat the Imperialists of today? It is true that the Quran tells us if we are good Muslims, Allah (swt) will hand over power to us.

If you look at the history of Muslims, time and again an ideologically motivated group has managed to gain control of a region and dispelled the kuffar. Yusuf bin Tashfeen's murabeteen were not the same as the easy-going urbanite Andalucíans, yet they were the need of the hour. The muwwahedeen who replaced them were followers of Imam Ghazali, a different approach to the deen, but they too were successful in defeating the Christian Reconquesta until the Andalucians as a whole fell to schism on ethnic and sectarian grounds.

The culprit then is schism, but I agree that this comes from the individual's ignoring of the basic injunctions of being one ummah in the Quran and Sunnah, hence it is a failure at the micro-level. What I have demonstrated above is that despite this schism, many times it was possible to impose rule of one group, and keep the kuffar at bay. Of course it is better that instead of a coercive imposition, there is voluntary acceptance (and that would definitely involve power sharing). There are many organizations that claim to bring Muslims together as one. Some individuals among them may falter, but by and large these organizations do try.

Unscrupulous people come mostly from the class educated in the secular western way. Me and you are part of this class. But not all from this only class are corrupt. The madrassa educated (and scion of the very pious Mufti Mahmood) Fazlur Rehman gets into politics, he plays the same game, but he is not the only Islamist player. There are others, and they are seemingly pious.

What happened in the decolonization era was a fraud. The departing empires left behind a class to which the empire's capital was still home. The leadership was subservient to the white master. The leading world powers also devised financial institutions - the World bank and the IMF - that served to bring the so-called independent nations under inflated debt burdens, so as to keep them permanently under their thumbs. The leaders of these third world countries were encouraged to be corrupt and wars were imposed on them so that the loot could find its way into the banks of the West.

This is the story of my generation. We understood some of what was happening, and we struggled in our own ways to break the yoke.

My intention is to make people aware of what is happening around them. Just as decolonization was made possible due to several factors - indigenous struggle, development of an aware class in the center of the Empire, economic decline of the Empire through wars, this struggle for emancipation may involve  all three factors. Of course, it is Allah's will that will cause the emancipation. But we have to analyze and struggle accordingly. Praying in the dead of night may not be enough.

If people in the West were made aware of the money-laundering that goes on there, eventually loot and corruption on such a large scale may come to an end.

The war on Muslims - I

To think that there is no war on Muslims is to close your eyes to the truth, and to buy the line of our enemies.

To start with, we accept that there are major internal problems with the Muslim world, and these need urgent attention.

However, there are similarly urgent external problems. To dismiss these as conspiracy theories would be to bury our heads in the sand.

The primary aims of the major powers are:



1. To hold on to the resources of the world, and to wrest control of those resources to which they have little access.

2. To make sure that Israel remains unchallengeable in the region, which now includes Pakistan.

3. To test their latest weapons, and to get rid of older stock by using them, while being paid for it.

4. To support their major industries, including the war industry as above, and the oil industry.

5. To ensure the flow of net capital to the West's banking and financikla system.

To this end, the first and the second US-Iraq wars were fought:

The state of Iraq has been effectively divided into three ineffective weak regions, thus removing the threat from Iraq to Israel

The deal with the Kurds, and then with the Iraqi central government, weakened by the civil war, fueled by the invasion and sustained by agent provocateurs. Around 80% of the oil revenue (after deduction of inflated production costs) is now ensured to the western oil companies.

The Great Game is now being played for the resources of Central Asia. And for this the focus is on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This is why the US is upset with the deal for Shariah in Malakand. It prefers a civil war in Pakistan.

For the internal problems. I will post an article by Dr. Masooda Bano.

USA not an ATM, and Pakistan no vending machine

America not an ATM

Monday, February 16, 2009

This is with reference to the article “Can the US get real on Pakistan” by Mosharraf Zaidi (Feb 12). I want to ask the writer when Pakistan will learn to ‘get real about its relationship with the United States’? From the 1950s onwards the US gave an immense amount of aid to Pakistan to build its military and economic potential. However, it should be clear to Pakistan that the US will never go to war with India for Pakistan’s sake. That was something the Americans emphasised right from the very beginning. Despite the huge amount of aid that Pakistan received and in spite of being a US ally for five decades the average American sees Pakistan as a dangerous country. The US gave Pakistan aid and helped it both economically and militarily. However, Pakistan betrayed the US trust by secretly building nuclear weapons while insisting it was doing nothing of the sort.

Also while doing all this Pakistan still insists it is America’s ally and keeps asking for economic and military aid. Pakistan needs to realise that the United States is not an ATM machine where Pakistan can keep taking out money without there being any accounting. There is a need for Pakistan to realise it cannot have its cake and eat it too.

Greg Martin

Springfield, MA, US

USA not an ATM


Pakistan no vending machine

Thursday, February 19, 2009



This is with reference to Greg Martin's letter "America not an ATM machine" (Feb 16). As a Pakistani I am extremely offended by the writer's assertion that Pakistan is a banana republic that has no economy and military and is strictly dependent on US aid. The writer seems to be imagining things when he makes the claim that Pakistan expects the US to go to war with India for Pakistan's sake. Furthermore, I wonder if the opinion of average Americans matters considering that they can't even locate Pakistan on the map let alone understand the dynamics of the problems that Pakistan is facing today.

The average Pakistani sees the United States as a global bully. How can the average Pakistani respect the US if it keeps on attacking Pakistan's sovereignty day in and day out via drone attacks? Do I need to remind Mr Martin about how the US ditched Pakistan after achieving its goals in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion?

The fact of the matter is that America needs to realise that Pakistan is not a vending machine that it can just use and then discard.

Zubair Nabi

Islamabad



*****

This is in reference to the letter titled "America not an ATM machine" by Greg Martin (Feb 16). Mr Martin seems to be slightly well-versed with history than the average American. Yet, he suffers from partial amnesia. He remembers the aid that flowed to Pakistan from the US in the 1950s but somehow forgets that it was given because Islamabad was a CENTO/SEATO ally during the Cold War and to counter a USSR-leaning India. He remembers the aid given during the 1980s but forgets that Pakistani intelligence and troops were coordinating the US fight against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

He also remembers the aid given in the past eight years but forgets the thousands of Pakistani civilians and soldiers who have died fighting yet another war on behalf of America. He says that Pakistan secretly built nuclear weapons but forgets that the US is the only country to actually have used a nuclear device on an enemy population. It is time for the US to stop pointing fingers and clean up the mess it has created over decades of incompetence in world affairs.

Syed Umair Javed

Islamabad

Pakistan no vending machine

US war on Pakistan

10-Jun-2008 US Drone Attack on Mohmand
12-Jun-2008 US coalition releases video of Pakistan air strikes
15-Jun-2008 US. Missile strike kills one in S Waziristan
1-Sep-2008 Suspected U.S. drone attack in Pakistan kills six villagers
15-May-2008 Suspected US drone attack on Damadola
3-Sept-2008 Pakistan reacts with fury after up to 20 die in ‘American’ attack on its soil
5-Sep-2008 Drone plane’s air strike kills six in North Waziristan
8-Sep-2008 More killed in another US drone attack in Pakistan
12-Sep-2008 Pakistani fury as suspected US drone attack kills 12
18-Sep-2008 Seven killed in U.S. missile strike in South Waziristan
1-Oct-2008 US drone ‘kills six’ in Pakistan
16-Oct-2008 Five killed in US drone attack in Pakistan: officials
23-Oct-2008 US drone attack kills 10 militants
27-Oct-2008 U.S. drone attack kills 20 in Pakistan
29-Oct-2008 US Artillery firing on Angoor Adda
31-Oct-2008 U.S. missile strike in Pakistan
17-Nov-2008 Pakistan says new U.S. drone attack kills at least 10
7-Nov-2008 Suspected U.S. missile kills 10 in Pakistan
13-Nov-2008 12 people killed by another cross-border American raid
19-Nov-2008 Missile fired by US drone kills five in Bannu
Nov. 21, 2008 Suspected US missile strike kills five
Nov. 29, 2008 US strike in North Waziristan kills 3
Dec. 5, 2008 US Predator hits in North Waziristan kills 3
Dec. 11, 2008 US strike in South Waziristan kills 7
Dec. 15, 2008 US Predator strikes in North Waziristan
Dec 22, 2008 Eight dead in as missile hit northwest Pakistan

more attacks and murder of civilians took place in the final days of Bush II. Then after Obama took over:

Jan 23, 2009 22 dead in missile strike by drone in Waziristan


.

so Americans are not our enemy! then why:

Obama sends message to Muslims that Americans are not their enemy.

President to Muslim World: Americans are not your enemy

No question about that. Why should Americans be our enemy?

It is the US government, which is the enemy. Otherwise how can one explain the continued drone attacks that kill innocents, including women and children. And the continued shipment of deadly arsenal to Israel.



It is Obama's advisors one has to look at. Just as when we saw the neo-cons in important positions in the Bush administration, the result was a foregone conclusion, we see something similar in Obama's team:

Obama has three main types of Real Politik power players, who all report to the NWO:

* Militant Zionists (both Jew and Gentile), whom we mark below;

* Members of powerful "Think Tanks" (notably, the CFR - Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Conference, and the more recently founded Center for American Progress); and

* Former Bill Clinton Administration key officers (notably, in the Economic and Financial areas, because these Obama government officers are the same people - the veritable architects - of the irresponsible financial deregulation of the 90's under the Clinton Administrations that led to the present systemic global financial collapse in the first place).

Axelrod, David - Senior Adviser to President Obama - Political Consultant - journalist for The Chicago Tribune - Militant Zionist

Barnes, Melody - White Hourse Internal Policy Council - Center for American Progress

Biden, Joseph Vice-President - Senator (D-Del. from 1979 to 2008) - Member of the Senate Judiciary Commission - Former chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Biden is a Militant Zionist, who told Rabbi Mark S Golun in a TV program on the Israeli Shalom TV network,“I'm a Zionist. You don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist"

Browner, Carol - Energy and Climate Affairs Coordinator; Former director of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Bill Clinton Administration.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew - Senior Foreign Policy Advisor - Co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission - Director, CFR and the Trilateral Commission

Clinton, Hillary Rodham - Secretary of State - Wife of former president Bill Clinton - Former Senator (D- NY)- Militant Zionist - Directly linked to the CFR, Trilateral and Conferencia Bilderberg through her husband

Craig, Gregory B - Advisor - Former Policy Planning Director at the State Department during the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton's personal lawyer

Daschl, Thomas Andrew - Secretary of Health and Social Services - Former Senator (D-SD) and Majority Leaders . Former director at CitiCorp; Assisted Robert Rubin, (Advisor on Economic Affairs and former Treasury Secretary during the Bill Clinton Administration) - Zionist - Member, CFR and Bilderberg Conference

Emanuel, Rahm - Chief of Staff - Representative (D-Ill) since 2002 - Militant Zionist; Double-nationality: US and Israeli; Volunteer in the defense of Israel during the First Gulf War (1991 - led by former president George HW Bush against Iraq); Suspected of being an intelligence officer for the Israeli Armed Forces; Director at Freddie Mac; Adviser during the Clinton Administration; linked to Wasserstein Perella bank (Trilateral members); his father Benjamin Emanuel was a guerrilla fighter in the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi organization (then led by terrorist Menahem Beguin, later to become Israeli prime minister)

Froman, Michael BG - Adviser - Operates for Robert Rubin; "helped" Obama choose members of his team; Member, CFR

Furman, Jason - Advisor; Senior Adviser to Lawrence Summers (Clinton)- London School of Economics

Gates, Robert M - Secretary of Defense - Republican - Gates was named at the DoD by former president George W Bush in 2006 to replace Donald Rumsfeld, and yet was "confirmed by Obama" - Former director of the CIA under former president George H W Bush (Senior) - Co-chaired foreign policy CFR task force with Zbigniew Brzezinski - Involved in the Iran-Contras Affair under the Reagan-Bush Administration - CFR, Bilderberg

Geithner Timothy F - Secretary of the Treasury - President since 2003 of the Federal Reserva Bank of New York. Prominent architect of the 2008 Banking Bail-out Plans, together with Bernard Bernanke (FED Governor - CFR), Henry Paulson (former Treasury Secretary – CFR) - Also held office during the Bill Clinton Administration, and was involved in the bail-outs of Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Brazil, Thailand in the nineties, under then Under-Secretary of the Treausury Lawrence Summers - Introduced to Obama by Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers - Former Director of Policy Development and Review Dept at the IMF – International Monetary Fund, from 2001 to 2003 - Former director at Kissinger Associates - Member of the Group of Thirty, his mentors include Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin. Member, CFR, Trilateral, Bilderberg

Holder, Eric - Attorney General - Holder arranged for Bill Clinton to pardon racketeer Marc Rich when he was Janet Reno's Deputy Attorney General (Clinton)

Jones, James LA - Four-Star US Army Officer - National Security Officer (NSA) - Former NATO Forces Commander - Special Envoy to the Middle East for Security Affairs for former president George W Bush - Director at Chevron and Boeing - Zionist - Member of the Institute for International Affairs (founded by Air Force General Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor under George Bush Senior) together with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bobby Ray Inman (former CIA Director), Henry Kissinger and John Deutch (CIA director under Bill Clinton) - Member, CFR, TC, Bilderberg

Lippert Mark W - National Security Council Chief of Staff - Zionist - CFR

Mitchell, George - Special Envoy to the Middle East - Former officer during the Clinton Administration - Member, CFR

Napolitano, Janet - Secretary of Homeland Security - Former Attorney General for the State of Arizona - Member, CFR, TC

Orszag, Peter R - Director of the Office of Management and Budget - Member of Lawrence Summers' team – Clinton economic advisor.

Panetta, Leon - CIA Director - Former Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration.

Pfeiffer, Daniel - Deputy Commerce Director - Spokesman for Al Gore (Clinton) - His wife, Sarah Feinberg, is a Senior Assistant to Rahm Emanuel. Zionist

Podesta, John - Senior Adviser to Obama - Presidential adviser under the Clinton Administration - In 2003, he founded the Center for American Progress - Zionist

Power, Samantha - Public Policy Advisor - Wife of Cass Sunstein (director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs)

Reed, Jack - Senator (D-RI) (CFR)

Rice, Susan -Permanent Representative (Ambassador) to the United Nations (under Obama ranks as cabinet level post) - Member of the National Security Council during the Bill Clinton Administration - Under-Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Clinton Administration - Member, CFR, Brookings Institution; and Aspen Strategy Group, together with CFR and Trilateral members Richard Armitage, Gral. Brent Scowcroft and Madeleine Albright.

Richardson, Bill - Secretary of Commerce (finally not confirmed) - Clintonite - Former officer at Kissinger Associates, CFR

Rubin, Robert - Senior Presidential Advisor - Director at CitiGroup, Former CEO, Goldman Sachs, Founder of the Hamilton Project, former Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton Administration - Zionist - CFR

Shinseki, Erick - Four-Star US Army General - Secretary for War Veterans' Affairs - CFR

Summers, Lawrence - Chairman, National Economic Council - Former Secretary of the Treasury during the Bill Clinton Administration (1999-2001) - Zionist - Former Economist-in-Chief at the World Bank - Former Dean of Harvard University - Member of Robert Rubin's team - Member, CFR, Trilateral, Bilderberg, Brookings (director).

Sunstein, Cass - Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs - Husband of Samantha Power (Advisor on Public Policies)

Sutphen, Mona - Deputy Chief of Staff - Executive Director, Stonebridge International - Member of the National Security Council (Clinton) - Member, CFR

Volcker Paul - Chairman of Obama's Advisory Board on Economic Recovery - Former Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank (1979 to 1987 – during the Carter and Reagan Administrations) - Zionist - Member of the "Group of Thirty" - President of Rothschild Wolfensohn Company, intimately linked to the Rockefeller family - CFR; North American Director of the Trilateral Commission; Bilderberger.

To hell with Obama

So this the change promised. Within a day or two of his announcing a new approach, Obama's drones attacked two villages in Waziristan, killing 20 civilians, including women and children.

So this is the promised change - the new approach with Muslims!

As troubled as we are with the Taliban and common criminal activities in Pakistan, Obama can rest assured that we will first fight non Muslim attackers

The Gaza massacres and offshore gas fields

War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza's Offshore Gas Fields
News Watch
Sunday, 11 January 2009

Update: in response to the request for maps mentioned in the first comment, the post has now been modified to include the maps:



The military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves.

This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline. British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon's Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.

The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007).

The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).

The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.

The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine's gas reserves could be much larger.

Who Owns the Gas Fields

The issue of sovereignty over Gaza's gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.

The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza's offshore gas reserves.

British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.

The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine's sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that "Israel would never buy gas from Palestine" intimating that Gaza's offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.

In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza's offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)

The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.

In 2006, British Gas "was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt." (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.

The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority." The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.

Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:

"Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government." (Ibid, emphasis added)

The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.

Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza's offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.

The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:

"Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror". (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on "The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas," March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza's Coastal Waters Threaten Israel's National Security? Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)

Israel's intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).

Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board

The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under "Operation Cast Lead" was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:

"Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas."(Barak Ravid, Operation "Cast Lead": Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza's natural gas:

"Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel's wish to renew the talks.

The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel's request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials." (Globes online- Israel's Business Arena, June 23, 2008)

The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.

Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new "post war" political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.

In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.

In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG's offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)

"Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government's decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.

The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender." (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)

Gaza and Energy Geopolitics

The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.

What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?

What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine's Natural Gas reserves?

A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or "peacekeeping" troops?

The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?

The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza's maritime areas?

If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel's offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above).

These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel's energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport - pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline. "What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel's Tipline." (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

What if the FBI or DHS wants to question you

What To Do If The FBI or Department of Homeland Security Wants to Question You

Source: ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are increasing their attempts to question and monitor many people over the next few weeks and months. Keep the following tips in mind if this affects you.

get_involved/got_rights.html

When law enforcement officers ask you to answer questions:

• If you are approached in person by an officer, ask if you are "free to leave." If you are, consider walking away. If officers come to your home, you do not have to answer the door or let them in unless they have a warrant from a court authorizing them to search your home. You can ask them to leave a business card under the door and tell them you will call them if you decide to talk to them.

• Ask if the interview is "voluntary." If you are told that it is your decision whether to be interviewed, consider saying "no."

• You have the right to remain silent and not answer questions, even if you are not free to leave.

In some states, you must give your name if an officer asks for it, but you do not have to say anything else. If you are a "nonimmigrant" (you are not a “nonimmigrant” if you are undocumented, out of status, a legal permanent resident (green card holder), or a citizen), you may be required to provide information related to your immigration status, but you can do so through a lawyer. Ask for the officer’s business card, and tell the officers your lawyer will call when you are ready to speak with them.

• Consult a lawyer before agreeing to answer any questions. The law is complicated – you can have a problem even though you don’t know it.

Officers may pressure you to answer questions before you can talk to a lawyer. For example, officers may suggest that talking to a lawyer makes it look like you have something to hide. If you want to talk to a lawyer, do not let the officers stop you.

There are many reasons why you might want to consult a lawyer. A lawyer can protect your rights.

If you need free legal advice about an interview, call your local American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) at 202.244.2990, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) at 202.646.6034, or Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) at 800.898.3558.

• If you agree to be interviewed, you can set the day, time and place for the interview. Tell the officers if you need an interpreter. Do not answer questions if you need an interpreter and a free interpreter is not provided.

If you agree to be interviewed:

• Have a lawyer present the entire time you are questioned. If you do not have a lawyer, consider having someone you trust (someone who is a citizen or has valid immigration status) be a witness to the interview or tell the officers that you want to tape the interview.

• If you agree to answer some questions, you can still refuse to answer other questions.

• Nothing is "off the record" when you talk to an officer. Everything you say will be recorded in some way, and anything you say can be used against you.

• Lying to a federal officer is a crime, but remember that you can refuse to answer any question.

• Lying on an application for an immigration benefit can also get you in trouble with the law.

• Laws that deal with charitable contributions can be complicated. If you are asked about your charitable contributions, strongly consider not answering those questions.

• If you are asked to sign anything, including a statement summarizing your interview, do not sign it unless you have carefully read it, you understand everything it says, and you agree to everything it says. It is always best to have a lawyer review documents before you sign them. Be careful about signing away your rights.

10.15.04 This notice is not a substitute for legal advice.

PDF Link: FBIHomelandQuestions.pdf
Print and post in your masjid and on your fridge!


PDFs in URDU, ARABIC, SPANISH, SOMALI, PUNJABI, and HINDI.

immigrantrights

if you are free to go you don't have to answer questions. If you are not free to go you have the right to have a third party present (preferably a lawyer, or at least someone with some legal knowledge) however, unless you are under arrest then you must be free to go. If you are under arrest then your Miranda rights must be read and that entitles you the right to remain silent or have an attorney present before questionning can begin. In any instance if you opt to speak, caution is essential because anything said can be recorded (taped or written down) and used against you later.

Many people are intimidated by law enforcement officials (even in all my outward strength I'm not gonna say I wouldn't feel intimidated either). It is this fact that is often used to get people to answer questions. The alternative is law enforcement trying to causual almost friendly approach to gain trust and get a person to let their guard down and just respond to seemingly innocent questions. Again, caution is always wise. It's not to say that we should immediately be distrustful, but it is always better to err on the side of caution. One can give short, honest answers; detailed responses are not required.

There's no telling how many, in response to innocent questions during the special INS registrations that were required for all immigrants to the US from certain countries were detained and ultimately deported because they innocently gave lengthy answers. Requests for information on these counts through Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests were denied. The rationale of "not having such records" I believe is a crock; everything is documented.

Boycott supporters of Israeli wars

BOYCOTT ISRAEL COMPANY LIST

AOL Time Warner
Time Life magazine, CNN, ICQ

Apax Partners
Jonny Rockets, Sunglass Hut.

Arsenal Football Club

Coca-Cola
Fruitopia, Fanta, Kia Orange, Lilt, Sprite, Sunkist..

Caterpillar

Danone
HP foods, Evian, Volvic, Jacob

Delta Galil
Hema, Barbie, Carrefour, Auchan, Tchibo, Victoria's Secret, GAP, Banana Republic, Structure, J-Crew, JC Penny, Pryca, Lindex, DIM, DKNY, Ralph Lauren, Playtex, cK, Hugo Boss, M&S

Disney

Emblaze

Estée Lauder
Aramis, Clinique, DKNY, Prescriptives, Origins, MAC, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Tommy Hilfiger, Jane, Donna Karan, Aveda, Stila, Jo Malone, Bumble & Bumble, Kate Spade

Home Depot
Villager's Hardware, Georgia Lighting, Apex Supply, EXPO Design Centres

IBM

Intel

Johnson & Johnson

Kimberly-Clark
Kleenex, Kotex, Huggies, Andrex

Lewis Trust Group
River Island, Isrotel hotels, Britannia Pacific

The Limited Inc
Express stores, Lerner New York, Structure, New York & Company, Mast Industries, Intimate Brands, Victoria's Secret, Bath & Body Works, White Barn Candle Company, Henri Bendel

L'Oreal
Giorgio Armani, Redken 5th Avenue, Lancome Paris, Vichy, Cacharel, La Roche-Posay, Garnier, Biotherm, Helena Rubinstein, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren, Carson

Marks & Spencer
M&S, St.Michaels

McDonald's

Motorola

Nestle
Nescafé, Perrier, Vittel, Pure Life, Carnation, Libby's, Milkmaid, Nesquik, Maggi, Buitoni, Cross & Blackwell, KitKat, Milkybar, Quality Street, Smarties, After Eight, Aero, Polo, Lion, Felix cat food, L'Oréal

News Corporation
TV: Fox, Sky, Star, Phoenix, Granada, CNBC. UK newspapers: Standard Newspaper, News of the World, The Sun, The Times. Australian Newspapers: The Telegraph , Gold Coast Bulletin, Herald Sun, Independent, Sunday Mail. US newspapers: New York Post. Publishers: Harper Collins Ragan, Zondervan, National Geographical. Nursery World, Rawkus, NDS, Mushroom Records, ChinaByte.com, Festival Records

Nokia

Revlon
New World Entertainment, Forbes

Sara Lee
Hanes, Playtex, Champion, Leggs, Douwe Egberts, Bryan, DIM, Ambi Pur, Bali, Superior Coffee, Just My Size, Kiwi, Maison Cafe, Nur die, Pilao, Lovable, Outer Banks, Wonderbra, Sanex, Pickwick, Gossard, Body Mist, Brylcreem, Aqua Velva, Radox

Siemens

Selfridges

Starbucks
Seattle Coffee, Pasqua, Hear Music, Tazo

Timberland


Boycott List by Brand - View the Labels to boycott

A typical Jewish-American success story

The greatest fraud in the history of the US was exposed in December 2008. Bernie Madoff perpetuated a $50 billion ponzi scheme fraud on his formerly wealthy investors. The size of the losses is mind boggling - three times the size of the proposed bailout of the US automakers. His entire investment fund has been a big lie for decades. The immorality of his actions is incomprehensible. Charities have been wiped out, the life savings of entire families have been lost, and innocent lives have been ruined. The potential sentence of 20 years in a country club prison and $5 million fine is not nearly equal to the pain caused by this man’s immoral evil actions. This man was well respected by the Wall Street investment community, a prominent Jewish philanthropist, and part of the wealthy high society crowd located in West Palm Beach. This begs the question, if this man has been running this type of scam for decades, how many more are out there on Wall Street? After a year of never ending tales of scandal, fraud, lies, greed and mismanagement, this episode should be the final straw which convinces the American public the investment game is rigged and they do not have a chance.

This tragedy is a failure of morality, a failure of regulation, failure of unbridled capitalism and a failure of common sense. Bernie Madoff started his firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities in 1960 with $5,000. It started as a classic American success story and is ending as an American tragedy. Mr. Madoff had a spectacular rise on Wall Street. His firm was one of the founding members of the NASDAQ. He emerged as one of the key leaders in the rise of the NASDAQ and eventually became Chairman of its Board. Madoff served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Sy Syms School of Business at Yeshiva University, as well as Treasurer of its Board of Trustees. An college class in ethics in his youth may have benefitted Mr. Madoff’s clients. His firm was one of the top market makers on Wall Street. His estimated net worth grew to between $200 and $300 million. He adapted easily to his rise from humble beginnings to immense wealth. He owns estates in Roslyn, N.Y., Montauk, Long Island, a luxury apartment that occupies the entire12th floor on Manhattan's Upper East Side valued at more than $9 million. He also owns mansions in Palm Beach and France and is a member of the Palm Beach Country Club. He also possess a 55-foot fishing boat named "Bull." After this week’s revelations, it seems appropriate that one of George Carlin’s words you can’t say on TV should have been added to “Bull”. His offices were located in the famous “Lipstick” building in NYC. The building is famous for being shaped like a lipstick case. The building could be considered shaped like a less flattering sexual object, and is more fitting to what Mr. Madoff did to his investors.

Search "The Lipstick Building" on the net.

The words on Mr. Madoff’s website now seem gravely ironic. "In an era of faceless organizations ... Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC harks back to an earlier era in the financial world: The owner's name is on the door. Bernard Madoff has a personal interest in maintaining the unblemished record of value, fair-dealing, and high ethical standards that has always been the firm's hallmark." It is doubtful that the words “high ethical standards” will grace Mr. Madoff’s gravestone. Even as his ponzi scheme was unraveling, his high ethical standards led him to try and distribute his $200 to $300 million to family, friends, and employees before the victims of his crimes could attempt to recover some of their money. It is too soon to conclude what the long term effects of this scandal will have on our financial system. It is likely that the name Bernard Madoff will go down in the history of ignominy with Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, and Dennis Kazlowski as examples of the most disgraceful behavior in the history of our financial markets.

How can a man live such a Big Lie for decades and sleep soundly at night? Aspects of Theodore Dreiser’s classic novel An American Tragedy are evident in this heartrending story. Dreiser’s theme of the desire to rise up socially and financially in modern America holding the very seeds by which such desires are denied is clearly apparent in this tale of woe. The lure of materialism isn't solely the acquisition of wealth and goods, but the attraction such wealth and goods holds over people, often at the expense of other values. As Mr. Madoff’s success grew, his desire to attain ever higher social status must have led him to take more risk and use illegal means to continue up the social ladder. This overwhelming aspiration for acceptance and accolades in the wealthiest high society of Manhattan and West Palm Beach, led this man to risk everything. The result has been a tragedy of epic proportions. This fraud is reminiscent of the 1938 indictment of the respected former President of the NYSE Dick Whitney for looting his firm, friends, relatives, and charities of millions to fund his high society lifestyle. Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it.

The definition of a ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves paying abnormally high returns to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by the business. Mr. Madoff’s investment firm ponzi scheme was incredibly unsophisticated. He was spectacularly successful at marketing his fund to the ultra-rich Jewish communities in New York and Florida as well as Europeans at ski competitions attended by the rich ruling elite. His fund generated returns of 12% to 13% per year consistently for decades. The fund only had five losing months since 1996. The market has had dramatic monthly moves over this time. It is a virtual statistical impossibility for an investor to have such a consistent record through bull and bear markets. Madoff refused to provide his clients online access to their accounts. He sent out accounting statements by mail, whereas most hedge funds email statements and allow them to be downloaded via computer for easier analysis by investors. His books were audited by a three-person accounting firm, Friehling & Horowitz, operating out of a 13-by-18 foot location in an office park in New York City’s northern suburbs. A $17 billion fund could not possibly be audited by one partner and one accountant. These facts were all warning signals that many skeptical investment analysts had pointed out years ago to the SEC and in articles in Barron’s.

It was not topnotch undercover investigating that revealed this fraud. The SEC investigated Madoff’s firm twice in the last eight years and found nothing. Madoff’s son-in-law was an SEC official. The SEC has an annual budget in excess of $900 million and has failed miserably in its mission to protect investors. The oversight of hedge funds has been virtually non-existent during the Bush administration. Again, Alan Greenspan, the patron saint of free markets, proved his prescience in 2000 when he campaigned before Congress to not regulate hedge funds. He described hedge funds as “a vibrant trillion-dollar industry dominated by U.S. firms. They are essentially free of government regulation, and I hope they will remain so. Why do we wish to inhibit the pollinating bees of Wall Street?” These killer bees have contributed greatly to the biggest financial destruction of wealth in history. What are the odds of one man being on the wrong side of every major financial debacle in our country in the last ten years? Mr. Greenspan wins the grand prize again.

What brought down Bernie Madoff was not his guilty conscious, but redemptions of $7 billion from investors that overwhelmed his ability to pay them from new funds. The story that he wants everyone to believe is that he was the only one who knew about the fraud. His brother, two sons, niece, and other family members held high level positions in the firm. It is beyond believability that none of these people knew what was going on. A $50 billion fraud can not be perpetuated by one man acting alone. It certainly appears that as a 70 year old man, he is attempting to shield his family members who should also be spending 20 years in prison. If he was truly remorseful, he would have done the world a favor and taken a swan dive off his 12th floor balcony. Instead, he will hire high powered lawyers, using his phony wealth, to extend his life of luxury secluded in his 12th floor hideaway. This is a man who gives Ponzi a bad name.

Ultimately, Mr. Madoff will be judged by his Maker. A special place in Hell awaits him, next to Hitler, Stalin, and Timothy McVeigh. The victims of his crimes are many. The Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation has lost its entire $8 million endowment; The North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and the Texas-based Julian J. Levitt Foundation have lost millions; the town of Fairfield, Conn. has seen 15 percent of its retiree pension fund totaling $42 million vanish; Maxam Capital Management run by Sandra Manzke has been wiped out; Tremont Capital Management has lost millions; and thousands more have lost their life savings. A personal story told by Minyanville writer Justin Rohrlich about his grandfather addresses the true heart braking tragedy of this man’s immoral actions.

A personal account from James Quinn

“Last night, it happened to my 88 year-old grandfather Carl. World War II veteran, Captain in the Army, saw combat in the Philippines. His father was a dry-cleaner, his grandfather was a fabric dyer on the Lower East Side at the turn of the century. My granddad was scheduled to go into the invasion of Japan before we dropped the bomb. Instead of going into certain death, he came home and went to the City College of New York on the GI Bill.

Armed with a mathematics degree, my Grandfather eventually landed a job at Neuberger Berman. Became a CFA. Was a director of Tishman Speyer. Helped build Roosevelt Raceway. Ran the pension fund for Price Chopper supermarkets. I had dinner with my grandfather on Wednesday night. Over sushi, he told me about how amazing Bernie Madoff was. This was a common refrain in our conversations. “While the rest of the market is tanking, Madoff is up for the month.” Today, I bought the New York Post on the way to the subway. Bernie Madoff was on the front page. His fund was described as a “Ponzi scheme” that lost $50 billion. My phone rang. It was my mother.

“Your grandfather just lost everything,” she said.”

This blackest of marks in investment history will forever alter the faith that investors have in investment managers, financial advisors, mutual funds, and hedge funds. Americans are being buried under a blizzard of lies. This is truly an American Tragedy.

The Sun Will Set For You
And the shadow of the day
Will embrace the world in grey
And the sun will set for you
Linkin Park – Shadow of the Day

There is a reason old sayings become old sayings. They have an underlying truth that spans the test of time. Some old sayings that apply to our current economic and investment environment are:

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
The cards are stacked against you.

The Madoff affair illustrates that rich people can be just as gullible and foolish as poor people. In their quest for social status and fitting in with the “smart” money crowd, affluent people all over the country put their life savings into the hands of this criminal. No investor can generate positive returns using the same strategy through all market cycles. Warning bells should have been going off. Diversification is the golden rule of investing. The foolishness of these people putting every dime with one man is maddening. Mr. Madoff’s nickname, “the Jewish T-bill”, is fitting today with T-bills providing negative yields.

Another American Tragedy is in the making. A much bigger Ponzi scheme that will shock every person in America is still operating. It is being conducted by the U.S. government and your elected politician leaders. It is called our National Budget. With most of our spending on automatic pilot, the aging of the baby boom generation will put tremendous strain on our economic system in the coming years. As you can see, Medicare costs will explode over the next 40 years. The increasing debt will result in interest payments on the debt becoming the largest expenditure in the federal budget. The longer we wait to address this unavoidable train wreck, the more likely it will result in generational war between the baby boomers and younger generations. Mandatory spending for agriculture subsidies, unemployment benefits, civilian and military pensions and health benefits continues to grow. The ponzi aspect of this system is that we continue to pay out benefits by printing money. We are obligated to pay $53 trillion that we do not have. Social Security has run at a surplus since its inception. The money is not in some lockbox. Your trustworthy leaders have spent all of the surpluses ever generated by Social Security to keep the ponzi scheme going.

A typical Jewish-American success story

Conclusion:

The US is a house of mega scams and ponzi schemes