Elements of the new US administration of President George Bush were already discussing ”regime change” in Iraq two years before the invasion of 2003, the official inquiry into the war has been told.

Telegraph | Nov 24, 2009

Sir Peter Ricketts, who was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee in 2001, said there was concern in both London and Washington that the strategy of ”containment” of Saddam Hussain was ”failing”.

Giving evidence at the first public hearings of the inquiry, he said a review of the Iraq policy was already under way in Whitehall in anticipation of the arrival of the new Bush administration.

He said that, in discussions with Secretary of State Colin Powell, it appeared the Americans were ”thinking very much on the same lines”.

He added, however, that others in Washington were already thinking further ahead.

”We were conscious that there were other voices in Washington, some of whom were talking about regime change,” he said.

He cited an article written by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warning that ”nothing will change” in Iraq until Saddam was gone.

Opening the hearing, the chairman of the inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, called for a moment of silence for all those from the UK and its allies and those in Iraq who had lost their lives during the past six years.

In a short opening statement he said the inquiry was determined to be ”thorough, impartial, objective and fair”.

He vowed that he will “get to the heart of what happened” before and during the war and said that he “will not shy away” from criticising anyone who made mistakes.

Sir Peter, who is now the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, said there were three elements to the containment strategy – sanctions, an incentive to lift sanctions if Saddam allowed the United Weapons inspectors to return, and the “no fly” zones over the north and south of the country.

By 2001, however, he said it was already clear that all three strands were “in trouble”.

“By 2001 that containment policy was failing and the rate of failure was accelerating,” he said.

Sir William Patey, head of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office in 2001, said Whitehall was aware of talk about regime change in Iraq from some parts of the new Bush administration.

British officials talked about the possibility but decided not to get involved in it.

Sir William told the inquiry: “In February 2001 we were aware of these drum beats from Washington and internally we discussed it. Our policy was to stay away from that.”

He explained Foreign Office policy at the time: “We didn’t think Saddam was a good thing, and it would be great if he went, but we didn’t have an explicit policy for trying to get rid of him.”

Simon Webb, who in 2001 was policy director of the Ministry of Defence, said ousting Saddam Hussein was not seriously discussed in meetings British officials held in Washington in early 2001.

He said: “The question of regime overthrow was, I recall, mentioned but it was quite clear that there was no proposition being put in our direction on that.”

Sir William also voiced fears in Whitehall that the policies to stop Iraq getting weapons of mass destruction were not working in 2001.

He said: “Saddam was sitting comfortably and the sense (was) that, on the present course, he would eventually escape from the constraints of the containment policy.”

Sir Peter added that Mr Powell appeared to be leading US policy on Iraq until the 9/11 attacks.

He said: “Up till then we felt that dealing with the State Department, we were dealing with the people who were forming the policy.”

The inquiry heard that those in Washington who supported containing Iraq would have had a stronger argument against the pro-war hawks if the UN Security Council had agreed on a revised list of controlled goods for export to Iraq in 2001.

Sir William said this would “certainly” have satisfied Britain, adding: “It would have been arguable even against the hawks in Washington.

“Colin Powell and the State Department people who supported the containment policy would have had a credible argument.

“I remember conversations with my French and Russian colleagues saying ‘You know, if you don’t agree to this, where this is going’.

“And each time I remember they always agreed three months too late.”

Sir John Chilcot, the chairman of the public inquiry into the Iraq war, has begun holding hearings  Photo: BBC

British officials heard the “drum beats” of war with Iraq emanating from the US government more than two years before the 2003 invasion and several months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry has heard.

Telegraph | Nov 24, 2009

By James Kirkup and Gordon Rayner

But the UK in 2001 refused to back a policy of regime change because the British view was that toppling Saddam Hussein would have been illegal.

The first session of Sir John’s public inquiry into the events before, during and after the war is hearing evidence from senior civil servants about British policy and plans for Iraq in 2001.

The British policy on Iraq was put under formal review at the start of 2001, when George W Bush arrived in the White House as US president.

Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at Foreign Office said that in February 2001, the UK knew that some in the new US administration wanted to topple Saddam

He said: “We were aware of the drum beats from Washington.”

However, he said that Britain was not then willing to engage in regime change in Baghdad. “Our policy was to stay away from that.”

Sir Peter Ricketts, then the political director at the FCO, recalled that in the summer of 2000, Condoleeza Rice, Mr Bush’s national security adviser, had written an academic article suggesting Saddam should be removed.

But the inquiry heard that in 2001, the settled view of the UK government was that attacking Iraq would have been illegal under international law.

Sir Peter said: “We quite clearly distanced our self from regime change. It was clear that was something there would not be any legal base for.”

In 2001, Britain and the US were committed to a policy of containing Saddam, through economic sanctions, restricting his oil sales through the oil-for-food programme, and the imposition of no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq.

The two diplomats told the inquiry that the containment policy was failing in 2001, but that it could have been been viable if the United Nations had agreed a new “smart sanctions” regime in July 2001.

The new sanctions regime would also have thwarted those in the US who were arguing for a more confrontational policy towards Iraq.

The new sanctions regime “would have certainly satisfied us”, Sir William said. “It would have been arguable even against the hawks in Washington.”

But Russia refused to back the new sanctions, because of its commercial interests in Iraq. “The Russians were being given lots of contracts. It was virtually impossible to change the Russian view,” Sir William said.

Sir Peter also revealed that there was a disagreement between Britain and the US about whether it was worth trying to get UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

“There was a dominant feeling in the US that a weapons inspection regime was risky,” he said. Some Americans felt Saddam would “pull the wool over the inspectors eyes” about his military programmes.

Sir Peter said: “We had more confidence in the weapons inspectors. It was an area where we probably disagreed with many on the American side.”

Many young Swedes doubt al-Qaida 9/11 guilt

thelocal.se | Nov 1, 2009

Almost one in five Swedes aged under 30 think that George W Bush’s US government lay behind the attacks on September 11th 2001, according to a new survey by Novus Opinion.

The TV4 programme Kalla Fakta, which commissioned the survey, will on Sunday address the subject of the Truth Movement, an international group which espouses the conspiracy theory that the terror network al-Qaida was not behind the September 11th attacks.

The movement, also known as the “September 11th research community” argues that it was in fact the US government that staged the attacks, which claimed the lives of 3,000 people, in order to legitimize the war on terrorism.

The Novus poll indicates that a significant number of young Swedes are persuaded by the logic of the argument.

Of the 1,000 Swedes surveyed in an internet panel, 70 percent responded that al-Qaida were behind the attacks, while seven percent did not think so.

Among those under-30 only 58 percent believed responsibility lay with al-Qaida, while 15 percent did not.

When asked whether the US government orchestrated the attacks, eight percent supported the theory while 64 percent rejected it.

However among the under-30s there was once again more scepticism: 51 percent rejected the conspiracy theory while 18 percent believed that the US government, led at the time by President George W Bush, had a role in the attacks.

As many as 31 percent of the young people interviewed in the survey responded that they did not know what to believe.

AFP | Oct 8, 2009

WASHINGTON — Key US lawmakers passed legislation Thursday extending three key provisions of the PATRIOT Act, the sweeping intelligence bill enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Backing a White House request, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the measure 11 votes to 8 to extend until 2013 three clauses that would have expired by 31 December. The bill now heads to the full Senate for a vote.

The provisions include the “roving wiretap” clause, used to monitor mobile communications of individuals using multiple telephone lines, and the “lone-wolf” provision, which enables spying on individuals suspected of terrorist activity but with no obvious connection to extremist groups.

Lawmakers also extended the life of controversial section 215, known as the “library records provision” that allows government agencies to access individual’s library history.

The committee had earlier met in a closed-door meeting with members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the intelligence community on ensuring their actions would not impede investigations already underway.

The senators also debated freeing up law enforcement actions that have been hampered by legislation and court rulings since the first program was launched by former president George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11, which enabled collecting sensitive information for years without a court order.

Republicans senators have remained critical of placing restrictions on the intelligence community, saying they should more of a free hand in the early stages of investigations.

But their Democratic counterparts have decried the fact that the provisions still do not in their view adequately respect the privacy of ordinary Americans.

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold said he feared handing a “blank check” to law enforcement agencies.

“This is our job to write language to make sure this doesn’t happen anymore,” he said.

Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative office said the rights group was “disappointed” that further moves were not made to protect civil liberties.

“This truly was a missed opportunity for the Senate Judiciary Committee to right the wrongs of the PATRIOT Act,” he said.

“We urge the Senate to adopt amendments on the floor that will bring this bill in line with the Constitution.”

MI5 warned that bin Laden was planning attacks on morning of 9/11

MI5 warned the government that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack in the weeks leading up to September 11, including the morning itself, a new history of the Security Service discloses.

Telegraph | Oct 5, 2009

By Duncan Gardham

Newly published memos disclose an escalating concern about the terrorist leader right up until the moment he launched his attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington killing nearly 3,000 people.

But the files also reveal that MI5 discounted the threat from Islamic extremism just six years before the attacks and did not believe that America was vulnerable.

The author of the book, Defence of the Realm, has been given access to all of MI5’s files dating back to its foundation in October 1909 in the first authorised history of an intelligence service anywhere in the world.

In a memo from July 6 2001, MI5 said the increase in the number of reports were “sufficient to conclude that UBL [Osama bin Laden] and those that share his agenda are currently well advanced in operational planning for a number of major attacks on western interests.”

Professor Christopher Andrew, the Cambridge University historian who wrote the book, added: “Similar Security Service warnings to Whitehall of imminent attack continued at intervals over the next two months, up to and including the morning of 11 September. The intelligence received during the simmer of 2001, however, did not point either to a major attack in the United States or to an operation based on hijacked aircraft.”

But MI5 had huge gaps in its knowledge about al-Qaeda and later on the morning of September 11, Sir Stephen Lander, then director general of MI5, told Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, that bin Laden was not head of a “coherent unified terrorist structure” according to a briefing note.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Sir Stephen said MI5 had been “slow to get going” on the threat because they were pre-occupied with the IRA and that afterwards they had a “major set to, sitting around a board room table working out how to move on.”

MI5 had opened a permanent file on bin Laden in September 1995, but they believed he was a terrorist financier rather than a leader, adding the source of his wealth was a “mystery.”

In December 1995, a memo to the heads of police Special Branches, said: “Suggestions in the press of a world-wide Islamic extremist network poised to launch terrorist attacks against the West are greatly exaggerated…The contact between Islamic extremists in various countries appears to be largely opportunistic at present and seems unlikely to result in the emergence of a potent trans-national force.”

When Dame Stella Rimington visited the US in March 1996, a few weeks before her retirement as head of MI5, she had never heard the name al-Qaeda, the book reveals.

Nevertheless MI5 scored an intelligence triumph shortly afterwards when they became the first western intelligence agency to gain a recording of bin Laden’s voice.

But a memo from 1999 admitted: “The allied intelligence community does not have a clear view of UBL’s terrorist planning process. Even the most reliably sourced intelligence on this question usually consists of a snapshot of a proposed plan being discussed. Most of the reporting does not make clear how advanced the plan is. It is rare that intelligence has named those who are to take part ion a planned attack.”

Later in the summer of 1999, MI5 reported: “Intelligence suggests that while UBL is seeking to launch an attack inside the US, he is aware that the US will provide a tough operating environment for his organisation.”

Unknown to MI5, Britain had already been targeted by al-Qaeda. It was only after September 11 that officers discovered that a Pakistani microbiologist called Rauf Ahmad, also known as Abdur Rauf, who traveled to a conference in Britain in September 2000 to try and buy pathogens from fellow delegates, was a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda.

AP – Los Angeles Police chief William Bratton talks to the media during a news conference introducing iWatch,

Associated Press | Oct 3, 2009

by Eileen Sullivan And P. Solomon Banda

DENVER – A store clerk’s curiosity about why Najibullah Zazi was buying large quantities of beauty supply products indicated that something about the transaction wasn’t quite right — and it’s an example of the kind of citizen vigilance that can combat terror, a police commander said Saturday.

Los Angeles police Cmdr. Joan McNamara cited this summer’s incident as police chiefs meeting in Denver adopted a model for a nationwide community watch program that teaches people what behavior is truly suspicious and encourages them to report it to police.

Federal authorities allege Zazi, 24, tried to make a homemade explosive using ingredients from beauty supplies purchased at Denver-area stores. He has been jailed in New York on charges of conspiracy to detonate a weapon of mass destruction in a plot that may have targeted New York City. Zazi has denied the charges.

Zazi reportedly told an inquisitive clerk he needed a large amount of cosmetic chemicals because he had “lots of girlfriends.” While his purchases weren’t reported to authorities because suppliers often buy large quantities, the police chiefs hope a coordinated publicity effort will make people think differently about such encounters.

Los Angeles police Chief William Bratton, who developed the iWatch program with McNamara, called it the 21st century version of Neighborhood Watch.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association, headed by Bratton and composed of the chiefs of the 63 largest police departments in the U.S. and Canada, endorsed iWatch at the group’s conference Saturday.

iWatch would have provided an easy way for that Colorado store clerk and others to report suspicious activity so police could launch investigations earlier, McNamara said.

“That clerk had a gut instinct that something wasn’t right,” she said.

Using brochures, public service announcements and meetings with community groups, iWatch is designed to deliver concrete advice on how the public can follow the oft-repeated post-Sept. 11 recommendation, “If you see something, say something.”

Program materials list nine types of suspicious behavior that should compel people to call police, and 12 kinds of places to look for it. Among the indicators:

_If you smell chemicals or other fumes.

_If you see someone wearing clothes that are too big and too heavy for the season.

_If you see strangers asking about building security.

_If you see someone purchasing supplies or equipment that could be used to make bombs.

The important places to watch include government buildings, mass gatherings, schools and public transportation.

The program also is designed to ease reporting by providing a toll-free number and Web page the public can use to alert authorities. Los Angeles put up its Web site this weekend.

“It’s really just commonsense types of things,” Bratton said, adding that his department is providing technical assistance to other agencies that want to adopt the program.

But American Civil Liberties Union policy counsel Mike German, a former FBI agent who worked on terrorism cases, said the indicators are all relatively common behaviors. He suspects people will fall back on personal biases and stereotypes of what a terrorist looks like when deciding to report someone to the police.

“That just plays into the negative elements of society and doesn’t really help the situation,” German said.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration proposed enlisting postal carriers, gas and electric company workers, telephone repairmen and other workers with access to private homes in a program to report suspicious behavior to the FBI. Privacy advocates condemned this as too intrusive, and the plan was dropped.

Bratton and McNamara said privacy and civil liberties protections are built into this program.

“We’re not asking people to spy on their neighbors,” McNamara said.

If someone reports something based on race or ethnicity, the police will not accept the report, and someone will explain to the caller why that is not an indicator of suspicious behavior, McNamara said.

The iWatch program isn’t the first to list possible indicators of suspicious behavior. Some cities, like Miami, have offered a public list of seven signs of possible terrorism. Federal agencies also have put out various lists.

Other efforts encourage the public and law enforcement to report such signs through dozens of state-run “fusion centers” across the country. One such center, the Colorado Information Analysis Center, has a form on its Web site to report suspicious activity.

Bratton hopes the iWatch program becomes as successful and as well known as the Smokey Bear campaign to prevent wildfires.

“There he is with his Smokey the Bear hat, similarly here, we hope that this program, even though it’s in its birthing stages right now, in a few years will become that well known to the American public.”

___

On the Net:

Major chiefs: http://www.majorcitieschiefs.org

Los Angeles Police Department: http://www.lapdonline.org

Los Angeles iWatch Web site: http://www.iWatchLA.org

___

Related

Queen makes fmr NYPD commissioner Cmdr of the British Empire on Sep 11th

Queen to make chief a Cmdr of the Order of the British Empire on Sep 11th

L.A. Police Chief to Lead Unit Seeking Big U.S. Contracts

LAPD chief’s exit opens the door to questions of conflict of interest

Chief Bratton on Bin Laden, Black Ops and Israeli Intelligence

A Secret Society, Spilling a Few Secrets
In the hallways of the grand lodge headquarters, the walls are crowded with framed photographs of Masons past and present, but mostly past: Hubert H. Humphrey, the former vice president; and William J. Bratton, the former police commissioner who is now the chief of police in Los Angeles.

BRATTON WILLIAM J

Secrecy News | Oct 1, 2009

by Steven Aftergood

The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will review a Freedom of Information Act ruling requiring the Department of Defense to disclose certain photographs of alleged detainee abuse to the American Civil Liberties Union.  If it declines to do so, a federal appeals court order that directed release of the photographs will stand.

Though not strictly a legal consideration, there is a potency to photographic images that can make them weapons in the struggle for popular opinion as a foundation and an adjunct to military operations.  In opposing their release, the government contends that the photographs sought by the ACLU could be used to incite violence against U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.

An old 1979 U.S. Army manual on psychological operations (large pdf) observed that images of brutal behavior committed by enemy terrorists can “reverberate against the practitioner, making him repugnant to his own people, and all others who see the results of his heinous savagery.”  Distribution of such images among the population “will give them second thoughts about the decency and honorableness of their cause [and] make them wonder about the righteousness of their ideology.”

“The enemy may try to rationalize and excuse its conduct, but in so doing, it will compound the adverse effect of its actions, because it can never deny the validity of true photographic representations of its acts,” the Army Manual explained (at page I-10, PDF page 252).  “Thus, world opinion will sway to the side of the victimized people.”

This kind of propaganda technique could not be used against the U.S., the now obsolete 1979 Army manual stated, because “The United States is absolutely opposed to the use of terror or terrorist tactics.”  See “Psychological Operations,” U.S. Army Field Manual 33-1, August 31, 1979.

FM 3-05.30, the current U.S. Army Field Manual on Psychological Operations, does not address the tactical use of photographic images.

Glenn Beck Exclusive: Warns of ‘Reichstag Event’

Newsmax | Sep 29, 2009

Media phenomenon Glenn Beck recently sat down with Newsmax for an exclusive interview offering his take on everything from President Obama, to the threat to talk radio and even a worry that our Constitutional government may disappear after a “Reichstag” event takes place.

The candid, wide-ranging interview appears in the October issue of Newsmax magazine, and is included in the special report “Glenn Beck Wants You!” that takes an in-depth look at the TV host whose Fox News show has been breaking ratings records since it burst on the scene in January.

Beck, who is also thriving on the radio, in bookstores and on the comedy circuit, sat down with Newsmax magazine’s Editor in Chief Christopher Ruddy and voiced his concerns about a coming attack on talk radio.

But his real worry is that many Washington elitists really don’t like our form of government and want to see it abolished.

“I fear a Reichstag moment,” he said, referring to the 1933 burning of Germany’s parliament building in Berlin that the Nazis blamed on communists and Hitler used as an excuse to suspend constitutional liberties and consolidate power.

“God forbid, another 9/11. Something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced.”

Beck has also been a fierce critic of President Obama. Still, he said he’s open to a meeting with Obama. Beck doesn’t believe the president “necessarily would” speak directly to him, adding: “I don’t know very many politicians that speak directly.”

Beck also talked to Newsmax about his critics, his best-selling book “Common Sense,” his condemnation of George W. Bush’s presidency, government control of the media and “the only thing that will save this country.”

Small plane crashed in farm field near Muncie, Indiana

NORAD says F-16s followed it when pilot didn’t react to calls

The plane, registered out of Michigan, departed Gerald Ford International Airport in Grand Rapids, Michigan, at 9:43 a.m. ET, according to flight records. The F-16s, from the Indiana Air National Guard, began escorting the plane about 10 a.m.

CNN | Sep 30, 2009

(CNN) — A small plane crashed outside Muncie, Indiana, as military F-16s trailed it Wednesday after its pilot failed to respond to radio calls, the North American Aerospace Defense Command said.

The plane crashed into a farm field in Randolph County, Indiana, officials said. There were no reports that anyone on the ground was hurt.

The pilot was the only one on board the single-propeller, four-seater plane. His fate was not immediately known.

The incident was not believed to be terrorism-related and may be a medical situation, officials said.

The F-16s, from the Indiana Air National Guard, began escorting the plane about 10 a.m. ET after the pilot was “unresponsive,” failing to respond to radio calls, NORAD said in a statement.

Randolph County is about 25 miles east of Muncie.

Footage taken by CNN affiliate WTHR over the crash site showed police and fire officials surrounding the charred wreckage, in what appeared to be tall rows of corn.

The plane, registered out of Michigan, departed Gerald Ford International Airport in Grand Rapids, Michigan, at 9:43 a.m. ET, according to flight records.

NY1 News | Sep 29, 2009

Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was dealt a setback at a pretrial conference Tuesday.

Federal judge Stephen Robinson says the defense cannot mention the September 11th terror attacks during the trial, which is expected to begin on October 13th.

The judge says the attack has no relevance to the case.

The judge was also upset that a new lawyer hired by Kerik sent an email to The Washington Times containing non-public information and warned Kerik he could be jailed for such inappropriate behavior.

Kerik is accused of accepting apartment renovations from a construction company in exchange for recommending the company for city contracts.

Kerik has pleaded not guilty.