Dec 31, 2010
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Last week, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced he was set to publicly appeal to President Barack Obama to release Jonathon Pollard, a former US naval intelligence analyst, who is currently serving a life sentence in a US prison for spying for Israel. That call is backed by Lawrence Korb, a former US assistant secretary of defense, who says Pollard’s continued incarceration is “a miscarriage of justice.”
Korb characterizes Pollard’s wrongdoing as “minor” when, according to the US Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Pollard not only passed classified information to Israel, but also to South Africa and possibly to Pakistan. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, classified documents related to China were found in his home that had allegedly been used by his wife Anne to further her business interests.
If Obama decides to give in to pressure from America’s ally Israel and Pollard’s American friends in high places, what does this say about his administration’s bloodlust for WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange, a journalist who merely disseminated stolen material?
As usual, when it comes to Israel, there are gross double standards at play. It amazes me that the American people aren’t up in arms over Israel spies when their tax dollars go to support the Jewish state in terms of aid, loan guarantees and weapons.
For instance, post-Sept. 11, 2001, Carl Cameron of Fox News revealed that a large Israeli spy ring whose members purported to be art students were tracking the movements of Al-Qaeda operatives and knew that attacks were on the cards, but failed to share this information with US authorities. The US Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA all said Cameron was mistaken, and the “art students” were allowed to return to Israel.
Similarly, the five Israeli “removal men” who were videoing, cheering and high-fiving as the first plane hit the World Trade Center were taken into custody for a short time before being packed off back to Israel after their boss had already done a runner.
Then, in 2004, another espionage scandal broke concerning Lawrence Franklin, a mid-level Pentagon official working in the office of the US Secretary of Defense. Franklin was caught passing a presidential directive and other top secret documents on America’s Iran policy to two employees of the pro-Israel lobbying organization AIPAC. Franklin pleaded guilty to espionage, was sentenced to 13 years in jail, when lo and behold that sentenced was reduced to 10 months house arrest, while the two AIPAC officials were allowed to walk away scot-free.
I never cease to be incredulous at the international community’s passivity vis-à-vis Israeli spies and assassins who seem to have been given carte blanche to infiltrate anywhere they like and do their worst, including murder.
Israel rarely admits wrongdoing unless its hand is caught in the cookie jar. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, Israel’s incoming Mossad chief is set to apologize to Britain for his agency’s use of forged or cloned British passports, used by Israeli assassins to enter Dubai for the purpose of assassinating a Hamas commander Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, and he will promise that British passports will never be compromised in this fashion again.
In the event such an apology manifests, it is tantamount to an admission that the Israeli prime minister, who must sign-off on such deadly operations, has rubber-stamped an extra-judicial killing in another country. In most civil courts of law around the world if a person in authority is charged with authorizing an underling to commit murder and found guilty, he would probably be convicted or first degree murder or conspiracy to murder.
Yet, Cameron who is the prime minister of a democratic country that purports to be a world leader in justice, the rule of law and human rights, is not only happy to fraternize with someone like Netanyahu, he is trying to pass a bill into law that would allow alleged Israeli war criminals entering Britain immunity from prosecution on the grounds of “Universal Jurisdiction,” which the UK has previously championed.
If America is plagued with Israeli spy rings, just imagine how many Mossad operatives and spies are running around the Middle East. This week, AFP revealed that Tareq Abdul Razzak, a 37-year-old former Kung-Fu coach and owner of an import-export business in his homeland Egypt, has been spying for Israel since 2007 when he sent e-mails seeking opportunities in China. But instead of being contacted by Chinese businessmen, Abdul Razzak was approached by Israeli agents in Thailand who recruited him and financed his import-export company as a cover.
The Egyptian has now been arrested and is accused of supplying the Mossad with names of potential recruits employed in the telecommunications sectors within Egypt, Syria and Lebanon and of setting-up a website offering jobs in telecommunications so that he could make contact with potential new recruits. Since his arrest the traitor has been singing like a bird.
He says he is responsible for recruiting hundreds of Mossad agents and claims that Israeli intelligence sabotaged Egypt’s Internet network eighteen months ago causing a lengthy and almost total disruption of service. There is also a suggestion that he and his fellow Israeli spooks collected information about Japanese and Chinese tourists visiting Red Sea resorts so that their abductions could be orchestrated by Israeli agents presumably for the purposes of destroying Egypt’s tourism industry, which certainly makes one wonder about the sudden appearance of killer sharks off the Sinai Peninsula. His confessions, while in custody, have reportedly resulted in three Israeli spy rings being dismantled in Lebanon and Syria.
It seems to me that the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon set-up to investigate the assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri should be shut down. US diplomatic cables to be released by WikiLeaks will implicate the Mossad in the killing of a Lebanese military commander in Damascus as well as the murder of Al-Mabhouh in Dubai. Yet, by all accounts the tribunal is poised to point the finger at Hezbollah for cutting short Hariri’s life, although Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has provided evidence that Israel was tracking Hariri’s every movement at the time of his death. Oh, please!
Such willful myopia on the part of Western leaders, politicians, judges, not to mention public inertia toward their governments acting decisively against Israel’s criminal activities around the globe, is nothing short of disgusting and cowardly. When, oh when, will it end?
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Almond Growers Sue USDA to Halt Mandatory Chemical Fumigation of Raw Almonds
Sept 2008
by Mike Adams
http://www.naturalnews.com/024132.html
(NaturalNews) After having their organic almond businesses devastated by the USDA's bizarre decision requiring mandatory chemical fumigation of almonds, the almond industry is fighting back. Fifteen American almond growers have filed a lawsuit against the USDA in an attempt to repeal the requirements that all almonds grown in California be fumigated or pasteurized. (Virtually all almonds sold in the United States are grown in California.)
Since the USDA's ruling in 2007, organic almond growers in California have been economically devastated by the mandatory fumigation of almonds. Because USDA rules don't apply to almonds being imported from other countries, however, the industry has seen a huge shift away from U.S. growers and towards almond growers in Spain and other countries. Some American almond farmers have even called the USDA's decision "a plan to destroy the U.S. almond industry and put small organic farmers out of business."
The USDA's plot to deceive consumers over "raw"
The mandatory almond fumigation requirement is seen by health-conscious consumers as not merely bizarre, but downright fraudulent. That's because the USDA's regulations allow fumigated and pasteurized almonds to be labeled "raw," thereby intentionally deceiving the consuming public and instantly destroying consumer trust in the labeling of all almonds.
By any honest measure, the people making these decisions at the USDA can only be described as either idiotic or criminal. To enforce regulations requiring the intentional mislabeling of raw food seems more like the actions of a criminal racket than a government agency. While online pharmacies selling mislabeled pharmaceuticals are routinely raided and shut down by U.S. authorities, when the government itself engages in similar deceptions, it declares itself above the law and immune to prosecution.
This lawsuit by U.S. almonds growers aims to overturn the USDA's deception. These fraudulent actions on the part of the USDA have generated an enormous amount of criticism from the raw food community, whose members depend on almonds to make raw almond milk, raw almond "burgers" and other raw foods preparations. As leaders of the raw foods movement rightly insist, fumigating or pasteurizing nuts destroys as much as 90 percent of their original nutritional value, altering proteins and destroying disease-fighting phytonutrients. The USDA, however, remains remarkably illiterate on this topic, have never made a single statement acknowledging any qualitative difference between cooked foods and raw foods.
Is the USDA actually trying to destroy consumer health?
As the editor of NaturalNews.com, I find the USDA's ignorance on fundamental matters of nutrition to be nothing short of astonishing. As it is the U.S. government department responsible for much of the food supply, it should be on the leading edge of nutritional knowledge, not stuck in the 1950's, before scientists knew about plant enzymes and disease-fighting phytochemicals that are easily destroyed by heat or chemicals.
Notably, the USDA has also supported the FDA's plot to irradiate the U.S. food supply while intentionally misleading consumers over the fact that their foods have been irradiated. See my article, "FDA Plots to Mislead Consumers Over Irradiated Foods" at http://www.naturalnews.com/023956.html
My only explanation for the USDA's insistence that the U.S. food supply should be fumigated, irradiated and cooked to the point of nutrient destruction is that the USDA is pursuing a campaign of intentional nutrient depletion for the U.S. population. With Big Pharma now deciding key regulatory decisions of the U.S. government, the USDA's actions seemed designed to create a nation of health degenerates who will demand unprecedented levels of pharmaceutical "treatments" that enrich the drug companies.
If that sounds a little too conspiratorial, rest assured that U.S. corporations engage in conspiracies all the time: Conspiracies to hide negative drug studies, conspiracies to influence the USDA's Food Guide Pyramid to avoid saying things like "eat less meat," and conspiracies to ensnare consumers in an endless cycle of consumption, disease and debt.
In fact, most of what happens between government and private industry today is founded on conspiracy -- which simply means two people sitting in a room, plotting how to bilk consumers for the most profits.
Whether the USDA is openly conspiring to destroy the U.S. food supply -- or is merely run by bumbling idiots who are nutritionally illiterate -- is debatable. But the results of its actions are not. By destroying the healing qualities of fresh produce and nuts, the USDA is denying consumers access to the very plant-based nutrients that are just barely keeping people from developing full-blown cancer, diabetes and other serious medical conditions. As more and more fresh foods are destroyed by USDA regulations, our population will spiral downward into a state of degenerative disease and misery.
Why the USDA is more dangerous than terrorists
In doing so, the USDA will have accomplished what all the terrorists in the world could not do: Destroying the U.S. food supply and leaving its population to rot.
It is unimaginable to think that this could be happening accidentally. For government agencies like the USDA and FDA to put such policies into place, somebody at the top must be calling the shots. In other words, somebody wants to deny consumers access to raw food. They want everything to be dead, processed, fumigated, homogenized, pasteurized, irradiated or otherwise destroyed. This is most likely being pursued solely for corporate profits (a diseased population is not only easier to control, it also spends a lot more money on pharmaceuticals and medical services).
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: No nation that destroys the nutritive value of its food supply has any real future. If such policies are allowed to continue, you can kiss the United States of America goodbye. It will never survive the disease, death and financial bankruptcy that's sure to follow such assaults on its food supply.
That's why this lawsuit by California almond growers is so important: It may allow us to free almonds from the destructive designs of the USDA, restoring the integrity of this important source of nutrients.
Of course, suing the USDA is hardly the correct response to such terrorism assaults on our national food supply. If we actually lived in a country that sought to protect its population, the Pentagon would send a team of Navy Seals into the offices of the USDA (and the Almond Board of California) with flashbangs and assault rifles, and they'd arrest these criminals for their attempts to threaten the U.S. food supply. After sentencing, they could be shackled and lined up in a California park where consumers could throw -- what else? -- irradiated rotten tomatoes at them.
What follows is yesterday's press release on this issue from the Cornucopia Institute:
Almond Growers and Handlers File Federal Lawsuit - Seeking to End "Adulteration" of Raw Nuts
Lawsuit Would Halt Treatment of Almonds with Toxic Fumigant or Steam Heat
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A group of fifteen American almond growers and wholesale nut handlers filed a lawsuit in the Washington, D.C. federal court on Tuesday, September 9 seeking to repeal a controversial USDA-mandated treatment program for California-grown raw almonds.
The almond farmers and handlers contend that their businesses have been seriously damaged and their futures jeopardized by a requirement that raw almonds be treated with propylene oxide (a toxic fumigant recognized as a carcinogen by the EPA) or steam-heated before they can be sold to American consumers. Foreign-grown almonds are exempt from the treatment scheme and are rapidly displacing raw domestic nuts in the marketplace.
Tens of thousands of angry consumers have contacted the USDA to protest the compulsory almond treatment since the agency's new regulation went into effect one year ago. Some have expressed outrage that even though the nuts have been processed with a fumigant, or heat, they will still be labeled as "raw."
"The USDA's raw almond treatment mandate has been economically devastating to many family-scale and organic almond farmers in California," said Will Fantle, the research director for the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. Cornucopia has been working with almond farmers and handlers to address the negative impacts of the USDA rule, including the loss of markets to foreign nuts.
The USDA, in consultation with the Almond Board of California, invoked its treatment plan on September 1, 2007 alleging that it was a necessary food safety requirement. Salmonella-tainted almonds twice this decade caused outbreaks of food related illnesses. USDA investigators were never able to determine how salmonella bacteria somehow contaminated the raw almonds that caused the food illnesses but they were able to trace back one of the contaminations, in part, to the country's largest "factory farm," growing almonds and pistachios on over 9000 acres.
Instead of insisting that giant growers reduce risky practices, the USDA invoked a rule that requires the gassing or steam-heating of California raw almonds in a way that many consumers have found unacceptable.
"For those of us who are interested in eating fresh and wholesome food the USDA's plan, to protect the largest corporate agribusinesses against liability, amounts to the adulteration of our food supply," said Jill Richardson, a consumer activist and blogger at: www.lavidalocavore.org
"This ruling is a financial disaster and has closed a major customer group that we have built up over the years," said Dan Hyman, an almond grower and owner of D&S Ranches in Selma, CA. His almond business relies on direct sales to consumers over the internet. Hyman notes that his customers were never consulted by the USDA or the Almond Board before they were denied "a healthy whole natural raw food that they have eaten with confidence, enjoyment and benefit for decades."
The lawsuit contends that the USDA exceeded its authority, which is narrowly limited to regulating quality concerns in almonds such as dirt, appearance and mold. And even if the USDA sought to regulate bacterial contamination, the questionable expansion of its authority demanded a full evidentiary hearing and a producer referendum, to garner public input – neither of which were undertaken by the USDA.
"The fact that almond growers were not permitted to fully participate in developing and approving this rule undermines its legitimacy," said Ryan Miltner, the attorney representing the almond growers. "Rather than raising the level of income for farmers and providing handlers with orderly marketing conditions," added Miltner, "this particular regulation creates classes of economic winners and losers. That type of discriminatory economic segregation is anathema to the intended purpose of the federal marketing order system. "
Retailers of raw almonds have also been expressing their unhappiness, based on feedback from their customers, with the raw almond treatment rule. "We've been distributing almonds grown by family farmers in California for over 30 years and we regard them as the common heritage of the American people," said Dr. Jesse Schwartz, President of Living Tree Community Foods in Berkeley, CA. "We can think of no reply more fitting than to affirm our faith that ultimately the wisdom and good sense of the American people will prevail in this lawsuit."
Barth Anderson, Research & Development Coordinator for The Wedge, a Minneapolis-based grocery cooperative, noted that their mission has always been to support family farmers. "We weren't surprised when Wedge shoppers and members wrote nearly 500 individual letters expressing disapproval of the USDA's mandatory fumigation law for domestic almonds," Anderson said. "Our members especially did not like the idea that fumigated almonds could be called 'raw.'"
According to the USDA, there is no requirement for retailers to alert consumers to the toxic, propylene oxide fumigation or steam treatment applied to raw almonds from California.
"This rule is killing the California Organic Almond business," said Steve Koretoff, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and owner of Purity Organics located in Kerman, CA. "Because foreign almonds do not have to be pasteurized their price is going up while our price is going down because of the rule. It makes no sense." Koretoff added.
Two groups of consumers that have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the almond treatment rule are raw food enthusiasts and vegans. These consumers may obtain as much as 30% of their daily protein intake from raw almonds, after grinding them for flour and other uses. Studies exploring nutritional impacts following fumigant and steam treatment have yet to be publicly released. A Cornucopia Institute freedom of information request for the documents is awaiting a response from the USDA.
"We raw vegans believe raw foods, from non-animal sources, contains valuable nutrients – some not yet well-understood by scientists," stated Joan Levin, a retired attorney living in Chicago. "These nutrients can be destroyed by heat, radiation and toxic chemicals. We support the continued availability of fresh produce free of industrial age tampering," explained Levin.
Cornucopia's Fantle noted that the Washington, D.C. federal district court has already assigned the almond lawsuit a case number, beginning its move through the judicial system. "We believe this is a strong legal case and hope for a favorable decision in time to protect this year's almond harvest," Fantle said. Buzz up!170 votes
About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health author and technology pioneer with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NaturalNews email newsletters. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, Pilates and organic gardening. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org
by Mike Adams
http://www.naturalnews.com/024132.html
(NaturalNews) After having their organic almond businesses devastated by the USDA's bizarre decision requiring mandatory chemical fumigation of almonds, the almond industry is fighting back. Fifteen American almond growers have filed a lawsuit against the USDA in an attempt to repeal the requirements that all almonds grown in California be fumigated or pasteurized. (Virtually all almonds sold in the United States are grown in California.)
Since the USDA's ruling in 2007, organic almond growers in California have been economically devastated by the mandatory fumigation of almonds. Because USDA rules don't apply to almonds being imported from other countries, however, the industry has seen a huge shift away from U.S. growers and towards almond growers in Spain and other countries. Some American almond farmers have even called the USDA's decision "a plan to destroy the U.S. almond industry and put small organic farmers out of business."
The USDA's plot to deceive consumers over "raw"
The mandatory almond fumigation requirement is seen by health-conscious consumers as not merely bizarre, but downright fraudulent. That's because the USDA's regulations allow fumigated and pasteurized almonds to be labeled "raw," thereby intentionally deceiving the consuming public and instantly destroying consumer trust in the labeling of all almonds.
By any honest measure, the people making these decisions at the USDA can only be described as either idiotic or criminal. To enforce regulations requiring the intentional mislabeling of raw food seems more like the actions of a criminal racket than a government agency. While online pharmacies selling mislabeled pharmaceuticals are routinely raided and shut down by U.S. authorities, when the government itself engages in similar deceptions, it declares itself above the law and immune to prosecution.
This lawsuit by U.S. almonds growers aims to overturn the USDA's deception. These fraudulent actions on the part of the USDA have generated an enormous amount of criticism from the raw food community, whose members depend on almonds to make raw almond milk, raw almond "burgers" and other raw foods preparations. As leaders of the raw foods movement rightly insist, fumigating or pasteurizing nuts destroys as much as 90 percent of their original nutritional value, altering proteins and destroying disease-fighting phytonutrients. The USDA, however, remains remarkably illiterate on this topic, have never made a single statement acknowledging any qualitative difference between cooked foods and raw foods.
Is the USDA actually trying to destroy consumer health?
As the editor of NaturalNews.com, I find the USDA's ignorance on fundamental matters of nutrition to be nothing short of astonishing. As it is the U.S. government department responsible for much of the food supply, it should be on the leading edge of nutritional knowledge, not stuck in the 1950's, before scientists knew about plant enzymes and disease-fighting phytochemicals that are easily destroyed by heat or chemicals.
Notably, the USDA has also supported the FDA's plot to irradiate the U.S. food supply while intentionally misleading consumers over the fact that their foods have been irradiated. See my article, "FDA Plots to Mislead Consumers Over Irradiated Foods" at http://www.naturalnews.com/023956.html
My only explanation for the USDA's insistence that the U.S. food supply should be fumigated, irradiated and cooked to the point of nutrient destruction is that the USDA is pursuing a campaign of intentional nutrient depletion for the U.S. population. With Big Pharma now deciding key regulatory decisions of the U.S. government, the USDA's actions seemed designed to create a nation of health degenerates who will demand unprecedented levels of pharmaceutical "treatments" that enrich the drug companies.
If that sounds a little too conspiratorial, rest assured that U.S. corporations engage in conspiracies all the time: Conspiracies to hide negative drug studies, conspiracies to influence the USDA's Food Guide Pyramid to avoid saying things like "eat less meat," and conspiracies to ensnare consumers in an endless cycle of consumption, disease and debt.
In fact, most of what happens between government and private industry today is founded on conspiracy -- which simply means two people sitting in a room, plotting how to bilk consumers for the most profits.
Whether the USDA is openly conspiring to destroy the U.S. food supply -- or is merely run by bumbling idiots who are nutritionally illiterate -- is debatable. But the results of its actions are not. By destroying the healing qualities of fresh produce and nuts, the USDA is denying consumers access to the very plant-based nutrients that are just barely keeping people from developing full-blown cancer, diabetes and other serious medical conditions. As more and more fresh foods are destroyed by USDA regulations, our population will spiral downward into a state of degenerative disease and misery.
Why the USDA is more dangerous than terrorists
In doing so, the USDA will have accomplished what all the terrorists in the world could not do: Destroying the U.S. food supply and leaving its population to rot.
It is unimaginable to think that this could be happening accidentally. For government agencies like the USDA and FDA to put such policies into place, somebody at the top must be calling the shots. In other words, somebody wants to deny consumers access to raw food. They want everything to be dead, processed, fumigated, homogenized, pasteurized, irradiated or otherwise destroyed. This is most likely being pursued solely for corporate profits (a diseased population is not only easier to control, it also spends a lot more money on pharmaceuticals and medical services).
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: No nation that destroys the nutritive value of its food supply has any real future. If such policies are allowed to continue, you can kiss the United States of America goodbye. It will never survive the disease, death and financial bankruptcy that's sure to follow such assaults on its food supply.
That's why this lawsuit by California almond growers is so important: It may allow us to free almonds from the destructive designs of the USDA, restoring the integrity of this important source of nutrients.
Of course, suing the USDA is hardly the correct response to such terrorism assaults on our national food supply. If we actually lived in a country that sought to protect its population, the Pentagon would send a team of Navy Seals into the offices of the USDA (and the Almond Board of California) with flashbangs and assault rifles, and they'd arrest these criminals for their attempts to threaten the U.S. food supply. After sentencing, they could be shackled and lined up in a California park where consumers could throw -- what else? -- irradiated rotten tomatoes at them.
What follows is yesterday's press release on this issue from the Cornucopia Institute:
Almond Growers and Handlers File Federal Lawsuit - Seeking to End "Adulteration" of Raw Nuts
Lawsuit Would Halt Treatment of Almonds with Toxic Fumigant or Steam Heat
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A group of fifteen American almond growers and wholesale nut handlers filed a lawsuit in the Washington, D.C. federal court on Tuesday, September 9 seeking to repeal a controversial USDA-mandated treatment program for California-grown raw almonds.
The almond farmers and handlers contend that their businesses have been seriously damaged and their futures jeopardized by a requirement that raw almonds be treated with propylene oxide (a toxic fumigant recognized as a carcinogen by the EPA) or steam-heated before they can be sold to American consumers. Foreign-grown almonds are exempt from the treatment scheme and are rapidly displacing raw domestic nuts in the marketplace.
Tens of thousands of angry consumers have contacted the USDA to protest the compulsory almond treatment since the agency's new regulation went into effect one year ago. Some have expressed outrage that even though the nuts have been processed with a fumigant, or heat, they will still be labeled as "raw."
"The USDA's raw almond treatment mandate has been economically devastating to many family-scale and organic almond farmers in California," said Will Fantle, the research director for the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. Cornucopia has been working with almond farmers and handlers to address the negative impacts of the USDA rule, including the loss of markets to foreign nuts.
The USDA, in consultation with the Almond Board of California, invoked its treatment plan on September 1, 2007 alleging that it was a necessary food safety requirement. Salmonella-tainted almonds twice this decade caused outbreaks of food related illnesses. USDA investigators were never able to determine how salmonella bacteria somehow contaminated the raw almonds that caused the food illnesses but they were able to trace back one of the contaminations, in part, to the country's largest "factory farm," growing almonds and pistachios on over 9000 acres.
Instead of insisting that giant growers reduce risky practices, the USDA invoked a rule that requires the gassing or steam-heating of California raw almonds in a way that many consumers have found unacceptable.
"For those of us who are interested in eating fresh and wholesome food the USDA's plan, to protect the largest corporate agribusinesses against liability, amounts to the adulteration of our food supply," said Jill Richardson, a consumer activist and blogger at: www.lavidalocavore.org
"This ruling is a financial disaster and has closed a major customer group that we have built up over the years," said Dan Hyman, an almond grower and owner of D&S Ranches in Selma, CA. His almond business relies on direct sales to consumers over the internet. Hyman notes that his customers were never consulted by the USDA or the Almond Board before they were denied "a healthy whole natural raw food that they have eaten with confidence, enjoyment and benefit for decades."
The lawsuit contends that the USDA exceeded its authority, which is narrowly limited to regulating quality concerns in almonds such as dirt, appearance and mold. And even if the USDA sought to regulate bacterial contamination, the questionable expansion of its authority demanded a full evidentiary hearing and a producer referendum, to garner public input – neither of which were undertaken by the USDA.
"The fact that almond growers were not permitted to fully participate in developing and approving this rule undermines its legitimacy," said Ryan Miltner, the attorney representing the almond growers. "Rather than raising the level of income for farmers and providing handlers with orderly marketing conditions," added Miltner, "this particular regulation creates classes of economic winners and losers. That type of discriminatory economic segregation is anathema to the intended purpose of the federal marketing order system. "
Retailers of raw almonds have also been expressing their unhappiness, based on feedback from their customers, with the raw almond treatment rule. "We've been distributing almonds grown by family farmers in California for over 30 years and we regard them as the common heritage of the American people," said Dr. Jesse Schwartz, President of Living Tree Community Foods in Berkeley, CA. "We can think of no reply more fitting than to affirm our faith that ultimately the wisdom and good sense of the American people will prevail in this lawsuit."
Barth Anderson, Research & Development Coordinator for The Wedge, a Minneapolis-based grocery cooperative, noted that their mission has always been to support family farmers. "We weren't surprised when Wedge shoppers and members wrote nearly 500 individual letters expressing disapproval of the USDA's mandatory fumigation law for domestic almonds," Anderson said. "Our members especially did not like the idea that fumigated almonds could be called 'raw.'"
According to the USDA, there is no requirement for retailers to alert consumers to the toxic, propylene oxide fumigation or steam treatment applied to raw almonds from California.
"This rule is killing the California Organic Almond business," said Steve Koretoff, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and owner of Purity Organics located in Kerman, CA. "Because foreign almonds do not have to be pasteurized their price is going up while our price is going down because of the rule. It makes no sense." Koretoff added.
Two groups of consumers that have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the almond treatment rule are raw food enthusiasts and vegans. These consumers may obtain as much as 30% of their daily protein intake from raw almonds, after grinding them for flour and other uses. Studies exploring nutritional impacts following fumigant and steam treatment have yet to be publicly released. A Cornucopia Institute freedom of information request for the documents is awaiting a response from the USDA.
"We raw vegans believe raw foods, from non-animal sources, contains valuable nutrients – some not yet well-understood by scientists," stated Joan Levin, a retired attorney living in Chicago. "These nutrients can be destroyed by heat, radiation and toxic chemicals. We support the continued availability of fresh produce free of industrial age tampering," explained Levin.
Cornucopia's Fantle noted that the Washington, D.C. federal district court has already assigned the almond lawsuit a case number, beginning its move through the judicial system. "We believe this is a strong legal case and hope for a favorable decision in time to protect this year's almond harvest," Fantle said. Buzz up!170 votes
About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health author and technology pioneer with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NaturalNews email newsletters. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, Pilates and organic gardening. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Food safety bill invokes Codex harmonization and grants FDA authority to police food safety of foreign nations
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) Of all the talk about S.510, virtually no one has actually read the language in the bill -- especially not those lawmakers who voted for it. The more you read from this bill, the more surreal it all becomes. For example, did you know there's a global FDA power grab agenda hidden in the Food Safety Modernization Act? Keep reading and I'll quote text straight out of the bill itself.
Section 305 is entitled "BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOOD SAFETY" and it gives the FDA authority to set up offices in foreign countries and then dictate the food safety plans of foreign governments. It says, specifically, on page 217 of the bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...):
SEC. 308. FOREIGN OFFICES OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.
(a) IN GENERAL. - The Secretary shall establish offices of the Food and Drug Administration in foreign countries selected by the Secretary.
It then goes on to say:
(a) The Secretary shall, not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory food safety capacity of foreign governments, and their respective food industries, from which foods are exported to the United States.
Huh? The FDA is now going to run the food safety programs of foreign governments? Look out, world: I'm from the FDA and I'm here to help!
Homeland Security and U.S. Treasury also involved
So who is involved in creating this? Believe it or not, the global "food safety" plan is to be developed under consultation to the Department of Homeland Security as well as the U.S. Treasury. As the bill states:
(b) Consultation - In developing the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Commerce, representatives of the food industry, appropriate foreign government officials, nongovernmental organizations that represent the interests of consumers, and other stakeholders.
You might reasonably wonder "What does the Department of Homeland Security have to do with the FDA's food safety plan?" Or "Why is the U.S. Treasury involved in the food supply?" Learn more about the Federal Reserve and you'll have the answers to these questions. I don't have space for all the details here, but read Ed Griffin's book and visit http://www.realityzone.com if you really want to know what's behind a lot of this.
Codex harmonization, data sharing and more
So what does this global food safety plan actually entail? It's all spelled out right in the language of the law. You can view this yourself on page 195 of the bill text in the PDF file at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...
(c) Plan - The plan developed under subsection (a) shall include, as appropriate, the following:
• "Provisions for secure electronic data sharing."
This is so that the FDA can electronically track and monitor the food production activities of foreign nations. That way, if somebody in Spain tries to sell raw almonds to the USA, the FDA can make sure those almonds get irradiated or fumigated with chemicals first. Because raw almonds are so dangerous they have actually been outlawed in America (http://www.naturalnews.com/021776.html).
• "Training of foreign governments and food producers on United States requirements for safe food."
This is designed to shove the FDA's "dead food" agenda down the throats of other nations. The FDA, you see, believes that the only safe food is dead food -- that's why, along with the USDA, they have declared war on raw milk, raw almonds and many raw vegetables (http://www.naturalnews.com/023015_f...).
Now, with this law, the FDA will begin pushing its dead foods agenda globally, essentially exporting the FDA's agenda of death and disease by making sure other nations destroy the nutritive qualities of their food supply in the same way the U.S. is doing. It's all great for the global Big Pharma profiteers, of course. The more disease they can spread around the world, the more money they'll make from selling medications.
Codex Alimentarius is also promoted in the bill
The "Plan" described in this bill continues with the following:
• "Recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius."
This is included so that the FDA will "harmonize" the U.S. food and dietary supplement industries with global Codex requirements which outlaw virtually all healthy doses of vitamins and minerals. Under full Codex "harmonization," America will be left with a dead food supply and the health food stores will be virtually stripped bare of dietary supplements. Selling vitamin D at a reasonable dose such as 4,000 IU per capsule will be criminalized and products will be seized and destroyed by FDA agents who recruit local law enforcement to bring in the firepower.
All this will, of course, ensure a diseased, nutritionally-deficient U.S. population. This actually seems to be the goal the FDA has been trying to achieve all along because the more diseased the population, the more money gets collected by Big Pharma for "treating" sick people with medication and chemotherapy.
It's all right in the bill!
The text mentioned in this article is taken straight from the bill itself. You can search for it at http://thomas.loc.gov by searching for "S.510" as the bill number.
It makes me wonder why some food book authors so wholeheartedly supported this bill. Why were so many progressives on the left so enamored with this law? Didn't they realize this was a huge FDA power expansion that would destroy many small farms and put farmers out of business while subjecting the USA to possible Codex harmonization?
Did they even know the FDA is now on a global food-killing agenda that will seek to pasteurize, fumigate, cook or kill virtually every piece of food that enters the United States?
Did they not know that the bill does absolutely nothing to limit the use of chemical pesticides on imported food? According to the FDA's stance on all this, foods laced with DDT and other pesticides are perfectly "safe" for human consumption, but foods teeming with probiotics -- such as raw milk -- are deadly and dangerous! (Seriously...)
How is it that popular food book authors and food documentary producers could possibly support this bill? Do they also think small dairy farmers who sell raw milk should be criminalized? Do they agree with the Codex harmonization agenda? Do they think the FDA should run the world's food safety systems and that the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Treasury should be shaping our global food safety agenda?
You really just have to shake your head and wonder about the true intentions of some people. I just have to ask: Were the supporters of this bill really so naive that they could somehow believe the FDA would actually seek to protect small, local organic farms? What about raw milk producers? What about the single-family farms that must now apply to the FDA for exemption status by authoring research reports, collecting tax returns and producing a pile of documentation the FDA will soon require?
Let me just say it bluntly: The Food Safety Modernization Act is the destroyer of local organic farming. It will gut small farms and local farms, greatly increasing the price of local organic food while decreasing America's food security. Farmers' Markets will be targeted by FDA agents who raid the operations of local farmers and imprison them for not having the right paperwork. Families will be destroyed, and those who have been successful at local food production will scale back their operations in a desperate effort to duck under the $500,000 / year rule (which can easily be surpassed by producing just ten acres of organic carrots, by the way).
The real agenda behind the bill
From another point of view, however, this bill is doing exactly what it was supposed to do: Destroy small farms, wipe out family farm operations, imprison raw milk producers and centralize food production in the hands of the big corporate food producers whose operations are steeped in pesticides and soil degradation.
This bill should have been called the "Big Agriculture Monopoly Act" because that's what it does. It will ensure that America's food supply will be controlled by Monsanto, DuPont and other agricultural giants who have been at odds with small organic farms for years.
The global food control agenda is a conspiracy, not a theory
It's all part of the global food control agenda that we now know to be 100% true based on the leaked Wikileaks cables which revealed that the U.S. government conspired to push GMOs into Europe and "create a retaliatory target list" for any nation that resisted GMOs (such as France). Read that full report right here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G...
Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the global GMO conspiracy is quite real. It's something that U.S. diplomats and government officials scheme on in order to appease their corporate masters in the agriculture industry. Now, with the Food Safety Modernization Act, this global conspiracy extends beyond GMOs and encompasses the global food supply, too.
It has become clear that U.S. lawmakers and bureaucrats will not stop until they have killed the entire global food supply, rendering living foods, raw foods and dietary supplements illegal or impossibly difficult to grow. You can thank your U.S. Congresspeople and Senators for all this, of course. In the end, every Senator in office today caved in and voted to pass this bill. You can also thank those who publicly promoted this bill even while having no real idea of the horrors they were supporting.
Such begins a new era of global food destruction headed by what can only be called the most dangerous government agency in North America: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If they do to your food what they've done to prescription drugs, annual food deaths will increase to over 100,000 a year.
Watch for the FDA to now set up enforcement offices in nations all around the world and start outlawing living foods on a global scale (if they can get away with it).
Also, watch for a new push for Codex harmonization which is a truly evil agenda to criminalize healing foods and nutritional supplements that prevent and even reverse chronic disease.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030863_food_safety_bill_Codex_Alimentarius.html#ixzz19Wjcz0B2
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) Of all the talk about S.510, virtually no one has actually read the language in the bill -- especially not those lawmakers who voted for it. The more you read from this bill, the more surreal it all becomes. For example, did you know there's a global FDA power grab agenda hidden in the Food Safety Modernization Act? Keep reading and I'll quote text straight out of the bill itself.
Section 305 is entitled "BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOOD SAFETY" and it gives the FDA authority to set up offices in foreign countries and then dictate the food safety plans of foreign governments. It says, specifically, on page 217 of the bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...):
SEC. 308. FOREIGN OFFICES OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.
(a) IN GENERAL. - The Secretary shall establish offices of the Food and Drug Administration in foreign countries selected by the Secretary.
It then goes on to say:
(a) The Secretary shall, not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory food safety capacity of foreign governments, and their respective food industries, from which foods are exported to the United States.
Huh? The FDA is now going to run the food safety programs of foreign governments? Look out, world: I'm from the FDA and I'm here to help!
Homeland Security and U.S. Treasury also involved
So who is involved in creating this? Believe it or not, the global "food safety" plan is to be developed under consultation to the Department of Homeland Security as well as the U.S. Treasury. As the bill states:
(b) Consultation - In developing the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Commerce, representatives of the food industry, appropriate foreign government officials, nongovernmental organizations that represent the interests of consumers, and other stakeholders.
You might reasonably wonder "What does the Department of Homeland Security have to do with the FDA's food safety plan?" Or "Why is the U.S. Treasury involved in the food supply?" Learn more about the Federal Reserve and you'll have the answers to these questions. I don't have space for all the details here, but read Ed Griffin's book and visit http://www.realityzone.com if you really want to know what's behind a lot of this.
Codex harmonization, data sharing and more
So what does this global food safety plan actually entail? It's all spelled out right in the language of the law. You can view this yourself on page 195 of the bill text in the PDF file at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...
(c) Plan - The plan developed under subsection (a) shall include, as appropriate, the following:
• "Provisions for secure electronic data sharing."
This is so that the FDA can electronically track and monitor the food production activities of foreign nations. That way, if somebody in Spain tries to sell raw almonds to the USA, the FDA can make sure those almonds get irradiated or fumigated with chemicals first. Because raw almonds are so dangerous they have actually been outlawed in America (http://www.naturalnews.com/021776.html).
• "Training of foreign governments and food producers on United States requirements for safe food."
This is designed to shove the FDA's "dead food" agenda down the throats of other nations. The FDA, you see, believes that the only safe food is dead food -- that's why, along with the USDA, they have declared war on raw milk, raw almonds and many raw vegetables (http://www.naturalnews.com/023015_f...).
Now, with this law, the FDA will begin pushing its dead foods agenda globally, essentially exporting the FDA's agenda of death and disease by making sure other nations destroy the nutritive qualities of their food supply in the same way the U.S. is doing. It's all great for the global Big Pharma profiteers, of course. The more disease they can spread around the world, the more money they'll make from selling medications.
Codex Alimentarius is also promoted in the bill
The "Plan" described in this bill continues with the following:
• "Recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius."
This is included so that the FDA will "harmonize" the U.S. food and dietary supplement industries with global Codex requirements which outlaw virtually all healthy doses of vitamins and minerals. Under full Codex "harmonization," America will be left with a dead food supply and the health food stores will be virtually stripped bare of dietary supplements. Selling vitamin D at a reasonable dose such as 4,000 IU per capsule will be criminalized and products will be seized and destroyed by FDA agents who recruit local law enforcement to bring in the firepower.
All this will, of course, ensure a diseased, nutritionally-deficient U.S. population. This actually seems to be the goal the FDA has been trying to achieve all along because the more diseased the population, the more money gets collected by Big Pharma for "treating" sick people with medication and chemotherapy.
It's all right in the bill!
The text mentioned in this article is taken straight from the bill itself. You can search for it at http://thomas.loc.gov by searching for "S.510" as the bill number.
It makes me wonder why some food book authors so wholeheartedly supported this bill. Why were so many progressives on the left so enamored with this law? Didn't they realize this was a huge FDA power expansion that would destroy many small farms and put farmers out of business while subjecting the USA to possible Codex harmonization?
Did they even know the FDA is now on a global food-killing agenda that will seek to pasteurize, fumigate, cook or kill virtually every piece of food that enters the United States?
Did they not know that the bill does absolutely nothing to limit the use of chemical pesticides on imported food? According to the FDA's stance on all this, foods laced with DDT and other pesticides are perfectly "safe" for human consumption, but foods teeming with probiotics -- such as raw milk -- are deadly and dangerous! (Seriously...)
How is it that popular food book authors and food documentary producers could possibly support this bill? Do they also think small dairy farmers who sell raw milk should be criminalized? Do they agree with the Codex harmonization agenda? Do they think the FDA should run the world's food safety systems and that the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Treasury should be shaping our global food safety agenda?
You really just have to shake your head and wonder about the true intentions of some people. I just have to ask: Were the supporters of this bill really so naive that they could somehow believe the FDA would actually seek to protect small, local organic farms? What about raw milk producers? What about the single-family farms that must now apply to the FDA for exemption status by authoring research reports, collecting tax returns and producing a pile of documentation the FDA will soon require?
Let me just say it bluntly: The Food Safety Modernization Act is the destroyer of local organic farming. It will gut small farms and local farms, greatly increasing the price of local organic food while decreasing America's food security. Farmers' Markets will be targeted by FDA agents who raid the operations of local farmers and imprison them for not having the right paperwork. Families will be destroyed, and those who have been successful at local food production will scale back their operations in a desperate effort to duck under the $500,000 / year rule (which can easily be surpassed by producing just ten acres of organic carrots, by the way).
The real agenda behind the bill
From another point of view, however, this bill is doing exactly what it was supposed to do: Destroy small farms, wipe out family farm operations, imprison raw milk producers and centralize food production in the hands of the big corporate food producers whose operations are steeped in pesticides and soil degradation.
This bill should have been called the "Big Agriculture Monopoly Act" because that's what it does. It will ensure that America's food supply will be controlled by Monsanto, DuPont and other agricultural giants who have been at odds with small organic farms for years.
The global food control agenda is a conspiracy, not a theory
It's all part of the global food control agenda that we now know to be 100% true based on the leaked Wikileaks cables which revealed that the U.S. government conspired to push GMOs into Europe and "create a retaliatory target list" for any nation that resisted GMOs (such as France). Read that full report right here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G...
Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the global GMO conspiracy is quite real. It's something that U.S. diplomats and government officials scheme on in order to appease their corporate masters in the agriculture industry. Now, with the Food Safety Modernization Act, this global conspiracy extends beyond GMOs and encompasses the global food supply, too.
It has become clear that U.S. lawmakers and bureaucrats will not stop until they have killed the entire global food supply, rendering living foods, raw foods and dietary supplements illegal or impossibly difficult to grow. You can thank your U.S. Congresspeople and Senators for all this, of course. In the end, every Senator in office today caved in and voted to pass this bill. You can also thank those who publicly promoted this bill even while having no real idea of the horrors they were supporting.
Such begins a new era of global food destruction headed by what can only be called the most dangerous government agency in North America: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If they do to your food what they've done to prescription drugs, annual food deaths will increase to over 100,000 a year.
Watch for the FDA to now set up enforcement offices in nations all around the world and start outlawing living foods on a global scale (if they can get away with it).
Also, watch for a new push for Codex harmonization which is a truly evil agenda to criminalize healing foods and nutritional supplements that prevent and even reverse chronic disease.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030863_food_safety_bill_Codex_Alimentarius.html#ixzz19Wjcz0B2
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Is the NSA Conducting Electronic Warfare On Americans?
May 19, 2006 CHRONICLE ARTICLE
Jonas Holmes
Russ Tice, former NSA intelligence officer and current Whistleblower, was to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. Apparently the testimony, Mr. Tice wanted to give, makes General Hayden’s phone surveillance program look like very small potatoes. Mr. Tice’s testimony is expected to reveal further illegal activity overseen by General Michael Hayden which even loyal and patriotic NSA employees view as unlawful. I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them.IT’S PRETTY HARD TO BELIEVE, Tice said. I hope that they’ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn’t exist right now. According to Mr. Tice, what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg.What in the world could Russ Tice be talking about! To figure it out let us take a look at Russ Tice’s work at the NSA. According to the Washington Times and numerous other sources, Mr. Tice worked on special access programs related to electronic intelligence gathering while working for the NSA and DIA, where he took part in space systems communications, non-communications signals, electronic warfare, satellite control, telemetry, sensors, and special capability systems. Special Access Programs or SAPs refer to Black Budgets or Black Operations. Black means that they are covert and hidden from everyone except the participants.Feasibly there would be no arena with a greater potential for abuse and misuse than Special Access Programs. Even now Congress and the Justice Department are being denied the ability to investigate these programs because they don’t have clearance. To put it in CNN’s Jack Cafferty’s words a top secret government agency, the NSA, the largest of its kind in the world, is denying oversight or investigation by the American people because investigators lack clearance. To add a layer of irony to the Black Ops cake this travesty is occurring in America, the supposed bastion of Freedom and Democracy, which we are currently trying to export to Iraq.
It just gets scarier. The Black Ops that Mr. Tice was involved in related to electronic intelligence gathering via space systems communications, non-communications signals, electronic warfare, satellite control, telemetry, sensors, and special capability systems.For greater insight as to the impact of these programs readers should review decades old FOIA authenticated programs such as MKULTRA, BLUEBIRD, COINTELPRO and ARTICHOKE. Radar based Telemetry involves the ability to see through walls without thermal imaging. Electronic Warfare is even scarier if we take a look at the science. NSA Signals Intelligence Use of EMF Brain Stimulation. NSA Signals Intelligence uses EMF Brain Stimulation for Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Electronic Brain Link (EBL). EMF Brain Stimulation has been in development since the MKUltra program of the early 1950's, which included neurological research into "radiation" (non-ionizing EMF) and bioelectric research and development. The resulting secret technology is categorized at the National Security Archives as "Radiation Intelligence," defined as "information from unintentionally emanated electromagnetic waves in the environment, not including radioactivity or nuclear detonation." Signals Intelligence implemented and kept this technology secret in the same manner as other electronic warfare programs of the U.S. government. The NSA monitors available information about this technology and withholds scientific research from the public. There are also international intelligence agency agreements to keep this technology secret. The NSA has proprietary electronic equipment that analyzes electrical activity in humans from a distance. NSA computer-generated brain mapping can continuously monitor all the electrical activity in the brain continuously. The NSA records and decodes individual brain maps (of hundreds of thousands of persons) for national security purposes. EMF Brain Stimulation is also secretly used by the military for Brain-to-computer link. (In military fighter aircraft, for example.) For electronic surveillance purposes electrical activity in the speech center of the brain can be translated into the subject's verbal thoughts. RNM can send encoded signals to the brain's auditory cortex thus allowing audio communication direct to the brain (bypassing the ears). NSA operatives can use this to covertly debilitate subjects by simulating auditory hallucinations characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia. Without any contact with the subject, Remote Neural Monitoring can map out electrical activity from the visual cortex of a subject's brain and show images from the subject's brain on a video monitor. NSA operatives see what the surveillance subject's eyes are seeing. Visual memory can also be seen. RNM can send images direct to the visual cortex. bypassing the eyes and optic nerves. NSA operatives can use this to surreptitiously put images in a surveillance subject's brain while they are in R.E.M. sleep for brain-programming purposes. Individual citizens occasionally targeted for surveillance by independently operating NSA personnel NSA personnel can control the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the U.S. by using the NSA's domestic intelligence network and cover businesses. The operations independently run by them can sometimes go beyond the bounds of law. Long-term control and sabotage of tens of thousands of unwitting citizens by NSA operatives is likely to happen. NSA Domint has the ability to covertly assassinate U.S. citizens or run covert psychological control operations to cause subjects to be diagnosed with ill mental health. National Security Agency Signals Intelligence Electronic Brain Link Technology NSA SigInt can remotely detect, identify and monitor a person's bioelectric fields. The NSA's Signals Intelligence has the proprietary ability to remotely and non-invasively monitor information in the human brain by digitally decoding the evoked potentials in the 30-50 hz,.5 milliwatt electro-magnetic emissions from the brain. Neuronal activity in the brain creates a shifting electrical pattern that has a shifting magnetic flux. This magnetic flux puts out a constant 30-50 hz, .5 milliwatt electromagnetic (EMF) wave. Contained in the electromagnetic emission from the brain are spikes and patterns called "evoked potentials." Every thought, reaction, motor command, auditory event, and visual image in the brain has a corresponding "evoked potential" or set of "evoked potentials." The EMF emission from the brain can be decoded into the current thoughts, images and sounds in the subject's brain. NSA SigInt uses EMF-transmitted Brain Stimulation as a communications system to transmit information (as well as nervous system messages) to intelligence agents and also to transmit to the brains of covert operations subjects (on a non-perceptible level). EMF Brain Stimulation works by sending a complexly coded and pulsed electromagnetic signal to trigger evoked potentials (events) in the brain, thereby forming sound and visual images in the brain's neural circuits. EMF Brain Stimulation can also change a person's brain-states and affect motor control. Two-way Electronic Brain-Link is done by remotely monitoring neural audio-visual information while transmitting sound to the auditory cortex (bypassing the ears)and transmitting faint images to the visual cortex (bypassing the optic nerves and eyes, the images appear as floating 2-D screens in the brain). Two-Way Electronic Brain Link has become the ultimate communications system for CIA/NSA personnel. Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM, remotely monitoring bioelectric information in the human brain) has become the ultimate surveillance system. It is used by a limited number of agents in the U.S. Intelligence Community. RNM requires decoding the resonance frequency of each specific brain area. That frequency is then modulated in order to impose information in That specific brain area. The frequency to which the various brain areas respond varies from 3 Hz to 50 Hz. Only NSA Signals Intelligence modulates signals in this frequency band.
An example of EMF Brain Stimulation:
Brain Area Bioelectric ResonanceFrequency Information InducedThrough Modulation
Motor Control Cortex 10 HZ Motor Impulse Co-ordination
Auditory Cortex 15 HZ Sound which bypasses the ears
Visual Cortex 25 HZ Images in the brain, bypassing the eyes
Somatosensory Cortex 09 HZ Phantom Touch Sense
Thought Center 20 HZ Imposed Subconscious Thoughts
This modulated information can be put into the brain at varying intensities from subliminal to perceptible. Each person's brain has a unique set of bioelectric resonance/entrainment frequencies. Sending audio information to a person's brain at the frequency of another person's auditory cortex would result in that audio information not being perceived. Additionally, A 1994 congressional hearing reported that nearly half a million Americans were subjected to some kind of cold war era tests, often without being informed and without their consent.In addition, experimentation law is well grounded in constitutional and international law. It is an under-reported fact that two major reports on human rights and torture in the U.S. recently listed illegal radiation experiments. Many more facts are documented below. Therefore, human research subject protections should be a high priority and are just as significant as current issues of torture and illegal wiretapping. It is time for America to wake up. It is time for America to protect its Whistleblowers who are our last line of defense against dictatorship and despotism. It is time for America to take responsibility for oversight of its tax dollars and elect leaders who will assume such responsibility now. Yes, the war on terrorism is important. It is even more important and fearful if the terrorism is from within and unknowingly funded by hard working American citizens. There is no Special Access Program beyond the oversight of political leaders elected by the people and for the people. If these political leaders jeopardize national security then that shall be handled in a court of law. But to tell America, to tell the American people, to tell the political leaders elected by the American people that America does not deserve to know what happening in the NSA’s dark, black rooms, with billions of dollars, behind closed doors, when we know that privilege has already been abused; that is the true definition of terrorism. That is the true definition of Communism and a Police State, no oversight. So fellow Americans, you may hem and haw in the face of truth but know that one day you will realize that your country has been usurped from the very principles upon which it was founded.
Godspeed, Russ Tice, the Patriots are with you.
Former NSA intelligence agent Russell Tice condemns reports that the Agency has been engaged in eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants. Tice has volunteered to testify before Congress about illegal black ops programs at the NSA. Tice said, “The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.” [includes rush transcript]
We turn now to the growing controversy over President Bush’s decision to order the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens inside the country without the legally required court warrants. Bush’s decision was first revealed in the New York Times in mid-December. The Times published the expose after holding the story for more than a year under pressure from the White House. The paper reportedly first uncovered the illegal order prior to the 2004 election. When the editors at the Times decided last month to go ahead with the article, President Bush personally summoned the paper’s publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, and executive editor, Bill Keller, to the Oval Office in an attempt to talk them out of running the story. Since the story broke, calls for Congressional hearings and the possible impeachment of the president have intensified. Conservative legal experts have even admitted Bush may have committed an impeachable offense by ordering the NSA to break the law. On Sunday, the New York Times revealed there was dissent within the upper echelon of the Bush administration over the legality of the president’s order. According to the Times, Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top deputy, James Comey, refused to sign on to the continuation of the secret program in 2004 amid concerns about its legality and oversight. At the time, Comey was serving in place of then Attorney General John Ashcroft while Ashcroft was hospitalized for a medical condition. Comey’s refusal prompted senior Presidential aides Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales to visit Ashcroft in his hospital room to grant the approval. The Times reports Ashcroft expressed reluctance to sign on to the program. It is unclear if he eventually relented. Both Ashcroft and Comey’s concerns appear to have led to a temporary suspension of parts of the program for several months. But the administration has repeatedly defended its actions. • President Bush, speaking on Sunday: “If somebody from al-Qaeda is calling you, we’d like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people’s civil liberties as am I. This is is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America–and I repeat limited. It is limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But, they are of known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates. I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy is thinking. And that’s what we are doing. We’re at war with a bunch of cold blooded killers who will kill in a moment’s notice. I have a responsibility to act within the law which I am doing. The program has been reviewed constantly by Justice Department officials. A program to which the Congress has been briefed. A program that is in my judgment necessary to win this war and to protect the American people.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting that the NSA passed on records of intercepted email and phone calls to other government agencies including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. This news come on the heels of several other reports that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, military intelligence and local police departments have all been engaged in monitoring peaceful groups including Greenpeace, PETA–the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Catholic Worker, anti-war groups and even bicyclists in New York City. During the 1960s and 1970s, the military used NSA intercepts to maintain files on U.S. peace activists. It was this domestic surveillance that led Congress to intervene and pass Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 in order to prevent future such abuses. The statute permits domestic intelligence surveillance with the approval of a court order from the FISA court. In 1975, Senator Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho, said, “We have a particular obligation to examine the NSA, in light of its tremendous potential for abuse. . . . The interception of international communications signals sent through the air is the job of NSA; and, thanks to modern technological developments, it does its job very well. The danger lies in the ability of the NSA to turn its awesome technology against domestic communications.” Now Congress is considering holding a new round of hearings on Bush’s domestic spying program. A bipartisan group series of Senators have already issued their public support including several top Republicans including Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Two weeks ago, a former NSA intelligence officer publicly announced that he wants to testify before Congress. His name is Russell Tice. For the past two decades he has worked in the intelligence field both inside and outside government, most recently with the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. He was fired in May 2005 after he spoke out as a whistleblower. In his letter, Tice wrote, “It is with my oath as a US intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to Congress acts that I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.” • Russell Tice, former intelligence agent at the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. He worked at the NSA up until May 2005. Rush Transcript This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, More... AMY GOODMAN: This is President Bush speaking on Sunday.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I can say that if somebody from al-Qaeda is calling you, we’d like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people’s civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America. And I repeat: limited. And it’s limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But, they are of known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates. And I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy is thinking. And that’s what we are doing. We’re at war with a bunch of cold-blooded killers who will kill on a moment’s notice. And I have a responsibility, obviously, to act within the law, which I am doing. It’s a program has been reviewed constantly by Justice Department officials, a program to which the Congress has been briefed, and a program that is in my judgment necessary to win this war and to protect the American people.
AMY GOODMAN: That was President Bush speaking Sunday. Meanwhile, The Washington Post is reporting the N.S.A. passed on records of intercepted email and phone calls to other government agencies, including the F.B.I., the Defense Intelligence Agency, the C.I.A. and the Department of Homeland Security. This news comes on the heels of several other reports that the F.B.I.’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, military intelligence and local police departments have all been engaged in monitoring peaceful groups, including Greenpeace, PETA (the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), the Catholic Worker antiwar groups, and even cyclists in New York City. During the 1960s and 1970s, the military used N.S.A. intercepts to maintain files on U.S. peace activists. It was this domestic surveillance that led Congress to intervene and pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, in order to prevent future such abuses. The statute permits domestic intelligence surveillance with the approval of a court order from the FISA court. In 1975, Senator Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho, said, quote, “We have a particular obligation to examine the N.S.A. in light of its tremendous potential for abuse. The interception of international communications signals sent through the air is the job of N.S.A., and thanks to modern technological developments, it does its job very well. The danger lies in the ability of the N.S.A. to turn its awesome technology against domestic communications,” Church said. Congress is now considering holding a new round of hearings on Bush’s domestic spying program. A bipartisan group of senators have already issued their public support, including several top Republicans, including Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. This is Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: This warrant-less eavesdropping program is not authorized by the PATRIOT Act, it’s not authorized by any act of Congress, and it’s not overseen by any court. According to the reports it’s being conducted under a secret presidential order, based on secret legal opinions by the same Justice Department, lawyers, the same ones who argued secretly that the President could order the use of torture. Mr. President, it is time to have some checks and balances in this country. We are a democracy. We are a democracy. Let’s have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture, and on and on.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. Two weeks ago, a former N.S.A. intelligence officer publicly announced he wants to testify before Congress. His name is
Russell Tice. For the past two decades he has worked in the intelligence field, both inside and outside of government, most recently with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was fired in May 2005, after he spoke out as a whistleblower. In his letter, Tice wrote, quote, “It’s with my oath as a U.S. intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to Congress acts I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.” Russell Tice joins us now in our Washington studio. Welcome to Democracy Now! RUSSELL TICE: Good morning. AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. RUSSELL TICE: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: What made you decide to come forward? You worked for the top-secret agency of this government, one that is far larger and even more secret than the C.I.A. RUSSELL TICE: Well, the main reason is, you know, I’m involved with some certain aspects of the intelligence community, which are very closely held, and I believe I have seen some things that are illegal. Ultimately it’s Congress’s responsibility to conduct oversight in these things. I don’t see it happening. Another reason is there was a certain roadblock that was sort of lifted that allowed me to do this, and I can’t explain, but I will to Congress if allowed to. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the letter you have written to Congress, your request to testify? RUSSELL TICE: Well, it’s just a simple request under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which is a legal means to contact Congress and tell them that you believe that something has gone wrong in the intelligence community. AMY GOODMAN: Can you start off by talking overall? Since most people until recently, until this latest story of President Bush engaging in these wiretaps of American citizens, as well as foreign nationals in this country, perhaps hadn’t even heard of the N.S.A., can you just describe for us what is the National Security Agency? How does it monitor these communications? RUSSELL TICE: Well, the National Security Agency is an agency that deals with monitoring communications for the defense of the country. The charter basically says that the N.S.A. will deal with communications of—overseas. We’re not allowed to go after Americans, and I think ultimately that’s what the big fuss is now. But as far as the details of how N.S.A. does that, unfortunately, I’m not at liberty to say that. I don’t want to walk out of here and end up in an F.B.I. interrogation room. AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, you have worked for the National Security Agency. Can you talk about your response to the revelations that the Times, you know, revealed in—perhaps late, knowing the story well before the election, yet revealing it a few weeks ago—the revelation of the wiretapping of American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, as far as an intelligence officer, especially a SIGINT officer at N.S.A., we’re taught from very early on in our careers that you just do not do this. This is probably the number one commandment of the SIGINT Ten Commandments as a SIGINT officer. You will not spy on Americans. It is drilled into our head over and over and over again in security briefings, at least twice a year, where you ultimately have to sign a paper that says you have gotten the briefing. Everyone at N.S.A. who’s a SIGINT officer knows that you do not do this. Ultimately, so do the leaders of N.S.A., and apparently the leaders of N.S.A. have decided that they were just going to go against the tenets of something that’s a gospel to a SIGINT officer. AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Russell Tice. We will go to break and come back to him. He’s a former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked at the N.S.A. up until May of this past year, May of 2005. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We talk to Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency, formerly with the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked with the N.S.A. up until May 2005. Russell Tice, what happened then? What happened in May 2005? RUSSELL TICE: Well, basically I was given my walking papers and told I was no longer a federal employee. So— AMY GOODMAN: Why? RUSSELL TICE: Some time ago I had some concerns about a co-worker at D.I.A. who exhibited the classic signs of being involved in espionage, and I reported that and basically got blown off by the counterintelligence office at D.I.A. and kind of pushed the issue, because I continued to see a pattern of there being a problem. And once I got back to N.S.A., I pretty much dropped the issue, but there was a report that came across my desk in April of 2003 about two F.B.I. agents that were possibly passing secret counterintelligence information to a Chinese double agent, Katrina Leung, and I sent a secure message back to the D.I.A. counterintelligence officer, and I said I think the F.B.I. is incompetent, and the retaliation came down on me like a ton of bricks. AMY GOODMAN: What would you say to those who say you are speaking out now simply because you are disgruntled? RUSSELL TICE: Well, I guess that’s a valid argument. You know, I was fired. But, you know, I’ve kind of held my tongue for a long time now, and basically, you know, I have known these things have been going on for a while. The classification level of the stuff I deal with, basically what we call black world programs and operations, are very, very closely held. And you know, whether you think this is retaliation or not, I have something important to tell Congress, and I think they need to hear it. I’d like to think my motives aren’t retaliation, but, you know, after what I have been through, I can understand someone’s argument to think I have been jaded. AMY GOODMAN: What about the risks you take as a whistleblower? I wanted to play a clip of F.B.I. whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds. She was working for the F.B.I. after 9/11 as a translator, translating intercepts, and ultimately she lost her job. And I asked her if she was afraid of speaking out. SIBEL EDMONDS: There are times that I am afraid, but then again, I have to remind myself that this is my civic duty and this is for the country, because what they are doing by pushing this stuff under this blanket of secrecy, what they are hiding is against the public’s welfare and interest. And reminding that to myself just helps me, to a certain degree, overcome that fear.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Sibel Edmonds. Russell Tice, you are a member of her group, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. RUSSELL TICE: That, I am. National Security Whistleblower Coalition is basically put together of people who are in sort of the same boat that I am in, that have brought whistleblower concerns to the public or to their perspective chain of supervisors and have been retaliated against. And the intelligence community, all of the whistleblower protection laws are—pretty much exempt the intelligence community. So the intelligence community can put forth their lip service about, ‘Oh, yeah, we want you to put report waste fraud abuse,’ or ‘You shall report suspicions of espionage,’ but when they retaliate you for doing so, you pretty much have no recourse. I think a lot of people don’t realize that. And Sibel has basically started this organization to bring these sort of concerns out into the public and ultimately to get Congress to start passing some laws to protect folks that are going to be in a position to let the public or just, you know, to let Congress know that crimes are being committed. And that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a crime here. So, you know, all of this running around and looking for someone who dropped the dime on a crime is a whole lot different than something like the Valerie Plame case. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the Justice Department launching an investigation into the leak, who leaked the fact that President Bush was spying on American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, I think this is an attempt to make sure that no intelligence officer ever considers doing this. What was done to me was basically an attempt to tell other intelligence officers, ‘Hey, if you do something like this, if you do something to tick us off, we’re going to take your job from you, we’re gonna do some unpleasant things to you.’ So, right now, the atmosphere at N.S.A. and D.I.A., for that matter, is fear. The security services basically rule over the employees with fear, and people are afraid to come forward. People know if they come forward even in the legal means, like coming to Congress with a concern, your career is over. And that’s just the best scenario. There’s all sorts of other unfortunate things like, perhaps, if someone gets thrown in jail for either a witch-hunt or something trumping up charges or, you know, this guy who is basically reporting a crime. AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of the news that the National Security Agency spying on American citizens without a court order and foreign nationals is now sharing this information with other agencies like, well, the other agency you worked for, the Defense Intelligence Agency? RUSSELL TICE: Intelligence officers work with one another all the time. As an analyst, you might have a problem. Everybody gets together. It’s just common sense to find out what everybody knows, you know, come to a consensus as to what the answer is. It’s sort of like a puzzle, you know, chunks of the puzzle. And maybe you have a few chunks as a SIGINT officer, and the C.I.A. has a few chunks in their arena and D.I.A. has a few elements of it, and everybody gets together and does a little mind meld to try to figure out what’s going on. So it’s not unusual for the intelligence community to share information. But when we’re talking about information on the American public, which is a violation of the FISA law, then I think it’s even something more to be concerned about. AMY GOODMAN: Were you ever asked to engage in this? RUSSELL TICE: No, no, and if I did so, I did so unwittingly, which I have a feeling would be the case for many of the people involved in this. More than likely this was very closely held at the upper echelons at N.S.A., and mainly because these people knew—General Hayden, Bill Black, and probably the new one, Keith Alexander, they all knew this was illegal. So, you know, they kept it from the populace of N.S.A., because every N.S.A. officer certainly knows this is illegal. AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean if you did so, you did so unwittingly? RUSSELL TICE: Well, there are certain elements of the aspects of what is done where there are functionaries or technicians or analysts that are given information, and you just process that information. You don’t necessarily know the nitty gritty as to where the information came from or the—it’s called compartmentalization. It’s ironic, but you could be working on programs, and the very person sitting next to you is not cleared for the programs you’re working on, and they’re working on their own programs, and each person knows to keep their nose out of the other person’s business, because everything’s compartmentalized, and you’re only allowed to work on what you have a need to know to work on. AMY GOODMAN: What about the telecoms, the telecommunications corporations working with the Bush administration to open up a back door to eavesdropping, to wiretapping? RUSSELL TICE: If that was done and, you know, I use a big “if” here, and, remember, I can’t tell you what I know of how N.S.A. does its business, but I can use the wiggle words like “if” and scenarios that don’t incorporate specifics, but nonetheless, if U.S. gateways and junction points in the United States were used to siphon off information, I would think that the corporate executives of these companies need to be held accountable, as well, because they would certainly also know that what they’re doing is wrong and illegal. And if they have some sort of court order or some sort of paper or something signed from some government official, Congress needs to look at those papers and look at the bottom line and see whose signature is there. And these corporations know that this is illegal, as well. So everyone needs to be held accountable in this mess. AMY GOODMAN: When you come on board at these intelligence agencies, as at the National Security Agency, what are you told? I mean, were you aware of the Church hearings in the 1970s that went into the illegal spying on monitoring, of surveilling, of wiretapping of American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, that’s something that’s really not drummed in your head. That’s more of a history lesson, I think. And the reasoning, ultimately, for the FISA laws and for what’s called USSID 18, which is sort of the SIGINTer’s bible of how they conduct their business, but the law itself is drilled into your head, as well as the tenets of USSID 18, of which the number one commandment is ‘Thou shalt not spy on Americans.’ AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency, worked at the N.S.A. up until May of 2005. What is data mining? RUSSELL TICE: Data mining is a means by which you—you have information, and you go searching for all associated elements of that information in whatever sort of data banks or databases that you put together with information. So if you have a phone number and you want to associate it with, say, a terrorist or something, and you want to associate it with, you know, ‘Who is this terrorist talking to?’ you start doing data on what sort of information or what sort of numbers does that person call or the frequency of time, that sort of thing. And you start basically putting together a bubble chart of, you know, where everybody is. Lord help you if you’ve got a wrong phone call from one of these guys, a terrorist overseas or something, and you’re American. You’re liable to have the F.B.I. camping out your doorstep, apparently, from everything that’s going on. But it’s basically a way of searching all of the data that exists, and that’s things like credit card records and driver’s license, anything that you can get your hands on and try to associate it with some activity. I think if we were doing that overseas with known information, it would be a good thing if we’re pinning them down. But ultimately, when we’re using that on—if we’re using that with U.S. databases, then ultimately, once again, the American people are—their civil rights are being violated. AMY GOODMAN: Do you expect you are being monitored, surveilled, wiretapped right now? RUSSELL TICE: Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, in—you know, sometimes you just don’t know. And being, you know—what they’ve basically accused me of, I can’t just walk around thinking that everybody is looking at my heels and are following me around. But in one scenario I turned the tables on someone I thought was following me, and he ducked into a convenience store, and I just walked down there—and I saw him out of my peripheral vision—and I basically walked down to where he ducked into and in the store, I walked up behind him. He was buying a cup of coffee, and he had a on his hip and his F.B.I. badge. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on there. AMY GOODMAN: The National Security Agency, or I should say the United Nations Security Council, there was a scandal a year or two ago about the monitoring of the diplomats there. It was in the lead up to the invasion, the U.S. wanting to know and put pressure on these Security Council ambassadors to know what they were saying before any kind of vote. What is the difference between that kind of monitoring and the monitoring of American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, if the monitoring was done against foreigners and the monitoring was done overseas, as far as I know, that’s perfectly legal. It’s just a matter of who you are monitoring and where you’re doing the monitoring. If it’s done at home and they’re Americans, then you have a different scenario. And we’re all trained that, you know, hands off. If you inadvertently run across something like that in the conduct of what you’re doing, you immediately let someone know; if it’s involved in something being recorded, it’s immediately erased. So, you know, it’s something that we all know you just don’t do. Overseas, okay; here at home, not so okay. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play for you the clip that we ran of President Bush earlier and get your response. This is President Bush on Sunday. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I can say that if somebody from al-Qaeda is calling you, we’d like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people’s civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America. And I repeat: limited. And it’s limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But, they are of known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates. And I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy is thinking. And that’s what we are doing. We’re at war with a bunch of cold-blooded killers who will kill on a moment’s notice. And I have a responsibility, obviously, to act within the law, which I am doing. It’s a program has been reviewed constantly by Justice Department officials, a program to which the Congress has been briefed, and a program that is in my judgment necessary to win this war and to protect the American people. AMY GOODMAN: President Bush. Russell Tice, you’re with the National Security Agency, or you were until May 2005. If al-Qaeda’s calling, the U.S. government wants to know. Your response? RUSSELL TICE: Well, that’s probably a good thing to know. But that’s why we have a FISA court and FISA laws. The FISA court—it’s not very difficult to get something through a FISA court. I kinda liken the FISA court to a monkey with a rubber stamp. The monkey sees a name, the monkey sees a word justification with a block of information. It can’t read the block, but it just stamps “affirmed” on the block, and a banana chip rolls out, and then the next paper rolls in front of the monkey. When you have like 20,000 requests and only, I think, four were turned down, you can’t look at the FISA court as anything different. So, you have to ask yourself the question: Why would someone want to go around the FISA court in something like this? I would think the answer could be that this thing is a lot bigger than even the President has been told it is, and that ultimately a vacuum cleaner approach may have been used, in which case you don’t get names, and that’s ultimately why you wouldn’t go to the FISA court. And I think that’s something Congress needs to address. They need to find out exactly how this system was operated and ultimately determine whether this was indeed a very focused effort or whether this was a vacuum cleaner-type scenario. AMY GOODMAN: Did you support the President, Russell Tice? Did you vote for President Bush? RUSSELL TICE: I am a Republican. I voted for President Bush both in the last election and the first election where he was up for president. I’ve contributed to his campaign. I get a post—I mean, a Christmas card from the White House every year, I guess, because of my nominal contributions. But—so, you know, it’s not like, you know—I think you’re going to find a lot of folks that are in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community are apt to be on the conservative side of the fence. But nonetheless, we’re all taught that you don’t do something like this. And I’m certainly hoping that the President has been misled in what’s going on here and that the true crux of this problem is in the leadership of the intelligence community. AMY GOODMAN: You’re saying in the leadership of your own agency, the National Security Agency? RUSSELL TICE: That’s correct, yeah, because certainly General Alexander and General Hayden and Bill Black knew that this was illegal. AMY GOODMAN: But they clearly had to have authorization from above, and Bush is not contending that he did not know. RUSSELL TICE: Well, that’s true. But the question has to be asked: What did the President know? What was the President told about this? It’s just—there’s just too many variables out there that we don’t know yet. And, ultimately, I think Congress needs to find out those answers. If the President was fed a bill of goods in this matter, then that’s something that has to be addressed. Or if the President himself knew every aspect of what’s going on, if this was some sort of vacuum cleaner deal, then it is ultimately, I would think, the President himself that needs to be held responsible for what’s going on here. AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think should happen to him? RUSSELL TICE: Well, you know, it’s certainly not up to me, but I’ve heard all of the talk about impeachment and that sort of thing. You know, I saw our last president get impeached for what personally I thought should have been something between his wife and his family, and the big guy upstairs. It’s not up to me, but if the President knew, if this was a vacuum cleaner job and the President knew exactly what was going on—and ultimately what we’re hearing now is nothing but a cover-up and a whitewash—and we find that to be the case, then I think it should cause some dire consequences for even the President of the United States, if he indeed did know exactly what was going on and if it was a very large-scale, you know, suck-up-everything kind of operation. AMY GOODMAN: This investigation that the Justice Department has launched—it’s interesting that Alberto Gonzales is now Attorney General of the United States—the latest story of The New York Times: Gonzales, when he was White House Counsel, when Andrew Card, chief of staff, went to Ashcroft at his hospital bedside to get authorization for this. Can he be a disinterested party in investigating this now, as Attorney General himself? RUSSELL TICE: Yeah, I think that for anyone to say that the Attorney General is going to be totally unbiased about something like this, I think that’s silly. Of course, the answer is “No.” He can’t be unbiased in this. I think that a special prosecutor or something like that may have to be involved in something like this, otherwise we’re just liable to have a whitewash. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the term “police state”? RUSSELL TICE: Well, anytime where you have a situation where U.S. citizens are being arrested and thrown in jail with the key being thrown away, you know, potentially being sent overseas to be tortured, U.S. citizens being spied on, you know, and it doesn’t even go to the court that deals with these secret things, you know, I mean, think about it, you could have potentially somebody getting the wrong phone call from a terrorist and having him spirited away to some back-alley country to get the rubber hose treatment and who knows what else. I think that would kind of qualify as a police state, in my judgment. I certainly hope that Congress or somebody sort of does something about this, because, you know, for Americans just to say, ‘Oh, well, we have to do this because, you know, because of terrorism,’ you know, it’s the same argument that we used with communism years ago: take away your civil liberties, but use some threat that’s, you know, been out there for a long time. Terrorism has been there for—certainly before 9/11 we had terrorism problems, and I have a feeling it’s going to be around for quite some time after whatever we deem is a victory in what we’re doing now in the Middle East. But, you know, it’s just something that has to be addressed. We just can’t continue to see our civil liberties degraded. Ultimately, as Ben Franklin, I think, had said, you know, those who would give up their essential liberties for a little freedom deserve neither liberty or freedom, and I tend to agree with Ben Franklin. AMY GOODMAN: And your colleagues at the N.S.A. right now, their feelings, the National Security Agency? RUSSELL TICE: Boy, I think most folks at N.S.A. right now are just running scared. They have the security office hanging over their head, which has always been a bunch of vicious folks, and now they’ve got, you know, this potential witch hunt going on with the Attorney General. People in the intelligence community are afraid. They know that you can’t come forward. You have no protections as a whistleblower. These things need to be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean you have no protection? RUSSELL TICE: Well, like I said before, as a whistleblower, you’re not protected by the whistleblower laws that are out there. The intelligence community is exempt from the whistleblower protection laws. AMY GOODMAN: So why are you doing it? RUSSELL TICE: Well, ultimately, I don’t have to be afraid of losing my job, because I have already lost my job, so that’s one reason. The other reason is because I made an oath when I became an intelligence officer that I would protect the United States Constitution, not a president, not some classification, you know, for whatever, that ultimately I’m responsible to protect the Constitution of the United States. And I think that’s the same oath the President takes, for the most part. So, something like—imagine if something—if we were like, I don’t know, taking Americans and assassinating them for suspicions of suspicions of terrorism, and then we just put some classification on it and said, ‘Well, this is super top secret, so no one can say anything about that.’ Well, at what point do you draw the line and say enough is enough. We have to say something here. AMY GOODMAN: What was your classification? How high up was your clearance? RUSSELL TICE: Well, clearances go up to the top secret level. But once you get to the top secret level, there are many caveats and many programs and things that can happen beyond that point. I specialized in what’s known as black world operations and programs that are very closely held, things that happen in operations and programs in the intelligence community that are closely held, and for the most part these programs are very beneficial to ultimately getting information and protecting the American people. But in some cases, I think, classification levels at these special—we call them special access programs, SAPs—could be used to mask, basically, criminal wrongdoing. So I think that’s something ultimately Congress needs to address, as well, because from what I can see, there is not a whole lot of oversight when it comes to some of these deep black programs. AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, did you know anyone within the N.S.A. who refused to spy on Americans, who refused to follow orders? RUSSELL TICE: No. No, I do not. As far as—of course, I’m not witting of anyone that was told they will spy on an American. So, ultimately, when this was going on, I have a feeling it was closely held at some of the upper echelon levels. And you’ve got to understand, I was a worker bee. I was a guy that wrote the reports and did the analysis work and—you know, the detail guy. At some point, your reports have to get sent up up the line and then, you know, the management takes action at some point or another, but at my level, no, I was not involved in this. AMY GOODMAN: Has Congress responded to your letter offering to testify as a former employee of the National Security Agency? RUSSELL TICE: Not yet. Of course, the holidays—you know, we just had the holidays here, so everybody is out of town. I can’t condemn Congress too much yet, because I faxed it out on, I do believe, the 18th of December, and we’re just getting into the new year. AMY GOODMAN: And who did you send it to? RUSSELL TICE: I sent it to the chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, the SSCI and the HPSCI. AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Is there anything else that you would like to add? RUSSELL TICE: Well, I can’t think of a whole lot, except ultimately I think the American people need to be concerned about allegations that the intelligence community is spying on Americans. You know, one of my fears is that this would cause, just going into the N.S.A. and just tearing the place up and making the good work that’s being done at the N.S.A. ineffective, because the N.S.A. is very important to this country’s security. And I certainly hope that some bad apples, even if these bad apples were at the top of N.S.A., don’t ultimately destroy the capabilities of N.S.A.’s ability to do a good job protecting the American people. AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked for the N.S.A. up until May of last year. Thanks for joining us.
RUSSELL TICE: Thank you.
Link: http://www.mireilletorjman.com/.
Jonas Holmes
Russ Tice, former NSA intelligence officer and current Whistleblower, was to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. Apparently the testimony, Mr. Tice wanted to give, makes General Hayden’s phone surveillance program look like very small potatoes. Mr. Tice’s testimony is expected to reveal further illegal activity overseen by General Michael Hayden which even loyal and patriotic NSA employees view as unlawful. I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them.IT’S PRETTY HARD TO BELIEVE, Tice said. I hope that they’ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn’t exist right now. According to Mr. Tice, what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg.What in the world could Russ Tice be talking about! To figure it out let us take a look at Russ Tice’s work at the NSA. According to the Washington Times and numerous other sources, Mr. Tice worked on special access programs related to electronic intelligence gathering while working for the NSA and DIA, where he took part in space systems communications, non-communications signals, electronic warfare, satellite control, telemetry, sensors, and special capability systems. Special Access Programs or SAPs refer to Black Budgets or Black Operations. Black means that they are covert and hidden from everyone except the participants.Feasibly there would be no arena with a greater potential for abuse and misuse than Special Access Programs. Even now Congress and the Justice Department are being denied the ability to investigate these programs because they don’t have clearance. To put it in CNN’s Jack Cafferty’s words a top secret government agency, the NSA, the largest of its kind in the world, is denying oversight or investigation by the American people because investigators lack clearance. To add a layer of irony to the Black Ops cake this travesty is occurring in America, the supposed bastion of Freedom and Democracy, which we are currently trying to export to Iraq.
It just gets scarier. The Black Ops that Mr. Tice was involved in related to electronic intelligence gathering via space systems communications, non-communications signals, electronic warfare, satellite control, telemetry, sensors, and special capability systems.For greater insight as to the impact of these programs readers should review decades old FOIA authenticated programs such as MKULTRA, BLUEBIRD, COINTELPRO and ARTICHOKE. Radar based Telemetry involves the ability to see through walls without thermal imaging. Electronic Warfare is even scarier if we take a look at the science. NSA Signals Intelligence Use of EMF Brain Stimulation. NSA Signals Intelligence uses EMF Brain Stimulation for Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Electronic Brain Link (EBL). EMF Brain Stimulation has been in development since the MKUltra program of the early 1950's, which included neurological research into "radiation" (non-ionizing EMF) and bioelectric research and development. The resulting secret technology is categorized at the National Security Archives as "Radiation Intelligence," defined as "information from unintentionally emanated electromagnetic waves in the environment, not including radioactivity or nuclear detonation." Signals Intelligence implemented and kept this technology secret in the same manner as other electronic warfare programs of the U.S. government. The NSA monitors available information about this technology and withholds scientific research from the public. There are also international intelligence agency agreements to keep this technology secret. The NSA has proprietary electronic equipment that analyzes electrical activity in humans from a distance. NSA computer-generated brain mapping can continuously monitor all the electrical activity in the brain continuously. The NSA records and decodes individual brain maps (of hundreds of thousands of persons) for national security purposes. EMF Brain Stimulation is also secretly used by the military for Brain-to-computer link. (In military fighter aircraft, for example.) For electronic surveillance purposes electrical activity in the speech center of the brain can be translated into the subject's verbal thoughts. RNM can send encoded signals to the brain's auditory cortex thus allowing audio communication direct to the brain (bypassing the ears). NSA operatives can use this to covertly debilitate subjects by simulating auditory hallucinations characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia. Without any contact with the subject, Remote Neural Monitoring can map out electrical activity from the visual cortex of a subject's brain and show images from the subject's brain on a video monitor. NSA operatives see what the surveillance subject's eyes are seeing. Visual memory can also be seen. RNM can send images direct to the visual cortex. bypassing the eyes and optic nerves. NSA operatives can use this to surreptitiously put images in a surveillance subject's brain while they are in R.E.M. sleep for brain-programming purposes. Individual citizens occasionally targeted for surveillance by independently operating NSA personnel NSA personnel can control the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the U.S. by using the NSA's domestic intelligence network and cover businesses. The operations independently run by them can sometimes go beyond the bounds of law. Long-term control and sabotage of tens of thousands of unwitting citizens by NSA operatives is likely to happen. NSA Domint has the ability to covertly assassinate U.S. citizens or run covert psychological control operations to cause subjects to be diagnosed with ill mental health. National Security Agency Signals Intelligence Electronic Brain Link Technology NSA SigInt can remotely detect, identify and monitor a person's bioelectric fields. The NSA's Signals Intelligence has the proprietary ability to remotely and non-invasively monitor information in the human brain by digitally decoding the evoked potentials in the 30-50 hz,.5 milliwatt electro-magnetic emissions from the brain. Neuronal activity in the brain creates a shifting electrical pattern that has a shifting magnetic flux. This magnetic flux puts out a constant 30-50 hz, .5 milliwatt electromagnetic (EMF) wave. Contained in the electromagnetic emission from the brain are spikes and patterns called "evoked potentials." Every thought, reaction, motor command, auditory event, and visual image in the brain has a corresponding "evoked potential" or set of "evoked potentials." The EMF emission from the brain can be decoded into the current thoughts, images and sounds in the subject's brain. NSA SigInt uses EMF-transmitted Brain Stimulation as a communications system to transmit information (as well as nervous system messages) to intelligence agents and also to transmit to the brains of covert operations subjects (on a non-perceptible level). EMF Brain Stimulation works by sending a complexly coded and pulsed electromagnetic signal to trigger evoked potentials (events) in the brain, thereby forming sound and visual images in the brain's neural circuits. EMF Brain Stimulation can also change a person's brain-states and affect motor control. Two-way Electronic Brain-Link is done by remotely monitoring neural audio-visual information while transmitting sound to the auditory cortex (bypassing the ears)and transmitting faint images to the visual cortex (bypassing the optic nerves and eyes, the images appear as floating 2-D screens in the brain). Two-Way Electronic Brain Link has become the ultimate communications system for CIA/NSA personnel. Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM, remotely monitoring bioelectric information in the human brain) has become the ultimate surveillance system. It is used by a limited number of agents in the U.S. Intelligence Community. RNM requires decoding the resonance frequency of each specific brain area. That frequency is then modulated in order to impose information in That specific brain area. The frequency to which the various brain areas respond varies from 3 Hz to 50 Hz. Only NSA Signals Intelligence modulates signals in this frequency band.
An example of EMF Brain Stimulation:
Brain Area Bioelectric ResonanceFrequency Information InducedThrough Modulation
Motor Control Cortex 10 HZ Motor Impulse Co-ordination
Auditory Cortex 15 HZ Sound which bypasses the ears
Visual Cortex 25 HZ Images in the brain, bypassing the eyes
Somatosensory Cortex 09 HZ Phantom Touch Sense
Thought Center 20 HZ Imposed Subconscious Thoughts
This modulated information can be put into the brain at varying intensities from subliminal to perceptible. Each person's brain has a unique set of bioelectric resonance/entrainment frequencies. Sending audio information to a person's brain at the frequency of another person's auditory cortex would result in that audio information not being perceived. Additionally, A 1994 congressional hearing reported that nearly half a million Americans were subjected to some kind of cold war era tests, often without being informed and without their consent.In addition, experimentation law is well grounded in constitutional and international law. It is an under-reported fact that two major reports on human rights and torture in the U.S. recently listed illegal radiation experiments. Many more facts are documented below. Therefore, human research subject protections should be a high priority and are just as significant as current issues of torture and illegal wiretapping. It is time for America to wake up. It is time for America to protect its Whistleblowers who are our last line of defense against dictatorship and despotism. It is time for America to take responsibility for oversight of its tax dollars and elect leaders who will assume such responsibility now. Yes, the war on terrorism is important. It is even more important and fearful if the terrorism is from within and unknowingly funded by hard working American citizens. There is no Special Access Program beyond the oversight of political leaders elected by the people and for the people. If these political leaders jeopardize national security then that shall be handled in a court of law. But to tell America, to tell the American people, to tell the political leaders elected by the American people that America does not deserve to know what happening in the NSA’s dark, black rooms, with billions of dollars, behind closed doors, when we know that privilege has already been abused; that is the true definition of terrorism. That is the true definition of Communism and a Police State, no oversight. So fellow Americans, you may hem and haw in the face of truth but know that one day you will realize that your country has been usurped from the very principles upon which it was founded.
Godspeed, Russ Tice, the Patriots are with you.
Former NSA intelligence agent Russell Tice condemns reports that the Agency has been engaged in eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants. Tice has volunteered to testify before Congress about illegal black ops programs at the NSA. Tice said, “The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.” [includes rush transcript]
We turn now to the growing controversy over President Bush’s decision to order the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens inside the country without the legally required court warrants. Bush’s decision was first revealed in the New York Times in mid-December. The Times published the expose after holding the story for more than a year under pressure from the White House. The paper reportedly first uncovered the illegal order prior to the 2004 election. When the editors at the Times decided last month to go ahead with the article, President Bush personally summoned the paper’s publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, and executive editor, Bill Keller, to the Oval Office in an attempt to talk them out of running the story. Since the story broke, calls for Congressional hearings and the possible impeachment of the president have intensified. Conservative legal experts have even admitted Bush may have committed an impeachable offense by ordering the NSA to break the law. On Sunday, the New York Times revealed there was dissent within the upper echelon of the Bush administration over the legality of the president’s order. According to the Times, Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top deputy, James Comey, refused to sign on to the continuation of the secret program in 2004 amid concerns about its legality and oversight. At the time, Comey was serving in place of then Attorney General John Ashcroft while Ashcroft was hospitalized for a medical condition. Comey’s refusal prompted senior Presidential aides Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales to visit Ashcroft in his hospital room to grant the approval. The Times reports Ashcroft expressed reluctance to sign on to the program. It is unclear if he eventually relented. Both Ashcroft and Comey’s concerns appear to have led to a temporary suspension of parts of the program for several months. But the administration has repeatedly defended its actions. • President Bush, speaking on Sunday: “If somebody from al-Qaeda is calling you, we’d like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people’s civil liberties as am I. This is is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America–and I repeat limited. It is limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But, they are of known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates. I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy is thinking. And that’s what we are doing. We’re at war with a bunch of cold blooded killers who will kill in a moment’s notice. I have a responsibility to act within the law which I am doing. The program has been reviewed constantly by Justice Department officials. A program to which the Congress has been briefed. A program that is in my judgment necessary to win this war and to protect the American people.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting that the NSA passed on records of intercepted email and phone calls to other government agencies including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. This news come on the heels of several other reports that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, military intelligence and local police departments have all been engaged in monitoring peaceful groups including Greenpeace, PETA–the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Catholic Worker, anti-war groups and even bicyclists in New York City. During the 1960s and 1970s, the military used NSA intercepts to maintain files on U.S. peace activists. It was this domestic surveillance that led Congress to intervene and pass Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 in order to prevent future such abuses. The statute permits domestic intelligence surveillance with the approval of a court order from the FISA court. In 1975, Senator Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho, said, “We have a particular obligation to examine the NSA, in light of its tremendous potential for abuse. . . . The interception of international communications signals sent through the air is the job of NSA; and, thanks to modern technological developments, it does its job very well. The danger lies in the ability of the NSA to turn its awesome technology against domestic communications.” Now Congress is considering holding a new round of hearings on Bush’s domestic spying program. A bipartisan group series of Senators have already issued their public support including several top Republicans including Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Two weeks ago, a former NSA intelligence officer publicly announced that he wants to testify before Congress. His name is Russell Tice. For the past two decades he has worked in the intelligence field both inside and outside government, most recently with the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. He was fired in May 2005 after he spoke out as a whistleblower. In his letter, Tice wrote, “It is with my oath as a US intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to Congress acts that I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.” • Russell Tice, former intelligence agent at the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. He worked at the NSA up until May 2005. Rush Transcript This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, More... AMY GOODMAN: This is President Bush speaking on Sunday.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I can say that if somebody from al-Qaeda is calling you, we’d like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people’s civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America. And I repeat: limited. And it’s limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But, they are of known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates. And I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy is thinking. And that’s what we are doing. We’re at war with a bunch of cold-blooded killers who will kill on a moment’s notice. And I have a responsibility, obviously, to act within the law, which I am doing. It’s a program has been reviewed constantly by Justice Department officials, a program to which the Congress has been briefed, and a program that is in my judgment necessary to win this war and to protect the American people.
AMY GOODMAN: That was President Bush speaking Sunday. Meanwhile, The Washington Post is reporting the N.S.A. passed on records of intercepted email and phone calls to other government agencies, including the F.B.I., the Defense Intelligence Agency, the C.I.A. and the Department of Homeland Security. This news comes on the heels of several other reports that the F.B.I.’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, military intelligence and local police departments have all been engaged in monitoring peaceful groups, including Greenpeace, PETA (the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), the Catholic Worker antiwar groups, and even cyclists in New York City. During the 1960s and 1970s, the military used N.S.A. intercepts to maintain files on U.S. peace activists. It was this domestic surveillance that led Congress to intervene and pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, in order to prevent future such abuses. The statute permits domestic intelligence surveillance with the approval of a court order from the FISA court. In 1975, Senator Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho, said, quote, “We have a particular obligation to examine the N.S.A. in light of its tremendous potential for abuse. The interception of international communications signals sent through the air is the job of N.S.A., and thanks to modern technological developments, it does its job very well. The danger lies in the ability of the N.S.A. to turn its awesome technology against domestic communications,” Church said. Congress is now considering holding a new round of hearings on Bush’s domestic spying program. A bipartisan group of senators have already issued their public support, including several top Republicans, including Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. This is Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: This warrant-less eavesdropping program is not authorized by the PATRIOT Act, it’s not authorized by any act of Congress, and it’s not overseen by any court. According to the reports it’s being conducted under a secret presidential order, based on secret legal opinions by the same Justice Department, lawyers, the same ones who argued secretly that the President could order the use of torture. Mr. President, it is time to have some checks and balances in this country. We are a democracy. We are a democracy. Let’s have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture, and on and on.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. Two weeks ago, a former N.S.A. intelligence officer publicly announced he wants to testify before Congress. His name is
Russell Tice. For the past two decades he has worked in the intelligence field, both inside and outside of government, most recently with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was fired in May 2005, after he spoke out as a whistleblower. In his letter, Tice wrote, quote, “It’s with my oath as a U.S. intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to Congress acts I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.” Russell Tice joins us now in our Washington studio. Welcome to Democracy Now! RUSSELL TICE: Good morning. AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. RUSSELL TICE: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: What made you decide to come forward? You worked for the top-secret agency of this government, one that is far larger and even more secret than the C.I.A. RUSSELL TICE: Well, the main reason is, you know, I’m involved with some certain aspects of the intelligence community, which are very closely held, and I believe I have seen some things that are illegal. Ultimately it’s Congress’s responsibility to conduct oversight in these things. I don’t see it happening. Another reason is there was a certain roadblock that was sort of lifted that allowed me to do this, and I can’t explain, but I will to Congress if allowed to. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the letter you have written to Congress, your request to testify? RUSSELL TICE: Well, it’s just a simple request under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which is a legal means to contact Congress and tell them that you believe that something has gone wrong in the intelligence community. AMY GOODMAN: Can you start off by talking overall? Since most people until recently, until this latest story of President Bush engaging in these wiretaps of American citizens, as well as foreign nationals in this country, perhaps hadn’t even heard of the N.S.A., can you just describe for us what is the National Security Agency? How does it monitor these communications? RUSSELL TICE: Well, the National Security Agency is an agency that deals with monitoring communications for the defense of the country. The charter basically says that the N.S.A. will deal with communications of—overseas. We’re not allowed to go after Americans, and I think ultimately that’s what the big fuss is now. But as far as the details of how N.S.A. does that, unfortunately, I’m not at liberty to say that. I don’t want to walk out of here and end up in an F.B.I. interrogation room. AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, you have worked for the National Security Agency. Can you talk about your response to the revelations that the Times, you know, revealed in—perhaps late, knowing the story well before the election, yet revealing it a few weeks ago—the revelation of the wiretapping of American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, as far as an intelligence officer, especially a SIGINT officer at N.S.A., we’re taught from very early on in our careers that you just do not do this. This is probably the number one commandment of the SIGINT Ten Commandments as a SIGINT officer. You will not spy on Americans. It is drilled into our head over and over and over again in security briefings, at least twice a year, where you ultimately have to sign a paper that says you have gotten the briefing. Everyone at N.S.A. who’s a SIGINT officer knows that you do not do this. Ultimately, so do the leaders of N.S.A., and apparently the leaders of N.S.A. have decided that they were just going to go against the tenets of something that’s a gospel to a SIGINT officer. AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Russell Tice. We will go to break and come back to him. He’s a former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked at the N.S.A. up until May of this past year, May of 2005. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We talk to Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency, formerly with the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked with the N.S.A. up until May 2005. Russell Tice, what happened then? What happened in May 2005? RUSSELL TICE: Well, basically I was given my walking papers and told I was no longer a federal employee. So— AMY GOODMAN: Why? RUSSELL TICE: Some time ago I had some concerns about a co-worker at D.I.A. who exhibited the classic signs of being involved in espionage, and I reported that and basically got blown off by the counterintelligence office at D.I.A. and kind of pushed the issue, because I continued to see a pattern of there being a problem. And once I got back to N.S.A., I pretty much dropped the issue, but there was a report that came across my desk in April of 2003 about two F.B.I. agents that were possibly passing secret counterintelligence information to a Chinese double agent, Katrina Leung, and I sent a secure message back to the D.I.A. counterintelligence officer, and I said I think the F.B.I. is incompetent, and the retaliation came down on me like a ton of bricks. AMY GOODMAN: What would you say to those who say you are speaking out now simply because you are disgruntled? RUSSELL TICE: Well, I guess that’s a valid argument. You know, I was fired. But, you know, I’ve kind of held my tongue for a long time now, and basically, you know, I have known these things have been going on for a while. The classification level of the stuff I deal with, basically what we call black world programs and operations, are very, very closely held. And you know, whether you think this is retaliation or not, I have something important to tell Congress, and I think they need to hear it. I’d like to think my motives aren’t retaliation, but, you know, after what I have been through, I can understand someone’s argument to think I have been jaded. AMY GOODMAN: What about the risks you take as a whistleblower? I wanted to play a clip of F.B.I. whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds. She was working for the F.B.I. after 9/11 as a translator, translating intercepts, and ultimately she lost her job. And I asked her if she was afraid of speaking out. SIBEL EDMONDS: There are times that I am afraid, but then again, I have to remind myself that this is my civic duty and this is for the country, because what they are doing by pushing this stuff under this blanket of secrecy, what they are hiding is against the public’s welfare and interest. And reminding that to myself just helps me, to a certain degree, overcome that fear.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Sibel Edmonds. Russell Tice, you are a member of her group, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. RUSSELL TICE: That, I am. National Security Whistleblower Coalition is basically put together of people who are in sort of the same boat that I am in, that have brought whistleblower concerns to the public or to their perspective chain of supervisors and have been retaliated against. And the intelligence community, all of the whistleblower protection laws are—pretty much exempt the intelligence community. So the intelligence community can put forth their lip service about, ‘Oh, yeah, we want you to put report waste fraud abuse,’ or ‘You shall report suspicions of espionage,’ but when they retaliate you for doing so, you pretty much have no recourse. I think a lot of people don’t realize that. And Sibel has basically started this organization to bring these sort of concerns out into the public and ultimately to get Congress to start passing some laws to protect folks that are going to be in a position to let the public or just, you know, to let Congress know that crimes are being committed. And that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a crime here. So, you know, all of this running around and looking for someone who dropped the dime on a crime is a whole lot different than something like the Valerie Plame case. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the Justice Department launching an investigation into the leak, who leaked the fact that President Bush was spying on American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, I think this is an attempt to make sure that no intelligence officer ever considers doing this. What was done to me was basically an attempt to tell other intelligence officers, ‘Hey, if you do something like this, if you do something to tick us off, we’re going to take your job from you, we’re gonna do some unpleasant things to you.’ So, right now, the atmosphere at N.S.A. and D.I.A., for that matter, is fear. The security services basically rule over the employees with fear, and people are afraid to come forward. People know if they come forward even in the legal means, like coming to Congress with a concern, your career is over. And that’s just the best scenario. There’s all sorts of other unfortunate things like, perhaps, if someone gets thrown in jail for either a witch-hunt or something trumping up charges or, you know, this guy who is basically reporting a crime. AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of the news that the National Security Agency spying on American citizens without a court order and foreign nationals is now sharing this information with other agencies like, well, the other agency you worked for, the Defense Intelligence Agency? RUSSELL TICE: Intelligence officers work with one another all the time. As an analyst, you might have a problem. Everybody gets together. It’s just common sense to find out what everybody knows, you know, come to a consensus as to what the answer is. It’s sort of like a puzzle, you know, chunks of the puzzle. And maybe you have a few chunks as a SIGINT officer, and the C.I.A. has a few chunks in their arena and D.I.A. has a few elements of it, and everybody gets together and does a little mind meld to try to figure out what’s going on. So it’s not unusual for the intelligence community to share information. But when we’re talking about information on the American public, which is a violation of the FISA law, then I think it’s even something more to be concerned about. AMY GOODMAN: Were you ever asked to engage in this? RUSSELL TICE: No, no, and if I did so, I did so unwittingly, which I have a feeling would be the case for many of the people involved in this. More than likely this was very closely held at the upper echelons at N.S.A., and mainly because these people knew—General Hayden, Bill Black, and probably the new one, Keith Alexander, they all knew this was illegal. So, you know, they kept it from the populace of N.S.A., because every N.S.A. officer certainly knows this is illegal. AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean if you did so, you did so unwittingly? RUSSELL TICE: Well, there are certain elements of the aspects of what is done where there are functionaries or technicians or analysts that are given information, and you just process that information. You don’t necessarily know the nitty gritty as to where the information came from or the—it’s called compartmentalization. It’s ironic, but you could be working on programs, and the very person sitting next to you is not cleared for the programs you’re working on, and they’re working on their own programs, and each person knows to keep their nose out of the other person’s business, because everything’s compartmentalized, and you’re only allowed to work on what you have a need to know to work on. AMY GOODMAN: What about the telecoms, the telecommunications corporations working with the Bush administration to open up a back door to eavesdropping, to wiretapping? RUSSELL TICE: If that was done and, you know, I use a big “if” here, and, remember, I can’t tell you what I know of how N.S.A. does its business, but I can use the wiggle words like “if” and scenarios that don’t incorporate specifics, but nonetheless, if U.S. gateways and junction points in the United States were used to siphon off information, I would think that the corporate executives of these companies need to be held accountable, as well, because they would certainly also know that what they’re doing is wrong and illegal. And if they have some sort of court order or some sort of paper or something signed from some government official, Congress needs to look at those papers and look at the bottom line and see whose signature is there. And these corporations know that this is illegal, as well. So everyone needs to be held accountable in this mess. AMY GOODMAN: When you come on board at these intelligence agencies, as at the National Security Agency, what are you told? I mean, were you aware of the Church hearings in the 1970s that went into the illegal spying on monitoring, of surveilling, of wiretapping of American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, that’s something that’s really not drummed in your head. That’s more of a history lesson, I think. And the reasoning, ultimately, for the FISA laws and for what’s called USSID 18, which is sort of the SIGINTer’s bible of how they conduct their business, but the law itself is drilled into your head, as well as the tenets of USSID 18, of which the number one commandment is ‘Thou shalt not spy on Americans.’ AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency, worked at the N.S.A. up until May of 2005. What is data mining? RUSSELL TICE: Data mining is a means by which you—you have information, and you go searching for all associated elements of that information in whatever sort of data banks or databases that you put together with information. So if you have a phone number and you want to associate it with, say, a terrorist or something, and you want to associate it with, you know, ‘Who is this terrorist talking to?’ you start doing data on what sort of information or what sort of numbers does that person call or the frequency of time, that sort of thing. And you start basically putting together a bubble chart of, you know, where everybody is. Lord help you if you’ve got a wrong phone call from one of these guys, a terrorist overseas or something, and you’re American. You’re liable to have the F.B.I. camping out your doorstep, apparently, from everything that’s going on. But it’s basically a way of searching all of the data that exists, and that’s things like credit card records and driver’s license, anything that you can get your hands on and try to associate it with some activity. I think if we were doing that overseas with known information, it would be a good thing if we’re pinning them down. But ultimately, when we’re using that on—if we’re using that with U.S. databases, then ultimately, once again, the American people are—their civil rights are being violated. AMY GOODMAN: Do you expect you are being monitored, surveilled, wiretapped right now? RUSSELL TICE: Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, in—you know, sometimes you just don’t know. And being, you know—what they’ve basically accused me of, I can’t just walk around thinking that everybody is looking at my heels and are following me around. But in one scenario I turned the tables on someone I thought was following me, and he ducked into a convenience store, and I just walked down there—and I saw him out of my peripheral vision—and I basically walked down to where he ducked into and in the store, I walked up behind him. He was buying a cup of coffee, and he had a on his hip and his F.B.I. badge. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on there. AMY GOODMAN: The National Security Agency, or I should say the United Nations Security Council, there was a scandal a year or two ago about the monitoring of the diplomats there. It was in the lead up to the invasion, the U.S. wanting to know and put pressure on these Security Council ambassadors to know what they were saying before any kind of vote. What is the difference between that kind of monitoring and the monitoring of American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, if the monitoring was done against foreigners and the monitoring was done overseas, as far as I know, that’s perfectly legal. It’s just a matter of who you are monitoring and where you’re doing the monitoring. If it’s done at home and they’re Americans, then you have a different scenario. And we’re all trained that, you know, hands off. If you inadvertently run across something like that in the conduct of what you’re doing, you immediately let someone know; if it’s involved in something being recorded, it’s immediately erased. So, you know, it’s something that we all know you just don’t do. Overseas, okay; here at home, not so okay. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play for you the clip that we ran of President Bush earlier and get your response. This is President Bush on Sunday. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I can say that if somebody from al-Qaeda is calling you, we’d like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people’s civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America. And I repeat: limited. And it’s limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But, they are of known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates. And I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy is thinking. And that’s what we are doing. We’re at war with a bunch of cold-blooded killers who will kill on a moment’s notice. And I have a responsibility, obviously, to act within the law, which I am doing. It’s a program has been reviewed constantly by Justice Department officials, a program to which the Congress has been briefed, and a program that is in my judgment necessary to win this war and to protect the American people. AMY GOODMAN: President Bush. Russell Tice, you’re with the National Security Agency, or you were until May 2005. If al-Qaeda’s calling, the U.S. government wants to know. Your response? RUSSELL TICE: Well, that’s probably a good thing to know. But that’s why we have a FISA court and FISA laws. The FISA court—it’s not very difficult to get something through a FISA court. I kinda liken the FISA court to a monkey with a rubber stamp. The monkey sees a name, the monkey sees a word justification with a block of information. It can’t read the block, but it just stamps “affirmed” on the block, and a banana chip rolls out, and then the next paper rolls in front of the monkey. When you have like 20,000 requests and only, I think, four were turned down, you can’t look at the FISA court as anything different. So, you have to ask yourself the question: Why would someone want to go around the FISA court in something like this? I would think the answer could be that this thing is a lot bigger than even the President has been told it is, and that ultimately a vacuum cleaner approach may have been used, in which case you don’t get names, and that’s ultimately why you wouldn’t go to the FISA court. And I think that’s something Congress needs to address. They need to find out exactly how this system was operated and ultimately determine whether this was indeed a very focused effort or whether this was a vacuum cleaner-type scenario. AMY GOODMAN: Did you support the President, Russell Tice? Did you vote for President Bush? RUSSELL TICE: I am a Republican. I voted for President Bush both in the last election and the first election where he was up for president. I’ve contributed to his campaign. I get a post—I mean, a Christmas card from the White House every year, I guess, because of my nominal contributions. But—so, you know, it’s not like, you know—I think you’re going to find a lot of folks that are in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community are apt to be on the conservative side of the fence. But nonetheless, we’re all taught that you don’t do something like this. And I’m certainly hoping that the President has been misled in what’s going on here and that the true crux of this problem is in the leadership of the intelligence community. AMY GOODMAN: You’re saying in the leadership of your own agency, the National Security Agency? RUSSELL TICE: That’s correct, yeah, because certainly General Alexander and General Hayden and Bill Black knew that this was illegal. AMY GOODMAN: But they clearly had to have authorization from above, and Bush is not contending that he did not know. RUSSELL TICE: Well, that’s true. But the question has to be asked: What did the President know? What was the President told about this? It’s just—there’s just too many variables out there that we don’t know yet. And, ultimately, I think Congress needs to find out those answers. If the President was fed a bill of goods in this matter, then that’s something that has to be addressed. Or if the President himself knew every aspect of what’s going on, if this was some sort of vacuum cleaner deal, then it is ultimately, I would think, the President himself that needs to be held responsible for what’s going on here. AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think should happen to him? RUSSELL TICE: Well, you know, it’s certainly not up to me, but I’ve heard all of the talk about impeachment and that sort of thing. You know, I saw our last president get impeached for what personally I thought should have been something between his wife and his family, and the big guy upstairs. It’s not up to me, but if the President knew, if this was a vacuum cleaner job and the President knew exactly what was going on—and ultimately what we’re hearing now is nothing but a cover-up and a whitewash—and we find that to be the case, then I think it should cause some dire consequences for even the President of the United States, if he indeed did know exactly what was going on and if it was a very large-scale, you know, suck-up-everything kind of operation. AMY GOODMAN: This investigation that the Justice Department has launched—it’s interesting that Alberto Gonzales is now Attorney General of the United States—the latest story of The New York Times: Gonzales, when he was White House Counsel, when Andrew Card, chief of staff, went to Ashcroft at his hospital bedside to get authorization for this. Can he be a disinterested party in investigating this now, as Attorney General himself? RUSSELL TICE: Yeah, I think that for anyone to say that the Attorney General is going to be totally unbiased about something like this, I think that’s silly. Of course, the answer is “No.” He can’t be unbiased in this. I think that a special prosecutor or something like that may have to be involved in something like this, otherwise we’re just liable to have a whitewash. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the term “police state”? RUSSELL TICE: Well, anytime where you have a situation where U.S. citizens are being arrested and thrown in jail with the key being thrown away, you know, potentially being sent overseas to be tortured, U.S. citizens being spied on, you know, and it doesn’t even go to the court that deals with these secret things, you know, I mean, think about it, you could have potentially somebody getting the wrong phone call from a terrorist and having him spirited away to some back-alley country to get the rubber hose treatment and who knows what else. I think that would kind of qualify as a police state, in my judgment. I certainly hope that Congress or somebody sort of does something about this, because, you know, for Americans just to say, ‘Oh, well, we have to do this because, you know, because of terrorism,’ you know, it’s the same argument that we used with communism years ago: take away your civil liberties, but use some threat that’s, you know, been out there for a long time. Terrorism has been there for—certainly before 9/11 we had terrorism problems, and I have a feeling it’s going to be around for quite some time after whatever we deem is a victory in what we’re doing now in the Middle East. But, you know, it’s just something that has to be addressed. We just can’t continue to see our civil liberties degraded. Ultimately, as Ben Franklin, I think, had said, you know, those who would give up their essential liberties for a little freedom deserve neither liberty or freedom, and I tend to agree with Ben Franklin. AMY GOODMAN: And your colleagues at the N.S.A. right now, their feelings, the National Security Agency? RUSSELL TICE: Boy, I think most folks at N.S.A. right now are just running scared. They have the security office hanging over their head, which has always been a bunch of vicious folks, and now they’ve got, you know, this potential witch hunt going on with the Attorney General. People in the intelligence community are afraid. They know that you can’t come forward. You have no protections as a whistleblower. These things need to be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean you have no protection? RUSSELL TICE: Well, like I said before, as a whistleblower, you’re not protected by the whistleblower laws that are out there. The intelligence community is exempt from the whistleblower protection laws. AMY GOODMAN: So why are you doing it? RUSSELL TICE: Well, ultimately, I don’t have to be afraid of losing my job, because I have already lost my job, so that’s one reason. The other reason is because I made an oath when I became an intelligence officer that I would protect the United States Constitution, not a president, not some classification, you know, for whatever, that ultimately I’m responsible to protect the Constitution of the United States. And I think that’s the same oath the President takes, for the most part. So, something like—imagine if something—if we were like, I don’t know, taking Americans and assassinating them for suspicions of suspicions of terrorism, and then we just put some classification on it and said, ‘Well, this is super top secret, so no one can say anything about that.’ Well, at what point do you draw the line and say enough is enough. We have to say something here. AMY GOODMAN: What was your classification? How high up was your clearance? RUSSELL TICE: Well, clearances go up to the top secret level. But once you get to the top secret level, there are many caveats and many programs and things that can happen beyond that point. I specialized in what’s known as black world operations and programs that are very closely held, things that happen in operations and programs in the intelligence community that are closely held, and for the most part these programs are very beneficial to ultimately getting information and protecting the American people. But in some cases, I think, classification levels at these special—we call them special access programs, SAPs—could be used to mask, basically, criminal wrongdoing. So I think that’s something ultimately Congress needs to address, as well, because from what I can see, there is not a whole lot of oversight when it comes to some of these deep black programs. AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, did you know anyone within the N.S.A. who refused to spy on Americans, who refused to follow orders? RUSSELL TICE: No. No, I do not. As far as—of course, I’m not witting of anyone that was told they will spy on an American. So, ultimately, when this was going on, I have a feeling it was closely held at some of the upper echelon levels. And you’ve got to understand, I was a worker bee. I was a guy that wrote the reports and did the analysis work and—you know, the detail guy. At some point, your reports have to get sent up up the line and then, you know, the management takes action at some point or another, but at my level, no, I was not involved in this. AMY GOODMAN: Has Congress responded to your letter offering to testify as a former employee of the National Security Agency? RUSSELL TICE: Not yet. Of course, the holidays—you know, we just had the holidays here, so everybody is out of town. I can’t condemn Congress too much yet, because I faxed it out on, I do believe, the 18th of December, and we’re just getting into the new year. AMY GOODMAN: And who did you send it to? RUSSELL TICE: I sent it to the chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, the SSCI and the HPSCI. AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Is there anything else that you would like to add? RUSSELL TICE: Well, I can’t think of a whole lot, except ultimately I think the American people need to be concerned about allegations that the intelligence community is spying on Americans. You know, one of my fears is that this would cause, just going into the N.S.A. and just tearing the place up and making the good work that’s being done at the N.S.A. ineffective, because the N.S.A. is very important to this country’s security. And I certainly hope that some bad apples, even if these bad apples were at the top of N.S.A., don’t ultimately destroy the capabilities of N.S.A.’s ability to do a good job protecting the American people. AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked for the N.S.A. up until May of last year. Thanks for joining us.
RUSSELL TICE: Thank you.
Link: http://www.mireilletorjman.com/.
Friday, December 24, 2010
PSC West London: Report from Inside Zionist Conference on the ‘De-Legitimisation’ of Israel
Published 23 December 2010
The following is a report written by a PSC West London activist who attended the ‘Squaring the Circle? Britain and the De-Legitimisation of Israel’ conference organised by Just Journalism and the Henry Jackson Scoiety in December 2010 in London.
After passing through heavy security requiring IDs, questions about organisational/political affiliation and how far they had travelled about 200 people gathered in a synagogue in Bayswater London to attend a key-note UK Pro-Israel meeting on how to counter the ‘de-legitimisation’ of Israel.
The audience was very largely composed of senior citizens and the late middle-aged. There were few young people.
Israel’s Ambassador to the UK -Ron Prosser- opened the meeting. In his view, Israel’s adversaries in the UK were ‘crossing the red line every day’. By this he explained he means criticism of Israel and its policies as well as calls for boycott and the application of the legal system against Israel and its citizens. Prosser sees the UK as the key battleground for three reasons. Firstly, London is the world hub of the English speaking media and what it reports gets picked up and analysed across the world. Secondly, UK Universities are internationally influential and thousands of students come from all over the world to study in the UK and return to their own countries to become future political and government leaders. Thirdly, the UK is the home of the largest and most influential NGOs such as Oxfam and Christian Aid. Prosser said that UK-Israel inter-governmental relations are much more positive than UK public opinion towards Israel and official pronouncements might suggest. He went on though to warn that whilst the ‘view from the penthouse was amazingly good’ there was ‘increasing structural damage and deterioration to the building’ as a result of what he called the actions of the ‘de-legitimisation network’.
Nick Cohen, Observer Newspaper columnist, spoke in what seemed to be the slot reserved for a token liberal. He opened by asking in a round about way: Perhaps things might improve for Israel’s image if there were to be some acknowledgement by Israel’s supporters about the problems caused by Settlement expansion; and likewise might it not be better to put more stress on the acceptance of an independent Palestinian state. He promised the meeting a radical agenda for countering de-legitimisation. His big idea? Israel’s supporters need to turn ‘liberal arguments against liberal opinions’. He explained this means attacking the human rights record of despotic Arab regimes and attacking the opinions of Islamists. Cohen did not explore this any further and instead switched to speak at length on the history of anti-Semitism in Europe.
Baroness Deach former BBC Governor, a lawyer and life peer in the House of Lords. She said ‘de-legitimisation’ was new and required a solution. Her solution is two-fold. Firstly, use the full weight of
the law and ‘code of conduct on freedom of speech’ to ban ‘de-legitimisers’ from speaking at UK Universities. Secondly, Deach called for a change in the leadership of UK Jewry to address its failings and weakness. She gave a long list of who the new leaders should be and this included Melanie Philips (Daily Mail commentator) and Jonathan Hoffman (UK Zionist Federation Vice-Chair). As she reached her full stride, Deach called for attacks on the UK political left and for a campaign to highlight the ‘influence’ of ‘Arab oil money’ in UK University funding.
Daniel Finkelstein – right wing Times Newspaper commentator. He thinks UK public opinion is largely irrelevant because for example most people do not know where Gaza is. His strategy for countering
‘de-legitimisation’ is not to seek to debate with liberal opponents in the middle ground. Instead he proposes that the debate should always be framed as the need for the existence of Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself. He softened this by going on to say the pro-Israel lobby should seek to support tolerant liberal values as the best protection against the ‘de-legitimisation’ challenge. Finkelstein warned that seeking to ban ‘de-legitimsers’ from speaking at Universities was two-edged sword and would probably lead to pro-Israel speakers being banned also.
Rafael Bardaji – Director of The Friends of Israel Initiative and former advisor to the Spanish Government- was the last speaker. He sees Israel as the front-line against the ‘enemies of the West’, believes any criticism of Israel undermines Western democracies, that Israel is a European country physically located in the Middle East and is the ‘cradle of Judeo-Christian values’ . His suggestions are to stress that Israel is ‘a land of opportunity’ and to campaign for maps of Europe to include Israel.
Audience questions and contributions were varied. Most contributions attacked the Israeli left, Israeli liberal academics and journalists, Israeli NGOs and even ‘left Zioinsts’. The speaker panel largely endorsed these attacks. A few contributors tried to meekly take up the difficulties casued by Israel’s actions but Ambassador Prosser made clear that any criticism of Israel and especially those from
‘left Zionists’ is intolerable.
The biggest and most enthusiastic applause of the entire night was reserved for the lady in the audience who loudly proclaimed that ‘Israel does not occupy Palestine, there is already a Palestinian state and it is called Jordan’. Not one of the distinguished speaker panel challenged this nor did anyone in the audience. I sensed there was no challenge because deep down the overwhelming majority of the
meeting agreed with the lady in question. If this is correct, then the pro-Israel lobby in the UK needs to look no further than inside its own ranks in order to identify those who are driving the ‘de-legitimisation’ of Israel.
The following is a report written by a PSC West London activist who attended the ‘Squaring the Circle? Britain and the De-Legitimisation of Israel’ conference organised by Just Journalism and the Henry Jackson Scoiety in December 2010 in London.
After passing through heavy security requiring IDs, questions about organisational/political affiliation and how far they had travelled about 200 people gathered in a synagogue in Bayswater London to attend a key-note UK Pro-Israel meeting on how to counter the ‘de-legitimisation’ of Israel.
The audience was very largely composed of senior citizens and the late middle-aged. There were few young people.
Israel’s Ambassador to the UK -Ron Prosser- opened the meeting. In his view, Israel’s adversaries in the UK were ‘crossing the red line every day’. By this he explained he means criticism of Israel and its policies as well as calls for boycott and the application of the legal system against Israel and its citizens. Prosser sees the UK as the key battleground for three reasons. Firstly, London is the world hub of the English speaking media and what it reports gets picked up and analysed across the world. Secondly, UK Universities are internationally influential and thousands of students come from all over the world to study in the UK and return to their own countries to become future political and government leaders. Thirdly, the UK is the home of the largest and most influential NGOs such as Oxfam and Christian Aid. Prosser said that UK-Israel inter-governmental relations are much more positive than UK public opinion towards Israel and official pronouncements might suggest. He went on though to warn that whilst the ‘view from the penthouse was amazingly good’ there was ‘increasing structural damage and deterioration to the building’ as a result of what he called the actions of the ‘de-legitimisation network’.
Nick Cohen, Observer Newspaper columnist, spoke in what seemed to be the slot reserved for a token liberal. He opened by asking in a round about way: Perhaps things might improve for Israel’s image if there were to be some acknowledgement by Israel’s supporters about the problems caused by Settlement expansion; and likewise might it not be better to put more stress on the acceptance of an independent Palestinian state. He promised the meeting a radical agenda for countering de-legitimisation. His big idea? Israel’s supporters need to turn ‘liberal arguments against liberal opinions’. He explained this means attacking the human rights record of despotic Arab regimes and attacking the opinions of Islamists. Cohen did not explore this any further and instead switched to speak at length on the history of anti-Semitism in Europe.
Baroness Deach former BBC Governor, a lawyer and life peer in the House of Lords. She said ‘de-legitimisation’ was new and required a solution. Her solution is two-fold. Firstly, use the full weight of
the law and ‘code of conduct on freedom of speech’ to ban ‘de-legitimisers’ from speaking at UK Universities. Secondly, Deach called for a change in the leadership of UK Jewry to address its failings and weakness. She gave a long list of who the new leaders should be and this included Melanie Philips (Daily Mail commentator) and Jonathan Hoffman (UK Zionist Federation Vice-Chair). As she reached her full stride, Deach called for attacks on the UK political left and for a campaign to highlight the ‘influence’ of ‘Arab oil money’ in UK University funding.
Daniel Finkelstein – right wing Times Newspaper commentator. He thinks UK public opinion is largely irrelevant because for example most people do not know where Gaza is. His strategy for countering
‘de-legitimisation’ is not to seek to debate with liberal opponents in the middle ground. Instead he proposes that the debate should always be framed as the need for the existence of Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself. He softened this by going on to say the pro-Israel lobby should seek to support tolerant liberal values as the best protection against the ‘de-legitimisation’ challenge. Finkelstein warned that seeking to ban ‘de-legitimsers’ from speaking at Universities was two-edged sword and would probably lead to pro-Israel speakers being banned also.
Rafael Bardaji – Director of The Friends of Israel Initiative and former advisor to the Spanish Government- was the last speaker. He sees Israel as the front-line against the ‘enemies of the West’, believes any criticism of Israel undermines Western democracies, that Israel is a European country physically located in the Middle East and is the ‘cradle of Judeo-Christian values’ . His suggestions are to stress that Israel is ‘a land of opportunity’ and to campaign for maps of Europe to include Israel.
Audience questions and contributions were varied. Most contributions attacked the Israeli left, Israeli liberal academics and journalists, Israeli NGOs and even ‘left Zioinsts’. The speaker panel largely endorsed these attacks. A few contributors tried to meekly take up the difficulties casued by Israel’s actions but Ambassador Prosser made clear that any criticism of Israel and especially those from
‘left Zionists’ is intolerable.
The biggest and most enthusiastic applause of the entire night was reserved for the lady in the audience who loudly proclaimed that ‘Israel does not occupy Palestine, there is already a Palestinian state and it is called Jordan’. Not one of the distinguished speaker panel challenged this nor did anyone in the audience. I sensed there was no challenge because deep down the overwhelming majority of the
meeting agreed with the lady in question. If this is correct, then the pro-Israel lobby in the UK needs to look no further than inside its own ranks in order to identify those who are driving the ‘de-legitimisation’ of Israel.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
In A Letter Send To Turkish PM; Likud MK Says Israel Should Have Killed All Marmara Passengers
Wednesday December 15, 2010
by Saed Bannoura
Israeli sources reported Wednesday that Israeli Member of Knesset of the Likud Party, Dani Dannon, sent a sarcastic letter to Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, telling him that Israeli soldiers should have killed all of the passengers of the Marmara Ship that was heading to Gaza to deliver humanitarian supplies.
During the attack that took place on May 31, Israeli soldiers who boarded the ship before towing it to Ashdod, shot and killed nine Turkish activists and wounded several others.
In his letter, Dannon said that he is sorry the soldiers “had lots of discipline and only killed nine activists”.
He added that “should Israel had a prior knowledge that terrorist were on board, the soldiers would have received orders to kill everyone who threatened their safety”.
Dannon also stated that he is sorry because Israel did not conduct a security check on all passengers of the Turkish ship before it sailed, in addition to “being sorry” because Israel “did not prevent the passengers from arming themselves”.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, denied reports stating that Israel intends to pay compensation to the families of the nine Turkish peace activists who were killed when the Israeli army attacked the Turkish Mavi Marmara solidarity ship that was heading to Gaza to deliver humanitarian supplies.
During a Monday session with his Likud Party, Netanyahu said that Israel is holding talks with Turkey to drop all charges against the soldiers who took place in the attack, and added that any official apology or compensation will make it easier for Ankara to file lawsuits against the soldiers.
by Saed Bannoura
Israeli sources reported Wednesday that Israeli Member of Knesset of the Likud Party, Dani Dannon, sent a sarcastic letter to Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, telling him that Israeli soldiers should have killed all of the passengers of the Marmara Ship that was heading to Gaza to deliver humanitarian supplies.
During the attack that took place on May 31, Israeli soldiers who boarded the ship before towing it to Ashdod, shot and killed nine Turkish activists and wounded several others.
In his letter, Dannon said that he is sorry the soldiers “had lots of discipline and only killed nine activists”.
He added that “should Israel had a prior knowledge that terrorist were on board, the soldiers would have received orders to kill everyone who threatened their safety”.
Dannon also stated that he is sorry because Israel did not conduct a security check on all passengers of the Turkish ship before it sailed, in addition to “being sorry” because Israel “did not prevent the passengers from arming themselves”.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, denied reports stating that Israel intends to pay compensation to the families of the nine Turkish peace activists who were killed when the Israeli army attacked the Turkish Mavi Marmara solidarity ship that was heading to Gaza to deliver humanitarian supplies.
During a Monday session with his Likud Party, Netanyahu said that Israel is holding talks with Turkey to drop all charges against the soldiers who took place in the attack, and added that any official apology or compensation will make it easier for Ankara to file lawsuits against the soldiers.
Azeri elite demands to ban headscarves
11 December 2010,
Elite of Azerbaijan has demanded a total ban on hijab in the country.
Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Culture, Nizami Jafarov, said he supports a ban of the hijabs in educational institutions:
"Hijab wearing must be totally forbidden at secondary schools. Girls have not been well-formed to have any religious ideas. A school has its own rules".
"We are not to become independent to wrapping up in a yashmak. The society has to struggle against such cases", said Secretary General of the Union of Azerbaijani Writers Rashad Majid.
According to him, he is against any woman wearing a headscarf:
"If someone wears hijab in private, at home, we have no right to oppose to it. However, Azerbaijan is a secular state. Parents' demand to girls to cover their heads is a provocation against Azerbaijan. It's like opposing the Constitution. Azerbaijani intelligentsia fought for freeing people from bigotry for years".
Chairman of the United Azerbaijan Popular Front Party, MP Gudrat Hasanguliyev, noted that hijab contradicts to the "Constitution": Hijab are religious clothes and attributes. So, the law forbids its existence at educational institutions. Unfortunately, the majority was in due time against adopting an article in the Constitution that openly bans the hijab".
Hasanguliyev also stressed, he supported the position of the Ministry of Education in this matter.
A professor at Baku State University, political analyst Rustam Mammadov noted that the attitude towards Islam changed after the collapse of the USSR, and due to that, women started to wear hijab: "I see an increase in hijab wearing girls in classrooms each year. It confuses our with Europeanized society. Propaganda of religious ideology will lead to serious conflicts".
Kavkaz Center
Source: Kavkaz Center
Link: http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2010/12/11/13120.shtml.
Elite of Azerbaijan has demanded a total ban on hijab in the country.
Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Culture, Nizami Jafarov, said he supports a ban of the hijabs in educational institutions:
"Hijab wearing must be totally forbidden at secondary schools. Girls have not been well-formed to have any religious ideas. A school has its own rules".
"We are not to become independent to wrapping up in a yashmak. The society has to struggle against such cases", said Secretary General of the Union of Azerbaijani Writers Rashad Majid.
According to him, he is against any woman wearing a headscarf:
"If someone wears hijab in private, at home, we have no right to oppose to it. However, Azerbaijan is a secular state. Parents' demand to girls to cover their heads is a provocation against Azerbaijan. It's like opposing the Constitution. Azerbaijani intelligentsia fought for freeing people from bigotry for years".
Chairman of the United Azerbaijan Popular Front Party, MP Gudrat Hasanguliyev, noted that hijab contradicts to the "Constitution": Hijab are religious clothes and attributes. So, the law forbids its existence at educational institutions. Unfortunately, the majority was in due time against adopting an article in the Constitution that openly bans the hijab".
Hasanguliyev also stressed, he supported the position of the Ministry of Education in this matter.
A professor at Baku State University, political analyst Rustam Mammadov noted that the attitude towards Islam changed after the collapse of the USSR, and due to that, women started to wear hijab: "I see an increase in hijab wearing girls in classrooms each year. It confuses our with Europeanized society. Propaganda of religious ideology will lead to serious conflicts".
Kavkaz Center
Source: Kavkaz Center
Link: http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2010/12/11/13120.shtml.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Middle East Peace Talks and Settlements
written by: Sheila Quinn
The leaders of The U.S. and Europe are obviously pro-Israeli. The mind games that they are playing with the Arabs and the public in general is scandalous. They give lip service to The Arab Peace Initiative while giving the green light to The Israeli State to proceed as it wishes.
What is being accomplished is that they are allowing facts to be changed on the ground for all of Palestine to be stolen by The Israeli State while allowing the Israelis to insist that Jordan doesn't exist at all. Jordan is not Jordan but Palestine.
Settlements are being built;forty percent of the West Bank has been stolen through the building of the settlements. Action is being taken by The Israeli State to evict all Palestinians who live in The Jordan Valley. What does this accomplish? It not only is stealing land from The Palestinians, but it is causing a direct threat to the security of Jordan. The land that many settlements are on is on the border with Jordan. If The Israeli State wanted to invade Jordan at any time in the future such an effort would be very easy.
What is the government of Jordan doing about it? Well, it is insisting on The Two State Solution on one hand and preparing for war on the other hand. It is insisting on the unity of Jordan while intimidating Jordanians who are critical of the government.
When King Abdullah the second of Jordan first became king I was very excited. I sensed that positive significant changes would occur for Jordan under his leadership. But I am starting to become disillusioned with him. He has put trust in those that he shouldn't trust. He has put trust in the leadership of the U.S. and Europe. In putting trust in them he is allowing the Jordanian government to commit acts of tyranny against Jordanian citizens.
The issue of the settlements is clear, they are illegal. Yet, they are allowed to continue in-spite of their illegality. Both The U.S. and Europe has -by all practicality- refused to pressure The Israeli State into stopping them. Yet, Jordan continues to act as a loyal ally to both The U.S. and Europe. What sense does this make? What does this say about Jordan and its effectiveness as an advocate?
Where will the peace talks go from here? Will the Arab leaders cave in and compromise more than they have already? Or will a war break out between the Israeli State and its Arab neighbors? How long will we have to wait for the answer to these questions?
Some references:
"EU ministers resigned to Israeli settlement building" from EarthTimes Link:http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/358003,resigned-israeli-settlement-building.html.
"Israel welcomes US decision to focus on core issues" from EarthTimes Link:http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/357997,decision-focus-core-issues.html.
"The Charade of Israeli-Palestinian Talks" from Truthout Link:http://www.truth-out.org/the-charade-israeli-palestinian-talks65701.
The leaders of The U.S. and Europe are obviously pro-Israeli. The mind games that they are playing with the Arabs and the public in general is scandalous. They give lip service to The Arab Peace Initiative while giving the green light to The Israeli State to proceed as it wishes.
What is being accomplished is that they are allowing facts to be changed on the ground for all of Palestine to be stolen by The Israeli State while allowing the Israelis to insist that Jordan doesn't exist at all. Jordan is not Jordan but Palestine.
Settlements are being built;forty percent of the West Bank has been stolen through the building of the settlements. Action is being taken by The Israeli State to evict all Palestinians who live in The Jordan Valley. What does this accomplish? It not only is stealing land from The Palestinians, but it is causing a direct threat to the security of Jordan. The land that many settlements are on is on the border with Jordan. If The Israeli State wanted to invade Jordan at any time in the future such an effort would be very easy.
What is the government of Jordan doing about it? Well, it is insisting on The Two State Solution on one hand and preparing for war on the other hand. It is insisting on the unity of Jordan while intimidating Jordanians who are critical of the government.
When King Abdullah the second of Jordan first became king I was very excited. I sensed that positive significant changes would occur for Jordan under his leadership. But I am starting to become disillusioned with him. He has put trust in those that he shouldn't trust. He has put trust in the leadership of the U.S. and Europe. In putting trust in them he is allowing the Jordanian government to commit acts of tyranny against Jordanian citizens.
The issue of the settlements is clear, they are illegal. Yet, they are allowed to continue in-spite of their illegality. Both The U.S. and Europe has -by all practicality- refused to pressure The Israeli State into stopping them. Yet, Jordan continues to act as a loyal ally to both The U.S. and Europe. What sense does this make? What does this say about Jordan and its effectiveness as an advocate?
Where will the peace talks go from here? Will the Arab leaders cave in and compromise more than they have already? Or will a war break out between the Israeli State and its Arab neighbors? How long will we have to wait for the answer to these questions?
Some references:
"EU ministers resigned to Israeli settlement building" from EarthTimes Link:http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/358003,resigned-israeli-settlement-building.html.
"Israel welcomes US decision to focus on core issues" from EarthTimes Link:http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/357997,decision-focus-core-issues.html.
"The Charade of Israeli-Palestinian Talks" from Truthout Link:http://www.truth-out.org/the-charade-israeli-palestinian-talks65701.
Israel increases restrictions and house demolitions in the Jordan Valley
Middle East Monitor
MEMO, December 13, 2010
Israel increases restrictions and house demolitions in the Jordan ValleyA report issued by the Arab League says that the Israeli occupation forces have increased the restrictions placed on Palestinians in the Jordan Valley. The Palestine and Arab Territories Section claim that Israel's aim is to expel the residents in preparation for its annexation of the land. The Jordan Valley is being increasingly isolated from the rest of the occupied West Bank.
According to the report, Israeli occupation forces have escalated house demolition operations across the Jordan Valley. These include demolitions in the northern village of Abu Al-Ajjaj in preparation for the expansion of the illegal settlement of Mussua. Military decrees were issued to residents by the Israeli authorities ordering them to evacuate their homes.
Dozens of Israeli military bulldozers demolished eight buildings and a mosque in the village of Yerza, also in the northern area of the Jordan Valley. Israeli forces declared the area to be a closed military zone for training soldiers when, in fact, the expulsion of Palestinians is to make way for the expansion of the illegal settlements' agricultural activity in the area.
The Arab League report also said that the Israeli government drains mineral water in the Jordan Valley deliberately so as to compel residents to leave. More military checkpoints are also being used to tighten Israel's siege on the Palestinian residents and prevent access to their land.
MEMO, December 13, 2010
Israel increases restrictions and house demolitions in the Jordan ValleyA report issued by the Arab League says that the Israeli occupation forces have increased the restrictions placed on Palestinians in the Jordan Valley. The Palestine and Arab Territories Section claim that Israel's aim is to expel the residents in preparation for its annexation of the land. The Jordan Valley is being increasingly isolated from the rest of the occupied West Bank.
According to the report, Israeli occupation forces have escalated house demolition operations across the Jordan Valley. These include demolitions in the northern village of Abu Al-Ajjaj in preparation for the expansion of the illegal settlement of Mussua. Military decrees were issued to residents by the Israeli authorities ordering them to evacuate their homes.
Dozens of Israeli military bulldozers demolished eight buildings and a mosque in the village of Yerza, also in the northern area of the Jordan Valley. Israeli forces declared the area to be a closed military zone for training soldiers when, in fact, the expulsion of Palestinians is to make way for the expansion of the illegal settlements' agricultural activity in the area.
The Arab League report also said that the Israeli government drains mineral water in the Jordan Valley deliberately so as to compel residents to leave. More military checkpoints are also being used to tighten Israel's siege on the Palestinian residents and prevent access to their land.
Funding illegal Israeli settlements? Priceless
Bernard Keane
Crikey.com.au - 13 December 2010
Visa, Mastercard and PayPal all enable donations to be made to US-registered groups funding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law.
It appears at least one of the major credit cards also enables donations to an extremist Jewish group that has placed a bounty on the lives of Palestinians.
All three have in the last week ceased enabling donations to WikiLeaks. Neither Mastercard nor Visa have explained the basis for their decision to do so. PayPal has backed away from its initial claim that the US State Department told PayPal WikiLeaks had broken the law after the claim was discredited. This is the third occasion on which PayPal has suspended payment services for WikiLeaks.
Israel subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law. Another 100+ are "illegal outposts" even under Israeli law. All benefit from extensive support from the United States, channelled through a range of Jewish and right-wing Christian bodies, all of which have charitable status under US law. The International Crisis Group’s report on settlements in July 2009 identified the important role played by US charities. Israeli newspaper Haaretz has investigated the strong support provided via US charities, and Israeli peace groups have also targeted the generous support provided via private donations from the US and Canada.
Credit card transactional systems play a key role in facilitating this support for illegal settlements. Here are some examples.
* The Shuva Israel group, an evangelical Christian group based in Texas, is accused by Israeli group Gush Shalom of channelling money to fund the illegal West Bank settlement of Revava. You can donate to it, says the Shuva Israel website, via Mastercard, Visa and Paypal.
* The One Israel Fund, used as an example in the International Crisis Group report, boasts of being "the largest North American charity whose efforts are dedicated solely to the citizens and communities of Yesha". You can donate to the One Israel Fund, according to its website, via Mastercard, Visa and Amex.
* The website of another right-wing Christian group, the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities describes support for settlements like Argaman, which are illegal under international law. You can donate, their website says, via Mastercard, Visa and PayPal.
* One of the highest-profile groups is the Hebron Fund, the centre of a 2009 row when the New York Mets were criticised for hosting a fundraising dinner for the group. It provides extensive support for the extraordinarily aggressive Hebron settlement, described by one Israeli group as "an ongoing war crime", while the Fund itself has been linked to praise for an Israeli mass murderer. According to its website, it receives donations via all major credit cards.
* Worst of all is the extremist SOS Israel group, which has incurred even the wrath of the Israeli Defence Force by rewarding Israeli soldiers who disobey orders to evict settlers from illegal outposts (i.e. inciting mutiny), and which has offered a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers. The SOS Israel website describes a number of ways you can make your "generous donation" to it, including credit cards. Crikey’s token $2 donation via a Visa card was successful last night.
At this stage WikiLeaks has breached no international law and no laws of any country, but Mastercard, Visa and PayPal have all blacklisted it. All three continue to enable the support of settlements that are in breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law, and in defiance of US policy on settlements under successive Republican and Democrat administrations.
Crikey invited Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to comment but none had responded by deadline.
:: Article nr. 72837 sent on 13-dec-2010 23:36 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=72837
Crikey.com.au - 13 December 2010
Visa, Mastercard and PayPal all enable donations to be made to US-registered groups funding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law.
It appears at least one of the major credit cards also enables donations to an extremist Jewish group that has placed a bounty on the lives of Palestinians.
All three have in the last week ceased enabling donations to WikiLeaks. Neither Mastercard nor Visa have explained the basis for their decision to do so. PayPal has backed away from its initial claim that the US State Department told PayPal WikiLeaks had broken the law after the claim was discredited. This is the third occasion on which PayPal has suspended payment services for WikiLeaks.
Israel subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law. Another 100+ are "illegal outposts" even under Israeli law. All benefit from extensive support from the United States, channelled through a range of Jewish and right-wing Christian bodies, all of which have charitable status under US law. The International Crisis Group’s report on settlements in July 2009 identified the important role played by US charities. Israeli newspaper Haaretz has investigated the strong support provided via US charities, and Israeli peace groups have also targeted the generous support provided via private donations from the US and Canada.
Credit card transactional systems play a key role in facilitating this support for illegal settlements. Here are some examples.
* The Shuva Israel group, an evangelical Christian group based in Texas, is accused by Israeli group Gush Shalom of channelling money to fund the illegal West Bank settlement of Revava. You can donate to it, says the Shuva Israel website, via Mastercard, Visa and Paypal.
* The One Israel Fund, used as an example in the International Crisis Group report, boasts of being "the largest North American charity whose efforts are dedicated solely to the citizens and communities of Yesha". You can donate to the One Israel Fund, according to its website, via Mastercard, Visa and Amex.
* The website of another right-wing Christian group, the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities describes support for settlements like Argaman, which are illegal under international law. You can donate, their website says, via Mastercard, Visa and PayPal.
* One of the highest-profile groups is the Hebron Fund, the centre of a 2009 row when the New York Mets were criticised for hosting a fundraising dinner for the group. It provides extensive support for the extraordinarily aggressive Hebron settlement, described by one Israeli group as "an ongoing war crime", while the Fund itself has been linked to praise for an Israeli mass murderer. According to its website, it receives donations via all major credit cards.
* Worst of all is the extremist SOS Israel group, which has incurred even the wrath of the Israeli Defence Force by rewarding Israeli soldiers who disobey orders to evict settlers from illegal outposts (i.e. inciting mutiny), and which has offered a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers. The SOS Israel website describes a number of ways you can make your "generous donation" to it, including credit cards. Crikey’s token $2 donation via a Visa card was successful last night.
At this stage WikiLeaks has breached no international law and no laws of any country, but Mastercard, Visa and PayPal have all blacklisted it. All three continue to enable the support of settlements that are in breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law, and in defiance of US policy on settlements under successive Republican and Democrat administrations.
Crikey invited Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to comment but none had responded by deadline.
:: Article nr. 72837 sent on 13-dec-2010 23:36 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=72837
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)