Attack On Iran: Wild Speculation or Foregone Conclusion?

Here I engage in unapplogetic speculation. Sometimes this is necesarry to
bridge the gaps between the truths and semi-truths which are presented to us
n order to see the whole picture.

Recently, several stories have come out speculating on an imminent preemtive strike by the United States on Iran. This does not seem so far fetched, taken with the facts that U.S. paid operatives have admittedly been operating within Iran. This postulates "Concern is building among the military and the intelligence community that the US may be preparing for a military strike on Iran, as military assets in key positions are approaching readiness." And here we have SEYMOUR M. HERSH asking the question "Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?"

Of course, these stories were dismissed by the President as 'Wild Speculation' here, here and here.

Was that a smoke-screen? The recent reports of troop movements and battle readiness plans seem to confirm that a strike on Iran is a foregone conclusion despite the spin washington has put on the press.

On the eve of such a momentous strike, one might be inclined to ask WHY, or WHY NOW? These stories proclaiming the recent detection of highly enriched uranium found in Iran may provide a clue: Yahoo News , Reuters.

Reminiscent of the WMD argument, only this time some measures have been taken to back their claims up with 'evidence'. Of course this flies in the face of previous CIA reports which tell us. "Iran 'years from nuclear bomb" says the BBC here , "Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb" here from The Washington Post and "Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away" from New York Times here.

One might ask, if the CIA's own reports are to believed and Iran is years away from such enrichment, where could these uranium traces come from? Well for one, many places, it is no secret that Russia has misplaced some of its own suitcase bombs and there are several countries in the 'nuclear club' both acknowledged and not officially acknowleded who's own records leave a lot to be desired. Still, is there something more recent though, which might explain the unforseen emergence of such highly enriched uranium in Iran? Where does this stuff come from anyway?

How about a United States Nuclear power plant, in fact, how about this one in Beaver Creek Pennsyvania.

Here are some stories, which somehow did not make the main stream media, which disclose basically, some rather unorthadox behavior at the aforementioned facility:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/8821721/detail.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06110/683609-57.stm
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd19/19nukes.htm

How on EARTH could a truck be stopped at the gates of a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT with 500,000 dollars in mixed bills discovered in its cab and the driver and passenger LET go nearly immediately? One has to ask oneself WHO 'in this post 9/11 world' has the PULL to facilitate the immediate release such of suspicious subjects, travelling to a such a restricted and dangerous place, and carrying what is a federally illegal amount of cash?

Now if one chooses to engage in the mental gymnastics necissary to follow this thread of 'reasoning' thus far, one might ask 'Yeah, but how do you get these 'traces' of uranium from pennsylvania all the way to Iran, and isnt that stuff monitored?

Second question first... Of course it is monitored, and monitored rather closely, and sometimes things go missing, however, and while the missing quantities of this materiel MAY indeed be enough to pose a real threat, a much more miniscule amount, a non-threatening amount can easily be used to trick the sensors of inspectors. Therein lies the perfect opportunity to decry a nation as a threat, without them actually being one.

As for how such substances could be moved from the U.S. of A. to a nation in which we do not even have diplomatic or economic ties... simplicity itself really. Which multi-national corporations have an office in Iran and also have an interest in seeing war in that region? Of course it is Halliburton read it here and here and here.

Finally, After the U.s. nukes Iran, will there be any proof left of Iran's innocence? Or will Iran simply be an example to those who might stand up agaisnt U.S. Imperialism? What will be the end result besides more war, which equals more money for the military industrial complex and less available oil, which equals more money for the oil industrial complex?

Ultimately, why would Iran want bomb's for which they have no delivery system to employ, and
why-oh-why would they on the FURTHEST REACH OF IMAGINATION wish to engage the United States in a nuclear stand-off and have no absolutely no hope whatsoever of surviving such a confrontation.


End this now, before it starts. Time is short, do not hessitate.




-Tsoldrin

Tags: iran, war, conspiracy, nwo, tsoldrin

Spygate - Illegal NSA warrantless wiretapping plot thickens

04-09-2006

NEW TWIST IN SPYGATE CONTROVERSY: IT'S NOT JUST FORIEGN CALLS BEING MONITORED



There appears to be a new twist in the controversial issue of illegal domestic wiretapping where
President Bush authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of United States citizens making calls outside of the United States. By now everyone is aware of the story of domestic spying which was first broken by the New York Times on December 16, 2005 after witholding the story for over a year because of pressure from the White House (which doesn't say much for the Fourth Estate protecting the people in a timely and dilligent manner), and later added to with detail by The Washington Post and USA Today in February of 2006. The scope of the spying, already thought by many to be far in excess of presidential authority, may far exceed what was first reported, and may indeed encompass not only communication between domestic and foriegn parties but may also include communication entirely within the United States.


During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, April 6, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales hinted that warrantless wiretaps were possible solely within the United States. In this hearing of the Judiciary Comittee Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) asked the Attorney General point blank whether the administration believes it has the authority to wiretap purely domestic calls between two Americans without seeking a warrant. "I’m not going to rule it out," replied the Attorney General. A partial transcript can be found on the Congressman's website here .


This revelation is hardly without precedent, as can be noted in a document by the Attorney General on the Department Of Justice website itself specifically addressing the legality of these illegal warrantless wiretaps released January 27, 2006 entitled "THE NSA PROGRAM TO DETECT AND PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACKS MYTH V. REALITY" which can be found here . Some excerpts from the document like this:

---
Myth: The NSA program is a domestic eavesdropping program used to spy on innocent
Americans.

Reality: The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and
targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. Safeguards are in place to protect the civil
liberties of ordinary Americans.
---

don't seem to make much sense in light of this new revelation of domestic-domestic spying. And further accentuated by this bullet point:

---
• The program only applies to communications where one party is located outside of the
United States.
---

However, the Attorney General seemed to provide himself some cover from future recriminations in the same document further on, when he stated:

---
Myth: The NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Reality: The NSA activities described by the President are consistent with FISA.
---

Clearly indicating, by the fact of qualifying that the NSA activities "described by the President" are consistent with FISA, and by omission admitting that other, undescribed NSA activites are possibly in violation of FISA. It is important to note that this statement is 'prepared' and available on the DOJ website. It is not an off the cuff remark to reporters, but something well thought out and obviously consulted on and in writing. The fact that it is being made by the highest law enforcer in the land and contains such an obvious escape-clause qualification should not be overlooked, especially when taken in conjunction with the recent avowage that domestic-only calls may be 'legally' monitored without warrants.


These new comments seem to contradict statements Attorney General Gonzales made on December 19, 2005 which can be found here and state in part:

---
The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is outside the United States. And this is a very important point -- people are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States.
---

That last sentence seems rather telling in retrospect.


Several things jump out here to ring alarm bells. First of all, why is the Bush administration once again facing down congress? It was only recenly that the Patriot Act was up for renewall, and Bush said that he would be enforcing it weather Congress passed it or not. Further, during the Dubai Port controversy, Bush threatened
to veto any legislation passed by Congress to block that deal and later admitted he hadn't even read the reports yet. Let me re-iterate; Before knowing any details of a deal both the american people and congress were concerned about, President Bush was going to veto (slap-down) any opposition, sight unseen. This not only seems to be a
complete disrespect for the Legislative branch of the government, it is an outright slap in the face. Now, when both parties are grumbling about warrantless wiretaps being illegal between America and overseas, we find out that is only the tip of the iceberg and not only are domestic communications being surveiled, but possibly all forms of communication anywhere are being surveiled and recorded for use at a later date. It is astonishing that while congress scrambles to push through bills which would supposedly retroactively allow the President his illegal spying under the auspices of some future oversight, practically bending over backwards and begging for some face saving compromise which would allow them to continue to pretend to have some power, they are only being spat upon and laughed at by the administration.




Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I present you with exhibit B. Press release from EFF, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, in its ongoing case vs AT&T alleging complicity with the NSA in violating the privacy rights of U.S. citizens can be summed up with this initial statement:

---
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.
---

of which the full text can be found here.

Furthermore, the EFF reported on April 6 that it filed 'Evidence in Motion to Stop AT&T's Dragnet Surveillance' in this ongoing case against AT&T, which would indicate that the EFF has concrete evidence to support its motion to stop AT&T from disclosing information to the NSA. After supressing the EFF's documents while being reviewed,the DOJ finally allowed them to be filed under seal, whereas only the judge and the litigants are allowed to see them and the public is barred access. Strangely enough and in defiance of this rule, the government, who is not a party to the case appears to be maintaining a strict watch and tight leash on all information.

Some interesting technical information on this as well as the shadowy ties between the industry and intelligence groups can be found here.



It is interesting to note that the White House, while skirting the edges of legality in the past regarding illegal wiretapping of foriegn-domestic calls has turned to admitting illegal surveilance of domestic-domestic calls just (on the same day) at the time when someone (the EFF) was going to blow the case wide open. One has to wonder if this is some sort of pre-emptive damage control, and one has to wonder how this was organized and ready ahead of time without the abuse of purely domestic surveilance on groups such as the EFF.





- Tsoldrin Benjari

Tags: nsa, wiretapping, spying, spygate, tsoldrin