Fucking for Virginity!

Aus der UseNet Gruppe ch.soc.politics (Namen durch mich unkenntlich gemacht/ul)

Am 23.04.12 11:44, schrieb YYYY YYYY:

Am 23.04.12 10:46, schrieb XXX XXXXr:

Wollen wir wirklich eine Welt, in der die USA ihre Ansichten, was
richtig ist, jederzeit per Drohnen und Cruise Missiles mitteilen?

Spielt es eine Rolle, ob wir das wollen? Wir haben sie.

Nur wenn weiterhin beifällig genickt wird, wenn der eine oder andere Despot medienwirksam weggebombt wird, während man mit anderen Despoten fröhlich und lukrativ Handel treibt. Damit macht sich dann nämlich auch im Völkerrecht eine "legal-illegal-scheissegal"-Mentalität breit.


Nach dem 2. Weltkrieg war es eigentlich klar, dass Krieg kein akzeptables Mittel der Politik sein darf. Und vor allem, dass es unsinn ist, die Welt in Gut und Böse einzuteilen. Als die Sowjetunion in Afghanistan einmarschierte, hat die Welt sich emört. Daraufhin haben die USA die "guten" Taliban kräftig unterstützt, damit diese die bösen Russen wieder rausschmeissen. Danach wurden die guten Taliban dann zu den bösen Taliban.  In Persien dagegen unterstütze man den guten Schah gegen die bösen Kommunisten, bis Chomeini kam und nun plötzlich die bösen Mullahs an der Macht waren. Da unterstütze man den guten Saddam Hussein als Bollwerk gegen die bösen Islamisten. Allerdings wurde der gute Saddam zum bösen Saddam, als er die guten Oelliferanten in Kuweit angriff und das gute Autokratenregime in Saudi Arabien bedrohte.

Die einzigen, die wirklich immer gut sind, sind die Chinesen. Die sind einfach zu gute Handelspartner, um böse zu sein. Und die einzigen, die wirklich immer böse sind, sind die Nordkoreaner. Denn die haben weder Oel noch Kaufkraft.

Selbst Ghaddaffi pendelte in den Jahrzehnten seiner....

Financial terrorists pose grave risk to US

02/02/2011 / The Times (London)
Alexandra Frean
(Copyright Times Newspapers Ltd, 2011)
Financial terrorists pose grave risk to US
The US financial system remains vulnerable to a co-ordinated act of ?financial terrorism? that risks taking down the US economy and collapsing the dollar, according to a confidential report commissioned by the Department of Defence in Washington.

The document warns that forces hostile to the US could mount a ?focused effort to collapse the dollar by dumping Treasury bonds? and urges the security services to conduct a further risk assessment outside of traditional Washington and Wall Street circles.

It also suggests that the financial meltdown of 2008, which wiped out an estimated $50 trillion of global wealth, may not have been the spontaneous result of poor regulation and bad risk assessment among financial institutions, but a co-ordinated series of attacks by ?financial terrorists intent on destroying the American financial system.

The disclosure of the report?s contents to The Times came as the FBI confirmed that it had warned major Wall Street institutions of a potential threat to their businesses and executives after an al Qaeda-linked magazine, Inspire, suggested that financial markets could be a target of attack.

A spokesman for the FBI in New York confirmed yesterday that security briefings for Wall Street firms took place last month, but said that the information that was discussed was not imminent, not specific. The briefings reflect concerns in some quarters of the Pentagon about the....

The story behind the Palestine papers

The Guardian
The story behind the Palestine papers

How 1,600 confidential Palestinian records of negotiations with Israel from 1999 to 2010 came to be leaked to al-Jazeera

The Guardian, Monday 24 January 201

The revelations from the heart of the Israel-Palestine peace process are the product of the biggest documentary leak in the history of the Middle East conflict, and the most comprehensive exposure of the inside story of a decade of failed negotiations.

The 1,600 confidential records of hundreds of meetings between Palestinian, Israeli and US leaders, as well as emails and secret proposals, were leaked to the Qatar-based satellite TV channel al-Jazeera and shared exclusively with the Guardian. They cover the period from the runup to the ill-fated Camp David negotiations under US president Bill Clinton in 2000, to private discussions last year involving senior officials and politicians in the Obama administration.

The earliest document in the cache is a memo from September 1999 about Palestinian negotiating strategy. It suggests heeding the advice of the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you can get what you need." The final one, from last September, is a Palestinian Authority (PA) message to the Egyptian government about access to the Gaza Strip.

The Palestine papers have emerged at a time when a whole era of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, starting with the Madrid conference in 1991, appear to have run into the sand, opening up the prospect of a new phase of the conflict and potentially another war.

In particular, they cover the most recent negotiations, before and after George Bush's Annapolis conference in late 2007 – when substantive offers were made by both sides until the process broke down over Israel's refusal to freeze West Bank settlement activity.

The bulk of the documents are records, contemporaneous notes and sections of verbatim transcripts of meetings drawn up by officials of the Palestinian negotiation... support unit (NSU), which has been the main technical and legal backup for the Palestinian side in the negotiations.

The unit has been heavily funded by the British government. Other documents originate from inside the PA's extensive US- and British-sponsored security apparatus.

The Israelis, Americans and others kept their own records, which may differ in their accounts of the same meetings. But the Palestinian documents were made and held confidentially, rather......

Pakistans gefährliches Atomprogramm

20. April 2010, Neue Zürcher Zeitung
Pakistans gefährliches Atomprogramm

Politische Instabilität und die Präsenz von Terrorgruppen bilden ein nur schwer zu kalkulierendes Risiko


Die Furcht wächst, dass Terroristen waffenfähiges Spaltmaterial in die Hände bekommen könnten. Laut Experten stellt das politisch instabile Pakistan mit seinem Nukleararsenal in einem solchen Szenario der grösste Schwachpunkt dar.

Andrea Spalinger, Delhi

Regierungsvertreter aus 47 Staaten sind letzte Woche in Washington zu einem Gipfel über Nuklearsicherheit zusammengetroffen. In erster Linie ging es dabei in den Worten des Gastgebers, Barack Obama, um die «grösste Bedrohung für die globale Sicherheit», die Gefahr, dass Terroristen waffenfähiges Spaltmaterial in die Hände bekommen könnten. Während das Risiko eines atomaren Konflikts seit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges gesunken sei, sei die Gefahr eines nuklearen Anschlags sehr viel grösser geworden, so die Warnung des amerikanischen Präsidenten. Sollten Terrorgruppen in den Besitz hochangereicherten Urans oder von Plutonium kommen, hätte dies unvorstellbare Konsequenzen, sagte er und rief zu konkreten Schritten zur Sicherung des nuklearen Materials auf.

Ein altes Sorgenkind

Das grösste Sorgenkind der Amerikaner diesbezüglich ist Pakistan. Über das Proliferations-Netzwerk des langjährigen Chefs....

20. April 2010, Neue Zürcher Zeitung
Pakistans gefährliches Atomprogramm

Politische Instabilität und die Präsenz von Terrorgruppen bilden ein nur schwer zu kalkulierendes Risiko


Die Furcht wächst, dass Terroristen waffenfähiges Spaltmaterial in die Hände bekommen könnten. Laut Experten stellt das politisch instabile Pakistan mit seinem Nukleararsenal in einem solchen Szenario der grösste Schwachpunkt dar.

Andrea Spalinger, Delhi

Regierungsvertreter aus 47 Staaten sind letzte Woche in Washington zu einem Gipfel über Nuklearsicherheit zusammengetroffen. In erster Linie ging es dabei in den Worten des Gastgebers, Barack Obama, um die «grösste Bedrohung für die globale Sicherheit», die Gefahr, dass Terroristen waffenfähiges Spaltmaterial in die Hände bekommen könnten. Während das Risiko eines atomaren Konflikts seit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges gesunken sei, sei die Gefahr eines nuklearen Anschlags sehr viel grösser geworden, so die Warnung des amerikanischen Präsidenten. Sollten Terrorgruppen in den Besitz hochangereicherten Urans oder von Plutonium kommen, hätte dies unvorstellbare Konsequenzen, sagte er und rief zu konkreten Schritten zur Sicherung des nuklearen Materials auf.

Ein altes Sorgenkind

Das grösste Sorgenkind der Amerikaner diesbezüglich ist Pakistan. Über das Proliferations-Netzwerk des langjährigen Chefs des pakistanischen Atomprogramms, Abdul Qadeer Khan, sind Staaten wie Libyen, Nordkorea und Iran in den Besitz geheimer Atomtechnologie gelangt. 2003 flogen Khans Aktivitäten zwar auf, doch viele Fragen bleiben unbeantwortet und das Ausmass des Skandals unklar. Pakistans Behörden haben weder den Amerikanern noch der Internationalen Atomenergieagentur (IAEA) erlaubt, den Atomschmuggler zu verhören. Dies dürfte nicht nur damit zu tun haben, dass Khan in Pakistan als «Vater der Atombombe» ein Volksheld ist, sondern auch damit, dass seine kriminellen Geschäfte ohne Wissen der Armee kaum möglich gewesen wären.

Neben der dubiosen Vergangenheit bereitet Nuklearexperten auch die gegenwärtige Instabilität Pakistans Kopfzerbrechen. Während sein Atomwaffenarsenal rasant wächst, tummeln sich in dem Land die meistgesuchten Terroristen der Welt. Ein vergangene Woche vom Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs der Universität Harvard und der Nuclear Threat Initiative herausgegebener Bericht («Securing the Bomb») stellt denn auch fest, die Gefahr eines nuklearen Lecks sei nirgendwo grösser als in Pakistan. Das südasiatische Land hat die Sicherheitsmassnahmen in den letzten Jahren zwar hochgefahren und zum Schutz seines Atomarsenals eine Strategic Plans Division geschaffen, der 10 000 speziell ausgewählte und ausgebildete Sicherheitskräfte angehören. Experten zweifeln jedoch daran, dass diese Truppe der Gefahr gewachsen ist. Sowohl der Diebstahl von nuklearem Material durch Insider als auch ein Terrorangriff auf Atomanlagen seien weiterhin realistische Szenarien, schreibt der Autor des Berichts, Matthew Bunn. Wenn Terrorgruppen zu spektakulären Angriffen auf schwer gesicherte Ziele wie das Armeehauptquartier in Rawalpindi in der Lage seien, seien auch die über das ganze Land verteilten Reaktoren, nuklearen Forschungsanlagen und Waffenlager nicht sicher. Da traditionell enge Beziehungen zwischen den Sicherheitskräften und islamistischen Gruppen bestünden, könnte es Letzteren zudem gelingen, Spione in nukleare Anlagen einzuschleusen, befürchtet Bunn.

Neue Reaktoren

Besorgniserregend ist nicht zuletzt, dass Islamabad die Produktion von waffenfähigem Spaltmaterial derzeit ausweitet. Es baut drei neue Reaktoren zur Herstellung von Plutonium für eine neue Generation von Atomwaffen, und der amerikanische Geheimdienst CIA hat auf Satellitenbildern bereits erste Dampffahnen über einem der Kühltürme entdeckt. Pakistan hat den Bau offiziell nicht bestätigt, hinter vorgehaltener Hand argumentieren Regierungsbeamte aber, angesichts der indischen Bedrohung brauche man dringend neue Reaktoren. In der Tat produziert auch Indien derzeit neues waffenfähiges Plutonium in Anlagen, die vom Nuklearabkommen mit den USA (das nur die zivile Nutzung von Atomenergie umfasst) ausgeschlossen sind und von der IAEA nicht besichtigt werden können. Nach Schätzungen des Belfer Center lagern weltweit über 23 000 Atomwaffen, und mit den globalen Beständen an hochangereichertem Uran (1600 Tonnen) und Plutonium (500 Tonnen) könnten insgesamt etwa 200 000 Bomben hergestellt werden. Pakistan verfügt mit 70 bis 90 Nuklearsprengköpfen somit über ein eher bescheidenes Arsenal. Da ein kleiner Teil waffenfähigen Spaltmaterials allerdings ausreicht, um unvorstellbaren Schaden anzurichten, tut dies wenig zu Sache.

Beteuerungen Gilanis

Der Harvard-Professor Bunn ist nur einer von vielen Nonproliferations-Experten, die vor einem Leck in Pakistan warnen. Dennoch wurde über das Thema beim Gipfeltreffen in Washington nicht offiziell diskutiert. Das nukleare Wettrüsten in Südasien sei politisch zu heikel, als dass es auf die Tagesordnung hätte gesetzt werden können, verlautete aus Regierungskreisen. Präsident Obama sprach seine Bedenken nur in einem privaten Treffen mit Premierminister Gilani vor dem Gipfel an. Dabei soll er auch seinem Unmut darüber Luft gemacht haben, dass Islamabad Verhandlungen über einen Vertrag blockiert, der die Produktion von neuem Spaltmaterial weltweit stoppen soll.

Gilani versicherte in Washington zum wiederholten Male, Pakistan sei ein verantwortungsvoller Atomstaat und seine Nuklearwaffen seien in sicherer Hand. Auch die Armeeführung, die de facto die Kontrolle über das Atomprogramm hat, behauptet, das Kapitel Khan sei abgeschlossen und die nuklearen Geheimnisse seien heute sicher.

Nicht nur al-Kaida

Laut Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, einem Terrorexperten und jahrzehntelangen CIA-Mitarbeiter, stellt die Kaida mit Abstand die grösste Gefahr dar, weil sie sich bereits seit vielen Jahren darum bemüht, an Massenvernichtungswaffen zu kommen. Ihr Chef, Usama bin Ladin, hatte bereits 1998 öffentlich erklärt: «Es ist die Pflicht der Muslime, in den Besitz einer nuklearen Bombe zu kommen, um die Feinde Gottes zu terrorisieren.» Bruce Riedel von der Brookings Institution wiederum weist warnend darauf hin, dass nicht nur die Kaida, sondern auch andere Terrorgruppen in Pakistan wie die Lashkar-e Toiba nach Nuklearmaterial strebten. Die Hochburg der Lashkar ist der Punjab, wo auch die meisten Armeeoffiziere rekrutiert werden. Zwischen dem Militär und der Gruppe bestehen traditionell enge Bande, und die Gefahr, dass Letztere an Insiderwissen gelangt, ist laut Riedel deshalb gross.

Indiens Maoisten profitieren vom Versagen der Politiker

31. Dezember 2009, Neue Zürcher Zeitung

Indiens Maoisten profitieren vom Versagen der Politiker
Der Gliedstaat Jharkhand betreibt Bergbau im grossen Stil, doch der lokalen Bevölkerung hat dies nur Elend und Vertreibung gebracht

Andrea Spalinger, Ranchi

In den letzten Monaten haben maoistische Rebellen in Indien immer wieder mit spektakulären Angriffen auf sich aufmerksam gemacht. In verschiedenen Gliedstaaten griffen die sogenannten Naxaliten Polizeipatrouillen an, sprengten Schulen und andere öffentliche Gebäude in die Luft und entführten Polizisten und Geschäftsleute. In den letzten sechs Monaten allein verübten sie landesweit über 1400 Gewalttaten, die rund 600 Personen das Leben kosteten.

Zunehmende Stärke

Die Naxaliten haben ihren Ursprung in einem Aufstand von Stämmen gegen Landenteignungen 1967 in Naxalbari in Westbengalen. Die Bewegung erreichte 1972 einen ersten Höhepunkt, als sie weite Gebiete von Bihar und Westbengalen wie auch Teile von Uttar Pradesh und Andhra Pradesh unter ihre Kontrolle brachte. Danach verlor sie vorübergehend an Einfluss, bis sich Ende der achtziger Jahre eine Reihe neuer maoistischer Grüppchen bildete, in denen die verbliebenen Naxaliten aufgingen. Starken Auftrieb erhielt die Bewegung 2004 durch den Zusammenschluss dieser Splittergruppen zur Communist Party of India (Maoist).

Seither haben sich die Maoisten in Indien enorm ausgebreitet. Sie sind heute in 20 von 28 Gliedstaaten präsent und verfügen....

31. Dezember 2009, Neue Zürcher Zeitung

Indiens Maoisten profitieren vom Versagen der Politiker
Der Gliedstaat Jharkhand betreibt Bergbau im grossen Stil, doch der lokalen Bevölkerung hat dies nur Elend und Vertreibung gebracht

Andrea Spalinger, Ranchi

In den letzten Monaten haben maoistische Rebellen in Indien immer wieder mit spektakulären Angriffen auf sich aufmerksam gemacht. In verschiedenen Gliedstaaten griffen die sogenannten Naxaliten Polizeipatrouillen an, sprengten Schulen und andere öffentliche Gebäude in die Luft und entführten Polizisten und Geschäftsleute. In den letzten sechs Monaten allein verübten sie landesweit über 1400 Gewalttaten, die rund 600 Personen das Leben kosteten.

Zunehmende Stärke

Die Naxaliten haben ihren Ursprung in einem Aufstand von Stämmen gegen Landenteignungen 1967 in Naxalbari in Westbengalen. Die Bewegung erreichte 1972 einen ersten Höhepunkt, als sie weite Gebiete von Bihar und Westbengalen wie auch Teile von Uttar Pradesh und Andhra Pradesh unter ihre Kontrolle brachte. Danach verlor sie vorübergehend an Einfluss, bis sich Ende der achtziger Jahre eine Reihe neuer maoistischer Grüppchen bildete, in denen die verbliebenen Naxaliten aufgingen. Starken Auftrieb erhielt die Bewegung 2004 durch den Zusammenschluss dieser Splittergruppen zur Communist Party of India (Maoist).

Seither haben sich die Maoisten in Indien enorm ausgebreitet. Sie sind heute in 20 von 28 Gliedstaaten präsent und verfügen je nach Schätzungen über 10 000 bis 20 000 Kämpfer und ein Heer von – freiwilligen oder unfreiwilligen – Helfern in den von ihnen kontrollierten Dörfern. Am stärksten ist ihr Einfluss im «Roten Korridor», einem von Ureinwohnern bewohnten, ressourcenreichen Dschungelgebiet, das sich von der nepalesischen Grenze bis hinunter nach Andhra Pradesh zieht. In ihren Hochburgen Bihar, Westbengalen, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand und Andhra Pradesh haben sie in einigen Gebieten eine Art Parallelstaat aufgebaut, in anderen sorgen sie mit sporadischen Überfällen und Anschlägen für Angst und Schrecken.

Keine einheitliche Strategie

Premierminister Manmohan Singh bezeichnet die kommunistischen Rebellen heute als die grösste Gefahr für die innere Sicherheit des Landes. In der Tat kommen jährlich viel mehr Bürger bei Angriffen der Maoisten ums Leben als durch die Gewalt islamistischer Extremisten. Laut dem Institute for Conflict Management in Delhi wurden seit 2005 2000 Personen bei Angriffen der Naxaliten getötet. Dennoch vernachlässigte die Zentralregierung die Gefahr bisher sträflich und überliess es den Gliedstaaten, eine Strategie im Kampf gegen die Naxaliten zu entwickeln.

Diese Politik war wenig erfolgreich. Eine Grossoffensive in Andhra Pradesh führte dazu, dass sich die Rebellen in Nachbarstaaten absetzten und das Problem nur verlagert wurde. In Chhattisgarh schickte der Staat eine Bürgermiliz in den Dschungel, die kaum einen Unterschied zwischen Rebellen und der lokalen Stammesbevölkerung machte. Hunderte von Zivilisten kamen ums Leben, Zehntausende wurden vertrieben. Dies verschaffte den Maoisten im Gliedstaat nur mehr Zulauf.

Seit ihrer Wiederwahl im Frühjahr nimmt die Kongressregierung das Thema nun jedoch sehr viel ernster. Der neue Innenminister Chidambaram hat es ganz oben auf seine Traktandenliste gesetzt und für Anfang 2010 eine Grossoffensive gegen die Rebellen angekündigt. Über 75 000 Paramilitärs und Polizisten sollen die von den Maoisten kontrollierten Gebiete zurückerobern.

In Jharkhand, einem der am schwersten betroffenen Gliedstaaten, ist man allerdings skeptisch, dass das Naxaliten-Problem militärisch gelöst werden kann. Die Regierungen in Delhi hätten die von Adivasi (Ureinwohnern) besiedelten Gebiete im Herzen des Subkontinents jahrzehntelang vernachlässigt, sagt Jaideep Deogharia, ein Journalist in Ranchi. Im Dschungel Jharkhands sei der Staat bis heute fast gar nicht präsent. Es gebe dort weder Schulen noch Spitäler noch Gerichte. Dieses Machtvakuum habe den Vormarsch der Maoisten begünstigt und nicht der Hang zu kommunistischer Ideologie, sagt er.

Jharkhand ist in der Tat ein anschauliches Beispiel dafür, dass der wachsende Einfluss der Maoisten in Indien nicht allein ein Sicherheitsproblem darstellt, sondern politische und soziale Wurzeln hat. Der Gliedstaat (der erst seit dem Jahr 2000 existiert und vorher ein Teil Bihars war) ist reich an Bodenschätzen wie Kohle, Eisenerz, Kupfer, Bauxit und Uran. Doch deren Ausbeutung hat den Bewohnern der Region in den sechzig Jahren seit der Unabhängigkeit Indiens ausser Vertreibung und Elend kaum etwas gebracht. Das Geld aus den millionenschweren Bergbau-Kontrakten floss in die Taschen korrupter Politiker und Beamter.

Bitterarm trotz Bergbau

Eine Fahrt durch Hazaribag, einen Distrikt im Norden Jharkhands, führt das Dilemma vor Augen. Der Abbau der Rohstoffvorkommen hat in der einst idyllischen Dschungelregion deutliche Spuren hinterlassen. Eine Kohlegrube reiht sich an die nächste. Einige sind noch in Betrieb. Viele sind bereits ausgebeutet und wieder verlassen. Um sie herum ist das Land unbewohnbar geworden. Kilometerweit reihen sich riesige schwarze Krater und Erdaufschüttungen aneinander.

Laut Faisal Anurag, der seit Jahrzehnten für die Rechte der Adivasi in Jharkhand kämpft, sind in der Region seit der Erlangung der Unabhängigkeit 1947 über 2,5 Millionen Menschen wegen Minenprojekten vertrieben worden. 80 Prozent von ihnen seien Adivasi gewesen, nur 2 Prozent hätten anderswo Land zugesprochen bekommen. Der Rest sei in grossstädtischen Slums gelandet.

Die Regierung in Ranchi hat in den letzten Jahren über hundert Vereinbarungen mit indischen und ausländischen Konzernen über neue Bergbauprojekte getroffen. Doch der Widerstand der Bevölkerung wächst, und erst wenige Gruben konnten mit der Arbeit beginnen. Der Grossteil des Protests sei friedlich, sagt Dayamani Barla, die eine Volksbewegung gegen ein Eisenerzprojekt des Unternehmens ArcelorMittal anführt. Dennoch werde jeder, der sich wehre, als Maoist abgestempelt. Viele Aktivisten seien verhaftet worden, obwohl sie nichts mit den Rebellen am Hut hätten, schimpft Barla.

«Jharkhand ist ein kleiner Staat. Wenn hier über hundert neue Gruben entstehen, bleibt kein Land für die Adivasi übrig», so ereifert sich die quirlige Frau. «Die Stämme leben im Einklang mit der Natur und ernähren sich fast ausschliesslich von Produkten aus dem Dschungel. Wenn man sie von dort vertreibt, verlieren sie ihre Lebensgrundlage und ihre Identität.» Die Adivasi wollten ihr Land deshalb nicht aufgeben, nicht einmal, wenn sie dafür entschädigt würden, sagt Barla. Im Moment bekämen sie jedoch gar nichts. Die Regierung spreche zwar bei jedem Projekt von Kompensation und Rehabilitation, doch dies seien nur leere Worte.

Himmelschreiende Korruption

Eine Reihe von Wirtschaftsexperten hingegen ist der Ansicht, dass die Ausbeutung der Bodenschätze eine Chance darstellt. Wenn das Potenzial genutzt würde, um die Region zu entwickeln, wäre nichts dagegen einzuwenden, meint ein Berater eines multinationalen Bergbauunternehmens, der nicht namentlich genannt werden möchte. Es sei jedoch höchst problematisch, dass der Allgemeinheit von dem vielen Geld, das Firmen in Form von Lizenzen und Steuern bezahlten, kaum etwas zugutekomme.

In den fünf Jahren seit seiner Unabhängigkeit hat sich Jharkhand bereits den Ruf des korruptesten Staates in ganz Indien geschaffen. Wie nirgendwo sonst im Land haben sich die Politiker hier selbst bereichert. Madhu Koda etwa, der zwischen 2006 und 2008 Chefminister war, soll in seiner kurzen Amtszeit nicht weniger als 40 Milliarden Rupien (etwa 900 Millionen Franken) in die Taschen gesteckt haben. Gegen Koda läuft derzeit ein Verfahren, doch viele andere bereichern sich ungehindert weiter.

«Die himmelschreiende Korruption und der rücksichtslose Umgang der Behörden mit den Adivasi haben den Maoisten Zulauf verschafft», sagt Sashi Bushan Pathak, ein Dorflehrer und Sympathisant der Naxaliten in Hazaribag. Die Maoisten versprächen den Stämmen Autonomie und den Schutz ihrer politischen und kulturellen Rechte. Damit hätten sie viele Adivasi für sich gewinnen können.

Politische Lösung nötig

Der Polizeichef von Hazaribag, M. S. Bhatia, stimmt dieser Einschätzung zu. Der aus dem Punjab stammende Sikh ist seit zehn Jahren in Jharkhand stationiert und betrachtet die Naxaliten im Gegensatz zu vielen Militärs und Polizeioffizieren in Delhi nicht nur als ein Problem von Recht und Ordnung. Die Regierung müsse eine politische Lösung suchen, fordert er. Mit militärischen Mitteln allein könnten die Maoisten nicht besiegt werden.

Die Maoisten hätten grossen Einfluss in Hazaribag, gesteht der Polizeichef ein. Sie würden im Distrikt «Steuern» erheben, Volksgerichte abhalten und Leute zwangsrekrutieren. Die Bevölkerung müsse sich mit den Rebellen arrangieren. Kaum jemand kooperiere mit den Sicherheitskräften aus Angst vor Repressionsmassnahmen. Doch nicht nur in abgelegenen Distrikten im Dschungel haben die Maoisten heute das Sagen. Auch in vielen Vierteln der Hauptstadt Ranchi zahlen Ladenbesitzer Abgaben an die Rebellen, und selbst Regierungsbeamte müssen einen Teil ihres Diwali-Geldes (eine Art 13. Monatslohn, den Staatsangestellte zum hinduistischen Feiertag Diwali bekommen) abgeben.

«Alle in Jharkhand tätigen Firmen entrichten Abgaben, in der Regel etwa 10 Prozent des Umsatzes», berichtet der Bergbauunternehmer Deepak Kumar. «Dafür beschützen die Maoisten unsere Gruben und unsere Arbeiter.» Das Wirtschaftsklima in Jharkhand sei eine Katastrophe. Die Regierung vergebe Lizenzen für den Abbau von Rohstoffen, sorge in den Bergbaugebieten aber nicht für Recht und Ordnung. Als Unternehmer müsse man sich irgendwie in das System einfügen, so rechtfertigt Kumar die Tatsache, dass auch er den Rebellen jeden Monat eine Tüte voller Geldscheine übergibt.

Volle Kriegskassen

Der Mittvierziger, dessen Familie seit Generationen im Bergbau tätig ist, weiss, dass mit den Maoisten nicht zu spassen ist. Vor fünf Jahren wurde er entführt, weil eine Zahlung nicht ordnungsgemäss über die Bühne gegangen war. Er habe damals Geld an eine andere kriminelle Gruppe bezahlt, die sich als Maoisten ausgegeben habe, erklärt er. Die Polizei kam den Entführern auf die Spur und umzingelte das Haus, in dem Kumar festgehalten wurde. Während einer mehrstündigen Schiesserei konnte der Unternehmer fliehen, was allerdings nicht bedeutete, dass er damit dem Einflussbereich der Maoisten entkommen wäre. «Natürlich sind sie wiedergekommen, und ich habe für den Vorfall bezahlt. Seither weiss ich genau, wem ich das Geld zu übergeben habe», fügt er hinzu.

Die Führungsriege der Maoisten sei in den letzten Jahren sehr reich geworden, meint der Journalist Jaideep. Viele Kader hätten angefangen, in Ranchi Immobilien zu kaufen und ihre Kinder zur Ausbildung ins Ausland zu schicken. Laut dem Polizeichef Bhatia treiben die Maoisten allein in Jharkhand jährlich etwa eine Milliarde Rupien (umgerechnet 24 Millionen Franken) ein. Damit könnten sie Waffen kaufen und massenweise Kämpfer aus armen Bevölkerungsschichten anheuern.

Innenminister Chidambaram habe das Problem erkannt und wolle es mit einer Offensive lösen, sagt Bhatia. Eine solche birgt seiner Ansicht nach aber einige Gefahren. «Die Infrastruktur hier ist schlecht, unser Informantennetz ebenfalls. Im Dschungelkrieg sind uns die Naxaliten weit überlegen.» Ausserdem sei es schwierig, zwischen Zivilisten und maoistischen Kämpfern zu unterscheiden, und die Gefahr, dass bei einer Offensive viele Unschuldige ums Leben kämen, sei gross. Die Regierung müsse die Region entwickeln, fordert Bhatia. Wenn die Menschen hier Jobs hätten und Schulen für ihre Kinder, würden die Naxaliten schnell an Anziehungskraft verlieren.

Auch Pathak ist überzeugt, dass eine Offensive kontraproduktiv sei, weil sie nur mehr Unterdrückung bringe. Bereits heute kämen in Jharkhand viele unschuldige Dörfler bei Polizeiaktionen ums Leben, kritisiert er. Zudem seien unter fadenscheinigen Begründungen etwa 4000 Zivilisten verhaftet worden.

Fragwürdiges Doppelspiel

Hinter vorgehaltener Hand äussern viele Gesprächspartner in Jharkhand den Verdacht, dass die Regierung in Ranchi gar kein Interesse an einer Lösung des Naxaliten-Problems habe, weil dieses einen willkommenen Vorwand für die Vertreibung der Adivasi aus dem rohstoffreichen Dschungelgebiet liefere. Während man vorgebe, den Kampf gegen die Maoisten zu führen, kümmere man sich hinter den Kulissen darum, die Taschen mit Geld aus Bergbau-Kontrakten zu füllen. Nicht nur Aktivisten, sondern auch Vertreter der Bergbauindustrie sind überzeugt, dass viele Lokalpolitiker mit den Maoisten unter einer Decke stecken. Laut Journalisten in Ranchi kaufen sich die Politiker im Wahlkampf nicht selten sogar die Unterstützung der Naxaliten.

NYT: Frank Rich - The Banality of Bush White House Evil

The New York Times
April 26, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Banality of Bush White House Evil
By FRANK RICH

WE don’t like our evil to be banal. Ten years after Columbine, it only now may be sinking in that the psychopathic killers were not jock-hating dorks from a “Trench Coat Mafia,” or, as ABC News maintained at the time, “part of a dark, underground national phenomenon known as the Gothic movement.” In the new best seller “Columbine,” the journalist Dave Cullen reaffirms that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were instead ordinary American teenagers who worked at the local pizza joint, loved their parents and were popular among their classmates.

On Tuesday, it will be five years since Americans first confronted the photographs from Abu Ghraib on “60 Minutes II.” Here, too, we want to cling to myths....

The New York Times
April 26, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Banality of Bush White House Evil
By FRANK RICH

WE don’t like our evil to be banal. Ten years after Columbine, it only now may be sinking in that the psychopathic killers were not jock-hating dorks from a “Trench Coat Mafia,” or, as ABC News maintained at the time, “part of a dark, underground national phenomenon known as the Gothic movement.” In the new best seller “Columbine,” the journalist Dave Cullen reaffirms that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were instead ordinary American teenagers who worked at the local pizza joint, loved their parents and were popular among their classmates.

On Tuesday, it will be five years since Americans first confronted the photographs from Abu Ghraib on “60 Minutes II.” Here, too, we want to cling to myths that quarantine the evil. If our country committed torture, surely it did so to prevent Armageddon, in a patriotic ticking-time-bomb scenario out of “24.” If anyone deserves blame, it was only those identified by President Bush as “a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values”: promiscuous, sinister-looking lowlifes like Lynddie England, Charles Graner and the other grunts who were held accountable while the top command got a pass.

We’ve learned much, much more about America and torture in the past five years. But as Mark Danner recently wrote in The New York Review of Books, for all the revelations, one essential fact remains unchanged: “By no later than the summer of 2004, the American people had before them the basic narrative of how the elected and appointed officials of their government decided to torture prisoners and how they went about it.” When the Obama administration said it declassified four new torture memos 10 days ago in part because their contents were already largely public, it was right.

Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government’s highest levels; that it was carried out in scenarios that had no resemblance to “24”; that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist attacks.

The newly released Justice Department memos, like those before them, were not written by barely schooled misfits like England and Graner. John Yoo, Steven Bradbury and Jay Bybee graduated from the likes of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Michigan and Brigham Young. They have passed through white-shoe law firms like Covington & Burling, and Sidley Austin.

Judge Bybee’s résumé tells us that he has four children and is both a Cubmaster for the Boy Scouts and a youth baseball and basketball coach. He currently occupies a tenured seat on the United States Court of Appeals. As an assistant attorney general, he was the author of the Aug. 1, 2002, memo endorsing in lengthy, prurient detail interrogation “techniques” like “facial slap (insult slap)” and “insects placed in a confinement box.”

He proposed using 10 such techniques “in some sort of escalating fashion, culminating with the waterboard, though not necessarily ending with this technique.” Waterboarding, the near-drowning favored by Pol Pot and the Spanish Inquisition, was prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II. But Bybee concluded that it “does not, in our view, inflict ‘severe pain or suffering.’ ”

Still, it’s not Bybee’s perverted lawyering and pornographic amorality that make his memo worthy of special attention. It merits a closer look because it actually does add something new — and, even after all we’ve heard, something shocking — to the five-year-old torture narrative. When placed in full context, it’s the kind of smoking gun that might free us from the myths and denial that prevent us from reckoning with this ugly chapter in our history.

Bybee’s memo was aimed at one particular detainee, Abu Zubaydah, who had been captured some four months earlier, in late March 2002. Zubaydah is portrayed in the memo (as he was publicly by Bush after his capture) as one of the top men in Al Qaeda. But by August this had been proven false. As Ron Suskind reported in his book “The One Percent Doctrine,” Zubaydah was identified soon after his capture as a logistics guy, who, in the words of the F.B.I.’s top-ranking Qaeda analyst at the time, Dan Coleman, served as the terrorist group’s flight booker and “greeter,” like “Joe Louis in the lobby of Caesar’s Palace.” Zubaydah “knew very little about real operations, or strategy.” He showed clinical symptoms of schizophrenia.

By the time Bybee wrote his memo, Zubaydah had been questioned by the F.B.I. and C.I.A. for months and had given what limited information he had. His most valuable contribution was to finger Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the 9/11 mastermind. But, as Jane Mayer wrote in her book “The Dark Side,” even that contribution may have been old news: according to the 9/11 commission, the C.I.A. had already learned about Mohammed during the summer of 2001. In any event, as one of Zubaydah’s own F.B.I. questioners, Ali Soufan, wrote in a Times Op-Ed article last Thursday, traditional interrogation methods had worked. Yet Bybee’s memo purported that an “increased pressure phase” was required to force Zubaydah to talk.

As soon as Bybee gave the green light, torture followed: Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times in August 2002, according to another of the newly released memos. Unsurprisingly, it appears that no significant intelligence was gained by torturing this mentally ill Qaeda functionary. So why the overkill? Bybee’s memo invoked a ticking time bomb: “There is currently a level of ‘chatter’ equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks.”

We don’t know if there was such unusual “chatter” then, but it’s unlikely Zubaydah could have added information if there were. Perhaps some new facts may yet emerge if Dick Cheney succeeds in his unexpected and welcome crusade to declassify documents that he says will exonerate administration interrogation policies. Meanwhile, we do have evidence for an alternative explanation of what motivated Bybee to write his memo that August, thanks to the comprehensive Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees released last week.

The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.

In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.

Last week Bush-Cheney defenders, true to form, dismissed the Senate Armed Services Committee report as “partisan.” But as the committee chairman, Carl Levin, told me, the report received unanimous support from its members — John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman included.

Levin also emphasized the report’s accounts of military lawyers who dissented from White House doctrine — only to be disregarded. The Bush administration was “driven,” Levin said. By what? “They’d say it was to get more information. But they were desperate to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House’s illegality.

Levin suggests — and I agree — that as additional fact-finding plays out, it’s time for the Justice Department to enlist a panel of two or three apolitical outsiders, perhaps retired federal judges, “to review the mass of material” we already have. The fundamental truth is there, as it long has been. The panel can recommend a legal path that will insure accountability for this wholesale betrayal of American values.

President Obama can talk all he wants about not looking back, but this grotesque past is bigger than even he is. It won’t vanish into a memory hole any more than Andersonville, World War II internment camps or My Lai. The White House, Congress and politicians of both parties should get out of the way. We don’t need another commission. We don’t need any Capitol Hill witch hunts. What we must have are fair trials that at long last uphold and reclaim our nation’s commitment to the rule of law.

NYT: Iran, the Jews and Germany

The New York Times
March 2, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Iran, the Jews and Germany
By ROGER COHEN

So a Jerusalem Post article says that I’m “hardly the first American to be misled by the existence of synagogues in totalitarian countries.”

The Atlantic Monthly’s Jeffrey Goldberg finds me “particularly credulous,” taken in by the Iranian hospitality and friendliness that “are the hallmarks of most Muslim societies.” (Thanks for that info, Jeffrey.)

A conservative Web site called American Thinker, which tries to prove its name is an oxymoron, believes I would have been fooled by the Nazis’ sham at the Theresienstadt camp.

The New York Times
March 2, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Iran, the Jews and Germany
By ROGER COHEN

So a Jerusalem Post article says that I’m “hardly the first American to be misled by the existence of synagogues in totalitarian countries.”

The Atlantic Monthly’s Jeffrey Goldberg finds me “particularly credulous,” taken in by the Iranian hospitality and friendliness that “are the hallmarks of most Muslim societies.” (Thanks for that info, Jeffrey.)

A conservative Web site called American Thinker, which tries to prove its name is an oxymoron, believes I would have been fooled by the Nazis’ sham at the Theresienstadt camp.

The indignation stems from my recent column on Iranian Jews, which said that the 25,000-strong community worships in relative tranquillity; that Persian Jews have fared better than Arab Jews; that hostility toward Jews in Iran has on occasion led to trumped-up charges against them; and that those enamored of the “Mad Mullah” caricature of Iran regard any compromise with it as a rerun of Munich 1938.

This last point found confirmation in outraged correspondence from several American Jews unable to resist some analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany. I was based in Berlin for three years; Germany’s confrontation with the Holocaust inhabited me. Let’s be clear: Iran’s Islamic Republic is no Third Reich redux. Nor is it a totalitarian state.

Munich allowed Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland. Iran has not waged an expansionary war in more than two centuries.

Totalitarian regimes require the complete subservience of the individual to the state and tolerate only one party to which all institutions are subordinated. Iran is an un-free society with a keen, intermittently brutal apparatus of repression, but it’s far from meeting these criteria. Significant margins of liberty, even democracy, exist. Anything but mad, the mullahs have proved malleable.

Most of Iran’s population is under 30; it’s an Internet-connected generation. Access to satellite television is widespread. The BBC’s new Farsi service is all the rage.

Abdullah Momeni, a student opponent of the regime, told me, “The Internet is very important to us; in fact, it is of infinite importance.” Iranians are not cut off, like Cubans or North Koreans.

The June presidential election pitting the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, against Mohammad Khatami (a former president who once spoke in a synagogue) will be a genuine contest as compared with the charades that pass for elections in many Arab states. No fire has burned the Majlis, or parliament, down.

If you’re thinking trains-on-time Fascist efficiency, think again. Tehran’s new telecommunications tower took 20 years to build. I was told its restaurant would open “soon.” So, it is said, will the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a project in the works for a mere 30 years. A Persian Chernobyl is more likely than some Middle Eastern nuclear Armageddon, if that’s any comfort.

For all the morality police inspecting whether women are wearing boots outside their pants (the latest no-no on the dress front) and the regime zealots of the Basiji militia, the air you breathe in Iran is not suffocating. Its streets at dusk hum with life — not a monochrome male-only form of it, or one inhabited by fear — but the vibrancy of a changing, highly educated society.

This is the Iran of subtle shades that the country’s Jews inhabit. Life is more difficult for them than for Muslims, but to suggest they inhabit a totalitarian hell is self-serving nonsense.

One Iranian exile, no lover of the Islamic Republic, wrote to me saying that my account of Iran’s Jews had brought “tears to my eyes” because “you are saying what many of us would like to hear.”

Far from the cradle of Middle Eastern Islamist zealotry, she suggested, “Iran — the supposed enemy — is the one society that has gone through its extremist fervor and is coming out the other end. It is relatively stable and socially dynamic. As my father, who continues to live there, says, ‘It is the least undemocratic country in the region outside Israel.’ ”

This notion of a “post-fervor” Iran is significant. The compromises being painfully fought out between Islam and democracy in Tehran are of seminal importance. They belie the notion of a fanatical power; they explain Jewish life.

That does not mean fanaticism does not exist or that terrible crimes have not been committed, like the Iran-backed bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires 15 years ago.

But the equating of Iran with terror today is simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into broad political movements widely seen as resisting an Israel over-ready to use crushing force. It is essential to think again about them, just as it is essential to toss out Iran caricatures.

I return to this subject because behind the Jewish issue in Iran lies a critical one — the U.S. propensity to fixate on and demonize a country through a one-dimensional lens, with a sometimes disastrous chain of results.

It’s worth recalling that hateful, ultranationalist rhetoric is no Iranian preserve. Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s race-baiting anti-Arab firebrand, may find a place in a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. He should not.

Nor should racist demagoguery — wherever — prompt facile allusions to the murderous Nazi master of it.

Lithium Batteries and the stupid questions that go with it! Lithium Batterien...

And just when you started to think that Li-Ion Battery powered vehicles might be a safe bet for future driving.......
bang! bang! this little piece of information hits you in the face:
http://tyler.blogware.com/lithium_shortage.pdf

See as well:
http://ursusch.blogspot.com/2009/02/nyt-lithium-in-bolivia-untapped-bounty.html

Uri Avnery: Israel, Gaza et al

Counterpunch 12.01.2009
How Many Divisions?
The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza

By URI AVNERY

Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.

Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.

This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war.

Counterpunch 12.01.2009
How Many Divisions?
The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza

By URI AVNERY

Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.

Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.

This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war.

Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in our media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas terrorists use the inhabitants of Gaza as “hostages” and exploit the women and children as “human shields”, they leave us no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to our deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured.

* * *

IN THIS WAR, as in any modern war, propaganda plays a major role. The disparity between the forces, between the Israeli army - with its airplanes, gunships, drones, warships, artillery and tanks - and the few thousand lightly armed Hamas fighters, is one to a thousand, perhaps one to a million. In the political arena the gap between them is even wider. But in the propaganda war, the gap is almost infinite.

Almost all the Western media initially repeated the official Israeli propaganda line. They almost entirely ignored the Palestinian side of the story, not to mention the daily demonstrations of the Israeli peace camp. The rationale of the Israeli government (“The state must defend its citizens against the Qassam rockets”) has been accepted as the whole truth. The view from the other side, that the Qassams are a retaliation for the siege that starves the one and a half million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, was not mentioned at all.

Only when the horrible scenes from Gaza started to appear on Western TV screens, did world public opinion gradually begin to change.

True, Western and Israeli TV channels showed only a tiny fraction of the dreadful events that appear 24 hours every day on Aljazeera’s Arabic channel, but one picture of a dead baby in the arms of its terrified father is more powerful than a thousand elegantly constructed sentences from the Israeli army spokesman. And that is what is decisive, in the end.

War – every war – is the realm of lies. Whether called propaganda or psychological warfare, everybody accepts that it is right to lie for one’s country. Anyone who speaks the truth runs the risk of being branded a traitor.

The trouble is that propaganda is most convincing for the propagandist himself. And after you convince yourself that a lie is the truth and falsification reality, you can no longer make rational decisions.

An example of this process surrounds the most shocking atrocity of this war so far: the shelling of the UN Fakhura school in Jabaliya refugee camp.

Immediately after the incident became known throughout the world, the army “revealed” that Hamas fighters had been firing mortars from near the school entrance. As proof they released an aerial photo which indeed showed the school and the mortar. But within a short time the official army liar had to admit that the photo was more than a year old. In brief: a falsification.

Later the official liar claimed that “our soldiers were shot at from inside the school”. Barely a day passed before the army had to admit to UN personnel that that was a lie, too. Nobody had shot from inside the school, no Hamas fighters were inside the school, which was full of terrified refugees.

But the admission made hardly any difference anymore. By that time, the Israeli public was completely convinced that “they shot from inside the school”, and TV announcers stated this as a simple fact.

So it went with the other atrocities. Every baby metamorphosed, in the act of dying, into a Hamas terrorist. Every bombed mosque instantly became a Hamas base, every apartment building an arms cache, every school a terror command post, every civilian government building a “symbol of Hamas rule”. Thus the Israeli army retained its purity as the “most moral army in the world”.

* * *

THE TRUTH is that the atrocities are a direct result of the war plan. This reflects the personality of Ehud Barak – a man whose way of thinking and actions are clear evidence of what is called “moral insanity”, a sociopathic disorder.

The real aim (apart from gaining seats in the coming elections) is to terminate the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the imagination of the planners, Hamas is an invader which has gained control of a foreign country. The reality is, of course, entirely different.

The Hamas movement won the majority of the votes in the eminently democratic elections that took place in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. It won because the Palestinians had come to the conclusion that Fatah’s peaceful approach had gained precisely nothing from Israel - neither a freeze of the settlements, nor release of the prisoners, nor any significant steps toward ending the occupation and creating the Palestinian state. Hamas is deeply rooted in the population – not only as a resistance movement fighting the foreign occupier, like the Irgun and the Stern Group in the past – but also as a political and religious body that provides social, educational and medical services.

From the point of view of the population, the Hamas fighters are not a foreign body, but the sons of every family in the Strip and the other Palestinian regions. They do not “hide behind the population”, the population views them as their only defenders.

Therefore, the whole operation is based on erroneous assumptions. Turning life into living hell does not cause the population to rise up against Hamas, but on the contrary, it unites behind Hamas and reinforces its determination not to surrender. The population of Leningrad did not rise up against Stalin, any more than the Londoners rose up against Churchill.

He who gives the order for such a war with such methods in a densely populated area knows that it will cause dreadful slaughter of civilians. Apparently that did not touch him. Or he believed that “they will change their ways” and “it will sear their consciousness”, so that in future they will not dare to resist Israel.

A top priority for the planners was the need to minimize casualties among the soldiers, knowing that the mood of a large part of the pro-war public would change if reports of such casualties came in. That is what happened in Lebanon Wars I and II.

This consideration played an especially important role because the entire war is a part of the election campaign. Ehud Barak, who gained in the polls in the first days of the war, knew that his ratings would collapse if pictures of dead soldiers filled the TV screens.

Therefore, a new doctrine was applied: to avoid losses among our soldiers by the total destruction of everything in their path. The planners were not only ready to kill 80 Palestinians to save one Israeli soldier, as has happened, but also 800. The avoidance of casualties on our side is the overriding commandment, which is causing record numbers of civilian casualties on the other side.

That means the conscious choice of an especially cruel kind of warfare – and that has been its Achilles heel.

A person without imagination, like Barak (his election slogan: “Not a Nice Guy, but a Leader”) cannot imagine how decent people around the world react to actions like the killing of whole extended families, the destruction of houses over the heads of their inhabitants, the rows of boys and girls in white shrouds ready for burial, the reports about people bleeding to death over days because ambulances are not allowed to reach them, the killing of doctors and medics on their way to save lives, the killing of UN drivers bringing in food. The pictures of the hospitals, with the dead, the dying and the injured lying together on the floor for lack of space, have shocked the world. No argument has any force next to an image of a wounded little girl lying on the floor, twisting with pain and crying out: “Mama! Mama!”

The planners thought that they could stop the world from seeing these images by forcibly preventing press coverage. The Israeli journalists, to their shame, agreed to be satisfied with the reports and photos provided by the Army Spokesman, as if they were authentic news, while they themselves remained miles away from the events. Foreign journalists were not allowed in either, until they protested and were taken for quick tours in selected and supervised groups. But in a modern war, such a sterile manufactured view cannot completely exclude all others – the cameras are inside the strip, in the middle of the hell, and cannot be controlled. Aljazeera broadcasts the pictures around the clock and reaches every home.

* * *

THE BATTLE for the TV screen is one of the decisive battles of the war.

Hundreds of millions of Arabs from Mauritania to Iraq, more than a billion Muslims from Nigeria to Indonesia see the pictures and are horrified. This has a strong impact on the war. Many of the viewers see the rulers of Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority as collaborators with Israel in carrying out these atrocities against their Palestinian brothers.

The security services of the Arab regimes are registering a dangerous ferment among the peoples. Hosny Mubarak, the most exposed Arab leader because of his closing of the Rafah crossing in the face of terrified refugees, started to pressure the decision-makers in Washington, who until that time had blocked all calls for a cease-fire. These began to understand the menace to vital American interests in the Arab world and suddenly changed their attitude – causing consternation among the complacent Israeli diplomats.

People with moral insanity cannot really understand the motives of normal people and must guess their reactions. “How many divisions has the Pope?” Stalin sneered. “How many divisions have people of conscience?” Ehud Barak may well be asking.

As it turns out, they do have some. Not numerous. Not very quick to react. Not very strong and organized. But at a certain moment, when the atrocities overflow and masses of protesters come together, that can decide a war.



THE FAILURE to grasp the nature of Hamas has caused a failure to grasp the predictable results. Not only is Israel unable to win the war, Hamas cannot lose it.

Even if the Israeli army were to succeed in killing every Hamas fighter to the last man, even then Hamas would win. The Hamas fighters would be seen as the paragons of the Arab nation, the heroes of the Palestinian people, models for emulation by every youngster in the Arab world. The West Bank would fall into the hands of Hamas like a ripe fruit, Fatah would drown in a sea of contempt, the Arab regimes would be threatened with collapse.

If the war ends with Hamas still standing, bloodied but unvanquished, in face of the mighty Israeli military machine, it will look like a fantastic victory, a victory of mind over matter.

What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet.

In the end, this war is a crime against ourselves too, a crime against the State of Israel.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

Uri Avnery: Israel, Hamas, Gaza et al

Counterpunch 12.01.2009
How Many Divisions?
The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza

By URI AVNERY

Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.

Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.

This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war.

Counterpunch 12.01.2009
How Many Divisions?
The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza

By URI AVNERY

Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.

Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.

This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war.

Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in our media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas terrorists use the inhabitants of Gaza as “hostages” and exploit the women and children as “human shields”, they leave us no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to our deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured.

* * *

IN THIS WAR, as in any modern war, propaganda plays a major role. The disparity between the forces, between the Israeli army - with its airplanes, gunships, drones, warships, artillery and tanks - and the few thousand lightly armed Hamas fighters, is one to a thousand, perhaps one to a million. In the political arena the gap between them is even wider. But in the propaganda war, the gap is almost infinite.

Almost all the Western media initially repeated the official Israeli propaganda line. They almost entirely ignored the Palestinian side of the story, not to mention the daily demonstrations of the Israeli peace camp. The rationale of the Israeli government (“The state must defend its citizens against the Qassam rockets”) has been accepted as the whole truth. The view from the other side, that the Qassams are a retaliation for the siege that starves the one and a half million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, was not mentioned at all.

Only when the horrible scenes from Gaza started to appear on Western TV screens, did world public opinion gradually begin to change.

True, Western and Israeli TV channels showed only a tiny fraction of the dreadful events that appear 24 hours every day on Aljazeera’s Arabic channel, but one picture of a dead baby in the arms of its terrified father is more powerful than a thousand elegantly constructed sentences from the Israeli army spokesman. And that is what is decisive, in the end.

War – every war – is the realm of lies. Whether called propaganda or psychological warfare, everybody accepts that it is right to lie for one’s country. Anyone who speaks the truth runs the risk of being branded a traitor.

The trouble is that propaganda is most convincing for the propagandist himself. And after you convince yourself that a lie is the truth and falsification reality, you can no longer make rational decisions.

An example of this process surrounds the most shocking atrocity of this war so far: the shelling of the UN Fakhura school in Jabaliya refugee camp.

Immediately after the incident became known throughout the world, the army “revealed” that Hamas fighters had been firing mortars from near the school entrance. As proof they released an aerial photo which indeed showed the school and the mortar. But within a short time the official army liar had to admit that the photo was more than a year old. In brief: a falsification.

Later the official liar claimed that “our soldiers were shot at from inside the school”. Barely a day passed before the army had to admit to UN personnel that that was a lie, too. Nobody had shot from inside the school, no Hamas fighters were inside the school, which was full of terrified refugees.

But the admission made hardly any difference anymore. By that time, the Israeli public was completely convinced that “they shot from inside the school”, and TV announcers stated this as a simple fact.

So it went with the other atrocities. Every baby metamorphosed, in the act of dying, into a Hamas terrorist. Every bombed mosque instantly became a Hamas base, every apartment building an arms cache, every school a terror command post, every civilian government building a “symbol of Hamas rule”. Thus the Israeli army retained its purity as the “most moral army in the world”.

* * *

THE TRUTH is that the atrocities are a direct result of the war plan. This reflects the personality of Ehud Barak – a man whose way of thinking and actions are clear evidence of what is called “moral insanity”, a sociopathic disorder.

The real aim (apart from gaining seats in the coming elections) is to terminate the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the imagination of the planners, Hamas is an invader which has gained control of a foreign country. The reality is, of course, entirely different.

The Hamas movement won the majority of the votes in the eminently democratic elections that took place in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. It won because the Palestinians had come to the conclusion that Fatah’s peaceful approach had gained precisely nothing from Israel - neither a freeze of the settlements, nor release of the prisoners, nor any significant steps toward ending the occupation and creating the Palestinian state. Hamas is deeply rooted in the population – not only as a resistance movement fighting the foreign occupier, like the Irgun and the Stern Group in the past – but also as a political and religious body that provides social, educational and medical services.

From the point of view of the population, the Hamas fighters are not a foreign body, but the sons of every family in the Strip and the other Palestinian regions. They do not “hide behind the population”, the population views them as their only defenders.

Therefore, the whole operation is based on erroneous assumptions. Turning life into living hell does not cause the population to rise up against Hamas, but on the contrary, it unites behind Hamas and reinforces its determination not to surrender. The population of Leningrad did not rise up against Stalin, any more than the Londoners rose up against Churchill.

He who gives the order for such a war with such methods in a densely populated area knows that it will cause dreadful slaughter of civilians. Apparently that did not touch him. Or he believed that “they will change their ways” and “it will sear their consciousness”, so that in future they will not dare to resist Israel.

A top priority for the planners was the need to minimize casualties among the soldiers, knowing that the mood of a large part of the pro-war public would change if reports of such casualties came in. That is what happened in Lebanon Wars I and II.

This consideration played an especially important role because the entire war is a part of the election campaign. Ehud Barak, who gained in the polls in the first days of the war, knew that his ratings would collapse if pictures of dead soldiers filled the TV screens.

Therefore, a new doctrine was applied: to avoid losses among our soldiers by the total destruction of everything in their path. The planners were not only ready to kill 80 Palestinians to save one Israeli soldier, as has happened, but also 800. The avoidance of casualties on our side is the overriding commandment, which is causing record numbers of civilian casualties on the other side.

That means the conscious choice of an especially cruel kind of warfare – and that has been its Achilles heel.

A person without imagination, like Barak (his election slogan: “Not a Nice Guy, but a Leader”) cannot imagine how decent people around the world react to actions like the killing of whole extended families, the destruction of houses over the heads of their inhabitants, the rows of boys and girls in white shrouds ready for burial, the reports about people bleeding to death over days because ambulances are not allowed to reach them, the killing of doctors and medics on their way to save lives, the killing of UN drivers bringing in food. The pictures of the hospitals, with the dead, the dying and the injured lying together on the floor for lack of space, have shocked the world. No argument has any force next to an image of a wounded little girl lying on the floor, twisting with pain and crying out: “Mama! Mama!”

The planners thought that they could stop the world from seeing these images by forcibly preventing press coverage. The Israeli journalists, to their shame, agreed to be satisfied with the reports and photos provided by the Army Spokesman, as if they were authentic news, while they themselves remained miles away from the events. Foreign journalists were not allowed in either, until they protested and were taken for quick tours in selected and supervised groups. But in a modern war, such a sterile manufactured view cannot completely exclude all others – the cameras are inside the strip, in the middle of the hell, and cannot be controlled. Aljazeera broadcasts the pictures around the clock and reaches every home.

* * *

THE BATTLE for the TV screen is one of the decisive battles of the war.

Hundreds of millions of Arabs from Mauritania to Iraq, more than a billion Muslims from Nigeria to Indonesia see the pictures and are horrified. This has a strong impact on the war. Many of the viewers see the rulers of Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority as collaborators with Israel in carrying out these atrocities against their Palestinian brothers.

The security services of the Arab regimes are registering a dangerous ferment among the peoples. Hosny Mubarak, the most exposed Arab leader because of his closing of the Rafah crossing in the face of terrified refugees, started to pressure the decision-makers in Washington, who until that time had blocked all calls for a cease-fire. These began to understand the menace to vital American interests in the Arab world and suddenly changed their attitude – causing consternation among the complacent Israeli diplomats.

People with moral insanity cannot really understand the motives of normal people and must guess their reactions. “How many divisions has the Pope?” Stalin sneered. “How many divisions have people of conscience?” Ehud Barak may well be asking.

As it turns out, they do have some. Not numerous. Not very quick to react. Not very strong and organized. But at a certain moment, when the atrocities overflow and masses of protesters come together, that can decide a war.



THE FAILURE to grasp the nature of Hamas has caused a failure to grasp the predictable results. Not only is Israel unable to win the war, Hamas cannot lose it.

Even if the Israeli army were to succeed in killing every Hamas fighter to the last man, even then Hamas would win. The Hamas fighters would be seen as the paragons of the Arab nation, the heroes of the Palestinian people, models for emulation by every youngster in the Arab world. The West Bank would fall into the hands of Hamas like a ripe fruit, Fatah would drown in a sea of contempt, the Arab regimes would be threatened with collapse.

If the war ends with Hamas still standing, bloodied but unvanquished, in face of the mighty Israeli military machine, it will look like a fantastic victory, a victory of mind over matter.

What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet.

In the end, this war is a crime against ourselves too, a crime against the State of Israel.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis and Iraq....

Financial Advisor



Diplomatic talk.....



Operation Iraqi Liberation abbriveated as OIL :-)

Paul Krugmann: Bigger Than Bush

The New York Times
January 2, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Bigger Than Bush
By PAUL KRUGMAN

As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners.

Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”?

The New York Times
January 2, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Bigger Than Bush
By PAUL KRUGMAN

As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners.

Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”? Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?

But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.

The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.

If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”

Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?

Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.

Oh, and the racial element isn’t all that abstract, even now: Chip Saltsman, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances.

So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party’s divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to “stay in touch with real Americans” — and its governing philosophy.

That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation.

The reality of this strategy’s collapse has not, I believe, fully sunk in with some observers. Thus, some commentators warning President-elect Barack Obama against bold action have held up Bill Clinton’s political failures in his first two years as a cautionary tale.

But America in 1993 was a very different country — not just a country that had yet to see what happens when conservatives control all three branches of government, but also a country in which Democratic control of Congress depended on the votes of Southern conservatives. Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.

Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.

Frank Rich New York Times: The Terrorist Barrak Obama

The New York Times
October 12, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama
By FRANK RICH

IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

The New York Times
October 12, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama
By FRANK RICH

IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.

From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.

There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.

Could the old racial politics still be determinative? I’ve long been skeptical of the incessant press prognostications (and liberal panic) that this election will be decided by racist white men in the Rust Belt. Now even the dimmest bloviators have figured out that Americans are riveted by the color green, not black — as in money, not energy. Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them, not a reckless gambler whose lurching responses to the economic meltdown (a campaign “suspension,” a mortgage-buyout stunt that changes daily) are as unhinged as his wanderings around the debate stage.

To see how fast the tide is moving, just look at North Carolina. On July 4 this year — the day that the godfather of modern G.O.P. racial politics, Jesse Helms, died — The Charlotte Observer reported that strategists of both parties agreed Obama’s chances to win the state fell “between slim and none.” Today, as Charlotte reels from the implosion of Wachovia, the McCain-Obama race is a dead heat in North Carolina and Helms’s Republican successor in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole, is looking like a goner.

But we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.

New York Times
August 25, 2008
In Nuclear Net’s Undoing, a Web of Shadowy Deals
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

The president of Switzerland stepped to a podium in Bern last May and read a statement confirming rumors that had swirled through the capital for months. The government, he acknowledged, had indeed destroyed a huge trove of computer files and other material documenting the business dealings of a family of Swiss engineers suspected of helping smuggle nuclear technology to Libya and Iran.


New York Times
August 25, 2008
In Nuclear Net’s Undoing, a Web of Shadowy Deals
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

The president of Switzerland stepped to a podium in Bern last May and read a statement confirming rumors that had swirled through the capital for months. The government, he acknowledged, had indeed destroyed a huge trove of computer files and other material documenting the business dealings of a family of Swiss engineers suspected of helping smuggle nuclear technology to Libya and Iran.

The files were of particular interest not only to Swiss prosecutors but to international atomic inspectors working to unwind the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani bomb pioneer-turned-nuclear black marketeer. The Swiss engineers, Friedrich Tinner and his two sons, were accused of having deep associations with Dr. Khan, acting as middlemen in his dealings with rogue nations seeking nuclear equipment and expertise.

The Swiss president, Pascal Couchepin, took no questions. But he asserted that the files — which included an array of plans for nuclear arms and technologies, among them a highly sophisticated Pakistani bomb design — had been destroyed so that they would never fall into terrorist hands.

Behind that official explanation, though, is a far more intriguing tale of spies, moles and the compromises that governments make in the name of national security.

The United States had urged that the files be destroyed, according to interviews with five current and former Bush administration officials. The purpose, the officials said, was less to thwart terrorists than to hide evidence of a clandestine relationship between the Tinners and the C.I.A.

Over four years, several of these officials said, operatives of the C.I.A. paid the Tinners as much as $10 million, some of it delivered in a suitcase stuffed with cash. In return, the Tinners delivered a flow of secret information that helped end Libya’s bomb program, reveal Iran’s atomic labors and, ultimately, undo Dr. Khan’s nuclear black market.

In addition, American and European officials said, the Tinners played an important role in a clandestine American operation to funnel sabotaged nuclear equipment to Libya and Iran, a major but little-known element of the efforts to slow their nuclear progress.

The relationship with the Tinners “was very significant,” said Gary S. Samore, who ran the National Security Council’s nonproliferation office when the operation began. “That’s where we got the first indications that Iran had acquired centrifuges,” which enrich uranium for nuclear fuel.

Yet even as American officials describe the relationship as a major intelligence coup, compromises were made. Officials say the C.I.A. feared that a trial would not just reveal the Tinners’ relationship with the United States — and perhaps raise questions about American dealings with atomic smugglers — but would also imperil efforts to recruit new spies at a time of grave concern over Iran’s nuclear program. Destruction of the files, C.I.A. officials suspected, would undermine the case and could set their informants free.

“We were very happy they were destroyed,” a senior intelligence official in Washington said of the files.

But in Europe, there is much consternation. Analysts studying Dr. Khan’s network worry that by destroying the files to prevent their spread, the Swiss government may have obscured the investigative trail. It is unclear who among Dr. Khan’s customers — a list that is known to include Iran, Libya and North Korea but that may extend further — got the illicit material, much of it contained in easily transmitted electronic designs.

The West’s most important questions about the Khan network have been consistently deflected by President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, who resigned last Monday. He refused to account for the bomb designs that got away or to let American investigators question Dr. Khan, perhaps the only man to know who else received the atomic blueprints. President Bush, eager for Pakistan’s aid against terrorism, never pressed Mr. Musharraf for answers.

“Maybe that labyrinth held clues to another client or another rogue state,” said a European official angered at the destruction.

The Swiss judge in charge of the Tinner case, Andreas Müller, is not terribly happy either. He said he had no warning of the planned destruction and is now trying to determine what, if anything, remains of the case against Friedrich Tinner and his sons, Urs and Marco.

Some details of the links between the Tinners and American intelligence have been revealed in news reports and in recent books, most notably “The Nuclear Jihadist,” a biography of Dr. Khan by Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins. But recent interviews in the United States and Europe by The New York Times have provided a fuller portrait of the relationship — especially the involvement of all three Tinners, the large amounts of money they received and the C.I.A.’s extensive efforts on their behalf. Virtually all the officials interviewed spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss matters that remain classified.

The destroyed evidence, decades of records of the Tinners’ activities, included not only bomb and centrifuge plans but also documents linking the family to the C.I.A., officials said. One contract, a European intelligence official said, described a C.I.A. front company’s agreement to pay the smugglers $1 million for black-market secrets. The front company listed an address three blocks from the White House.

The C.I.A. declined to comment on the Tinner case, but a spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, called the disruption of Dr. Khan’s network “a genuine intelligence success.”

With the evidence files destroyed and a trial in question, it is unlikely that the full story of the Tinners will be told any time soon. If it is, it is unlikely to come from the elder Mr. Tinner.

Approached at his home in Haag, Switzerland, near the Liechtenstein border, Mr. Tinner, 71, was polite but firm in his silence. “I have an agreement not to talk,” he told a reporter.

Beginning a Double Life

An inventor and mechanical engineer, Friedrich Tinner got his start in Swiss companies that make vacuum technology, mazes of pipes, pumps and valves used in many industries. Mr. Tinner received United States patents for his innovative vacuum valves.

By definition, his devices were so-called dual-use products with peacetime or wartime applications. Governments often feel torn between promoting such goods as commercial boons and blocking them as security risks.

As recounted in books and articles and reports by nuclear experts, Mr. Tinner worked with Dr. Khan for three decades, beginning in the mid-1970s. His expertise in vacuum technology aided Dr. Khan’s development of atomic centrifuges, which produced fuel for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, now variously estimated at 50 to 100 warheads.

Yet while Mr. Tinner repeatedly drew the attention of European authorities, who questioned the export of potentially dangerous technology, he never faced charges. Mr. Tinner’s involvement with Dr. Khan deepened beginning in the late 1990s, when, joined by his sons, he helped supply centrifuges for Libya’s secret bomb program.

In 2000, American officials said, Urs Tinner was recruited by the C.I.A., and American officials were elated. Spy satellites can be fooled. Documents can lie. Electronic taps can mislead. But a well-placed mole can work quietly behind the scenes to get at the truth.

For instance, the United States had gathered circumstantial evidence that Iran wanted an atom bomb. Suddenly it had a direct view into clandestine Iranian procurement of centrifuges and other important nuclear items.

“It was a confirmation,” recalled Dr. Samore, the former national security official who is now director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “That was much more significant than Libya,” because that country’s atomic program was in its infancy whereas Iran’s was rushing toward maturity.

Despite considerable income from their illicit trade, the Tinners had money problems, a European intelligence official said. Eventually, Urs Tinner persuaded his father and younger brother to join him as moles, and they began double lives, supplying Dr. Khan with precision manufacturing gear and helping run a centrifuge plant in Malaysia even as their cooperation with the United States deepened.

At the time, Washington was stepping up efforts to penetrate Libya’s bomb program. In early 2003, the European official said, the Tinners and C.I.A. agents met at a hotel in Innsbruck, Austria, to discuss cooperative terms. Several months later, in Jenins, a Swiss mountain village, Marco Tinner signed a contract dated June 21, 2003, with two C.I.A. agents, the official said.

The contract outlined the sale of rights that the Tinners held for manufacturing vacuum gear, and of proprietary information about the devices. In exchange, $1 million would be paid to Traco Group International, a front company Marco Tinner had established in Road Town, the capital of the British Virgin Islands, on the island of Tortola.

In the contract, according to the European intelligence official, the two C.I.A. agents used cover names — W. James Kinsman and Sean D. Mahaffey — and identified their employer as Big Black River Technologies Inc. In military and intelligence work, “black” means clandestine. In the contract, Black River gave an address on I Street in Washington, the intelligence official said. But no business directory lists the company, and employees in the mailroom at the address said they had no records for a company of that name.

Four months after the signing of the contract, American and European authorities seized cargoes of centrifuge parts bound for Libya. “The Tinners were a source,” a former Bush administration official said.

Two other officials credited the Tinners with helping end the Libyan bomb program. In Libya, investigators found the rudiments of a centrifuge plant and a blueprint for a basic atom bomb, courtesy of Dr. Khan’s network. The Bush administration celebrated Libya’s abandonment as a breakthrough in arms control.

But the secret lives of the Tinners began to unravel. The Malaysian police issued a report naming them as central members of Dr. Khan’s network. An official of VP Bank Ltd., Traco’s business agent in the Virgin Islands, said it ended that relationship in early 2004, when Marco Tinner was exposed.

Under growing pressure, Dr. Khan confessed. His clients turned out to include not only Libya but Iran and North Korea, and his collaborators turned out to be legion.

“We will find you,” Mr. Bush said in February 2004 of Dr. Khan’s associates, “and we’re not going to rest until you are stopped.”

Acts of Sabotage

After the Tinners were arrested, Swiss and other European authorities began to scrutinize their confiscated files and to conduct wide inquiries. European investigators discovered not only that the Tinners had spied for Washington, but that the men and their insider information had helped the C.I.A. sabotage atomic gear bound for Libya and Iran. A former American official confirmed the disruptions, saying the technical architect of the operation was “a mad-scientist type” who took pleasure in devising dirty tricks.

An American intelligence official, while refusing to discuss specifics of the sabotage operation or the Tinners’ relationship with the C.I.A., said efforts to cripple equipment headed to rogue nuclear states “buy us some time and space.” With Iran presumably racing for the capability to build a bomb, he added, “that may be the best we can hope for.”

The sabotage first came to light, diplomats and officials said, when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency traveled to Iran and Libya in 2003 and 2004 and discovered identical vacuum pumps that had been damaged cleverly so that they looked perfectly fine but failed to operate properly. They traced the route of the defective parts from Pfeiffer Vacuum in Germany to the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the birthplace of the bomb. There, according to a European official who studied the case, nuclear experts had made sure the pumps “wouldn’t work.”

A more serious disruption involved a power supply shipped to Iran from Turkey, where Dr. Khan’s network did business with two makers of industrial control equipment.

The Iranians installed the power supply at their uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. But in early 2006, it failed, causing 50 centrifuges to explode — a serious, if temporary, setback to Iran’s efforts to master the manufacture of nuclear fuel, the hardest part of building a bomb. (Iran says its nuclear efforts are for electricity, not weapons.)

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, told a reporter last year that Iranian investigators found that the power supply had been manipulated.

After the episode, he added, “we checked all the imported instruments.”

Discussions With Washington

In 2005, Swiss authorities began asking the United States for help in the Tinner case. Among other things, they wanted information about the Libyan centrifuge program to press charges of criminal export violations. For more than a year, the Swiss made repeated requests. Washington ignored them.

“Its lack of assistance needlessly complicates this important investigation,” David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington, told Congress in May 2006. Mr. Albright said he had helped Swiss prosecutors write to the State Department.

The Swiss turned to the I.A.E.A. for help in assessing the Tinner cache. European officials said the agency was surprised to find multiple warhead plans and judged that most had originated in Pakistan. The country denied that Dr. Khan had access to nuclear weapon designs and questioned the agency’s conclusions.

In late July 2007, according to Swiss federal statements, the justice minister, Christoph Blocher, flew to Washington for talks with Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence; Alberto R. Gonzales, then the attorney general; and Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director.

Officially, the statements said, the main topic was “cooperation in the criminal prosecution of terrorist activities.” But the real agenda was what to do about the Tinners.

A former Bush administration official said different government agencies had differing views of the case. The State Department wanted the bomb plans destroyed as a way to stem nuclear proliferation, while the C.I.A. wanted to protect its methods for combating illicit nuclear trade.

The C.I.A. also wanted to help the Tinners. “If a key source is prosecuted,” a former senior official involved in the case said, “what message does that send when you try to recruit other informants?”

American officials discussed a range of possible outcomes with the Swiss and expressed their clear preferences. The best result, they said, would be turning over the family’s materials to the United States. Acceptable would be destroying them. Worst, according to the former administration official, would have been making them public in a criminal trial, where defense lawyers would have probably exposed as much American involvement as possible in hopes of getting their clients off the hook.

A Furor Over Destroyed Files

Last March, Mr. Müller became the examining magistrate in the Tinner case, charged with assessing if a trial was warranted. Soon after, he was quoted as saying the evidence files contained “obvious holes.” Sketchy reports of deleted computer files and shredded documents had been circulating, but he was the first identified official to hint at a widespread destruction. Then, on May 23, the Swiss president, Mr. Couchepin, revealed that Switzerland had begun a series of extraordinary actions just days after Mr. Blocher, the justice minister, returned from Washington.

Swiss citizens are prohibited from aiding foreign spies. But in his statement, the president said that in late August 2007, the government canceled a criminal case against the Tinners for suspicions of aiding a foreign government. Though unmentioned, the C.I.A. seemed to peer out from his statement.

On Nov. 14, his statement continued, the government decided to destroy “the comprehensive holding of the electronic files and documents” seized from the Tinners. The most dangerous items, the president said, included “detailed construction plans for nuclear weapons, for gas ultracentrifuges for the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium, as well as for guided missile delivery systems.” International atomic inspectors, he added, supervised the destruction.

Mr. Couchepin said keeping the documents “was incompatible with Switzerland’s obligations” under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and added, “Under all circumstances, this information was not to reach the hands of a terrorist organization or an unauthorized state.”

The statement provoked a political furor. Some politicians and columnists accused Switzerland of surrendering to Washington’s agenda and violating Swiss neutrality. Among the strongest critics was Dick Marty, a prominent Swiss senator. “We could have respected the treaty by avoiding their publication and putting them under lock and key,” he was quoted as saying on Swissinfo, the Web site of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. Destroying them, he added, “ could lead to the collapse of the legal case.”

Many European officials dismissed the government’s arguments about terrorists and rogue states as empty.

“If they had kept the material in federal possession for years, why not keep holding it?” asked Victor Mauer, a senior official at the Center for Security Studies of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. “Their explanation is not convincing.”

An Action’s Repercussions

In an interview, a senior European diplomat familiar with the I.A.E.A. said the destruction could have repercussions far beyond the criminal case.

For one thing, he said, the international atomic agency had been allowed to examine only parts of the archive. He called it “a good sample” and judged that the agency had missed no significant clues. Even so, he said, the agency might “come to regret” its inability to examine the materials further for insights into hidden remnants of Dr. Khan’s network.

And while the Swiss president made much of the proliferation danger, the diplomat insisted that the warhead designs were in many respects sketchy and incomplete. “These are almost like studies — bits and pieces,” he said, adding that they “wouldn’t be enough to let you build a replica.”

So while they might have little or no value for a terrorist with no atomic experience, the plans might prove quite helpful for an ambitious state intent on building a nuclear arsenal. He said the agency had no evidence that Iran had acquired the bomb plans.

The diplomat added that the Swiss had “lots of possibilities” other than destruction. He said they had no legal obligation to destroy the files under the nonproliferation treaty, and could have put them under I.A.E.A. seal in Vienna or Switzerland.

Several European officials speculated that Washington might actually have kept secret copies of the archive. A senior American official said the United States had reviewed the material but declined to say if there were copies.

As for the Tinners, the father was released in 2006, pending legal action. In a brief interview at his home, Mr. Tinner pleaded ignorance about basic aspects of the criminal case, such as where the authorities kept the materials that had belonged to him and his sons. “The newspapers know more about these things than I do,” he insisted.

Should the case fall apart, the Tinners would join a growing list of freed associates of Dr. Khan. In June, Malaysia released the network’s chief operating officer, B. S. A. Tahir, saying he was no longer a national security threat. The authorities have kept the Tinner brothers in jail for fear that they might flee the country. In late May, a Swiss court rejected their bail application, and early this month, the ruling was upheld. But the judges also told the authorities that they could not hold the brothers indefinitely without charging them.

With much of the evidence gone, the magistrate, Mr. Müller, expressed frustration at finding “no answers to the really interesting questions in this case.” He declined to predict how it might turn out.

“At the moment,” he said, “it is impossible to make any schedule, since the case is in many aspects extraordinary.”

Souad Mekhennet contributed reporting from Frankfurt, and Uta Harnischfeger from Zurich.