Rothschild's AP uses the assassination of US Judge to help Kissinger's NWO plans

Author Topic: Rothschild's AP uses the assassination of US Judge to help Kissinger's NWO plans  (Read 15124 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
This article also reports on Jared's ATS forum postings, they are highlighted in blue!





Shooting suspect's nihilism rose with isolation
Posted: Jan 09, 2011 2:55 PM Updated: Jan 09, 2011 5:36 PM

By JUSTIN PRITCHARD
Associated Press

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - At an event roughly three years ago, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords took a question from Jared Loughner, the man accused of trying to assassinate her and killing six other people. According to two of his high school friends the question was essentially this: "What is government if words have no meaning?"

Loughner was angry about her response - she read the question and had nothing to say.

"He did not like government officials, how they spoke. Like they were just trying to cover up some conspiracy," one friend told The Associated Press on Sunday.

Both friends spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they wanted to avoid the publicity surrounding the case. To them, the question was classic Jared: confrontational, nonlinear and obsessed with how words create reality.

The friends' comments paint a picture bolstered by other former classmates and Loughner's own Internet postings: That of a social outcast with nihilistic, almost indecipherable beliefs steeped in mistrust and paranoia.

"If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem," the 22-year-old wrote Dec. 15, part of a wide-ranging screed that was posted in video form and ended with this: "What's government if words don't have meaning?"

On Sunday, Loughner was charged with the shootings a day earlier at a political event outside a Tucson supermarket. Aside from the six killed, 14 people were wounded. Doctors were optimistic about Giffords' chances for survival.

Loughner had at least one other contact with Giffords. Investigators said they carried out a search warrant at Loughner's home and seized a letter addressed to him from Giffords' congressional stationery in which she thanked him for attending a "Congress on your Corner" event at a mall in Tucson in 2007 - the same kind of event where officials say Loughner opened fire Saturday.

Other evidence seized from his home included an envelope from a safe with messages such as "I planned ahead," ''My assassination" and the name "Giffords" next to what appears to be Loughner's signature.

His high school friends said they fell out of touch with Loughner and last spoke to him around March, when one of them was going to set up some bottles in the desert for target practice and Loughner suggested he might come along. It was unusual - Loughner hadn't expressed an interest in guns before - and his increasingly confrontational behavior was pushing them apart. He would send nonsensical text messages, but also break off contact for weeks on end.

"We just started getting sketched out about him," the friend said. It was the first time he'd felt that way.

Around the same time, Loughner's behavior also began to worry officials at Pima Community College, where Loughner began attending classes in 2005, the school said in a release.

Between February and September, Loughner "had five contacts with PCC police for classroom and library disruptions," the statement said. He was suspended in September 2010 after college police discovered a YouTube video in which Loughner claimed the college was illegal according to the U.S. Constitution. He withdrew voluntarily the following month, and was told he could return only if he met certain conditions, including getting a mental health professional to agree that his presence on campus did not present a danger, the school said.

To his friends, it had been a gradual alienation.

The Loughner they met when he was a freshman at Mountain View High School may have been socially awkward, but he was generally happy and fun to be around. The crew smoked marijuana everyday, and when they weren't going to concerts or watching movies they talked about the meaning of life and dabbled in conspiracy theories.

Mistrust of government was his defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system ("a New World Order currency" one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world.


On his YouTube page, he listed among his favorite books "Animal Farm" and "Brave New World" - two novels about how authorities control the masses. Other books he listed in the wide-ranging list included "Mein Kampf," ''The Communist Manifesto," ''Peter Pan" and Aesop's Fables.

Over time, Loughner became increasingly engrossed in his own thoughts - what one of the friends described as a "nihilistic rut."

Loughner, an ardent atheist, began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the monotony of modern life.

"He didn't want people to wake up and do the same thing every day. He wanted more chaos, he wanted less regularity," one friend said.

The friend added that Loughner believed government was trying to get people to accept their meaningless lives so that they would stop dreaming - literally.

He told anyone who would listen that the world we see does not exist, that words have no meaning - and that the only way to derive meaning was during sleep.

Loughner began obsessing about a practice called lucid dreaming, in which people try to actively control their dreams. He kept a detailed journal about what he saw while asleep, and tried to get the friends involved.

Several people who knew Loughner at community college said he did not seem especially political, but was socially awkward. He laughed at the wrong things, made inappropriate comments. Most students sat away from him in class.

"He made a lot of the people really uncomfortable, especially the girls in the class," said Steven Cates, who attended an advanced poetry writing class with Loughner at Pima Community College last spring. Though he struck up a superficial friendship with Loughner, he said a group of other students went to the teacher to complain about Loughner at one point.

Another poetry student, Don Coorough, said Loughner read a "kind of a bland" poem about going to the gym in wild "poetry slam" style - "grabbing his crotch and jumping around the room."

When other students read their poems, meanwhile, Coorough said Loughner "would laugh at things that you wouldn't laugh at." After one woman read a poem about abortion, "he was turning all shades of red and laughing," and said, "Wow, she's just like a terrorist, she killed a baby," Coorough said.

"He appeared to be to me an emotional cripple or an emotional child," Coorough said. "He lacked compassion, he lacked understanding and he lacked an ability to connect."

Cates said Loughner "didn't have the social intelligence, but he definitely had the academic intelligence."

"He was very into the knowledge aspect of school. He was really into his philosophy classes and he was really into logic and English. And he would get frustrated by the dumbed-down words people used in class," Cates said.

Loughner expressed his interest in grammar and logic on the Internet as he made bizarre claims - such as that the Mars rover and the space shuttle missions were faked.

He frequently used "if-then" constructions in making nonsensical arguments. For instance: "If the living space is able to maintain the crews life at a temperature of -454F then the human body is alive in the NASA Space Shuttle. The human body isn't alive in the NASA Space Shuttle. Thus, the living space isn't able to maintain the crews life at a temperature of -454F."


Loughner also said in one video that government is "implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar." He said described America's laws as "treasonous," said the "every human who's mentally capable is always able to be treasurer of their new currency," and that "if the property owners and government officials are no longer in ownership of their land and laws from a revolution then the revolutionary's from the revolution are in control of the land and laws."

rest of article
http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=13811693

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Now with this AP article, Slimeball Potok *will try* to pin this on us.

Offline CheneysWorstNightmare

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,105
  • F*CK THE NEW WORLD ORDER!
    • Youtube Profile
Gonna see a whole lot of this crap this year.

 :'( :'( :'(

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Look at the good old Rothschild anti-government incestiuous pieces of doggie doo doo reading through the obvious planted theater of the absurd nonsense and coming up with the most insane motive of all time.

HEY ROTHCHILD/BILDERBERG/ROCKEFELLER ANTI-GOVERNMENT TRILATERAL TERRORISTS...

THE JUDGE THAT THE STRIKE TEAM EXECUTED ON AMERICAN SOIL HATED THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!

HE DESPISED THE NEW WORLD ORDER!

HE WAS TELLING THE NEW WORLD ORDER TO GO F*CK THEMSELVES!

AND YOUR STUPID JOURNALISTS ARE COMPLICIT IN YOUR BATSHIT CRAZY ORDERS TO NOT REPORT THESE FACTS!

ALSO, THE GUY IS A MIND CONTROLLED PATSY AND THERE ARE AT LEAST 2 OTHER SHOOTERS BEING PURSUED!!

YOUR BULLSHIT DEATHCARE SYSTEM IS A TRAVESTY TO HUMANITY AND YOU ASSASSINATED OUR FEDERAL JUDGE ON US SOIL TO FORCE IT DOWN AMERICA'S THROATS!

ROTHSCHILD/ROCKEFELLER ARE THE MOST ANTI-GOVERNMENT VIOLENT FUNDAMENTALIST TRILATERAL TERRORISTS TO EVER WALK THE EARTH!

Let us see what an Israeli expert on terrorism has to say about such attacks with such bullshit patsies that get thown at us like fish to a seal...


Israeli Terror Expert 1998: "FBI might fall for a false-flag operation"
The FBI might fall for a false-flag operation. A terrorist state might use American extremists, for example, to carry out such an attack. The FBI might catch the extremists, but not understand they were minor figures, and present them instead as major figures.

http://www.acpr.org.il/pp/pp043-shohamE.pdf
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
It is amazing that for 20 years Rothschild reported that anyone talking about a new currency was nuts and there were no plans, now not only are they admitting there is a plan, they are saying anyone against this anti government coup d'etat of our monetary system is a terrorist. You cannot make this shit up.

Still absolutely zero investigation and it looks like cell phones must have been confiscated or something.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Hey look who the anti-government terrorists are...

Hey Rothschild...

WHERE IS ALL THE GOLD YOU STOLE...



Rothschilds Implicated in Fake Gold Bar Scandal
http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2584%3Arothschilds-implicated-in-fake-gold-bar-scandal
Sunday, 17 January 2010 15:00

Fake gold bars in Bank of England and Fort Knox

Written by (Author ) World Jan 11, 2010

Pakistan Daily


It’s one thing to counterfeit a twenty or hundred dollar bill. The amount of financial damage is usually limited to a specific region and only affects dozens of people and thousands of dollars. Secret Service agents quickly notify the banks on how to recognize these phony bills and retail outlets usually have procedures in place (such as special pens to test the paper) to stop their proliferation.

But what about gold? This is the most sacred of all commodities because it is thought to be the most trusted, reliable and valuable means of saving wealth.

A recent discovery — in October of 2009 — has been suppressed by the main stream media but has been circulating among the “big money” brokers and financial kingpins and is just now being revealed to the public. It involves the gold in Fort Knox — the US Treasury gold — that is the equity of our national wealth. In short, millions (with an “m”) of gold bars are fake!

Who did this? Apparently our own government.

Background
In October of 2009 the Chinese received a shipment of gold bars. Gold is regularly exchanges between countries to pay debts and to settle the so-called balance of trade. Most gold is exchanged and stored in vaults under the supervision of a special organization based in London, the London Bullion Market Association (or LBMA). When the shipment was received, the Chinese government asked that special tests be performed to guarantee the purity and weight of the gold bars. In this test, four small holed are drilled into the gold bars and the metal is then analyzed.

Officials were shocked to learn that the bars were fake. They contained cores of tungsten with only a outer coating of real gold. What’s more, these gold bars, containing serial numbers for tracking, originated in the US and had been stored in Fort Knox for years. There were reportedly between 5,600 to 5,700 bars, weighing 400 oz. each, in the shipment!

At first many gold experts assumed the fake gold originated in China, the world’s best knock-off producers. The Chinese were quick to investigate and issued a statement that implicated the US in the scheme.

What the Chinese uncovered:
Roughly 15 years ago — during the Clinton Administration [think Robert Rubin, Sir Alan Greenspan and Lawrence Summers] — between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were allegedly manufactured by a very high-end, sophisticated refiner in the USA [more than 16 Thousand metric tonnes]. Subsequently, 640,000 of these tungsten blanks received their gold plating and WERE shipped to Ft. Knox and remain there to this day.

According to the Chinese investigation, the balance of this 1.3 million to 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten cache was also gold plated and then allegedly “sold” into the international market. Apparently, the global market is literally “stuffed full of 400 oz salted bars”. Perhaps as much as 600-billion dollars worth.

An obscure news item originally published in the N.Y. Post [written by Jennifer Anderson] in late Jan. 04 perhaps makes sense now.

DA investigating NYMEX executive ,Manhattan, New York, –Feb. 2, 2004.
A top executive at the New York Mercantile Exchange is being investigated by the Manhattan district attorney. Sources close to the exchange said that Stuart Smith, senior vice president of operations at the exchange, was served with a search warrant by the district attorney’s office last week. Details of the investigation have not been disclosed, but a NYMEX spokeswoman said it was unrelated to any of the exchange’s markets. She declined to comment further other than to say that charges had not been brought. A spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office also declined comment.”

The offices of the Senior Vice President of Operations — NYMEX — is exactly where you would go to find the records [serial number and smelter of origin] for EVERY GOLD BAR ever PHYSICALLY settled on the exchange. They are required to keep these records. These precise records would show the lineage of all the physical gold settled on the exchange and hence “prove” that the amount of gold in question could not have possibly come from the U.S. mining operations — because the amounts in question coming from U.S. smelters would undoubtedly be vastly bigger than domestic mine production.

No one knows whatever happened to Stuart Smith. After his offices were raided he took “administrative leave” from the NYMEX and he has never been heard from since. Amazingly, there never was any follow up on in the media on the original story as well as ZERO developments ever stemming from D.A. Morgenthau’s office who executed the search warrant.

Are we to believe that NYMEX offices were raided, the Sr. V.P. of operations then takes leave — all for nothing?

The revelations of fake gold bars also explains another highly unusual story that also happened in 2004:
LONDON, April 14, 2004 (Reuters) — NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd., the London-based unit of investment bank Rothschild [ROT.UL], will withdraw from trading commodities, including gold, in London as it reviews its operations, it said on Wednesday.

Interestingly, GATA’s Bill Murphy speculated about this back in 2004;
“Why is Rothschild leaving the gold business at this time my colleagues and I conjectured today? Just a guess on my part, but [I ] suspect something is amiss. They know a big scandal is coming and they don’t want to be a part of it‚€¶ [The] Rothschild wants out before the proverbial “S” hits the fan.” — BILL MURPHY, LEMETROPOLE, 4-18-2004

What is the GATA?
The Gold Antitrust Action Committee (GATA) is an organisation which has been nipping at the heels of the US Treasury Federal Reserve for several years now. The basis of GATA’s accusations is that these institutions, in coordination with other complicit central banks and the large gold-trading investment banks in the US, have been manipulating the price of gold for decades.

What is the GLD?GLD is a short form for Good London Delivery. The London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) has defined “good delivery” as a delivery from an entity which is listed on their delivery list or meets the standards for said list and whose bars have passed testing requirements established by the associatin and updated from time to time. The bars have to be pure for AU in an area of 995.0 to 999.9 per 1000. Weight, Shape, Appearance, Marks and Weight Stamps are regulated as follows:

Weight: minimum 350 fine ounces AU; maximum 430 fine ounces AU, gross weight of a bar is expressed in troy ounces, in multiples of 0.025, rounded down to the nearest 0.025 of an troy ounce.

Dimensions: the recommended dimensions for a Good Delivery gold bar are: Top Surface: 255 x 81 mm; Bottom Surface: 236 x 57 mm; Thickness: 37 mm.

Fineness: the minimum 995.0 parts per thousand fine gold. Marks: Serial number; Assay stamp of refiner; Fineness (to four significant figures); Year of manufacture (expressed in four digits).

After reviewing their prospectus yet again, it becomes pretty clear that GLD was established to purposefully deflect investment dollars away from legitimate gold pursuits and to create a stealth, cesspool / catch-all, slush-fund and a likely destination for many of these fake tungsten bars where they would never see the light of day — hidden behind the following legalese “shield” from the law:

[Excerpt from the GLD prospectus on page 11]
“Gold bars allocated to the Trust in connection with the creation of a Basket may not meet the London Good Delivery Standards and, if a Basket is issued against such gold, the Trust may suffer a loss. Neither the Trustee nor the Custodian independently confirms the fineness of the gold bars allocated to the Trust in connection with the creation of a Basket. The gold bars allocated to the Trust by the Custodian may be different from the reported fineness or weight required by the LBMA’s standards for gold bars delivered in settlement of a gold trade, or the London Good Delivery Standards, the standards required by the Trust. If the Trustee nevertheless issues a Basket against such gold, and if the Custodian fails to satisfy its obligation to credit the Trust the amount of any deficiency, the Trust may suffer a loss.”

The Federal Reserve knows but is apparently part of the schemeEarlier this year GATA filed a second Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Reserve System for documents from 1990 to date having to do with gold swaps, gold swapped, or proposed gold swaps.

On Aug. 5, The Federal Reserve responded to this FOIA request by adding two more documents to those disclosed to GATA in April 2008 from the earlier FOIA request. These documents totaled 173 pages, many parts of which were redacted (blacked out). The Fed’s response also noted that there were 137 pages of documents not disclosed that were alleged to be exempt from disclosure.

GATA appealed this determination on Aug. 20. The appeal asked for more information to substantiate the legitimacy of the claimed exemptions from disclosure and an explanation on why some documents, such as one posted on the Federal Reserve Web site that discusses gold swaps, were not included in the Aug. 5 document release.

In a Sept. 17, 2009, letter on Federal Reserve System letterhead, Federal Reserve governor Kevin M. Warsh completely denied GATA’s appeal. The entire text of this letter can be examined at http://www.gata. org/files/ GATAFedRespon” open(this. href);return false;” open(this. href);return false;” open(this. href);return false;” open(this. href);return false;” open(this. href);return false;” open(this. href);return false;” open(this. href);return false; ‚€¶ 7-2009.pdf.

The first paragraph on the third page is the most revealing.”In connection with your appeal, I have confirmed that the information withheld under exemption 4 consists of confidential commercial or financial information relating to the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks that was obtained within the meaning of exemption 4. This includes information relating to swap arrangements with foreign banks on behalf of the Federal Reserve System and is not the type of information that is customarily disclosed to the public. This information was properly withheld from you.”

above statement is an admission that the Federal Reserve has been involved with the fake gold bar swaps and that it refuses to disclose any information about its activities!

The above statement is an admission that the Federal Reserve has been involved with the fake gold bar swaps and that it refuses to disclose any information about its activities!

Why use tungsten?
If you are going to print fake money you need to have the special paper, otherwise the bills don’t feel right and can be easily detected by special pens that most merchants and banks use. Likewise, if you are going to fake gold bars you had better be sure they have the same weight and properties of real gold.

In early 2008 millions of dollars in gold at the central bank of Ethiopia turned out to be fake. What were supposed to be bars of solid gold turned out to be nothing more than gold-plated steel. They tried to sell the stuff to South Africa and it was sent back when the South Africans noticed this little problem. The problem with making good-quality fake gold is that gold is remarkably dense. It’s almost twice the density of lead, and two-and-a-half times more dense than steel. You don’t usually notice this because small gold rings and the like don’t weigh enough to make it obvious, but if you’ve ever held a larger bar of gold, it’s absolutely unmistakable: The stuff is very, very heavy.

The standard gold bar for bank-to-bank trade, known as a “London good delivery bar” weighs 400 troy ounces (over thirty-three pounds), yet is no bigger than a paperback novel. A bar of steel the same size would weigh only thirteen and a half pounds.

According to gold expert, Theo Gray, the problem is that there are very few metals that are as dense as gold, and with only two exceptions they all cost as much or more than gold.

The first exception is depleted uranium, which is cheap if you’re a government, but hard for individuals to get. It’s also radioactive, which could be a bit of an issue.

The second exception is a real winner:
tungsten. Tungsten is vastly cheaper than gold (maybe $30 dollars a pound compared to $12,000 a pound for gold right now). And remarkably, it has exactly the same density as gold, to three decimal places. The main differences are that it’s the wrong color, and that it’s much, much harder than gold. (Very pure gold is quite soft, you can dent it with a fingernail.)

A top-of-the-line fake gold bar should match the color, surface hardness, density, chemical, and nuclear properties of gold perfectly. To do this, you could could start with a tungsten slug about 1/8-inch smaller in each dimension than the gold bar you want, then cast a 1/16-inch layer of real pure gold all around it. This bar would feel right in the hand, it would have a dead ring when knocked as gold should, it would test right chemically, it would weigh *exactly* the right amount, and though I don’t know this for sure, I think it would also pass an x-ray fluorescence scan, the 1/16‚€≥ layer of pure gold being enough to stop the x-rays from reaching any tungsten. You’d pretty much have to drill it to find out it’s fake.

Such a top-quality fake London good delivery bar would cost about $50,000 to produce because it’s got a lot of real gold in it, but you’d still make a nice profit considering that a real one is worth closer to $400,000.

What’s going to happen now?
Politicians like Ron Paul have been demanding that the Federal Reserve be more transparent and open up their records for public scrutiny. But the Fed has consistently refused, stating that these disclosures would undermine its operation. Yes, it certainly would!

http://www.daily.pk/fake-gold-bars-in-bank-of-england-and-fort-knox-14477/
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Well lookie lookie lookie...

The Judge did not see a sign and stop by...he was called on the phone on Friday and told to meet her there. Why did the judge want to meet her?

BECAUSE HE WAS PISSED OFF AT THE LACK OF BORDER SECURITY AND DEALING WITH THE BATSHIT CRAZY CASELOADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Judge's final actions key to federal charge for his murder
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0111/Judges_final_actions_key_to_federal_charge_for_his_murder.html
January 09, 2011


The actions and motivations of U.S. District Court Judge John Roll just before he was shot dead at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's campaign event in Tucson on Saturday are important for the public narrative about the tragedy, but they're also vital to the federal criminal charge for his murder.

The criminal complaint federal prosecutors filed Sunday against the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, goes to some lengths to demonstrate that Roll didn't show up at the Giffords event just to say hello to the congresswoman, or on some whim after attending mass, as reports Saturday suggested. That storyline was fueled by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who said "because [Roll] knows Gabrielle very well, [he] came around the corner to say hi. Unfortunately he was in the wrong place at the wrong time."

By contrast, FBI agent Tony Taylor argues that Roll was at the event to talk to Giffords about ongoing problems related to a surge in the federal judicial caseload in Arizona--a problem which the judge has attributed to a boost in the number of federal agents sent to the area to address immigration and border-related crime.

Under federal law, the murder or attempted murder of a U.S. official, such as a judge, is only considered a federal crime if committed "while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties." In other words, if Roll simply stopped by the event to greet Giffords, who he's said to have been friendly with, or due to idle curiosity about what was happening there, his killing probably wouldn't be a federal offense.

Prosecutors are so intent on showing that Roll was on official business that they rely on triple-hearsay to make the case in their complaint. Taylor says Giffords aide Ron Barber, who was seriously wounded in the attack, gave details about Roll's attendance at the event to Giffords's chief of staff Pia Carusone, who in turn told U.S. Marshal David Gonzales, who shared the info with Taylor. (Such hearsay probably wouldn't be permitted at a trial, but is fairly common in an agent's sworn decalation like the one filed Sunday.)

"Judge Roll attended the event and sought to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, and spoke with Mr. Barber about issues about the volume of federal cases in the District of Arizona; Judge Roll expressed his appreciation to Mr. Barber for the help and support Congresswoman Giffords had given," Taylor wrote, citing the triple-hearsay account. It's not clear if Roll ever talked to Giffords at the event Saturday.

Taylor also says Roll was told of the Giffords event by phone on Friday, knocking down the idea that he saw a sign or otherwise stumbled on the event on Saturday. And the FBI agent says video shows Roll "speaking for several minutes with Mr. Barber," which tends to suggest that the judge's visit wasn't purely social.

Of course, Roll's murder, like that of anyone killed at the event on Saturday, can also be prosecuted under state law. But it looks for now like the local prosecutors will take a back seat while the federal prosecution goes forward. The state can pursue its case after the feds are done. That is especially likely if the federal case were to end in a way some might consider unsatisfactory, such as an acquittal by reason of insanity or a sentence of life rather than the death penalty.

The presence or absence of the charge against Roll in the federal case probably won't make much difference in the punishment for Loughner stemming from the federal case. The killing of Giffords aide Gabriel Zimmerman would appear to make the federal case death penalty eligible, even if prosecutors have trouble proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Roll was "engaged in...official duties" at the time of his killing.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/events/070615_nyc_rose.pdf

CHARLIE ROSE
June 15, 2007
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft

CHARLIE ROSE, HOST: Tonight, an extraordinary conversation with three foreign policy giants: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, and former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. I interviewed them in New York yesterday evening, at an event organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The conversation took place at the Rainbow Room high above Rockefeller Center here in New York.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE ROSE: A new president comes to power in 2008, as he or she will, what ought to be the most important message that person can say in their inaugural address about America and the world?

BRENT SCOWCROFT, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think that we are a part of the world, that we want to cooperate with the world. We are not the dominant power in the world that everyone falls in behind us. But we want to reach out and cooperate. After all, we`re the ones that set up the League of Nations, the U.N., NATO. That`s the way we do business. That`sthe way we want to do business. We want to work with friends, with allies, with people of good will to make this a better world. That`s the message.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think the next president should say to the world that the United States wants to be partof the solution to its problems, not, in part, the maker of their problems. I think the president has to say very credibly and forcefully to the American people that to do that, what I just said, the American people have to think hard about their definition of the meaning of the good life, that the hedonistic, materialistic society of high levels of consumption, increasing social inequality, is not a society that can be part of the solution of the world`s problems.
 
HENRY KISSINGER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I think when the new presidentis inaugurated, we will have gone through two years of self-flagellation. And I think he would -- should step up there with some confidence and say,here are problems we see in the world. We would like to listen to a lot of other countries about what they think should be done. He should not pretend that he has all the answers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE ROSE: Kissinger, Scowcroft, Brzezinski for the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHARLIE ROSE: We are at the top of Manhattan at the Rainbow Room this evening for a conversation about the future of American foreign policy with Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, former national security adviser. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser. And Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser. I want to begin this conversation with Henry Kissinger with this question, and which I hope everybody will respond to -- where are we as we think about this time in American foreign policy? Are we at a special moment, which is being redefined? Are we creating a new world order? What are the forces shaping all this?

HENRY KISSINGER: We`re at a moment when the international system is in a period of change like we haven`t seen for several hundred years. In someparts of the world, the nation state, on which the existing international system was based, is either giving up its traditional aspects, like in Europe, or as in the Middle East, where it was never really fully established, it is no longer the defining element. So in those two parts of the world, there is tremendous adjustment in traditional concepts. In Asia, the nation state still is extremely vital, and of course, then in Africa, a whole new pattern is emerging because the states in Africa reflected the preferences of the colonial powers when they were established. So all of these things are occurring simultaneously, and American foreign policy has to deal with all these aspects simultaneously, and there isn`t a single recipe that fits all of them. And that is one of our dilemmas. And another is that we are used to dealing with problems that have a solution and that can be solved in a finite period. But we`re at the beginning of a long period of adjustment that will -- does not have a clear-cut terminal point, and in which our wisdom and sophistication and understanding is one of the -- has to be one of the key elements. And so all of these things are in play at this moment.

CHARLIE ROSE: Zbigniew, you said to me in a conversation last night on my program that there is a new global political awareness, which is central to the future of America`s foreign policy, how they recognize it, how they deal with it, how they plan for it.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: That`s right. I don`t disagree with what Henry said, but ...

CHARLIE ROSE: Agree? Agree?

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: I don`t disagree.

CHARLIE ROSE: You don`t.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: ... but my perspective...

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY KISSINGER: I`ve made great progress.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Don`t be too optimistic.

(LAUGHTER)

HENRY KISSINGER: I take what I can get.

CHARLIE ROSE: Don`t get -- don`t get too excited, he says. The caveat comes.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: The political awakening that is happening worldwide is a major challenge for America, because it means that the world is much more restless. It`s stirring. It has aspirations which are not easily satisfied. And if America is to lead, it has to relate itself somehow to these new, lively, intense political aspirations, which make our age so different from even the recent past. But the challenge that we face is rooted much more in the immediate problem, which we have partially created -- namely, we are the number one superpower today in the world. We are the only superpower. But our leadership is being tested in the Middle East, and some of the things that we have done in the Middle East are contributing to a potential explosion region-wide. And if that explosion gets out of hand, we may end up being bogged down for many years to come in a conflict that will be profoundlydamaging to our capacity to exercise our power, to address the problems implicit in this global awakening, and we may face a world in which much ofthe world turns away from us, seeks its own equilibrium, but probably slides into a growing chaos. So I think we`re at a very critical stage, and I am personally very worried as to what might conceivably happen in the next 20 months. I`m more optimistic after 2008...

(CROSSTALK)

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: But will there be a chance to make a turn and a change?

CHARLIE ROSE: Let me -- let me understand what you think might happen in the next 20 months that could have a profound influence on these ideas we are discussing.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Well, to be perfectly specific, the Israeli- Palestinian problem becomes very acute with Gaza dominated by Hamas. With the possibility of the conflict escalating, not only in terms of Gaza but also the Hezbollah and Lebanon, with the continuing crisis in Iraq, whichis very dynamic and unpredictable and which could get out of hand, and maybe even escalate and enlarge. Just think of what happened barely sixweeks ago between the Iranians and the British and the sailors that were captured. Suppose they had been American Marines and they hadn`t allowed themselves to be captured? I think we could have had a situation in which the president, rightly in my view, announces retaliatory action.

CHARLIE ROSE: He would have no choice.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: He would have no choice, and I would support him. But that would then lead to other consequences, and before too long we  could be involved in a conflict in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And there are some American statesmen who are publicly advocating American military action against Iran.

CHARLIE ROSE: Brent, as I suggested, you presided over the end of the Cold war along with the president you worked for and members of that administration, also the `91 war, which was successful because of coalition building and other issues. How do you see the moment we are at now, because it is fair to say, everyone knows you`ve been a critic of aspects of this war?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: I think along the lines of what my colleagues have said, this is a very different world. There are forces at work, which are new, like Zbig calls it political awakening. What has happened is that information technology has politicized the world`s population. For most of mankind, the average person knew what was happening in his own village and the next one, and nothing beyond that, and he didn`t care, so that leaders were able to guide their countries almost irrespective of what people really thought because they weren`t involved in it. Now, everybody knows what`s happening instantaneously. Everybody is within reach of a television set. And so they`re all politicized, and they`re all stimulated, and then they have these desires, pleasures, hates, resentments, and so on, and they`re reacting instantaneously. I`m not saying that`s a cause of terrorism, but it certainly inflames it. Secondly, you ask, are we stronger or weaker? The traditional measures of strength don`t really apply so much ...

CHARLIE ROSE: Military, economic.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Military and economic. And we`re stronger than any -- any -- probably since the Roman Empire. But we can`t do what used to be done with that kind of strength.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why is that?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Because national borders are eroding, because of the growth of non-state actors. It`s a different kind of a world. We are tied down by a tiny little country -- Iraq. It`s amazing, given the disparity in military economic strength. It`s a -- it`s a world where most of the big problems spill over national boundaries, and there are new kinds of actors and we`re feeling our way as to how to deal with them. I think it is less policy oriented than Zbig indicated. I think it`s more systemic.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do we need to pay attention to America`s credibility? Do you all agree it`s suffered because of Iraq and other issues, and, therefore, it has to be addressed, or can it simply be addressed by doing the right thing on a range of issues?

HENRY KISSINGER: The important thing is to do the right thing. Then credibility will follow.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Just to add what Henry said in historical terms. Perhaps the most troubling area in the world goes from the Balkans through the Middle East and in Central Asia.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: If you look at the world`s last empires, the Austro- Hungarian Empire in the Balkans, the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, and the Russian and Soviet empire in Central Asia...

CHARLIE ROSE: If there`s a war, that`s where it`s going to happen.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Yeah. And now these -- these peoples are trying to discover who they are. Their boundaries are artificial. Their historical relationships are very different from what they are -- they`re trying to discover who they are and to whom they belong.

CHARLIE ROSE: You talk about that, global Balkan struggle.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: That`s right. Well, I think there`s a further dimension to it. I think Brent is quite right in focusing on that geographic part of the world.

CHARLIE ROSE: It really runs from the Suez Canal all the way over to the border of China.

(CROSSTALK)

CHARLIE ROSE: Brings in India, Pakistan, the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, as well as Turkey ...

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: ... India, Pakistan...
 
ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: I call that the global Balkans, because in some ways,it`s similar to the European Balkans, which were internally conflicted, but had a suction effect on major powers, and that whole region is having that effect. And I think we are really facing as a country the real risk of becoming bogged down in this larger spectrum of the global Balkans. And if we getbogged down, two things will happen. First of all, we`re going to be largely alone. Most of the world will not be with us. A few client states, but that`s all. And secondly, our global power will gradually be dissipated; our global standing will be undermined. So we do face a very serious strategic, historical challenge, which we need to think through, and regarding which we need to draw some lessons, and be willing to change course.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK, let me -- Henry, but the lessons are what?

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: The lessons are that acting alone in a world that`s alive in political stirring is to condemn oneself to isolation and probably protracted warfare of the kind that can be dissipating. The kind of problem that we face in Iraq is a little bit the kind of problem that Israel faced in dealing with Hezbollah. If the conflict, the theater of conflict enlarges, it`s going to become more and more absorbing and more and more costly.

HENRY KISSINGER: The question is what does one mean by "getting bogged down?" We are there now. And consequences flow from that. In principle, one can say one shouldn`t act alone, but once one is in the situation in which we are in Iraq, we have -- we cannot simply solve it by saying we should not get bogged down. Zbig and I have been putting on a performance on weekly television ...

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Yes.

HENRY KISSINGER: ... and so we have the script fairly well rehearsed.

(LAUGHTER)

HENRY KISSINGER: And the issue really comes down...

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.

HENRY KISSINGER: Really, issue really comes down...

CHARLIE ROSE: This is mainly only about Iraq.

HENRY KISSINGER: How do we disengage from being the only power involved here? Can we simply pull out of there, or do we need a process of transition during which other countries get involved in the negotiating process and in trying to find a solution? There are other countries, for example, India, who have a great deal at stake in the radicalization of the Islamic world. So we are now there, and whether -- and simply withdrawing -- this is the real issue between Zbig and me, which I was hoping we would not get to here.

CHARLIE ROSE: And I was hoping we would.

(LAUGHTER)

HENRY KISSINGER: I knew -- I know it. I know that. But there is the real issue. And -- and my view is that we cannot conduct a debate about speed of withdrawal. We have to conduct a debate about what it is that we want to create there. To what extent, and interplay of diplomatic and military actions can -- can achieve it. And there, Zbig and I have different judgments.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right. Well, let`s just have those judgments and I`ll let Brent be the arbiter of who`s right.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: I`d be happy to.

(LAUGHTER)

CHARLIE ROSE: Let me understand -- I`m serious, though. This is a serious question because of -- the resumes here are clear and respect among each other is clear, so what is it that we need to understand?

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: All right, well, first of all, one has to be willing to face the fact that what has transpired in Iraq is not exactly a very successful exercise.

CHARLIE ROSE: But I don`t think anybody disagrees with that, do they?

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: OK, no, but it`s important to reaffirm that, because that is exactly a symptom of being bogged down. And the willingness t acknowledge that helps to act as a restraint on the repetition of it elsewhere.

CHARLIE ROSE: Like Iran?

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Like Iran. And there are people in this country -- not Henry, but there are some people in this country who are urging that, and we could stumble into that unless we`re very alert to the risk involved. Now, on that conflict itself, I think there is a legitimate question regarding how do we extricate ourselves. And it doesn`t involve, in my judgment, just packing our bags and leaving, but a willingness to face the fact that this was not a very constructive enterprise is more likely to make us more committed, the notion of terminating the conflict or finding a formula for the Iraqis and for the region which enables us to disengage and avoid a repetition elsewhere. So there is a real choice here, a strategic choice. And I think we have to be very conscious of it.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: I think there`s nothing more dangerous than mislearning lessons of history, and we do it perpetually. After the `30s, we said, "no more Munichs." And it got us in a lot of problems. Then we said, "No more Vietnams." Now if we say, "No more Iraqs," the next one won`t be an Iraq. It will be something different. You can`t learn lessons ...

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: No, wait a second. That`s a great oversimplification. I`m perfectly willing to say no more Iraqs, which means no more unilateral starting of the war on false claims, false information, and a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the situation in the region.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: You know, we`re not going to have another one exactly that way. But the real point ...

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Iran.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: ... that we are where we are, and if we spend all of our time wringing our hands about how we got there ...

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: It`s not a question of wringing hands.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: ... instead of what we do, and I think now to say we`re bogged down, so let`s unbog and pull out.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: No, I didn`t say let`s unbog and pull out. I said, let`s address the issue of how we deal with the Iraqis and how we deal with the region, recognize the fact that this is a misadventure, which it is in our interest to terminate and not to repeat. That`s a rather important conclusion to draw, and a very important lesson ...

CHARLIE ROSE: You seem to be saying...

(CROSSTALK)

CHARLIE ROSE: It seems to me you`re saying we need to learn the lessons of history.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: That`s right. Exactly.

CHARLIE ROSE: And not ...

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: And not disregard them. I don`t think Vietnam was such a happy experience, either, frankly.

HENRY KISSINGER: I can testify -- I can testify to that.

(LAUGHTER)

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Exactly.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah. You have personal experience.

HENRY KISSINGER: But the administration in which I served and in which Brent at that time served peripherally and wormed his way in ever deeper...

(LAUGHTER)

CHARLIE ROSE: You know, you know actually ...

HENRY KISSINGER: ... into the ...

CHARLIE ROSE: You know, actually, there are two different explanations of him working for you. His explanation was that you were looking for a Mormon, and he was a Mormon.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Yeah.

CHARLIE ROSE: Your explanation is that you were looking for somebody who would say no, because you saw him say no to H.R. Haldeman.

HENRY KISSINGER: That`s the truth.

(LAUGHTER)

HENRY KISSINGER: I saw him stand up under very difficult circumstances to somebody who was all-powerful, and -- at that time ...

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

HENRY KISSINGER: ... and I wanted somebody with a little character.

CHARLIE ROSE: So the two of you were together in the West Wing...

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY KISSINGER: Let me make my point about Vietnam. When the Nixon initiation came into office, there were 550,000 Americans in combat. Andending the war was not a question of turning off a television channel. And so, debating on how we got there and what judgments were made was not goingto help us. I was always convinced that decent people in the case of Vietnam, highly intelligent, decent people, got us involved because they had made, in part, a misjudgment about the nature of the communist system and the unity of the communist world and the degree to which the experience of Europe could be repeated in Vietnam. That was not a moral issue. That was a mistake in judgment. So we had the problem of how to extricate the United States. And we, after looking at various options, decided that to do it in a way -- the middle of the Cold War, that we did not lose control over -- over events. We withdrew gradually. Now, I`m not going to go into whether this was absolutely right or not. But we face in this respect a comparable situation in Iraq. Not what mistakes may have been made in going into it, but how can we get out -- without -- and maintain the capability of contributing to shaping the kind of world that needs to be shaped ...

CHARLIE ROSE: So that`s ...

HENRY KISSINGER: ... for the reasons that I gave earlier.

CHARLIE ROSE: That`s the issue today -- how do we maintain our capability? How do we get out of Iraq so we can maintain our capability to shape the world as far as you`re concerned.

HENRY KISSINGER: Iraq has to be made an international, and not just a national American problem. And I actually am somewhat encouraged by this foreign ministers` conference that took place at Sharm el-Sheikh, in which all the neighboring countries, plus Iran and Syria, plus the permanent members of the Security Council, and plus Egypt, participated. And I think that is a forum at which one could discuss an international status of Iraq that at least calms the situation enough so that it doesn`t have such an effect that Zbig was talking about.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: You see, I think Henry`s right there. If you look back at the first Gulf war, the Arabs sent forces, they sent money. So their interests in Iraq are clear, but they`re nowhere to be seen now. Why Because right now, it`s dangerous to be seen as supporting the United States.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: But -- but a deliberate or not deliberate can be argued forever, but the fact is, the premises on the basis of which the war was pursued were not accurate, were false. And the United States embarked on a solitary operation on the basis of a lot of additional erroneous assumptions, regarding what will transpire in Iraq.

CHARLIE ROSE: Or what to do after the toppling of Saddam.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Yes, precisely. So there are important lessons to be learned from this, given the fact that we`re facing a continuing crisis in the region, whether between the Israelis and the Palestinians, or Hezbollah, or most important of all, Iran. And I think it is essential that we do not stumble into a stupid war with Iran.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Which would be devastating to us.

CHARLIE ROSE: We now see a kind of violence we have not seen between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza. Is that significant in terms of the larger picture? What if Hamas simply blows them away and takes control? What are the -- is that a serious blow for any effort to find some kind of Palestinian-Israeli peace, and, therefore, the creation of a Palestinian state?

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Well, let me answer this one first. I think the answer, first of all, is yes. Secondly, we`re dealing with a problem in which Arab nationalism, which tended to be until relatively recent somewhat secular in motivation, has now become increasingly religious and fundamentalist. And that makes it more pervasive, more difficult to deal with. And I think that`s a problem we`re facing with Hamas and the failure of the Fatah. But I think we also have to ask whether we ourselves were pursuing the wisest policy regarding this problem over the last several years.

CHARLIE ROSE: Whether we`ve exercised our power to influence?

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: We have exercised our power to insist on elections in Palestine, which Hamas did win. Once they won, we then engaged in a policy not only of ostracism, but by financial boycott, in effect of undermining it, and creating more tension and radicalism and poverty in Gaza, which was susceptible to exploitation by Hamas. Could we have done otherwise? Hamas refused to recognize Israel, but it is also a fact that it declared a cease-fire, which is a kind of a de facto accommodation to an existing reality. I think it would have been wiser to pursue a policy of exploring the degree of flexibility, of dealing with them, trying to expand the cease-fire into some sort of security negotiations, and then eventually move towards recognition. I think the boycott, the ostracism, contributed to this climate, which is now exploding into escalating violence.

CHARLIE ROSE: With that happening, with the weakened government in Israel, is this a moment for the United States to play a larger role, and if so, what is it?

HENRY KISSINGER: Our primary attention should be on focusing where we go from here. On the Palestinian issue, we`re in a strange situation that almost all the parties, with the possible exception of Hamas, agree on what a settlement should look like. What we are -- usually, you have parties and you argue about a settlement. Here you almost have a settlement, but you have no parties.

CHARLIE ROSE: But when you include that, you include the future of Jerusalem, as well as a right to return?

HENRY KISSINGER: No, the right of return, only to the Palestinian state. I think there is a sort of a general agreement of a settlement based on the `67 borders, plus the settlements around Jerusalem to be compensated by some Israeli territory. The right of return of Palestinians to the Palestinian state but not to Israel, and the capital of the Palestinian state in the Arab part of Jerusalem, which remains to be defined what that is, in a negotiation. I think there`s a considerable consensus emerging on both the Israeli side and on the Arab side, minus, perhaps, Hamas.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: I think we have to do more than be a broker now. Because both the Palestinians are weak and Israel is very weak. And I think -- I agree -- I agree with Henry -- 90 percent of the solution has been apparent since 2000. That doesn`t mean it`s not serious, the problems that are remaining, but they`re -- they`re -- they`re solvable. But I also agree with Zbig that we thought we could deal with Hamas being in the government by driving them out, and the result is a near civil war. The external head of Hamas, Mashaal, who is ...

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: ... who is in Damascus, he didn`t recognize Israel but he says, "We must realize Israel is a fact, and it`s a fact which we`ll endure."

CHARLIE ROSE: So, that was an opportunity.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Now the art of diplomacy is to take that and turn it into something.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why did we not do that?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Well, because I think -- I think rightly or wrongly, we thought we can -- we can beat Hamas with Fatah. And it so far looks the other way around.

CHARLIE ROSE: I want to get to Russia just -- with you, but let me just understand Iran.

HENRY KISSINGER: I think Iran ought to be brought into the negotiation, and the proposition to Iran should be if you are a country that wants to participate in this region, we are willing to discuss an arrangement that (inaudible) your security, because if the cauldron in Iraq boils over, it`s -- it will affect us all, if everybody pushes things to the extreme. But we have to be careful in negotiating with Iran that we don`t create the impression among the Arab states and the Sunni states that we are working on a condominium between Iran and the United States, because that will panic them and drive them into making their own arrangement.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: Henry has mentioned the two aspects of the negotiating process, one pertaining to Iraq, and security in Iraq, especially after we leave; and the other one is a nuclear problem. There`s a curious differentiation between these two in negotiations. On Iraq, we`re prepared to negotiate with the Iranians, more or less on the basis of symmetry, without special preconditions, because we both recognize we have a stake in finding some common approach. On the nuclear issue, we have a very different position. We`re insisting that the Iranians, as the price for negotiating with us, abandon something to which they actually have under international law, a right, which is to enrich up to 5 or so percent, which is exactly all that they`re doing at this stage, because we are afraid that if they do that, they will gain greater capacity to acquire nuclear weapons.But what we are saying to them, in effect, is give up that right in order to negotiate with us about the nuclear problem. My view is that this creates an obstacle to negotiating process, because it creates an asymmetry. The Iranians have to pay a price for the dialogue. I think it would be much more sensible for us to take the position that, yes, we want the Iranians to suspend enrichment, at least for the duration of some of the negotiations, in return for which we are prepared to lift some of the sanctions we have adopted against Iran over the last 15 years, some of which are quite painful and quite difficult to the Iranians. And that would make it easier for the Iranian regime then to swallow its pride and to say, OK, they`re negotiating with the United States. They`re suspending enrichment, but also because they`ve obtained some American concessions. I think that would set the process in motion. And then we would see what happens. The fact is that one significant way the Iranians have a posture different from the North Koreans, the North Koreans basically are saying we have a nuclear program. We are seeking weapons. We have produced weapons. We`re proud of the fact that we have weapons.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: The Iranians are saying, we`re not seeking weapons. We don`t want to have weapons. Our religion forbids us to have weapons. They may be lying -- we suspect they`re lying -- but it creates an opening, because in these negotiations we could then say to the Iranians, you have these three postulates, then help us establish an arrangement whereby we are confident that while pursuing a nuclear program, you`re not pursuing weapons. And I think there are some ideas on the subject that could then be fruitfully explored.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: But I think above all, what we need with Iran is patience.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: It`s not for nothing that the Iranians are known as rug merchants. They are.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: And they will negotiate and they will offer and they will withdraw and so on. We need great patience.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: And we all need to stay together. Right now, the Iranians think they can play us off against the Europeans, against the Russians and the Chinese and get ...

CHARLIE ROSE: But should we have, though, bilateral talks with them?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Oh, I have no problems with bilateral talks ...

CHARLIE ROSE: OK.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: ... but I think on the nuclear thing, it should not be bilateral.

HENRY KISSINGER: First of all, with respect to patience, I`m all for it, as long as we remember that something is going on all the time. And we don`t want the nuclear weapons to ...

CHARLIE ROSE: The more patient we are, the closer they get to a nuclear weapon.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: No, I -- I agree with that, but ...

HENRY KISSINGER: That`s one thing to keep in mind. The second is -- and this is just a question of method -- we can speculate forever what combination of particular moves might break the deadlock. I think what we should at least attempt is to have a quiet negotiation with some high-level Iranian to determine where we`re trying to go in this exercise. What are we trying to accomplish? And if we can agree on that, then we can be more patient, because we`ll at least have the framework rather than ...

CHARLIE ROSE: But do we know who to talk to?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Well ...

HENRY KISSINGER: But I don`t want to have negotiations like a detective story, in which one side throws out clues and we have to guess at the answer.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: That was going to be my next point. You know, we have never recognized that Iran lives in a dangerous neighborhood. And it`s not surprising that they want some protection. We have not been forthcoming about explaining a security relationship for the region, in which Iran can feel secure and thus maybe willing to do something ...

CHARLIE ROSE: OK.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: ... in our direction.

CHARLIE ROSE: Russia. Where are we today and what ought to be our policy?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Russia right now is searching for its soul. It`s trying to figure out what it really is. You know, since the days of Peter the Great, Russians have been maybe Europeans who didn`t share in the enlightenment and the reformation, or are they Mongol Asians with the European veneer. And they`ve gone back and forth.

CHARLIE ROSE: But how will they decide?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: They`re going to decide. We`re not going to decide for them. We ought to make clear where we stand, but we`re not -- they`re not going to do what we want them to do because we want them to do it.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: We shouldn`t overdramatize the current disagreements with the Russians. They are real, but they`re not really all that threatening. And the notion that we`re moving back to some Cold War Ithink is really an exaggerated judgment. There are disagreements, but there are many overlapping interests, and this is the way we`re playing it. And ultimately, this is also the way the Russians are playing it. In the longer run, I happen to think that Russia really has no choice but to become gradually more associated with the Euro-Atlantic community. Because if it isn`t, then it`s going to find itself essentially facing China all by itself, facing the Euro-Atlantic community all by itself. And while it is awash with liquidity because of its present ability to export a lot of energy, that is actually a transitional arrangement. It`s not going to last forever. There are already some indications as to what the time limit on that might be. And with its declining population, with people moving out of the Far East, with an enormously powerful China in the east, I think the real destiny of Russia is to become closer to the West. And I happen to think that as the Ukraine moves to the West, towards the E.U., eventually towards NATO, it will pave the way also for Russia moving towards the West. Because it will become a logical extension of the same process, and it will eliminate any imperial ambitions. Because without Ukraine, Russia`s imperial aspirations are essentially nostalgia, but it`s not a real policy.

CHARLIE ROSE: Two quick questions and (inaudible) on Russia. One, is the expansion of NATO a good idea, or is it an ongoing good idea, and is it a good idea to put nuclear defense in Czechoslovakia or wherever else it might be?

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: I think if NATO haven`t expanded, we would have a noman's zone between the E.U. and NATO and Russia, and that would be very dangerous, and things such as, for example ...

CHARLIE ROSE: But did it make them more insecure?

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: I can`t believe that the Russians really think they`re more insecure because Estonia is in NATO. And we don`t have forces poised in Estonia to attack Russia. So, I don`t think that`s real. Now, what about the missile defenses? I frankly think that this was undertaken in a clumsy way, that this is a premature idea, that there is no real urgency about it at this stage, and for us to have pushed it the way we did, essentially engaging in conversation with the Czechs and the Poles about it, before either a serious discussion with the NATO or with the Russians, was not the best way to handle this problem.

HENRY KISSINGER: The problem is here is a country that has lost 300 years of its history, in terms of most of what was part of the Russian Empire in Europe, towards Europe, since Peter the Great, has been the -- the territory has -- it`s no longer under Russian rule. On the other hand, the Russian people, at least the ones I know, have pride in being a Russian. And, therefore, they want to be taken seriously in international affairs.

CHARLIE ROSE: It`s self-esteem.

HENRY KISSINGER: And, therefore, they want to get under their control the assets which they think are relevant to conducting foreign policy, and which they in turn interpret as a balance of benefits and penalties in a sort of a traditional -- traditional way. The mistake we make with many people -- not just Russia -- is that we believe we have the model, and there is a sort of a condescension in our dialogue with other societies, which was especially painful in several administrations to Russia. I think in Russia, the Yeltsin period is not considered a period of great achievement, but a period of corruption and humiliation.

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, the Gorbachev period even less.

HENRY KISSINGER: And the Gorbachev period is conceived as an abandonment of historic Russian positions. So this is the framework, in my view, in which Putin operates. I look at what is going on now as the prelude to a negotiation. I do not believe that Putin intends to leave office in a Cold War atmosphere with the United States. But that is my ...

CHARLIE ROSE: So, he will not -- he will -- he will -- even though he said he`s not going to stand for reelection, he will stand -- he will not give up office if in fact ...

HENRY KISSINGER: Well ...

CHARLIE ROSE: ... if certain circumstances are in place.

HENRY KISSINGER: If everything goes as it`s now planned, or as it is now apparent, it will be the first peaceful transfer by constitutional methods of power in Russian history without the deaths of the leader.

CHARLIE ROSE: That`s an interesting point. Do you agree with that, both of you, that Putin may very well not give up power?

HENRY KISSINGER: No, I think he will give up power.

CHARLIE ROSE: But -- oh, I see, you do.

HENRY KISSINGER: I think he will give up power.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: He will give up his office.

HENRY KISSINGER: He will give up his office.

CHARLIE ROSE: Become head of Gazprom.

HENRY KISSINGER: How -- yes, how will -- well, I don`t know what he will do. And I don`t think anybody in Russia can tell at this moment whatever the plan is.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

HENRY KISSINGER: Whether somebody not in office can actually exercise power. It`s never happened in Russia before. So I don`t know this. I agree with Zbig that this is not a strategic confrontation. And it should not be talked into a strategic confrontation. We cannot give Russia veto over deployment of forces on NATO territory. But we have to understand their particular sensitivities, and, therefore, there should be a dialogue on these issues. I think this proposal on the Azerbaijan radar station is extremely interesting, not as a substitute for what is going on in Poland, but as a state of mind that can envision Iran as a security problem with which we will deal jointly. That is something that in my view ...

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

HENRY KISSINGER: ... ought to be explored.

CHARLIE ROSE: Let me turn to China. You have said in conversations with me before, China is the most important foreign policy challenge for America, the peaceful rise of China.

HENRY KISSINGER: Right. For this reason: Historically when there is a rising power like China, it has usually led to confrontations between the rising power and the existing dominant powers. And when you have a shift of the center of gravity of world affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific, then you have an additional element. On the other hand, that was in a period when national states were still the dominant feature. Now we have a whole series of problems -- energy, environment, proliferation ...

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

HENRY KISSINGER: ... which go beyond the nation. And we also know that a conflict between major powers would be a catastrophe for which there is no compensation in anything you can gain. So the challenge is whether China as a rising country, the United States as the superpower, can develop a cooperative relationship in this period before nationalism becomes so dominant in China as a substitute for communism, and a kind of selfrighteous isolationism in this country that substitutes China for the Soviet Union and (inaudible). So overcoming these two temptations I think is a fundamental challenge to American foreign policy. And Chinese foreign policy transcending in its long-term implications even the crisis in the Middle East.

CHARLIE ROSE: China.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: I think a great deal depends on how the United States resolves the dilemmas that it is currently facing regarding the problems that we talked about earlier. And if we can surmount them in the course of the next several years and adopt a policy that doesn`t result in the United States being stuck into some prolonged adventure, then I think the American-Chinese relationship will probably go on relatively stably, because the Chinese themselves are cautious, calculating and have a sense of patience, and also awareness of their inherent weaknesses as well as of their successes. So they`re not in a rush to become the dominant global power. I think the problems could become acute if the United States falters and gets actually bogged down into some much more consuming misadventure. Then I think the sheer attrition of American global domination will create circumstances in which the Chinese will be tempted to reach out for more influence, including in regions in which we have special interests, such as the Middle East, from which they already obtain a great deal of their energy. And that region will be seeking some new superpower patron.

CHARLIE ROSE: It is clear as they put this emphasis -- emphasis -- and I was just there, on peaceful development. I mean, every other word out of every other Chinese mouth is "development, development, development, development." And that`s what they`re talking about in terms of -- because they believe it enables them, with development, to have the kind of status they want in the world, and B, it enables them to deal with their internal problems, having to do with poverty, urban-rural as well as the environment.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: I think that`s true. And I think the Chinese, I don`t think, look out at the world and want to overturn the system.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: They have profited greatly by the system, since 1978 when they focused on their economic program. And I believe they`re gradually realizing that they`re dependent on the system that, as they run out of energy, for example, they have to reach out to foreign sources for energy, for raw materials. They have to reach out to the world for markets. They have to export. They have to maintain full employment. They`ve got a terrible population problem. So they need a stable world, in a way. Who is the guarantor, if there is one, of a more stable world? It`s the United States. So I don`t -- I don`t think we have these fundamental issues. We can`t make China a friend, but we can behave to make them an enemy. If we decide they are ...

CHARLIE ROSE: Right. Right.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: ... they will be one. But I don`t -- I don`t see anything ...

CHARLIE ROSE: It`s not what they naturally want to do.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: ... ordained that we`re going in that direction.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. Let me close with this one last question. If a new president comes to power in 2008, as he or she will, what ought to be the most important message that person can say in their inaugural address about America and the world?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: I think that we are a part of the world, that we want to cooperate with the world. We are not the dominant power in the world, that everyone falls in behind us. But we want to reach out and cooperate. After all, we`re the ones that set up the League of Nations the U.N., NATO. That`s the way we do business. That`s the way we want to do business. We want to work with friends, with allies, with people of good will, to make this a better world. That`s message.

ZBIGNIEWBRZEZINSKI: I think the next president should say to the world that the United States wants to be part of the solution to its problems and not, in part, the maker of their problems. And that the United States is prepared really to be engaged in the quest to get people in the world the dignities that they seek today, the social justice that they feel they`re deprived of, and the common solution to global problems. But secondly, I think the president has to say very credibly and forcefully to the American people that to do that, what I just said, the American people have to think hard about their definition of the meaning of the good life, that hedonistic, materialistic society of high levels of consumption, increasing social inequality is not a society that can be part of the solution of the world`s problems. And, therefore, the president has to project to the American people a sense of demanding idealism. Idealism which is not based in self-indulgence, but on self-denial and sacrifice, and on this such an America is going to be credible to the world.

HENRY KISSINGER: I think when the new president is inaugurated, we will have gone through two years of self-flagellation. And I think he would -- should step up there with some confidence and say here are problems we see in the world. We would like to listen to a lot of other countries about what they think should be done. He should not pretend that he has all the answers. I think an appeal to American idealism and willingness to sacrifice would be an important contribution, because what is happening now in many countries, not yet in the United States, but in many European countries, it`s the inability of government to ask for sacrifices of its people. But maybe there`s a lesson in what is happening in France, that the candidate who has the most demanding program, won with a surprising and overwhelming majority. And I think we have to transcend the current debate, and an effort should be made to achieve a bipartisan or nonpartisan consensus. And it should be a relatively short speech aimed at this objective. CHARLIE ROSE: There are a lot of subjects we did not cover here this evening. Obviously, we didn`t talk about Africa or Latin America, which are very important. We didn`t talk about energy and the green revolution, and we didn`t talk about global poverty and haves and have-nots, and rich and poor, the whole lot of other subjects we didn`t have time for. And perhaps we can reconvene and do that at some time. Brent Scowcroft Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger. On behalf of this audience, I thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
END

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2007 Charlie Rose Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2007 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user`s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Charlie Rose and Voxant, Inc., copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Kissinger accused over Chile plot
Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, 02:53 GMT 03:53 UK
http://web.archive.org/web/20010911221234/news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1536000/1536547.stm



Mr Kissinger has denied his involvement
A lawsuit has been filed against the former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger over his alleged role in the death of the former Chilean army commander, General Rene Schneider, in 1970.

The suit was filed in Washington by members of the general's family. They accuse Mr Kissinger of being involved in what they say was a US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plot to kill him.

General Schneider died after resisting a kidnapping attempt which, the family says, was part of a wider plot to prevent the Chilean Marxist leader, Salvador Allende, from becoming president.

Mr Kissinger has repeatedly denied any involvement in General Schneider's death.

The court action follows several requests by judges in Chile and Argentina judges to question Mr Kissinger over human rights abuses committed during the military regimes of the 1970s.

The BBC correspondent in Washington says the lawsuit stems from an investigation by a US television network, which claims that CIA communications contradict Mr Kissinger's version of events.

Conspiracy
General Schneider's family say the botched kidnapping attempt took place as part of a covert White House campaign to prevent Socialist Salvador Allende from becoming president.

Both Mr Kissinger and his boss, the then-president Richard Nixon, were heavily involved in backing anti-Allende factions in Chile, the indictment alleges.

The general was a key player in Chile at the time as he had provided crucial backing to Mr Allende after his narrow presidential election victory on 4 September 1970.

In an apparent attempt to remove Mr Allende's military support, coup plotters attempted to kidnap General Schneider, but shot him when he reached for his gun in self-defence.

He died two days after the attempt on 24 October 1970 in Santiago's Military Hospital.

'No connection'
Mr Kissinger, President Nixon's national security adviser at the time, and later secretary of state for both Mr Nixon and his successor, Gerald Ford, has always denied his involvement.

In 1975, a US Senate investigation established that America had indeed backed a coup which eventually brought down Mr Allende three years later, and set up the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.

However, Mr Kissinger testified before the Senate hearing that he cut off all support for the coup plotters the week before General Schneider was murdered.

A high-ranking State Department official referred to previously declassified documents about the situation in Chile during the 1960s and '70s, saying "the documents speak for themselves".

Read more here
http://web.archive.org/web/20010911221234/news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1536000/1536547.stm
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Hey look...

Jared Loughner, Alleged Shooter in Gabrielle Giffords Attack, Described by Classmate as "Left-Wing Pothead"
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php
By James King, Sat., Jan. 8 2011 @ 5:02PM


The writings are gibberish and have nothing to do with the assassination of a federal judge.

THERE IS NO INVESTIGATION EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THERE WERE AT LEAST 4 AND AS MANY AS 10 SHOOTERS.

3 shooters are being sought and no surveillance video is being released.

Just like Columbine, the media will use the Goebbles method of repeating lies over and over again.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Shooting suspect's nihilism rose with isolation
Posted: Jan 09, 2011 2:55 PM Updated: Jan 09, 2011 5:36 PM

By JUSTIN PRITCHARD
Associated Press

[...]

dabbled in conspiracy theories.

Mistrust of government was his defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system ("a New World Order currency" one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world.


On his YouTube page, he listed among his favorite books "Animal Farm" and "Brave New World" - two novels about how authorities control the masses. Other books he listed in the wide-ranging list included "Mein Kampf," ''The Communist Manifesto," ''Peter Pan" and Aesop's Fables.

Hey look...the author of this hit piece is a paranoid, delusional, batshit crazy, anti-government, conspiracy nut who actually thinks that corporations are poisoning us!



PHARMAWATER II
Fish, wildlife affected by drug contamination in water
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/pharmawater_site/day2_01.html
JUSTIN PRITCHARD
Associated Press Writers

LAKE MEAD, Nev. (AP) _ On this brisk, glittering morning, a flat-bottomed boat glides across the massive reservoir that provides Las Vegas its drinking water. An ominous rumble growls beneath the craft as its two long, electrified claws extend into the depths.  Moments later, dozens of stunned fish float to the surface.  Federal scientists scoop them up and transfer them into 50-quart Coleman ice chests for transport to a makeshift lab on the dusty lakeshore. Within the hour, the researchers will club the seven-pound common carps to death, draw their blood, snip out their gonads and pack them in aluminum foil and dry ice.  The specimens will be flown across the country to laboratories where aquatic toxicologists are studying what happens to fish that live in water contaminated with at least 13 different medications _ from over-the-counter pain killers to prescription antibiotics and mood stabilizers.  More often than not these days, the laboratory tests bring unwelcome results.  A five-month Associated Press investigation has determined that trace amounts of many of the pharmaceuticals we take to stay healthy are seeping into drinking water supplies, and a growing body of research indicates that this could harm humans.

McDonald's pulls 12M cadmium-tainted Shrek glasses
McDonald's recalls 12 million Shrek-themed drinking glasses containing cadmium in paint job
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/McDonalds-pulls-12M-apf-4164098491.html
Justin Pritchard, Associated Press Writer, On Friday June 4, 2010, 2:59 am EDT

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Cadmium has been discovered in the painted design on "Shrek"-themed drinking glasses being sold nationwide at McDonald's, forcing the burger giant to recall 12 million of the cheap U.S.-made collectibles while dramatically expanding contamination concerns about the toxic metal beyond imported children's jewelry.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Hey look, THE SECRET TEAM CIA book which used to be banned in the US is now available.

Go ahead and read up on how the CIA took over this country...

http://www.bilderberg.org/st/index.htm



THE SECRET TEAM

The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World


By L. FLETCHER PROUTY Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.)


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1 - THE SECRET TEAM
Chapter 1    -     The "Secret Team" - The Real Power Structure
Chapter 2    -     The Nature of Secret Team Activity: A Cuban Case Study

PART 2 - THE CIA: HOW IT RUNS
Chapter 3  - An Overview of the CIA
Section 1   -   Intelligence versus Secret Operations
Section Il    -   Origins of the Agency and the Seeds of Secret Operations
Section III    -   A Simple Coup d'Etat to a Global Mechanism
Chapter 4   -   From the Word of the Law to the Interpretation: President Kennedy Attempts to Put the CIA Under Control
Chapter 5   -   "Defense" as a National Military Philosophy, the Natural Prey of the Intelligence Community
Chapter 6   -   "It Shall Be the Duty of the Agency: to Advise, to Coordinate, to Correlate and Evaluate and Disseminate and to Perform Services of Common Concern..."
**   -   Coordination of Intelligence - the Major Assigned Role of the CIA
**   -   Correlation, Evaluation and Dissemination of Intelligence: Heart of the Profession
**   -   Services of Common Concern: An Attempt at Efficiency
Chapter 7   -   From the Pines of Maine to the Birches of Russia: The Nature of Clandestine Operations
Chapter 8    -   CIA: The "Cover Story" Intelligence Agency and the Real-Life Clandestine Operator
Chapter 9    -   The Coincidence of Crises
Chapter 10 The Dulles-Jackson-Correa Report in Action

PART 3 - THE CIA: HOW IT IS ORGANISED
Chapter 11    -   The Dulles Era Begins
Chapter 12    -   Personnel: The Chameleon Game
Chapter 13    -   Communications: The Web of the World
Chapter 14    -   Transportation: Anywhere in the World - Now
Chapter 15   -   Logistics by Miracle

PART 4 - THE CIA: SOME EXAMPLES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
Chapter 16    -   Cold War: The Pyrrhic Gambit
Chapter 17    -   Mission Astray, Soviet Gamesmanship
Chapter 18    -   Defense, Containment, and Anti-Communism
Chapter 19   -   The New Doctrine: Special Forces and the Penetration of the Mutual Security Program
Chapter 20    -   Krushchev's Challenge: The U-2 Dilemma
Chapter 21    -   Time of Covert Action: U-2 to the Kennedy Inaugural
Chapter 22    -   Camelot: From the Bay of Pigs to Dallas, Texas
Chapter 23   -   Five Presidents: "Nightmares We Inherited"
 
 
APPENDICES
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III

Bibliography



AUTHOR'S NOTE

After I had given the manuscript of the original draft of this book to my editor at Prentice- Hall, in 1972; and had received the galley proof of the first edition back from him, he called me to suggest that I keep it in a safe place at all times. He told me that his home had been broken into the night before, and he suspected it was an attempt to steal his copy of that galley proof. He said, "They didn't get it. It was under the seat of the Volkswagon."

A few days later a nationwide release by the well-known Washington columnist, Jack Anderson, appeared across the country, "Book Bares CIA's Dirty Tricks". In that column, Anderson reported that the CIA had contacted a well-known bookstore in Washington and asked one of the employees to see if he could get a copy of the galley from me, and agreed to pay him $500, if he did. I agreed to meet him at my home that evening.

I suspected his call, but invited him anyway. In the meantime I set up a tape recorder in the umbrella stand near my front door and arranged for it to turn on when I switched on the overhead on the front porch. With that arrangement, I recorded the whole visit including his final burst, "They promised me $500.00, if I got that galley proof." I took that tape to Anderson, and it was the basis of his March 6, 1973 column. The underground attack didn't quit there.

After excellent early sales of The Secret Team during which Prentice Hall printed three editions of the book, and it had received more than 100 favorable reviews, I was invited to meet Ian Ballantine, the founder of Ballantine Books. He told me that he liked the book and would publish 100,000 copies in paperback as soon as he could complete the deal with Prentice-Hall. Soon there were 100,000 paperbacks in bookstores all around the country.

Then one day a business associate in Seattle called to tell me that the bookstore next to his office building had had a window full of books the day before, and none the day of his call. They claimed they had never had the book. I called other associates around the country. I got the same story from all over the country. The paperback had vanished. At the same time I learned that Mr. Ballantine had sold his company. I travelled to New York to visit the new "Ballantine Books" president. He professed to know nothing about me, and my book. That was the end of that surge of publication. For some unknown reason Prentice-Hall was out of my book also. It became an extinct species.

Coincidental to that, I received a letter from a Member of Parliament in Canberra, Australia, who wrote that he had been in England recently visiting in the home of a friend who was a Member of the British Parliament. While there, he discovered The Secret Team on a coffee table and during odd hours had begun to read it.

Upon return to Canberra he sent his clerk to get him a copy of the book. Not finding it in the stores, the clerk had gone to the Customs Office where he learned that 3,500 copies of The Secret Team had arrived, and on that same date had been purchased by a Colonel from the Royal Australian Army. The book was dead everywhere.

The campaign to kill the book was nationwide and world-wide. It was removed from the Library of Congress and from College libraries as letters I received attested all too frequently.

That was twenty years ago. Today I have been asked to rewrite the book and bring it up to date. Those who have the book speak highly of it, and those who do not have it have been asking for it. With that incentive, I have begun from page one to bring it up to date and to provide information that I have learned since my first manuscript.

In the beginning, this book was based upon my unusual experience in the Pentagon during 1955-1964 and the concept of the book jtself was the outgrowth of a series of luncheon conversations, 1969-1970, with my friends Bob Myers, Publisher of the New Republic, Charlie Peters, founder of The Washington Monthly, and Ben Schemmer, editor and publisher of the Armed Forces Journal, and Derek Shearer. They were all experienced in the ways and games played in Washington, and they tagged my stories those of a "Secret Team." This idea grew and was polished during many subsequent luncheons.

After my retirement from the Air Force, 1964, I moved from an office in the Joint Chiefs of Staff area of the Pentagon to become Manager of the Branch Bank on the Concourse of that great building. This was an interesting move for many reasons, not the least of which was that it kept me in business and social contact with many of the men I had met and worked with during my nine years of Air Force duties in that building. It kept me up-to-date with the old "fun-and-games" gang.

After graduating from the Graduate School of Banking, University of Wisconsin, I transfered to a bank in Washington where in the course of business I met Ben Schemmer. He needed a loan that would enable him to acquire the old Armed Forces Journal. During that business process I met two of Ben's friends Bob Myers and Charlie Peters. We spent many most enjoyable business luncheons together. This is where "The Secret Team" emerged from a pattern of ideas to a manuscript.

As they heard my stories about my work with the CIA, and especially about the role of the military in support of the world-wide, clandestine operations of the CIA, they urged me to write about those fascinating nine years of a 23-year military career. During the Spring of 1970 I put an article together that we agreed to call "The Secret Team", and Charlie Peters published it in the May 1970 issue of The Washington Monthly.

Before I had seen the published article myself, two editors of major publishers in New York called me and asked for appointments. I met with both, and agreed to accept the offer to write a book of the same name, and same concept of The Secret Team from Bram Cavin, Senior Editor with Prentice-Hall.

After all but finishing the manuscript, with my inexperienced typing of some 440 pages, I sat down to a Sunday breakfast on June 13, 1971 and saw the headlines of the New York Times with its publication of the "purloined" Pentagon Papers. [Any reader of the "Pentagon Papers" should be warned that although they were commissioned on June 17, 1967, by the Secretary of Defense as "the history of United States involvement in Vietnam from World War II [Sept 2, 1945] to the present" [1968], they are unreliable, inaccurate and marred by serious omissions. They are a contrived history, at best, even though they were written by a selected Task Force under Pentagon leadership.]

One of the first excerpts from those papers was a TOP SECRET document that I had worked on in late 1963. Then I found more of the same. With that, I knew that I could vastly improve what I had been writing by making use of that hoard of classified material that "Daniel Ellsberg had left on the doorstep of the Times," and other papers. Up until that time I had deliberately avoided the use of some of my old records and copies of highly classified documents. The publication of the Pentagon Papers changed all that. They were now in the public domain. I decided to call my editor and tell him what we had with the "Pentagon Papers" and to ask for more time to re-write my manuscript. He agreed without hesitation. From that time on I began my "Doctorate" course in, a) book publishing and, b) book annihilation.

As we see, by some time in 1975 The Secret Team was extinct; but unlike the dinosaur and others, it did not even leave its footprints in the sands of time. There may be some forty to fifty thousand copies on private book shelves. A letter from a professor informed me that his department had ordered more than forty of the books to be kept on the shelves of his university library for assignment purposes. At the start of the new school year his students reported that the books were not on the shelves and the registry cards were not in the master file. The librarians informed them that the book did not exist.

With that letter in mind, I dropped into the Library of Congress to see if The Secret Team was on the shelves where I had seen it earlier. It was not, and it was not even in that library's master file. It is now an official non-book.

I was a writer whose book had been cancelled by a major publisher and a major paperback publisher under the persuasive hand of the CIA. Now, after more than twenty years the flames of censorship still sweep across the land. Despite that, here we go again with a new revised edition of The Secret Team.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
"The CIA in the NWO" -John Gannon, ANSER Institute of Homeland Security, Feb2000

The CIA in the New World Order:
Intelligence Challenges Through 2015
Remarks by John C. Gannon

Chairman, National Intelligence Council
to the
Smithsonian Associates’
"Campus on the Mall"
1 February 2000

http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/cia/2100CIA.pdf

Thank you for the warm introduction. I’m delighted to represent our Director, George Tenet, at the Smithsonian Associates’ "Campus on the Mall." This is an exceptional public education program that takes on today’s challenging issues in a creative and stimulating manner that is in keeping with benefactor James Smithson’s well-known commitment to what he called the "increase and diffusion of knowledge." I look forward after my remarks to your comments and questions, which, for me, is the "value added" of having to listen to myself talk.

When my former boss, Bob Gates, was here in 1992, he entitled his address, "The End of the Cold War: Where Do We Go From Here?" I actually had thought of calling mine, "Ten Years After the Cold War: Where Do We Go From Here?" Now, the typical Washington cynic would say that this just proves intelligence bureaucrats are notoriously slow in responding to change.

On this subject, I hear that a world-renowned geologist lectured here recently about some ancient rock formations in the American Mid-West. "It took over two hundred million years to complete this," he pointed out in one dramatic interlude. A member of the audience shouted, "Was that an Intelligence Community project?"

I am proud to say that the US Intelligence Community today is in much better shape than that. What we have learned in the eight years since Bob Gates stood here is that, absent the remarkably stable order of the Cold War world, global change is a constant. The answer to Bob’s question, "Where do we go from here?" will always be a work-in-progress requiring closer collaboration across the Intelligence Community, greater investment in technology and skills, and in fresh approaches to both analysis and collection. This recognition is at the heart of George Tenet’s strategic direction.

In fact, the world and the workplace of the CIA analyst have changed more in the past decade than in the previous 40 years of the Agency’s existence. The single strategic threat from the Soviet Union, a remarkably stable intelligence target throughout the Cold War, has gone and is not coming back. Threats to the United States today are more diverse and dispersed — distributed, if you will — and intelligence priorities shift continuously — presenting a tougher and enduring environment for both collection and analysis.

The post-Cold War challenge has been increased by the revolution in information technology and telecommunications, which has fundamentally transformed the globe we cover, the service we provide consumers, and the workplace in which we function. Information abounds. A lot of open-source material is relevant to our needs. Everybody is better informed. Intelligence requirements, as a result, tend to be sharper and more time sensitive. Everything moves faster! And Will Rogers’ advice still holds: "It isn’t good enough to be moving in the right direction. If you are not moving fast enough, you can still get run over!" Let me add some personal context to a discussion tonight that will often focus on technology. It was about fifteen years ago, when I was managing European analysts at CIA, that I began to see the impact of Mikhail Gorbachev’s too-little, too-late efforts to respond to the rapid—and, in his view, alarming—advance of technology in the West. He correctly saw the Soviet Union on the wrong side of a widening technological gulf. We were engaged in the final contest of the Cold War, during which Soviet and Western nuclear forces had the potential literally to annihilate the human race. Let me note, however, that we saw this awesome threat as attenuated by verifiable arms control agreements, by explicit nuclear doctrine that both sides had reasonable confidence would be observed, by the control of nuclear delivery systems by civilian and disciplined military forces, and by the existence of effective procedural and technical safeguards over the systems themselves.

So, what, in shorthand, will the picture look like over the next fifteen years? My one-sentence encapsulation would say the following:

"Globalization will provide mankind with the unprecedented opportunity to improve the quality of human life across the planet; but progress will be hampered by economic volatility, by the political and security implications of sharpening inequalities in income, and by the growing threat from multiple, relatively small-scale programs of weapons of mass destruction."

By contrast with the massive but arguably contained Soviet threat, we now face a serious challenge from lesser developed—and less disciplined—states , well-financed international terrorist groups, and powerful individuals with increasingly easy access to conventional explosives and to biological, chemical, and, to a lesser extent, nuclear weapons, along with the missile systems to deliver them. The bottom line is that these adversaries, who are often motivated by ideological rage or ethnic hatred, will have fewer and less powerful weapons than the Soviets, but are more likely to use them!


Tonight, I will try to describe the world as we see it evolving over the next 15 years, and I will attempt to assess the impact of all this on the intelligence business. I hope this broad approach will set the stage for the seven distinguished speakers who will follow me in this series on intelligence in the new world order. I assure you that these folks, many of them my colleagues and friends, will feel free to elaborate on any point I make or to disagree, if so inclined. There obviously is no single or simple response to the challenges we face. Some debate would be healthy! I will make four points:

First, a networked global economy will be a net contributor to increased political stability in the world. US national interests will increasingly be tied to our dependence on global networks that ensure the unrestricted flow of economic, political, and technical information, as well as people, goods, and capital—which, by the way, is my definition of "globalization." I recently read that an American electronics producer had put on a shipping label the following statement: "Made in one or more of the following countries: Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, or the Philippines. The exact country of origin is unknown." This, in fact, is not surprising when we appreciate the growing impact of a global economy driven by information technology. Today’s tough challenges, such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Serbia, may well be transformed tomorrow into opportunities for constructive engagement. But as a rule, in areas not effectively integrated into the world economy, disaffection will grow as both economic development and investment in people lag behind. Terrorism and weapons-of-mass-destruction programs will, to some degree, reflect such disaffection and pose threats to American citizens, soldiers, territory, allies, and global interests. "Bad actors" on the world stage, often motivated by ethnic hatred and revenge and with allegiance to no state, will increasingly have ready access to critical information, to technology, to finance, and to deception and denial practices. Little guys with less-than-state-of-the-art weapons will be able to do us harm!

Second, global change in the decades ahead will broaden our definition of "national security" and expand the US intelligence agenda in both the numbers and complexity of issues we cover. In 15 years, CIA will still be focused on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, narcotics, and organized crime. But newer issues, such as information operations and threats to our space systems, will command a growing amount of our time. And we will be engaged, even more than today, in covering regional conflicts, refugee crises, peacekeeping, humanitarian emergencies, environmental problems, global health issues, technological developments, and key economic trends. The fast-moving, broadly distributed threat environment is here to stay.

Third, technology will challenge us in every area of the intelligence business to be smarter, more agile, more responsive to the policymakers we serve, and more collaborative with experts, wherever they may be found – in academia, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The center of gravity for expertise on both Research & Development and many of the substantive issues we cover has shifted outside the Intelligence Community in recent years. We need to be out there to get it.

Fourth, the intelligence business is fundamentally about skills and expertise, and this means people—people in whom we will need to invest more to deal with the array of complex challenges we face over the next generation. This, you may know, is one of George Tenet’s highest priorities. No system or technology by itself will enable us to master the new threat environment that I am describing tonight or the glut of information we will face in the years ahead. We will need a skilled and expert workforce enabled by technology and armed with the best analytic tools. Now, getting to the meat of my remarks, let me summarize some of the preliminary research we are conducting in the National Intelligence Council, or NIC, which I am proud to chair. The NIC is a sort of Intelligence Community "think tank," staffed by senior experts, called National Intelligence Officers, who have regional specialties, such as Latin America and the Middle East, or functional specialties, such as global, economic or military issues. They produce authoritative National Intelligence Estimates, coordinated throughout the Intelligence Community, on issues of high stakes for US national security.

The work I am about to summarize, which involves extensive collaboration with experts in academia and the private sector, attempts to identify the drivers that will influence the world of 2015. We call it "Global Trends 2015," and it follows on a similar strategic study we completed in 1996. Now, some people think intelligence analysts are arrogant in the bold way they make assertions about the future. When we roll up our sleeves with outside experts, moreover, that image is enhanced. What follows is clearly and confidently stated, but the intent is to encourage, not curtail, debate. The Intelligence Community, to date, has no sources in God’s inner circle.

The first driver is global population trends. Despite substantial drops in fertility in some countries, the momentum of the existing population translates into an increase in the world’s population from 6 billion to around 7.2 billion by 2015. Ninety-five percent of this growth will be in developing countries. But population patterns will vary markedly in different regions of the world. Most population growth will occur in relatively low income, developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia, as well as in much of the Middle East. Much of this growth will occur in crowded and volatile cities.

In many developing countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, a "youth bulge" — the burgeoning number of people between ages 15 and 24— will strain educational systems, infrastructure, and job markets.

At the same time, the overall populations of many developing countries are gradually aging, as better primary health care and vaccinations for childhood disease have enabled most people to live to adulthood. Increasingly, the needs of older people will also impose economic demands and burdens on poor societies.
 
But not all developing countries will experience population growth. Despite fairly high birth rates, some countries in Africa, which are heavily affected by HIV/AIDS and associated diseases, such as tuberculosis, will have stable or even declining populations.

And Russia’s population is likely to shrink—perhaps substantially–– as a result of declining life expectancy, which is linked to poor health care, as well as declining birth rates.
 
Meanwhile, in the industrialized world, slow or negative population growth means that some governments, particularly in Europe, will have to deal with providing social welfare and health services to aging populations while labor forces—the people whose taxes help finance services—will shrink.

Additionally, "national security" in the industrialized world will rely on volunteer military forces, drawing from a shrinking or static pool of military-age men and women. Facing labor shortages, some industrialized countries will encourage immigration; thus voluntary migration will increase, often raising sensitive questions of citizenship and national or cultural identity. Some countries will discourage large flows of immigrant labor: both because of their effects on local wage and living standards and because of their challenge to national and social cohesion. They will prefer to substitute technology for labor or to outsource labor requirements overseas.

As the immigration question becomes increasingly salient in some countries, extremist politicians will play on fears of immigration, and tensions with immigrant populations—as well as their countries and cultures of origin—will grow. I don’t have to tell you how this works in today’s world, even in strong democracies.

Other diversity problems loom. Throughout the world, there are now more than 2,000 distinct ethnic and indigenous groups, which are minorities in the states in which they live. Countries with distinct ethnic or religious minorities which lack established traditions of political rights and civil liberties are likely to experience increased communal tensions, political instability and even conflict.

Ethnic or other communal tensions will persist in parts of Africa, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Southeastern Europe and parts of Indonesia, generating large flows of displaced people and spreading instability into neighboring countries.

Ethnic networks will mobilize expatriates and kindred groups in diasporas and fellow-believers to raise money, buy weapons and recruit fighters for their respective causes. By 2015, at least a few new ethnicity-based nation-states are likely to come into being.

As a sidebar to population trends, let me mention another issue—the growing threat from infectious diseases, a topic we covered in a recent National Intelligence Estimate that I have made available to this audience tonight. Fueled in part by migration, in addition to a number of other factors, some infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and malaria, are reemerging throughout the world in deadlier, drug-resistant forms.

Moreover, new infectious diseases are appearing: we estimate that at least 30 previously unknown diseases have appeared globally since 1973, including HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, Ebola hemorrhagic fever, and the encephalitis-related Nipah virus that emerged in Indonesia last summer. Many are still incurable.

Indeed, senior policymakers are becoming increasingly concerned about the implications of growing infectious disease threats for U.S. citizens at home and abroad, for US armed forces deployed overseas, and for countries and regions in which the United States has major interests.

Asia is likely to witness a major increase in infectious disease deaths, driven by the spread of HIV/AIDS, replacing Africa as the epicenter of the disease before 2015.

Eurasia and Europe will also see substantial increases in infectious diseases.

Moving on to a second global trend, the demand for food, water, and energy will increase over the next 15 years, while the uneven distribution of natural resources will persist in many developing countries. The good news is that world food stocks are projected to be sufficient to meet overall global needs by 2015. But despite promising technologies and liberalized trade, bottlenecks remain in the distribution of food. Thus, the problems of feeding the world’s poorest populations, as well as those affected by internal conflicts, will persist.

North Korea, in particular, will continue to risk nationwide famine—exacerbated by frequent natural disasters—until there are major regime and policy changes.

And famines will continue to occur in poor countries embroiled in internal conflicts, which are often accompanied by deliberate destruction of crops. Many of these countries—such as Sudan and Somalia—are also subject to frequent natural disasters.

Water is a big issue! Fresh water, while globally abundant, is scarce today in much of South Asia, northern China, the Middle East, and parts of Africa, and will become scarcer in the years ahead. As you may know, access to water is a critical issue in Israel’s treaty negotiations with both Syria and the Palestinians.

Experts at the Global Water Policy Project estimate that by 2025, 40 percent of the world’s population will live in countries that are "water stressed,"—a sixfold increase over 1995. These countries will be unable to provide sufficient water for agricultural, industrial, and household needs. The majority of those affected will live in Africa and South Asia.

Given such scarcities, there are serious risks of future "water wars" along several large rivers and seas.

At the same time, growing populations and increases in per capita income will drive the demand for more energy. By 2015, the world’s demand for oil will have grown by as much as 60 percent over present levels. Fortunately, this demand will not be difficult to meet. The oil deposits most economically exploited remain in the Persian Gulf region and Venezeula, with new areas coming online in the West African Basin and the Caspian Sea. The global shift to natural gas—with its fixed installations for fuel delivery––will establish long-lasting energy dependencies. Neighboring countries will become increasingly reliant upon natural gas supplies from Russia, Algeria, and Central Asia. Improvements in the efficiency of solar cells and batteries will result in greater use of these and other renewable energy resources, but they are unlikely significantly to affect global reliance on fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.

Now let me turn to the third major driver, economic growth. I’ve heard the cynical barb about economists who, when asked for a telephone number, can only give estimates. I am also aware that the global financial crisis of two years ago, in fact, surprised us all. Notwithstanding the uncertainty, we anticipate that accelerating global trade and the growing integration of capital markets will lead to at least modest real growth in world GDP and in per capita income. We expect world per capita income to increase at an average annual rate of at least 2 percent between now and 2015, but the rising tides will not lift all boats. Not every state will benefit equally, nor will every group within every state. Divisions between "haves" and "have-nots" will have political implications in some cases, such as the recent populist-inspired regime changes in two democratic countries to our south--Venezuela and Ecuador. This dichotomy between rich and poor is less likely to provoke mass unrest in more authoritarian systems in African and the Middle East, where populist dissidence is more likely to be crushed.

Output from countries now outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, which is today comprised of 29 industrialized countries, is likely to rise from 45 percent to around 60 percent of global GDP by 2015. Thus, global economic influence and power will spread from the current G-7 countries of North America, Europe, and Japan to a more multipolar global economic system in which Brazil, India, China, and South Korea will be economic centers.

Market liberalization and economic growth will ultimately benefit additional developing countries, but their inclusion in the global economy will be bumpy and slow. And countries with internal conflicts will fall further behind economically.

Market liberalization and economic growth will, over time, include more women in modern economic and mainstream social activity, although this process will lag in traditional Islamic societies.

Disparities within societies will increase in almost all countries.

The wealthy and well educated will get richer, while the poor will get poorer, with middle classes moving toward one or the other group.  In the globally wired world, the persistence of poverty amid wealth will become more striking. As uneven distribution of wealth becomes more visible, discontent will increase, particularly among the 600 million relatively poor urban dwellers in developing countries whose aspirations will exceed their economic prospects.

Volatility will be a major downside of global economic integration. All states will become more vulnerable to shocks and disruptions. These shocks could take several forms, including a major disruption in global energy markets stemming from political instability in the Persian Gulf; a major US stock market correction, which would have a significant impact on the world economy; or another major financial crisis in the developing world.

The fourth global trend is that scientific and technological developments will permeate every aspect of the global environment. The continued digital data and communications revolution will further shrink distances and weaken barriers to the flow of information.  Optical fiber and newer technologies will add enormous capacity for data transmission among nodes around the world. International affairs, in all its dimensions, will increasingly involve competition over control of information networks. The problem of "haves" versus "have-nots" may become a problem related to information as much as to economics. But information and technology will not be "owned" by a single country, nor can they be easily contained.

Information and communications technologies will continue to advance and diffuse rapidly, empowering individuals and groups of all kinds, with widespread but uneven economic, political, and social consequences. Communications technology will become so inexpensive that most countries will be able to connect to the global information infrastructure. Countries and groups with the requisite human capital, skill base, and infrastructure will benefit, enabling some groups to accelerate their entry into the global economy. But rigid and authoritarian governments—such as North Korea––that resist the flow of information associated with communications advances will fall further behind technologically, economically, and politically. The diffusion of information technology will create powerful synergies with other dynamic fields of science and technology.

The biological sciences will be increasingly important primarily for their potential applications to medicine and agriculture. Advances in basic biology have the potential to allow us to diagnose and cure diseases, but most biomedical advances will remain expensive, benefiting only those with the resources to access them, most of whom will live in developed countries. However important cutting-edge technologies may be over the next 15 years, applications and distribution of established technologies to new uses and markets will also have an immense impact. Examples range from using established technologies for development projects in Sub-Saharan Africa to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technologies throughout the world. The capability to purchase, copy, or steal existing technologies rather than developing new ones offers significant "catch-up" opportunities for less-developed countries and nonstate actors.

To cite a fifth trend, the relative power and influence of many nation-states will continue to erode over the next 15 years, while transnational networks of all kinds will almost certainly grow in number, economic power, and political significance.

Globalization and the permeability of borders to the flow of people, goods, and information are all combining to erode state sovereignty. The state’s power is shifting in three directions: outward to nonstate actors, downward to subnational and local levels of government, and upward, to a certain degree, to regional and international institutions and legal regimes.

The information technology revolution will allow widely dispersed but globally connected groups to communicate more freely, facilitating new transnational networks built around shared values and interests of all kinds. Nonstate actors will pose a much greater threat to the US homeland than ever before. Aided by technology, terrorist groups, criminal organizations, and narcotraffickers are expanding their operations and sometimes forming "alliances" of convenience. We are particularly concerned with the emergence of a new breed of terrorist has emerged that is skilled in conventional explosives, interested in weapons of mass destruction, and able to maintain international networks. Even small groups are using laptop computers, establishing Websites, becoming increasingly mobile, and using sophisticated encryption. And international crime and narcotics groups are using networks to organize criminal activities, including narcotics trafficking, illegal migration, and money-laundering.

In some countries, criminal networks will be better armed than the government and will be able to control portions of national territory. International businesses and financial institutions will play increasingly important roles in the world market economy and in broader society. At times, this will present problems for US national security policymakers, as US businesses, tightly integrated into national, regional, or even global economies, find their interests diverging from US policies. At the same time, nongovernmental organizations will continue to expand in sheer numbers, range of activity, and political clout. Although no widely accepted global count exists, worldwide, NGOs today may number "in the millions" if one includes the full range of organizations from large international groups to tiny village associations. These NGOs and other concerned groups and individuals will increasingly network to mount campaigns for or against social causes or political change. As you know, this already is happening today. On the positive side, NGOs can increase their effectiveness in responding to crises such as humanitarian emergencies. On the negative side, networking by extremist groups, such as neo-Nazis, can fuel social hostility. The "upward" shift of power from nation states to international legal regimes and international and regional organizations is evidenced by the role of supranational bodies such as: the European Community; international organizations, such as the World Health Organization and UNICEF, which provide resources that developing countries cannot or will not deliver; and intergovernmental forums which negotiate global norms on issues such, as trade, the environment, and human rights. In addition, a large body of international laws and treaties govern international commercial and financial transactions, international technical standards, global environment and health issues, and human rights. Whether international institutions and legal agreements will be capable of adequately addressing the complex transnational problems of the future is an open question.

The sixth trend points to a shift in power relationships and international alignments. The world currently has only one superpower, but it will not be a hegemon, as other states – principally the collective European Union, Japan, Russia, and China – try to shape the world of the future. Shifting power alliances will take place because of the increased economic and political power of Europe and East Asia and because of the potential for American internationalism to continue to wane over time. Power alignments are in great flux as key states undergo uncertain transitions:

European states—through a new EU military organization linked to NATO—will retain ties with the United States to ensure Washington’s nuclear umbrella and continued military presence in the region.

US ties with Japan and Korea may become more attenuated, but neither is likely to discard its American connections.

Russia’s claim to continued great power status rests almost entirely on nuclear weapons. Russia is likely to spend the next 15 years trying to restore its economy and struggling to reconcile the gap between its reduced capabilities and the continuing great power aspirations of many of its elites. I try to keep an open mind about Russia, but I am often reminded of the difference between the Russian optimist and the Russian pessimist. The pessimist says, "Things cannot possibly get any worse." The optimist replies, "Oh, yes they can!"

China is a rapidly modernizing country with growing economic strength and assertive national and regional interests. The direction China goes will be determined by its internal political and economic evolution.

Our best judgment, however, is that the risk of conflict among the great powers and the United States remains low. The most dangerous consequence of a return to multipolarity will be the reemergence of national rivalries within East Asia, and even within Europe, if American internationalism declines. Several regional powers in Asia and the Middle East—North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq––will continue to pursue regional agendas that collide with US interests. All these states are developing weapons of mass destruction and long- or medium-range ballistic missiles.

Such weapons will enable regional powers to do three things they otherwise might not be able to do against the United States: try to deter the United States by threatening to significantly damage an urban center of one of our allies; attempt to constrain US policy and military operations in a given region; and try to cause direct harm to the US homeland.

The seventh and final trend is the changing nature of warfare. The widespread consensus is that the United States will have no peer military competitor by 2015. But our military and technological prowess will not be enough to guarantee that our interests are protected.

Many countries and groups will try to blunt US military superiority in other ways — for example: by improving their capabilities relative to those of their neighbors, and by using asymmetric means, such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, instead of large conventional forces.

Terrorist incidents are likely to continue, at least at current levels, and may increase by 2015. Terrorists will be better armed with more sophisticated weaponry. Some groups are already pursuing chemical and biological weapons capabilities. In the future, terrorists will seek to cause more casualties per incident, the vast bulk of whom will be civilians. Because of the high cost involved in developing a nuclear capability, most countries or groups are unlikely to take the path followed by India and Pakistan, although we cannot rule this out. Instead, they probably will focus on chemical and biological weapons as more feasible and cost-effective ways to threaten their neighbors and to raise the potential costs of US or other outside involvement in their region. As you may know, last year the NIC published and declassified a National Intelligence Estimate on the worldwide ballistic missile threat.

We project that during the next 15 years the United States will face ICBM threats from Russia, China, and North Korea; we go on to project that the US probably will face an ICBM threat from Iran and possibly from Iraq.

We said that the arsenals of the new missile powers will be dramatically smaller, less reliable, and less accurate than those of Russia and China.

Nonetheless, the probability that a missile armed with chemical or biological weapons may be used against US forces or interests is higher today than during most of the Cold War. More nations now have longer range missiles and warheads armed with weapons of mass destruction. Although the majority of systems being developed and produced today are short- or medium-range ballistic missiles, North Korea’s Taepo Dong-1 in August 1998 demonstrated North Korea’s potential to cross the 5,500-km-range ICBM threshold. Other potentially hostile nations could cross that threshold during the next 15 years. Our potential adversaries are likely to conclude that the threat of using longer range missiles would complicate US decision-making during a crisis. Some of these systems may be sought principally for their political impact, while others may be built to perform more specific military missions.

The bottom line is that we could find that what some call a doctrine of "massive technological superiority" is limited in its applications and effectiveness today, just as was the doctrine of "massive nuclear retaliation" some years ago.

Viewing the world of 2015 as a whole, no country, no ideology, and no movement will emerge to threaten US interests on a global scale. Nonetheless, the regional agendas of some countries will collide with those of the United States, and the threat of terrorism directed against US interests —both at home and abroad — will remain.

The scenarios of the future world I have posited, by and large, are the most probable ones that matter today. We are realistic enough to understand, however, that in our business the only certainty is that there are no certainties. The world may well be a far more benign place than I have portrayed it. Economic growth may be more rapid. For example, the potential for globalviolence would decline if Middle East peace talks were successful; when Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and Fidel Castro depart the scene; or Iran reasserts itself as a responsible regional power. Alternatively, however, we could be in for a rockier ride than I have projected.

What if:
-Economic turmoil in Latin America deepens and spreads, sparking difficulties in other emerging markets and engulfing whole regions and countries?
-Russia takes a turn toward authoritarianism domestically and acts like a regional bully or, alternatively, drifts into anarchy and even fragmentation?
-China cannot peacefully resolve its differences with Taiwan?
-North Korea in an act of desperation marches south?
-Nuclear conflict occurs in South Asia?
-Greece and Turkey come to blows over Cyprus?
-An information warfare attack on the US grinds major sectors of the economy to a halt?
-Iran or an Arab state, perhaps with the assistance of others, gets "the bomb"?
-A failure of the Middle East peace process leads to another Palestinian intifada, and Jordan and Egypt are dragged into a conflict with Israel?
-Foreign terrorists foul water supplies in a major metropolitan area or pollute the air abroad with toxic chemicals?
-A government unfriendly to the United States makes a major technological breakthrough that has at least the potential to do major damage to US security interests?

Perspective

So what does all this mean for CIA and the Intelligence Community? First of all, it means that America will continue to need a robust intelligence service to help our policymakers make sense of the complex, fast-moving world that will confront them. Over the next several years, intelligence consumers will demand carefully targeted clandestine collection to support their programs and will want rigorous all-source analysis that integrates classified and unclassified information, that is tailored to rolling policy agendas, and that presents disinterested analytic judgments free of policy bias. In an environment of distributed threats and shifting priorities, this job will be harder than ever to do.

Second, it means that we will have to devote more effort to strategic work such as I have described tonight, so that we can better understand the dynamics of the fast-changing world in which intelligence will be operating. And we will need to work harder to make our strategic analysis relevant and useful, not just to consumers, but also to resource planners in the defense and collection communities. The high cost of collection systems—and the increasingly heavy demands on them—will require a more integrated approach among intelligence analysts and collectors in developing collection requirements, evaluation, and procurement processes. By the way, I regard what I just said as an understatement.

Third, it means that we must continue our efforts to apply greater rigor to our analytic work—using competitive analysis and state-of-the-art gaming techniques to quickly and fully weigh alternative outcomes, both in our long-term and current production. This will be an imperative in a fast-paced, distributed threat environment in which surprise will be frequent and response time often short.

Fourth, it means that we must see technology as a golden opportunity as well as a challenge in every area of our business—from operations and collection in the field, to protecting our own information systems, to analytic tools, to dissemination of analysis to consumers. Technology, in fact, is our only hope to deal with what otherwise will be a future of frenzy. To deal with our packed agenda, moreover, we cannot think of intelligence as a compartment, existing apart from the information world. We will continue to be the storied espionage business that steals secrets and protects sources. But more and more, we will be a modern "knowledge business" that skillfully integrates classified reporting with the best available unclassified information—with the latter becoming an increasingly larger piece of the pie.

Fifth, it means we will have to recruit, train, and deploy a work force with more specialized skills and expertise. We will have to develop stronger incentives and rewards to develop our people both as regional and technical specialists and, at the same time, as broad-gauged intelligence officers who know our business—and our Intelligence Community--end to end.

Sixth, and mercifully last, it means we will have to be more collaborative with experts outside the Intelligence Community, both to improve our analysis and to get the cutting-edge technology we need. Making a virtue of necessity, I am glad to say that we are well on our way to building the outside partnerships to do this.

Let me close by saying that, with all my talk of change tonight, the fundamental role of the intelligence officer in 2015 will be essentially what it is today: to anticipate and meet the needs of our consumers, who are the President and his senior national security advisers, cabinet heads, diplomats, law enforcement officers, and warfighters.

Former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft summed it up in a recent letter to the Washington Post: "The most difficult task the foreign affairs policymaker faces is making decisions in an environment of ambiguity and inadequate information.

The role of intelligence is to narrow the range of uncertainty within which a decision must be made. What really matters is not how well the Intelligence Community predicts particular events, but its ability to spot, track, and interpret trends and patterns."

My key point tonight is that to keep doing this in the world we see ahead, smart intelligence officers are going to have to train harder, run faster, and team up with players outside the Intelligence Community.

Let me stop here. I look forward to your questions and comments.

The CIA in the New World Order: Intelligence Challenges Through 2015

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/archives/2000/dci_speech_020200smithson.html
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Loughner, 911 conspiracy theorist
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2011, 06:50:34 AM »
US shooting suspect Jared Loughner was a cannabis-smoking loner with a "twisted" sense of humour and an obsession for conspiracy theories, friends have said.

Friends revealed that Loughner had developed an intense dislike for government officials and had nurtured a series of conspiracy theories.
He was conviced that the 9/11 attack was orchestrated by the US government, believed the mission to Mars was fake and described humans as "sheep".

Loughner also believed the US government was creating a unified monetary system - a "New World Order currency" - so that social elites could control the rest of the world.
On his YouTube page, he listed among his favorite books Animal Farm and Brave New World, two novels about how authorities control the masses.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Jared-Loughner-Profile-Six-Killed-In-Tucson-Arizona-And-Congresswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-Injured/Article/201101215889944?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15889944_Jared_Loughner_Profile%3A_Six_Killed_In_Tucson%2C_Arizona%2C_And_Congresswoman_Gabrielle_Giffords_Injured

Offline Vinyard

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
    • Make $500 on FaceBook
Re: Loughner, 911 conspiracy theorist
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2011, 07:21:11 AM »
Why am I not surprised? Curse you MSM, curse you!
" Some say they expect Illuminati take my body to sleep
N***** at the party with they shotties just as rowdy as me
Before I flee computer chips I gotta deal wit brothas flippin'
I don't see no Devils bleedin' only black blood drippin' "

Tupac Shakur

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Surprise...

Look at what Rothschild is trying to distract everyone from...



Re – The Biggest Political Scandal of the Past Decade:
John Wheeler was Situated at the Heart of NukeGate Under Bush, More Lockheed Ties

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/re-the-biggest-political-scandal-in-the-past-decade-john-wheeler-linked-to-lockheeds-nukegate
4th January 2011

For the full story, including a series of suspicious deaths related to NukeGate, see: “The Biggest Political Scandal of the Past Decade: Lockheed/Sandia, Bush’s State Dept., Pakistan’s Nuclear Smuggling & the Hidden Parapolitics of the Plame Scandal” By Alex Constantine
http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/lockheedsandia-pakistans-nuclear-black-market-and-the-hidden-parapolitics-of-the-valerie-plame-scandal


UPDATE:
John Wheeler’s death was the latest in a chain of suspicious deaths related to missing nukes

(though his interment in a Delaware garbage dump was a novelty):

SourceWatch: ” … [John Wheeler III]  left the Pentagon when Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates fired Wheeler’s boss, Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne, after the Air Force lost track of nuclear material. … ” - ”John P. Wheeler III, early supporter of Vietnam Memorial found dead in Delaware landfill,” Washington Post, January 4, 2011.

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-admin/post-new.php

The gory details:

The Nation
Air Force’s top leaders are ousted

The Defense secretary cites errors in caring for the nuclear arsenal. But experts see a more complicated dispute.
Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel | Times Staff Writers | June 06, 2008

WASHINGTON — In an unprecedented action in a time of war, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates simultaneously fired the civilian and military leaders of the Air Force on Thursday, saying that oversight standards for the U.S. nuclear arsenal had deteriorated on their watch.

The immediate reason for the requested resignations of Gen. T. Michael “Buzz” Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, and Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne was a report on the accidental shipment of nuclear triggers to Taiwan. However, the dismissals came amid a long-brewing dispute between Gates and the Air Force leadership.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/06/nation/na-airforce6

LOCKHEED

Sales of nuclear materials to Taiwan are consistent with the international black market described in my root post (the CIA even gave Iran blueprints for building nuclear bombs, according to James Risen of the New York Times). If Michael W. Wynn, Wheeler’s boss, oversaw security of nukes that went missing, a litmus test of involvement would be some solid connection to Lockheed … everywhere I’ve turned so far, there was Lockheed:

Government-Industry Revolving Door

” … Before his appointment to the Pentagon, [fired AF Secretary Michael Wynn]  was involved in venture capital, and worked for General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. Unlike the most senior civilian appointees at the Department of Defense such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, Wynne served in uniform in the United States military … ”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_W._Wynne

But Wynne wasn’t the only Pentagon officer with a Lockheed connection – Jack Wheeler had his own:

” … Wheeler … had called for … drastic reduction of funding to the primary contractor Lockheed-Martin. … ”

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread646571/pg4
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

worcesteradam

  • Guest
on radio it says this guy is gonna be in court on charges of murdering a federal employee.
i guess 'federal employees' need a different legal status from slaves, over there. And what about the other people he killed

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
on radio it says this guy is gonna be in court on charges of murdering a federal employee.
i guess 'federal employees' need a different legal status from slaves, over there. And what about the other people he killed

It means something different because of juristiction, it is explained here:



There is a lot of evidence that he went to the event to talk to Giffords about the insanity of the lapse of any border security.

Well lookie lookie lookie...

The Judge did not see a sign and stop by...he was called on the phone on Friday and told to meet her there. Why did the judge want to meet her?

BECAUSE HE WAS PISSED OFF AT DEALING WITH THE BATSHIT CRAZY CASELOADS DUE TO BORDER SECURITY INSANITY!



Judge's final actions key to federal charge for his murder
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0111/Judges_final_actions_key_to_federal_charge_for_his_murder.html
January 09, 2011


The actions and motivations of U.S. District Court Judge John Roll just before he was shot dead at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's campaign event in Tucson on Saturday are important for the public narrative about the tragedy, but they're also vital to the federal criminal charge for his murder.

The criminal complaint federal prosecutors filed Sunday against the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, goes to some lengths to demonstrate that Roll didn't show up at the Giffords event just to say hello to the congresswoman, or on some whim after attending mass, as reports Saturday suggested. That storyline was fueled by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who said "because [Roll] knows Gabrielle very well, [he] came around the corner to say hi. Unfortunately he was in the wrong place at the wrong time."

By contrast, FBI agent Tony Taylor argues that Roll was at the event to talk to Giffords about ongoing problems related to a surge in the federal judicial caseload in Arizona--a problem which the judge has attributed to a boost in the number of federal agents sent to the area to address immigration and border-related crime.

Under federal law, the murder or attempted murder of a U.S. official, such as a judge, is only considered a federal crime if committed "while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties." In other words, if Roll simply stopped by the event to greet Giffords, who he's said to have been friendly with, or due to idle curiosity about what was happening there, his killing probably wouldn't be a federal offense.

Prosecutors are so intent on showing that Roll was on official business that they rely on triple-hearsay to make the case in their complaint. Taylor says Giffords aide Ron Barber, who was seriously wounded in the attack, gave details about Roll's attendance at the event to Giffords's chief of staff Pia Carusone, who in turn told U.S. Marshal David Gonzales, who shared the info with Taylor. (Such hearsay probably wouldn't be permitted at a trial, but is fairly common in an agent's sworn decalation like the one filed Sunday.)

"Judge Roll attended the event and sought to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, and spoke with Mr. Barber about issues about the volume of federal cases in the District of Arizona; Judge Roll expressed his appreciation to Mr. Barber for the help and support Congresswoman Giffords had given," Taylor wrote, citing the triple-hearsay account. It's not clear if Roll ever talked to Giffords at the event Saturday.

Taylor also says Roll was told of the Giffords event by phone on Friday, knocking down the idea that he saw a sign or otherwise stumbled on the event on Saturday. And the FBI agent says video shows Roll "speaking for several minutes with Mr. Barber," which tends to suggest that the judge's visit wasn't purely social.

Of course, Roll's murder, like that of anyone killed at the event on Saturday, can also be prosecuted under state law. But it looks for now like the local prosecutors will take a back seat while the federal prosecution goes forward. The state can pursue its case after the feds are done. That is especially likely if the federal case were to end in a way some might consider unsatisfactory, such as an acquittal by reason of insanity or a sentence of life rather than the death penalty.

The presence or absence of the charge against Roll in the federal case probably won't make much difference in the punishment for Loughner stemming from the federal case. The killing of Giffords aide Gabriel Zimmerman would appear to make the federal case death penalty eligible, even if prosecutors have trouble proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Roll was "engaged in...official duties" at the time of his killing.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately