Egypt’s unprecedented Internet disconnection has now lasted 24 hours without signs of ending.

At this time yesterday, one by one, the country’s electronic links to the outside world fell silent. It started at 2:12 p.m. PT with the mostly state-owned Telecom Egypt disabling its networks, with four smaller network providers following suit between 2:13 p.m. PT and 2:25 p.m. PT.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak appeared on state television at approximately 2:15 p.m. PT today to announce that he would sack his cabinet but would not resign–an indication that no end to the disconnect was near. “I will not be lax or tolerant,” he said, according to an Al Jazeera English translation. There’s a fine line, he said, between permitting free speech and allowing chaos to spread.

Yesterday’s network disconnection was followed soon after by mobile networks pulling the plug as well. Vodafone confirmed in a statement that “all mobile operators in Egypt have been instructed to suspend services in selected areas.” So did Mobinil, the country’s largest mobile provider. (See CNET’s previous coverage.)

Those outages come as four days of clashes between security forces and tens of thousands of protesters continued on the streets of Cairo and other major cities, despite an official curfew in effect Friday evening. Tanks have taken up positions around some TV stations and foreign embassies, and Al Jazeera English is reporting that the end of three decades of autocratic rule by Mubarak may be nearing.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a speech earlier today that “we urge the Egyptian authorities to allow peaceful protests and to reverse the unprecedented steps it has taken to cut off communications.”

“We think the government, as many of us have said throughout the day, need to turn the Internet and social-networking sites back on,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. He added: “Individual freedoms includes the freedom to access the Internet and the freedom to–to use social-networking sites.”

Egypt’s Internet connections aren’t completely down: the Noor Group appears to be the only Internet provider in Egypt that’s fully functioning. Cairo-based bloggers have speculated that its unique status grows out of its client list, which includes western firms including ExxonMobil, Toyota, Hyatt, Nestle, Fedex, Coca-Cola, and Pfizer, plus the Egyptian stock exchange.

An analysis posted by network analyst Andree Toonk, who runs a Web site devoted to monitoring networks, shows that before the outage, there were 2,903 Egyptian networks publicly accessible via the Internet. Today, there are only 327 networks.

This chart, provided by Akamai, shows the precipitous drop in traffic to and from Egypt yesterday.

(Credit: Akamai)

A chart prepared by European networking organization RIPE provides a detailed glimpse at how Egypt’s network went dark. Until yesterday afternoon, there was the normal noise of networks being added and deleted, followed by a sharp spike yesterday between 2 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. ET. There’s been virtually no activity since.

Before yesterday’s outage, Egyptian use of the Tor anonymizing network had experienced a dramatic spike that coincided with the beginning of widespread protests. Normal usage was hovering around 400 users a day, but leaped to more than 1,200 as of January 24. (Here’s a different view.)

Contrary to some reports, however, there’s no evidence that Syria’s Internet connection is down. Compare this chart from an Egyptian provider showing the network going completely dark with this one from the government-owned Syrian Telecommunications Establishment that depicts normal activity.

The rumors about Syria originated a few hours ago when Al Arabiya news service said that “Syria suspends all Internet services,” and followed up with a denial from the authorities. Reuters reported earlier this week that Syrian authorities have banned programs that allow access to Facebook Chat from cell phones.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20029973-281.html#ixzz1CadEGzWy

READ FULL STORY HERE

For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive… The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination… The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening… That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing… The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches…

The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as well… Their potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious “tertiary level” educational institutions of developing countries. Depending on the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130 million “college” students. Typically originating from the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square. Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred…

[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.[1]

- Zbigniew Brzezinski

Former U.S. National Security Advisor

Co-Founder of the Trilateral Commission

Member, Board of Trustees, Center for Strategic and International Studies

An uprising in Tunisia led to the overthrow of the country’s 23-year long dictatorship of President Ben Ali. A new ‘transitional’ government was formed, but the protests continued demanding a totally new government without the relics of the previous tyranny. Protests in Algeria have continued for weeks, as rage mounts against rising food prices, corruption and state oppression. Protests in Jordan forced the King to call on the military to surround cities with tanks and set up checkpoints. Tens of thousands of protesters marched on Cairo demanding an end to the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. Thousands of activists, opposition leaders and students rallied in the capitol of Yemen against the corrupt dictatorship of President Saleh, in power since 1978. Saleh has been, with U.S. military assistance, attempting to crush a rebel movement in the north and a massive secessionist movement growing in the south, called the “Southern Movement.” Protests in Bolivia against rising food prices forced the populist government of Evo Morales to backtrack on plans to cut subsidies. Chile erupted in protests as demonstrators railed against rising fuel prices. Anti-government demonstrations broke out in Albania, resulting in the deaths of several protesters.

It seems as if the world is entering the beginnings of a new revolutionary era: the era of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’ While this ‘awakening’ is materializing in different regions, different nations and under different circumstances, it is being largely influenced by global conditions. The global domination by the major Western powers, principally the United States, over the past 65 years, and more broadly, centuries, is reaching a turning point. The people of the world are restless, resentful, and enraged. Change, it seems, is in the air. As the above quotes from Brzezinski indicate, this development on the world scene is the most radical and potentially dangerous threat to global power structures and empire. It is not a threat simply to the nations in which the protests arise or seek change, but perhaps to a greater degree, it is a threat to the imperial Western powers, international institutions, multinational corporations and banks that prop up, arm, support and profit from these oppressive regimes around the world. Thus, America and the West are faced with a monumental strategic challenge: what can be done to stem the Global Political Awakening? Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the chief architects of American foreign policy, and arguably one of the intellectual pioneers of the system of globalization. Thus, his warnings about the ‘Global Political Awakening’ are directly in reference to its nature as a threat to the prevailing global hierarchy. As such, we must view the ‘Awakening’ as the greatest hope for humanity. Certainly, there will be mainy failures, problems, and regressions; but the ‘Awakening’ has begun, it is underway, and it cannot be so easily co-opted or controlled as many might assume.

The reflex action of the imperial powers is to further arm and support the oppressive regimes, as well as the potential to organize a destabilization through covert operations or open warfare (as is being done in Yemen). The alterantive is to undertake a strategy of “democratization” in which Western NGOs, aid agencies and civil society organizations establish strong contacts and relationships with the domestic civil society in these regions and nations. The objective of this strategy is to organize, fund and help direct the domestic civil society to produce a democratic system made in the image of the West, and thus maintain continuity in the international hierarchy. Essentially, the project of “democratization” implies creating the outward visible constructs of a democratic state (multi-party elections, active civil society, “independent” media, etc) and yet maintain continuity in subservience to the World Bank, IMF, multinational corporations and Western powers.
It appears that both of these strategies are being simultaneously imposed in the Arab world: enforcing and supporting state oppression and building ties with civil society organizations. The problem for the West, however, is that they have not had the ability to yet establish strong and dependent ties with civil society groups in much of the region, as ironically, the oppressive regimes they propped up were and are unsurprisingly resistant to such measures. In this sense, we must not cast aside these protests and uprisings as being instigated by the West, but rather that they emerged organically, and the West is subsequently attempting to co-opt and control the emerging movements.

Part 1 of this essay focuses on the emergence of these protest movements and uprisings, placing it in the context of the Global Political Awakening. Part 2 will examine the West’s strategy of “democratic imperialism” as a method of co-opting the ‘Awakening’ and installing “friendly” governments.

The Tunisian Spark

A July 2009 diplomatic cable from America’s Embassy in Tunisia reported that, “many Tunisians are frustrated by the lack of political freedom and angered by First Family corruption, high unemployment and regional inequities. Extremism poses a continuing threat,” and that, “the risks to the regime’s long-term stability are increasing.”[2]

On Friday, 14 January 2011, the U.S.-supported 23-year long dictatorship of Tunisian president Ben Ali ended. For several weeks prior to this, the Tunisian people had risen in protest against rising food prices, stoked on by an immense and growing dissatisfaction with the political repression, and prodded by the WikiLeaks cables confirming the popular Tunisian perception of gross corruption on the part of the ruling family. The spark, it seems, was when a 26-year old unemployed youth set himself on fire in protest on December 17.

With the wave of protests sparked by the death of the 26-year old who set himself on fire on December 17, the government of Tunisia responded by cracking down on the protesters. Estimates vary, but roughly 100 people were killed in the clashes. Half of Tunisia’s 10 million people are under the age of 25, meaning that they have never known a life in Tunisia outside of living under this one dictator. Since Independence from the French empire in 1956, Tunisia has had only two leaders: Habib Bourguiba and Ben Ali.[3] The Tunisian people were rising up against a great many things: an oppressive dictatorship which has employed extensive information and internet censorship, rising food prices and inflation, a corrupt ruling family, lack of jobs for the educated youth, and a general sense and experience of exploitation, subjugation and disrespect for human dignity.

Following the ouster of Ben Ali, Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi assumed presidential power and declared a “transitional government.” Yet, this just spurred more protests demanding his resignation and the resignation of the entire government. Significantly, the trade union movement had a large mobilizing role in the protests, with a lawyers union being particularly active during the initial protests.[4]

Protests in Tunisia

Social media and the Internet did play a large part in mobilizing people within Tunisia for the uprising, but it was ultimately the result of direct protests and action which led to the resignation of Ben Ali. Thus, referring to Tunisia as a “Twitter Revolution” is disingenuous.

Twitter, WikiLeaks, Facebook, Youtube, forums and blogs did have a part to play. They reflect the ability “to collectively transform the Arab information environment and shatter the ability of authoritarian regimes to control the flow of information, images, ideas and opinions.”[5] [Editors Note: The US based foundation Freedom House was involved in promoting and training some Middle East North Africa Facebook and Twitter bloggers (See also Freedom House), M. C.].

We must also keep in mind that social media has not only become an important source of mobilization of activism and information at the grassroots level, but it has also become an effective means for governments and various power structures to seek to manipulate the flow of information. This was evident in the 2009 protests in Iran, where social media became an important avenue through which the Western nations were able to advance their strategy of supporting the so-called ‘Green Revolution’ in destabilizing the Iranian government. Thus, social media has presented a new form of power, neither black nor white, in which it can be used to either advance the process of the ‘Awakening’ or control its direction.

Whereas America was publicly denouncing Iran for blocking (or attempting to block) social media in the summer of 2009, during the first several weeks of Tunisian protests (which were largely being ignored by Western media), America and the West were silent about censorship.[6] Steven Cook, writing for the elite U.S. think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, commented on the lack of attention being paid to the Tunisian protests in the early weeks of resistance prior to the resignation of Ben Ali. He explained that while many assume that the Arab “strongmen” regimes will simply maintain power as they always have, this could be mistaken. He stated that, “it may not be the last days of Ben Ali or Mubarak or any other Middle Eastern strongman, but there is clearly something going on in the region.” However, it was the end of Ben Ali, and indeed, “there is clearly something going on in the region.”[7]

France’s President Sarkozy has even had to admit that, “he had underestimated the anger of the Tunisian people and the protest movement that ousted President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.” During the first few weeks of protests in Tunisia, several French government officials were publicly supporting the dictatorship, with the French Foreign Minister saying that France would lend its police “knowhow” to help Ben Ali in maintaining order.[8]

Days before the ouster of Ben Ali, Hillary Clinton gave an interview in which she explained how America was worried “about the unrest and the instability,” and that, “we are not taking sides, but we are saying we hope that there can be a peaceful resolution. And I hope that the Tunisian Government can bring that about.” Clinton further lamented, “One of my biggest concerns in this entire region are the many young people without economic opportunities in their home countries.”[9] Her concern, of course, does not spur from any humanitarian considerations, but rather from inherent imperial considerations: it is simply harder to control a region of the world erupting in activism, uprisings and revolution.

The Spark Lights a Flame

Tunisia has raised the bar for the people across the Arab world to demand justice, democracy, accountability, economic stability, and freedom. Just as Tunisia’s protests were in full-swing, Algeria was experiencing mass protests, rising up largely as a result of the increasing international food prices, but also in reaction to many of the concerns of the Tunisian protesters, such as democratic accountability, corruption and freedom. A former Algerian diplomat told Al-Jazeera in early January that, “It is a revolt, and probably a revolution, of an oppressed people who have, for 50 years, been waiting for housing, employment, and a proper and decent life in a very rich country.”[10]

In mid-January, similar protests erupted in Jordan, as thousands took to the streets to protest against rising food prices and unemployment, chanting anti-government slogans. Jordan’s King Abdullah II had “set up a special task force in his palace that included military and intelligence officials to try to prevent the unrest from escalating further,” which had tanks surrounding major cities, with barriers and checkpoints established.[11]

In Yemen, the poorest nation in the Arab world, engulfed in a U.S. sponsored war against its own people, ruled by a dictator who has been in power since 1978, thousands of people protested against the government, demanding the dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down. In the capitol city of Sanaa, thousands of students, activists and opposition groups chanted slogans such as, “Get out get out, Ali. Join your friend Ben Ali.”[12] Yemen has been experiencing much turmoil in recent years, with a rebel movement in the North fighting against the government, formed in 2004; as well as a massive secessionist movement in the south, called the “Southern Movement,” fighting for liberation since 2007. As the Financial Times explained:

Many Yemen observers consider the anger and secessionist sentiment now erupting in the south to be a greater threat to the country’s stability than its better publicised struggle with al-Qaeda, and the deteriorating economy is making the tension worse.

Unemployment, particularly among the young, is soaring. Even the government statistics office in Aden puts it at nearly 40 per cent among men aged 20 to 24.[13]

Protest of the Southern Movement in Yemen

On January 21, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Albania, mobilized by the socialist opposition, ending with violent clashes between the police and protesters, leading to the deaths of three demonstrators. The protests have been sporadic in Albania since the widely contested 2009 elections, but took on new levels inspired by Tunisia.[14]

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom stressed concern over the revolutionary sentiments within the Arab world, saying that, “I fear that we now stand before a new and very critical phase in the Arab world.” He fears Tunisia would “set a precedent that could be repeated in other countries, possibly affecting directly the stability of our system.”[15] Israel’s leadership fears democracy in the Arab world, as they have a security alliance with the major Arab nations, who, along with Israel itself, are American proxy states in the region. Israel maintains civil – if not quiet – relationships with the Arab monarchs and dictators. While the Arab states publicly criticize Israel, behind closed doors they are forced to quietly accept Israel’s militarism and war-mongering, lest they stand up against the superpower, America. Yet, public opinion in the Arab world is extremely anti-Israel, anti-American and pro-Iran.

In July of 2010, the results of a major international poll were released regarding public opinion in the Arab world, polling from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. Among some of the notable findings: while Obama was well received upon entering the Presidency, with 51% expressing optimism about U.S. policy in the region in the Spring of 2009, by Summer 2010, 16% were expressing optimism. In 2009, 29% of those polled said a nuclear-armed Iran would be positive for the region; in 2010, that spiked to 57%, reflecting a very different stance from that of their governments.[16]

While America, Israel and the leaders of the Arab nations claim that Iran is the greatest threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, the Arab people do not agree. In an open question asking which two countries pose the greatest threat to the region, 88% responded with Israel, 77% with America, and 10% with Iran.[17]

At the Arab economic summit shortly following the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia, who was for the first time absent from the meetings, the Tunisian uprising hung heavy in the air. Arab League leader Amr Moussa said in his opening remarks at the summit, “The Tunisian revolution is not far from us,” and that, “the Arab citizen entered an unprecedented state of anger and frustration,” noting that “the Arab soul is broken by poverty, unemployment and general recession.” The significance of this ‘threat’ to the Arab leaders cannot be understated. Out of roughly 352 million Arabs, 190 million are under the age of 24, with nearly three-quarters of them unemployed. Often, “the education these young people receive doesn’t do them any good because there are no jobs in the fields they trained for.”[18]

There was even an article in the Israeli intellectual newspaper, Ha’aretz, which posited that, “Israel may be on the eve of revolution.” Explaining, the author wrote that:

Israeli civil society organizations have amassed considerable power over the years; not only the so-called leftist organizations, but ones dealing with issues like poverty, workers’ rights and violence against women and children. All of them were created in order to fill the gaps left by the state, which for its part was all too happy to continue walking away from problems that someone else was there to take on. The neglect is so great that Israel’s third sector – NGOs, charities and volunteer organizations – is among the biggest in the world. As such, it has quite a bit of power.[19]

Now the Israeli Knesset and cabinet want that power back; yet, posits the author, they “have chosen to ignore the reasons these groups became powerful,” namely:

The source of their power is the vacuum, the criminal policies of Israel’s governments over the last 40 years. The source of their power is a government that is evading its duties to care for all of its citizens and to end the occupation, and a Knesset that supports the government instead of putting it in its place.[20]

The Israeli Knesset opened investigations into the funding of Israeli human rights organizations in a political maneuver against them. However, as one article in Ha’aretz by an Israeli professor explained, these groups actually – inadvertently – play a role in “entrenching the occupation.” As the author explained:

Even if the leftist groups’ intention is to ensure upholding Palestinian rights, though, the unintentional result of their activity is preserving the occupation. Moderating and restraining the army’s activity gives it a more human and legal facade. Reducing the pressure of international organizations, alongside moderating the Palestinian population’s resistance potential, enable the army to continue to maintain this control model over a prolonged period of time.[21]

Thus, if the Israeli Knesset succeeds in getting rid of these powerful NGOs, they sow the seeds for the pressure valve in the occupied territories to be removed. The potential for massive internal protests within Israel from the left, as well as the possibility of another Intifada – uprising – in the occupied territories themselves would seem dramatically increased. Israel and the West have expressed how much distaste they hold for democracy in the region. When Gaza held a democratic election in 2006 and elected Hamas, which was viewed as the ‘wrong’ choice by Israel and America, Israel imposed a ruthless blockade of Gaza. Richard Falk, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Inquiry Commission for the Palestinian territories, wrote an article for Al Jazeera in which he explained that the blockade:

unlawfully restricted to subsistence levels, or below, the flow of food, medicine, and fuel. This blockade continues to this day, leaving the entire Gazan population locked within the world’s largest open-air prison, and victimized by one of the cruelest forms of belligerent occupation in the history of warfare.[22]

The situation in the occupied territories is made increasingly tense with the recent leaking of the “Palestinian Papers,” which consist of two decades of secret Israeli-Palestinian accords, revealing the weak negotiating position of the Palestinian Authority. The documents consist largely of major concessions the Palestinian Authority was willing to make “on the issues of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, territorial concessions, and the recognition of Israel.” Among the leaks, Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to concede nearly all of East Jerusalem to Israel. Further, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (favoured by Israel and America over Hamas), was personally informed by a senior Israeli official the night before Operation Cast Lead, the December 2008 and January 2009 Israeli assault on Gaza, resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 Palestinians: “Israeli and Palestinian officials reportedly discussed targeted assassinations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists in Gaza.”[23]

Hamas has subsequently called on Palestinian refugees to protest over the concessions regarding the ‘right of return’ for refugees, of which the negotiators conceded to allowing only 100,000 of 5 million to return to Israel.[24] A former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt lamented that, “The concern will be that this might cause further problems in moving forward.”[25] However, while being blamed for possibly preventing the “peace process” from moving forward, what the papers reveal is that the “peace process” itself is a joke. The Palestinian Authority’s power is derivative of the power Israel allows it to have, and was propped up as a method of dealing with an internal Palestinian elite, thus doing what all colonial powers have done. The papers, then, reveal how the so-called Palestinian ‘Authority’ does not truly speak or work for the interests of the Palestinian people. And while this certainly will divide the PA from Hamas, they were already deeply divided as it was. Certainly, this will pose problems for the “peace process,” but that’s assuming it is a ‘peaceful’ process in the first part.

Is Egypt on the Edge of Revolution?

Unrest is even spreading to Egypt, personal playground of U.S.-supported and armed dictator, Hosni Mubarak, in power since 1981. Egypt is the main U.S. ally in North Africa, and has for centuries been one of the most important imperial jewels first for the Ottomans, then the British, and later for the Americans. With a population of 80 million, 60% of which are under the age of 30, who make up 90% of Egypt’s unemployed, the conditions are ripe for a repeat in Egypt of what happened in Tunisia.[26]

On January 25, 2011, Egypt experienced its “day of wrath,” in which tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets to protest against rising food prices, corruption, and the oppression of living under a 30-year dictatorship. The demonstrations were organized through the use of social media such as Twitter and Facebook. When the protests emerged, the government closed access to these social media sites, just as the Tunisian government did in the early days of the protests that led to the collapse of the dictatorship. As one commentator wrote in the Guardian:

Egypt is not Tunisia. It’s much bigger. Eighty million people, compared with 10 million. Geographically, politically, strategically, it’s in a different league – the Arab world’s natural leader and its most populous nation. But many of the grievances on the street are the same. Tunis and Cairo differ only in size. If Egypt explodes, the explosion will be much bigger, too.[27]

In Egypt, “an ad hoc coalition of students, unemployed youths, industrial workers, intellectuals, football fans and women, connected by social media such as Twitter and Facebook, instigated a series of fast-moving, rapidly shifting demos across half a dozen or more Egyptian cities.” The police responded with violence, and three protesters were killed. With tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, Egypt saw the largest protests in decades, if not under the entire 30-year reign of President Mubarak. Is Egypt on the verge of revolution? It seems too soon to tell. Egypt, it must be remembered, is the second major recipient of U.S. military assistance in the world (following Israel), and thus, its police state and military apparatus are far more advanced and secure than Tunisia’s. Clearly, however, something is stirring. As Hilary Clinton said on the night of the protests, “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”[28] In other words: “We continue to support tyranny and dictatorship over democracy and liberation.” So what else is new?

Egyptian Protest, 25 January 2011

According to some estimates, as many as 50,000 protesters turned out in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and other Egyptian cities.[29] The protests were met with the usual brutality: beating protesters, firing tear gas and using water cannons to attempt to disperse the protesters. As images and videos started emerging out of Egypt, “television footage showed demonstrators chasing police down side streets. One protester climbed into a fire engine and drove it away.”[30] Late on the night of the protests, rumours and unconfirmed reports were spreading that the first lady of Egypt, Suzanne Mubarak, may have fled Egypt to London, following on the heels of rumours that Mubarak’s son, and presumed successor, had also fled to London.[31]

Are We Headed for a Global Revolution?

During the first phase of the global economic crisis in December of 2008, the IMF warned governments of the prospect of “violent unrest on the streets.” The head of the IMF warned that, “violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to benefit everyone rather than a small elite.”[32]

In January of 2009, Obama’s then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the greatest threat to the National Security of the U.S. was not terrorism, but the global economic crisis:

I’d like to begin with the global economic crisis, because it already looms as the most serious one in decades, if not in centuries … Economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they are prolonged for a one- or two-year period… And instability can loosen the fragile hold that many developing countries have on law and order, which can spill out in dangerous ways into the international community.[33]

In 2007, a British Defence Ministry report was released assessing global trends in the world over the next 30 years. In assessing “Global Inequality”, the report stated that over the next 30 years:

[T]he gap between rich and poor will probably increase and absolute poverty will remain a global challenge… Disparities in wealth and advantage will therefore become more obvious, with their associated grievances and resentments, even among the growing numbers of people who are likely to be materially more prosperous than their parents and grandparents.  Absolute poverty and comparative disadvantage will fuel perceptions of injustice among those whose expectations are not met, increasing tension and instability, both within and between societies and resulting in expressions of violence such as disorder, criminality, terrorism and insurgency. They may also lead to the resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies, possibly linked to religious, anarchist or nihilist movements, but also to populism and the revival of Marxism.[34]

Further, the report warned of the dangers to the established powers of a revolution emerging from the disgruntled middle classes:

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx.  The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states.  The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite.  Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.[35]

We have now reached the point where the global economic crisis has continued beyond the two-year mark. The social repercussions are starting to be felt – globally – as a result of the crisis and the coordinated responses to it. Since the global economic crisis hit the ‘Third World’ the hardest, the social and political ramifications will be felt there first. In the context of the current record-breaking hikes in the cost of food, food riots will spread around the world as they did in 2007 and 2008, just prior to the outbreak of the economic crisis. This time, however, things are much worse economically, much more desperate socially, and much more oppressive politically.

This rising discontent will spread from the developing world to the comfort of our own homes in the West. Once the harsh realization sets in that the economy is not in ‘recovery,’ but rather in a Depression, and once our governments in the West continue on their path of closing down the democratic façade and continue dismantling rights and freedoms, increasing surveillance and ‘control,’ while pushing increasingly militaristic and war-mongering foreign policies around the world (mostly in an effort to quell or crush the global awakening being experienced around the world), we in the West will come to realize that ‘We are all Tunisians.’

In 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr., said in his famous speech “Beyond Vietnam”:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.[36]

This was Part 1 of “North Africa and the Global Political Awakening,” focusing on the emergence of the protest movements primarily in North Africa and the Arab world, but placing it in the context of a wider ‘Global Awakening.’
Part 2 will focus on the West’s reaction to the ‘Awakening’ in this region; namely, the two-pronged strategy of supporting oppressive regimes while promoting “democratization” in a grand new project of “democratic imperialism.”

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century,” available to order at Globalresearch.ca. He is currently working on a forthcoming book on ’Global Government’.

Notes

[1]        Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html; “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President,” International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009); The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign. The American Interest Magazine, Autumn 2005: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=56; The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Speech at the Carnegie Council: March 25, 2004: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4424.html; America’s Geopolitical Dilemmas. Speech at the Canadian International Council and Montreal Council on Foreign Relations: April 23, 2010: http://www.onlinecic.org/resourcece/multimedia/americasgeopoliticaldilemmas

[2]        Embassy Tunis, TROUBLED TUNISIA:  WHAT SHOULD WE DO?, WikiLeaks Cables, 17 July 2009: http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/07/09TUNIS492.html

[3]        Mona Eltahawy, Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution, The Washington Post, 15 January 2011: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011405084.html

[4]        Eileen Byrne, Protesters make the case for peaceful change, The Financial Times, 15 January 2011: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82293e38-20ae-11e0-a877-00144feab49a.html#axzz1C08RDtxu

[5]        Marc Lynch, Tunisia and the New Arab Media Space, Foreign Policy, 15 January 2011: http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/15/tunisia_and_the_new_arab_media_space

[6]        Jillian York, Activist crackdown: Tunisia vs Iran, Al-Jazeera, 9 January 2011: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111981222719974.html

[7]        Steven Cook, The Last Days of Ben Ali? The Council on Foreign Relations, 6 January 2011: http://blogs.cfr.org/cook/2011/01/06/the-last-days-of-ben-ali/

[8]        Angelique Chrisafis, Sarkozy admits France made mistakes over Tunisia, The Guardian, 24 January 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/nicolas-sarkozy-tunisia-protests

[9]        Hillary Rodham Clinton, Interview With Taher Barake of Al Arabiya, U.S. Department of State, 11 January 2011: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/01/154295.htm

[10]      Algeria set for crisis talks, Al-Jazeera, 8 January 2011: http://aljazeera.co.uk/news/africa/2011/01/2011187476735721.html

[11]      Alexandra Sandels, JORDAN: Thousands of demonstrators protest food prices, denounce government, Los Angeles Times Blog, 15 January 2011: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/01/jordan-protests-food-prices-muslim-brotherhood-tunisia-strike-thousands-government.html

[12]      AP, Thousands demand ouster of Yemen’s president, Associated Press, 22 January 2011: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g3b2emEy39Bn52Z_haypKxNPGMSw?docId=d324160638a74e84b874baeada16bb4c

[13]      Abigail Fielding-Smith, North-south divide strains Yemen union, The Financial Times, 12 January 2011: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c7c59322-1e80-11e0-87d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1C08RDtxu

[14]      EurActiv, ‘Jasmine’ revolt wave reaches Albania, 24 January 2011: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/jasmine-revolt-wave-reaches-albania-news-501529

[15]      Clemens Höges, Bernhard Zand and Helene Zuber, Arab Rulers Fear Spread of Democracy Fever, Der Spiegel, 25 January 2011: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,741545,00.html

[16]      Shibley Telhami, Results of Arab Opinion Survey Conducted June 29-July 20, 2010, 5 August 2010: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx

[17]      Shibley Telhami, A shift in Arab views of Iran, Los Angeles Times, 14 August 2010: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/opinion/la-oe-telhami-arab-opinions-20100814

[18]      Clemens Höges, Bernhard Zand and Helene Zuber, Arab Rulers Fear Spread of Democracy Fever, Der Spiegel, 25 January 2011: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,741545,00.html

[19]      Merav Michaeli, Israel may be on the eve of revolution, Ha’aretz, 17 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-may-be-on-the-eve-of-revolution-1.337445

[20]      Ibid.

[21]      Yagil Levy, Israeli NGOs are entrenching the occupation, Ha’aretz, 11 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israeli-ngos-are-entrenching-the-occupation-1.336331?localLinksEnabled=false

[22]      Richard Falk, Ben Ali Tunisia was model US client, Al-Jazeera, 25 January 2011: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201112314530411972.html

[23]      Jack Khoury and Haaretz Service, Two decades of secret Israeli-Palestinian accords leaked to media worldwide, Ha’arets, 23 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/two-decades-of-secret-israeli-palestinian-accords-leaked-to-media-worldwide-1.338768

[24]      Haaretz Service and The Associated Press, Hamas urges Palestinian refugees to protest over concessions on right of return, Ha’aretz, 25 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-urges-palestinian-refugees-to-protest-over-concessions-on-right-of-return-1.339120

[25]      Alan Greenblatt, Palestinian Papers May Be Blow To Peace Process, NPR, 24 January 2011: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133181412/palestinian-papers-may-cause-blow-to-peace-process?ps=cprs

[26]      Johannes Stern, Egyptian regime fears mass protests, World Socialist Web Site, 15 January 2011: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/egyp-j15.shtml

[27]      Simon Tisdall, Egypt protests are breaking new ground, The Guardian, 25 January 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/25/egypt-protests

[28]      Ibid.

[29]      MATT BRADLEY, Rioters Jolt Egyptian Regime, The Wall Street Journal, 26 January 2011: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104112320465414.html

[30]      Catrina Stewart, Violence on the streets of Cairo as unrest grows, The Independent, 26 January 2011: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/violence-on-the-streets-of-cairo-as-unrest-grows-2194484.html

[31]      IBT, Suzanne Mubarak of Egypt has fled to Heathrow airport in London: unconfirmed reports, International Business Times, 25 January 2011: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/104960/20110125/suzanne-mubarak-of-egypt-has-fled-to-heathrow-airport-in-london-unconfirmed-reports.htm

[32]      Angela Balakrishnan, IMF chief issues stark warning on economic crisis. The Guardian: December 18, 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/16/imf-financial-crisis

[33]      Stephen C. Webster, US intel chief: Economic crisis a greater threat than terrorism. Raw Story: February 13, 2009: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_intel_chief_Economic_crisis_greater_0213.html

[34]      DCDC, The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme, 2007-2036, 3rd ed. The Ministry of Defence, January 2007: page 3

[35]      Ibid, page 81.

[36]      Rev. Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html Andrew Gavin Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Andrew Gavin Marshall

READ FULL STORY HERE

Covert testing of the bug known as the Stuxnet worm took place at Israel’s alleged nuclear weapons facility in Dimona, the Times reported, and was a joint project with the United States. Unnamed American sources say Israel built centrifuges nearly identical to those at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility and then tested the virus to make sure they malfunctioned.

Israeli officials are refusing to comment on the report.

READ FULL STORY HERE

by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay

Global Research, January 1, 2011
TheNewAmericanEmpire.com

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”Benjamin Franklin (1706 – 1790), American inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman (1775)

“Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security.”Norman Vincent Peale (1898 –1993), American Christian preacher and author

“A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. …At the apex of the pyramid comes Big Brother. Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration.” George Orwell (1903-1950) (Eric Arthur Blair), (book: 1984)

“Since information gives power, access to personal files can lead to unreasonable pressures, even blackmail, especially against those with the least resources, people who depend upon public programs, for example. Big Brother isn’t a camera. Big Brother is a computer.” C.J. Howard, political novel “Cybercash”

In 2049, when the 100th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell political novel “1984” will be celebrated, it will be recalled that the immediate post September 11, 2001 period marked the beginning of a gradual decline in personal liberty and freedom, especially in the United States but also elsewhere, and the emergence of a great information-obsessed Leviathan. Freedom rarely disappears in one fell swoop. Its disappearance is rather the end result of a thousand encroachments.

Pushed to the extreme and without clear democratic oversight, it becomes the mark of a totalitarian state, when authorities feel that they never have enough information on the people. It is because information is power and state bureaucrats and politicians naturally like to be in control; on the one hand, releasing as little information about their own actions through an imposed secrecy, and on the other, accumulating as much information as possible about the citizens.

And today, modern governments have all the tools to transform their country into a creeping police state, more so now then ever before, in this electronic age. They have access to information technology that previous full-fledged “police state” governments could only have dreamed about.

Nowadays, with super computers and revolutionary new models to gather information and build databases, governments, i.e. bureaucrats and politicians, are in a position as never before to accumulate and correlate tremendous amounts of personal information on their citizens, from public (federal, state and local) as well as from a plethora of private sources. Government intelligence on each and every citizen is thus rendered much easier and, I would add, much more frightening. Indeed, the potential for abuse is enormous.

In 2002, for example, retired Vice Admiral John Poindexter proposed that the U.S. government create a tracking and monitoring system called “Total Information Awareness”, in order for the U.S. government to gather information in a preventive way about individuals from widely varied sources, including tax records, telephone calling records, credit card charges, banking transactions, airline or ship reservations, and various biometric databases, without taking into consideration civil liberties or a citizens’ right to privacy, the U.S. Privacy Act of 1974, or without having to request search warrants and without having to give prior notice to the persons involved. —The pretext was to allow the government to thwart possible terrorist activity, thus creating an unlimited appetite for information.

Well, there are clear signs that this massive data mining system on individuals is now solidly in place and is in full operation and can be expected to grow over time. George Orwell must be turning in his grave.

First, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s network of fusion centers, launched in 2003, has allowed the government to centralize a host of previously disparate information about Americans and foreigners alike, whether related to personal and business records, drivers licenses, local taxes, local infractions, police records, etc., through a host of coordinated information-sharing networks. (N.B.: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established on November 25, 2002 and is the domestic equivalent of the Department of Defense.)

Secondly, central provisions of the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, allow the government to operate roving wire taps, search any individual’s business, personal, and even library records upon presentation of a national security letter, and spy on so-called “lone wolf” suspects, i.e., foreign nationals who have no known links to groups designated as terrorist. On this, the current Obama administration, by extending those provisions, is scarcely different than the previous Bush administration.

Thirdly, since passports and tight intelligence screening have been made a requirement for most international travel by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, since January 1, 2008, every individual traveling in and out of the United States has all his or her whereabouts and movements recorded so the government knows at all times his or her address and the places he or she has traveled to and from.

For instance, U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s recent decision to use full-body airport X-ray scanners and full body groping at airports is another example where so-called security procedures are applied blindly and indiscriminately. There is more to come, since it has been announced that such invasive intelligence screening is coming to hotels and shopping malls, as well as to trains, buses and ports, etc.

These are some of the main features of the new government apparatus to gather information on people. There are many others. —Take for instance the requirement, since 2002, that all American high schools must give Pentagon military recruiters the names and contact information of all their juniors and seniors. Failure to comply on their part may result in the loss of government funding.

The logical next step for the U.S. government would be to follow a recent Italy’s lead and outlaw outright the use of cash for most transactions, except for small ones, thus providing the government even more minute information about an individual’s income, purchases and displacements. Nothing will escape the watching eye of the government in the electronic age. People will be filed, photographed and corralled.

Indeed, the way mass government surveillance systems are growing, by year 2020, chances are good that Americans will be living in a “Brave New World”!

—CYBER BIG BROTHER would know it all and it will be watching you.

Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics” at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/

The book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, by Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, prefaced by Dr. Paul Kurtz, has just been released by Prometheus Books.

The French version of the book is also now available. See: www.lecodepouruneethiqueglobale.com/ or on Amazon Canada
Rodrigue Tremblay is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rodrigue Tremblay

READ FULL STORY HERE

LIVE VIDEO CAST from Washington DC
- FCC Net Neutrality Hearing

Click here to watch the Live Video-Cast.

Will the FCC Protect the Open Internet?

After more than a year of deliberations, the Federal Communications Commission is voting on Net Neutrality rules. Millions of Americans have called on Washington to create the strongest open Internet protections possible. Meanwhile, phone and cable company lobbyists have pressured the agency to gut Net Neutrality and leave the future of the Internet in their hands, without basic protections for free speech and consumer choice.

Coming up today and every Monday at 7:00 pm Pacific – 10:00 pm Eastern – 03:00 GMT

GUNS AND BUTTER with Bonnie Faulkner

Targeted Individuals — Dr. Terry Robertson & Dr. John Hall
Dr. Robertson discusses the demographics of “who is targeted” with directed energy weapons. Dr. Hall talks about his personal experiences in San Antonio, Texas; the targeting of his close friend; criminal enterprises that are involved in targeting individuals; long-term experiments on non-consenting populations. This show is a continuation on this topic which was discussed in last week’s show (See archive here).

READ FULL STORY HERE

WIKIMATH

ITS ALL IN THE WIKI-MATH

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

One out of seven news outlets have noticed, thus far, that Wikileaks seems to have a “soft heart” when it comes to Israel and India.  Zbigniew Brzezinski caught on, finally, declaring that Wikileaks is an “intelligence operation” using “pointed” information carefully “seeded” into a combination of minor scandals and chickenfeed.

There is absolutely no question for the press that Wikileaks is totally phony, we all know it, it is blatantly slanted, clearly not only anti-American but aimed at Islam, the easy target of all time.  Wikileaks is also trying to be more and more clever about seeming less the Mossad “game theory” construct that we all know it is.   The “clever” is fun to watch, more “ham handed” than esoteric.

“FOUR …TEN THOUSANDTHS”….WHERE THE PRESS HAD TO GO IN FINDING INTEL ON PAKISTAN IN WIKILEAKS

Much of the press seems to have gotten “talking points” from somewhere, leading them to the material Brzezinski picked up when he “trashed” Wikileaks.  We did the “math” on the Afghanistan leak.  80% of the stories to hit the media mentioned Pakistan aiding the Taliban.  We did the actual count and found 38 reports out of 92,000 documents that were unsubstantiated reports of Pakistani activity in Afghanistan.

Something about this had a terrible smell.  It should have taken weeks to find the Pakistan stuff but the press had it all immediately.  Brzezinski is right, Wikileaks is something very wrong packaged to look very innocent.  We saw the same thing in the Iraq “dump,” all about imaginary secret agents from Iran.

We are seeing it again, Israel the hero, sparkling clean, a land of angels and wizards, surrounded by dirty Arabs and Paki’s and now, seemingly worst of all, the corrupt and inept Americans, exposed for what they are, OK, almost exposed except for one thing, everything Americans are accused of in Wikileaks was done in support of Israel, at the direction of their powerful AIPAC lobby.  Nothing of this is mentioned nor the fact that the leaders in Washington who formulated the policies Wikileaks is trashing are, largely, Israeli citizens.

Is Wikileaks planning, some day, to expose this gang, and show America to be the biggest victim of all?

If it looks too good to be true, trust me on this, run like hell!

REPORTER ANALOGY

Put yourself in the place of a decent and honest reporter.  You wait, your pulse pounding, 92,000 documents.  You have your entire staff, the obits guy, the restaurant critic, all sitting up at your house, pounding down tequila and espresso.  Five of you and 92,000 documents, that’s 18,400 each.  You can each scan only 500 documents an hour, that’s a day and a half, but you have a deadline and your Wikileaks lead story has to be in for the morning paper.

You get a text message to check your email.  You have a list of articles there, the real “gold” among the senseless time wasting “chaff.” You have one of those moments of moral dilemma.   For a real reporter, in the real world, that moment came and went without notice.

“YOU’VE BEEN WIKI-HAD!”

You can now make the deadline, and you have the lead story, Pakistan is running the Taiban, murdering American troops, Iranians are swimming the Euphrates, bringing IED’s into Iraq and a 74 year old grandfather from Rawalpindi is managing world terrorism when he isn’t on CNN.

You’ve been Wiki-had!

GOLFING ANALOGY

With reporters finding, just the right places in Wikileaks, we wanted to look at the odds.  Golfing is a good comparison, so we checked the odds of someone getting a “hole in one” playing golf.  Is finding the right articles in Wikileaks easier or harder than getting a “hole in one” playing golf?
In 1999, Golf Digest reported, “One insurance company puts a PGA Tour pro’s chances at 1 in 3,756 and an amateur’s at 1 in 12,750.”

That same issue reported that the “odds of an amateur making two holes-in-one in a round are 9,222,500 to 1.”

Ireland’s National Hole in One Club puts the odds a little lower for one ace: “The estimated odds of acing a hole with any given swing are one in 33,000.”

And an article in the magazine Navy Newsstand, citing Sports Illustrated as its source, put the odds at 45,000 to 1 for “scoring a hole-in-one on a typical par-3 golf hole.”
This is the comparison we came up with.  With our odds, were there only one Wikileak, at 4,130 compared to “hole in one” odds for a golfing pro at 3,756, the analogy works.  Thus, 38 out of 92,000 articles is about the same as getting a hole in one.  However, when you consider this is the 3rd straight hole in one for Wikileaks, the odds figure to be well over 20 million to one against.  Wikileaks beats the odds bigtime.
We call this “the luck of the press.”
I am a member of the press, maybe, if I am lucky, I can find a $50,000 check and first class air to Israel in my mailbox.  Any bets on my chances?

RIGGING THE GAME, BUYING THE UMPIRE, COOKING THE BOOKS..WIKIMATH

NO WIKILEAK FOR DR. AAFIA? TIME TO ASK WHY

Oh, you didn’t know we “farmed out” our intelligence?  This is illegal, of course.  Did America have private companies, some owned by Israelis, operating in Afghanistan, companies tied directly to the Mossad, producing intelligence reports that were then picked out by Wikileaks then hand fed to the press.  Let’s do the math.

This is the kind of thing former National Security Advisor Brzezinski is talking about.  It is also what  others in the media are talking about.  Today, Wayne Madsen on Russia Today spoke of the same thing, how Wikileaks seems aimed directly at the enemies of Israel.  Madsen, as with so many others, makes the point that Wikileaks is, as he says it, “cherrypicking” intelligence that seems to make Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu very happy.

IS THERE A LESSON?

The last few days, Paul Craig Roberts and I have been trading emails, a three way debate with Robbie the Pict (actual name), a well known UK activist.  Paul wrote this today:

“For example, the US print and TV media and the US government have made it completely clear that they have no regard for the First Amendment. Consider CNN’s Wolf Blitzer’s reaction to the leaked diplomatic cables that reveal how the US government uses deceptions, bribes, and threats to control other governments and to deceive the American and other publics. Blitzer is outraged that information revealing the US government’s improprieties reached the people, or some of them. As Alexander Cockburn wrote, Blitzer demanded that the US government take the necessary steps to make certain that journalists and the American people never again find out what their government is up to.”

READ FULL STORY HERE

Iran has its own special take on the diplomatic cables recently published by WikiLeaks. Presidential Advisor Esfandiar Rahim Mashai assumes that the United States government leaked the documents itself. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, he says that Washington’s goal is to play off the governments in the Middle East against one other.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Have you read what Washington’s ambassadors in your neighboring Arab countries write about Iran?

Esfandiar Rahim Mashai: I’ve been traveling a lot recently, so I haven’t had a chance yet. But our experts are examining the disclosures very intensively and have reported everything to me.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you surprised by the clarity with which some Gulf States, as well as Egypt, call upon the United States to stop Tehran’s nuclear ambitions?

Mashai: These documents are not authentic. The national interests of the United States and its allies are behind this. They see the world through their eyes, pursue their own goals, and draw the conclusions that suit their purposes.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What are the intentions of the United States, in your view?

Mashai: America wants to portray itself as the leader of the world, as master of the destinies of nations. It wants to play off the regimes in the region against one another. It wants the world to believe that we are divided. It wants to legitimize its presence and influence in the region.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But the diplomatic reports were published against Washington’s will and are damaging to the United States. The WikiLeaks disclosures are not a State Department PR campaign.

Mashai: Are you sure about that? How, then, did WikiLeaks gain access to the documents?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Presumably through a US Army private who had access to a central government database and has since been arrested.

Mashai: Do you believe that? Then you must be very naïve indeed. No, the United States is behind this deliberate leak. The Americans are trying to paint the world in black and white. They underscore the differences among nations and want to show everyone that peace is only possible in cooperation with them.

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

Obama has directed the Pentagon to attack “cyberthreats” within the United States. The teleprompter reading front man for the globalists “has adopted new procedures for using the Defense Department’s vast array of cyberwarfare capabilities in case of an attack on vital computer networks inside the United States, delicately navigating historic rules that restrict military action on American soil,” reports the New York Times.

Delicately? Obama has trounced the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and particularly Posse Comitatus. Crimes committed within the United States are the business of federal, state, and local police, not the Pentagon.

“In a break with previous policy, the military now is prepared to provide cyber expertise to other government agencies and to certain private companies to counter attacks on their computer networks, the Pentagon’s cyber policy chief, Robert Butler, said Oct. 20,” reports Defense News. “An agreement signed this month with the Department of Homeland Security and an earlier initiative to protect companies in the defense industrial base make it likely that the military will be a key part of any response to a cyber attack.”

Katrina is the model here. “The system would mirror that used when the military is called on in natural disasters like hurricanes or wildfires. A presidential order dispatches the military forces, working under the control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” reports the Times.

“FEMA is the Patriot Act on crack,” writes Sheila Samples, a former civilian U.S. Army Public Information Officer. “Once its powers are unleashed, Oliver North’s REX 84 ‘exercise’ will become a reality. The Constitution will be suspended and FEMA will have the right to detain or seize the property of anyone even suspected of engaging in, or who might be thinking of conspiring with others to engage in acts of espionage or sabotage.”

FEMA was created outside of Constitutional law by president Kennedy. It is not subject to congressional oversight. It was consistently modified and magnified under Carter, Reagan (especially Reagan), Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior (who moved FEMA under the control of the Department of Homeland Security), and now Obama.

“Genocide fascists like Henry Kissinger, and greedy patriots like former General Richard Secord and Lt. Col. Oliver North, the architects of both the Iran-Contra scandal and today’s FEMA, must be laughing their asses off at the juvenile disinformation bait-and-switch scenario playing itself out in the US media,” Samples noted as Katrina unfolded.

Under Obama’s rules, the New York Times continues, “the president would approve the use of the military’s expertise in computer-network warfare, and the Department of Homeland Security would direct the work.” Expertise. Breaking things and killing people.

In 2008, a document entitled Information Operation Roadmap surfaced. Penned by the Pentagon, it declares the internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy “weapons system.” It suggests a “robust offensive suite of capabilities to include full-range electronic and computer network attack” against perceived enemies. DoD, the document explains, will “fight the net as it would a weapons system” in order to achieve dominance in information warfare.

In short, enemies of the state — hardly limited to Muslims dwelling in far-flung caves — will be attacked with the full force of the military.

Not to worry, though. The Pentagon is sensitive to your civil liberties. “Officials involved in drafting the rules said the goal was to ensure a rapid response to a cyberthreat while balancing concerns that civil liberties might be at risk should the military take over such domestic operations.”

Sort of like the Pentagon was concerned about the Bill of Rights when it sent National Guard troops and mercenaries house-to-house to steal weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Sort of like the Pentagon was sensitive to the civil liberties of Americans when it created CIFA, the Counterintelligence Field Activity, and used it to snoop antiwar demonstrations?

Obama, the Pentagon, and the corporate media are exploiting the highly dubious prospect that al-CIA-duh or some other shadowy miscreant will cyber-attack “important targets… on domestic soil, whether within the government or in critical private operations like financial networks or a regional power grid.”

As we have noted on numerous occasions, the U.S. power grid is not susceptible to terrorist hackers, never mind the inanities of Senaor Joe Lieberman and other fear-mongers in the government. “To start, these systems are rarely connected directly to the public internet. And that makes gaining access to grid-controlling networks a challenge for all but the most dedicated, motivated and skilled — nation-states, in other words,” writes Michael Tanji for Wired.

You know, sort of like the Stuxnet computer worm, so sophisticated it was obviously created by a nation-state. “A number of governments with sophisticated computer skills would have the ability to create such a code. They include China, Russia, Israel, Britain, Germany and the United States,” the Associated Press reported after Iran said it was the victim of a Stuxnet attack.

Not cave dwellers in Afghanistan or, for that matter, Biloxi. If the U.S. is attacked, as the government tells us ad nauseam it will be, it will be China, Israel, or somebody in the Pentagon. It will not be patsies bundling together barbeque gas canisters or setting their undies on fire.

The Pentagon’s newly announced cyberwarfare capabilities in collaboration with the Ministry and that paragon of protecting liberty, the NSA (in the business of snooping Americans for close to 60 years), is not about protecting infrastructure not connected to the public internet. It is about tightening the noose.

“President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote on June 25. “The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.”

In the event of some contrived national emergency — one the government continually warns is right around the corner — Obama’s globalist handlers will want to shut down the internet, not because it would allow hackers to turn off the power grid or attack networks, but because a free and open internet allows people to circumvent government propaganda.

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

Iranian nuclear czar with Russian experts in happier days

debkafile’s intelligence sources report from Iran that dozens of Russian nuclear engineers, technicians and contractors are hurriedly departing Iran for home since local intelligence authorities began rounding up their compatriots as suspects of planting the Stuxnet malworm into their nuclear program.
Among them are the Russian personnel who built Iran’s first nuclear reactor at Bushehr which Tehran admits has been damaged by the virus.
One of the Russian nuclear staffers, questioned in Moscow Sunday, Oct. 3 by Western sources, confirmed that many of his Russian colleagues had decided to leave with their families after team members were detained for questioning at the beginning of last week. He refused to give his name because he and his colleagues intend to return to Iran if the trouble blows over and the detainees are quickly released after questioning.

According to our sources, these detentions were the source of the announcement Saturday, Oct. 2, by Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi that several “nuclear spies” had been captured. “The enemy had sent electronic worms through the internet to undermine Iran’s nuclear activities,” he said. This was the first high-level Iranian admission that the Stuxnet virus had been planted by foreign elements to sabotage their entire nuclear program – and not just the Bushehr reactor. The comprehensive scale of the damage is attested to by the detention of Russian nuclear experts also at Natanz, Isfahan and Tehran.
Moslehi added: “We are always facing destructive activities by these espionage services and of course we have arrested a number of nuclear spies to block the enemy’s destructive moves.

This statement is expected to prompt a second wave of Russian nuclear specialists to flee Iran.

READ FULL STORY HERE

Iranian Nuclear Sites, Researcher Says

By Arik Hesseldahl – Sep 24, 2010 4:14 PM PT bloomberg.com

A computer worm that has infected industrial computers around the world may be part of a campaign targeting nuclear installations in Iran, computer-security researchers said.

The highest concentration of affected systems — almost 60 percent — is in that country, according to data from Symantec Corp., the computer-security software maker. The worm’s sophisticated programming and ability to hide itself suggest it may have been built by a government-sponsored organization in a country such as the U.S. or Israel, said Frank Rieger, technology chief at GSMK, a maker of encrypted mobile phones.

He estimated that building the worm cost at least $3 million and required a team of as many as 10 skilled programmers working about six months.

“All the details so far to me scream that this was created by a nation-state,” Rieger said in a telephone interview. Iran’s nuclear facilities may have been targets, said Rieger and Richard Falkenrath, principal at the Chertoff Group, a Washington-based security advisory firm.

Iran, which has the world’s second-largest oil reserves, is under United Nations sanctions because it has refused to curtail uranium enrichment and the development of ballistic missiles that might carry a weapon. The country started a 1,000-megawatt nuclear-power reactor near the city of Bushehr in August.

‘Hides in Windows’

“It is theoretically possible that the U.S. government did this,” Falkenrath said during an interview today with Bloomberg Television. “But in my judgment, that’s a very remote possibility. It’s more likely that Israel did it.”

A message left at the Israeli embassy’s press office wasn’t immediately returned. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is studying the worm, hasn’t identified its origins, a spokeswoman said.

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

Coming up today and every Monday at 7:00 pm Pacific * 10:00 pm Eastern * 02:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Tuesday.

GUNS AND BUTTER with Bonnie Faulkner
Vietnam, Star Wars and 9/11 — Lt. Col. Bob Bowman
Dr. Bowman discusses his US Air Force experiences in Vietnam in 1969-70; as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development in the Ford and Carter administrations (Star Wars); the 1982 Defense Guidance Document; his public opposition to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) better know as Star Wars during the Ronald Reagan administration; his take on the events of September 11, 2001; and wars of aggression.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, August 26, 2010

The Senate is attempting to sneak through the infamous Internet kill switch cybersecurity bill by attaching it to another piece of legislation that is almost guaranteed to pass – the defense authorization bill – in an underhanded ploy to avoid the difficult task of passing cybersecurity on its own.

“It’s hard to get a measure like cybersecurity legislation passed on its own,” Democratic Senator Thomas Carper, who is co-chair of a Senate subcommittee with cybersecurity oversight, told Government Information Security.

That’s why lawmakers pushing cybersecurity have resolved to introduce the legislation as a “rider” to a Senate defense bill that is likely to be easily passed before the midterm elections.

Senators are still working to merge two different versions of the cybersecurity bill, one sponsored by Senator Joe Lieberman and another sponsored by Democrat Jay Rockefeller, into a single omnibus package, in preparation for a final vote when the Senate returns to session in mid-September.

“We’re very close to where we need to be in developing a joint proposal,” said Carper.

Lawmakers are in a race to pass cybersecurity before the midterms because if they wait until Congress returns after the November 2nd vote, the chances of getting the bill through “would significantly dim should the Republicans pick up a significant number of seats”. That leaves a four week window from the middle of September to the start of election campaigning for Senators to sneak through the legislation.

Lieberman’s version of the cybersecurity bill includes language that would hand President Obama the power to shut down parts of the world wide web for at least four months with no congressional oversight in the event of a cyber attack on critical infrastructure systems in the U.S.

Senators argue that they will be able to attach the Internet kill switch bill to the Defense Authorization Act because cybersecurity is a component of national security. However, the primary justifications behind treating “cybersecurity” as a national security matter are completely overblown and erroneous.

Proponents of cybersecurity have constantly argued that government needs to have more power over the Internet because cyber-terrorists could hack in and dismantle the entire U.S. power grid, large industrial plants, and the national water supply. This is a complete misnomer because, as a recent Wired News article highlighted, power grid and drinking water systems, “Are rarely connected directly to the public internet. And that makes gaining access to grid-controlling networks a challenge for all but the most dedicated, motivated and skilled — nation-states, in other words.”

As we documented in our piece on the issue, the threat from cyber-terrorists to the U.S. power grid or water supply is minimal. The perpetrators of an attack on such infrastructure would have to have direct physical access to the systems that operate these plants to cause any damage. Any perceived threat from the public Internet to these systems is therefore completely contrived and strips bare the real agenda behind cybersecurity – to enable the government to regulate free speech on the Internet.

Having A Supply Of Healthy Foods That Last Just Makes Sense (AD)
This was revealed when Senator Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley that the real motivation behind cybersecurity was to mimic the Communist Chinese system of Internet policing.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman.

As we have documented, the Communist Chinese government does not disconnect parts of the Internet because of genuine security concerns, it habitually does so only to oppress and silence victims of government abuse and atrocities, and to strangle dissent against the state.

The decision to try and sneak through the Internet kill switch bill as part of another package of legislation is undoubtedly a reaction to increasing awareness about how the terms of the bill would completely undermine the foundations of the Internet as an outlet of truly unregulated free speech.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also an occasional host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

This is a No Lies Radio News Live Video Broadcast
This event has already broadcast. It is archived below.

Lt. Col. Bob Bowman in Berkeley from No Lies Radio on Vimeo.

Coming Up Sun August 22nd – 7:00 pm Pacific ** 10:00 Eastern ** 02:00 GMT
This will be a Live Video-cast from Berkeley, Calif., where Dr. Bowman will be speaking to a lively Berkeley audience. Q&A will follow Dr. Bowman’s speech.

Lt. Col. Dr. Bob Bowman says
“The American People Have Been Politically Divided.”

“…both the left and the right have been alienated and mistreated by our government and the powers that be…” Lt. Co. Bob Bowman

Colonel Bowman flew 101 combat missions as a fighter pilot in Vietnam and directed all the DoD “Star Wars” programs under presidents Ford and Carter. He has been an executive in both government and industry, and has chaired 8 major international conferences. Professor Bowman taught at 5 colleges and universities, serving as Department Head and Assistant Dean. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He has lectured at the National War College, the United Nations, Congressional Caucuses, the Academies of Science of six nations, and the House of Lords. Visit his website here.


If you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, please try to attend this event in person and support Dr. Bowman. $10 donation. No one turned away for lack of funds. Doors open 6:30pm Pacific. 1924 Cedar St., Berkeley, California. At Bonita St. 7pm-10pm. Sunday, August 22, 2010. Wheelchair accessible. Share ]]> http://noliesradio.org/archives/21291/feed 0 http://noliesradio.org/archives/20438 http://noliesradio.org/archives/20438#comments Thu, 05 Aug 2010 05:35:12 +0000 noliesradio http://noliesradio.org/?p=20438

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Wednesday, Jul 21st, 2010

An increasing clamour to restrict and control the internet on behalf of the government, the Pentagon, the intelligence community and their private corporate arms, could result in a staged cyber attack being used as justification.

Over recent months we have seen a great increase in media coverage of inflated fears over a possible “electronic Pearl Harbor” event, with reports claiming that the U.S. could be “felled within 15 minutes”.

Vastly over-hyped (and in some cases completely asinine) claims that the power grids and other key infrastructure such as rail networks and water sources are wired up to the public internet have permeated such coverage.

Threats against computer networks in the United States are grossly exaggerated. Dire reports issued by the Defense Science Board and the Center for Strategic and International Studies “are usually richer in vivid metaphor — with fears of ‘digital Pearl Harbors’ and ‘cyber-Katrinas’ — than in factual foundation,” writes Evgeny Morozov, a respected researcher and blogger who writes on the political effects of the internet.

Morozov notes that much of the data on the supposed cyber threat “are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies — which need to justify their own existence — and cyber-security companies — which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety.”

When the Cybersecurity Act was introduced by Senator John Rockefeller last year, he made similar claims about the threat of cyber attacks, adding “Would it have been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?”.

Rockefeller’s legislation gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report.

Provisions in the bill would allow the federal government, via the DHS and the NSA, to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications – all in the name of heading off cyber attacks on the nation.

Enhancements of such provisions are contained in the more recent “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act”, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman. The bill would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.

An accompanying cybersecurity control grid would only create greater risk according to experts who note that it would essentially “establish a path for the bad guys to skip down.” Other countries, such as Australia and the UK are following suit.

The program dovetails with the Pentagon’s newly created Cyber Command, headed by Keith B Alexander, the acting head of the NSA and the man behind the massive program of illegal dragnet surveillance of domestic communications since at least 2001.

During the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing, Alexander said the Pentagon’s Cyber Command would enjoy “significant synergy” with the NSA. “We have to show what we’re doing to ensure that we comport, comply with the laws,” said Alexander, perversely claiming the agency is respecting and protecting the privacy of the American people.

The Pentagon considers cyberspace a warfighting domain equal to land, sea, air and space. In 2003, the Pentagon classified the internet as an enemy “weapons system” requiring a “robust offensive suite of capabilities to include full-range electronic and computer network attack.” It has spent Billions of dollars building a super secret “National Cyber Range” in order to prepare for “Dominant Cyber Offensive Engagement”, which translates as control over “any and all” computers. The program has been dubbed “The Electronic Manhattan Project”.

The enemy is never specifically named, it is merely whoever uses the net, because the enemy IS the net. The enemy is the freedom the net provides to billions around the globe and the threat to militaristic dominance of information and the ultimate power that affords.

These initiatives represent a continuation of the so called “Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative”, created via a secret presidential order in 2008 under the Bush administration. former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell announced that the NSA’s warrantless wiretaps would “be a walk in the park compared to this,”.

“This is going to be a goat rope on the Hill” McConnell said. My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”

As we have previously reported, large corporations such as Google, AT&T, Facebook and Yahoo to name but a few are intimately involved in the overarching program. Those corporations have specific government arms that are supplying the software, hardware and tech support to US intelligence agencies in the process of creating a vast closed source database for global spy networks to share information.

Clearly the implications of this program for the open and free internet, and for liberty in general are very worrying, this has been reflected in the resistance and criticism from groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

In light of this, there is a real danger of a hyped or completely staged cyber attack being propagated in order to bring the issue to public attention and counter the critics who have exposed it as a part of the agenda to restrict the Internet.

In 2008 Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig detailed such ongoing government plans for overhaul and restriction.

Lessig told attendees of a high profile Tech conference that “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.

Lessig said that he came to that conclusion following a conversation with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, who informed him that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an “i-Patriot Act” if you will, and that the Justice Department is just waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.

Lessig is the founder of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. He is founding board member of Creative Commons and is a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.

These are clearly not the ravings of some paranoid cyber geek.

Though Richard Clarke advocates an enhancement of cyber security, even he has stated that it would be a terrible idea to allow the government to regulate and filter the internet.

We have also recently seen multiple mock attacks conducted by the government, via private outsourcing, on it’s own infrastructure systems. On such exercise, called “We Were Warned: Cyber Shockwave”, involved Former Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff and former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin taking the roles of government leaders. CNN broadcast the entire simulation on prime time television.

Alex Jones recently discussed this issue on Russia Today news programming:

Journalist Webster Tarpley also lays out the hyping of cyber threats as a pretext to takedown the internet:

Looming ominously like a space ship from Star Wars, this is the future of unmanned flight.

Defence firm BAE Systems today officially unveiled its first ever high-tech unmanned stealth jet.

The Taranis, named after the Celtic god of thunder, is about the same size as a Hawk jet and is equipped with stealth equipment and an ‘autonomous’ artificial intelligence system.

The plane will test the possibility of developing the first ever autonomous stealthy Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) that would ultimately be capable of precisely striking targets at long range, even in another continent.

The trial aircraft cost £143 million pounds to construct and spearheads BAE’s drive to convince the Ministry of Defence to invest in the next generation of unmanned aircraft.

Almost invisible to ground radar, it is designed to travel at high jet speeds and cover massive distances between continents.

The plane is built to carry out intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance on enemy territory using onboard sensors.

And it has been designed to carry a cache of weapons – including bombs and missiles -, giving it a potential long-range strike capability.

It can be controlled from anywhere in the world with satellite communications.

Experts say the cutting-edge design is at the forefront of world technology and as advanced as any US development.

The plane began development in December 2006, and is intended to prove the UK’s ability to produce a stealthy UAV.

Taranis will be stealthy, fast, able to carry out use a number of on-board weapons systems and be able to defend itself against manned and other unmanned enemy aircraft.

Any future need hinges on the outcome of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, which will conclude around October.

Speaking at the unveiling ceremony at BAE Systems in Warton, Lancashire, Minister for International Security Strategy Gerald Howarth said: ‘Taranis is a truly trailblazing project.

‘The first of its kind in the UK, it reflects the best of our nation’s advanced design and technology skills and is a leading programme on the global stage.’

He added: ‘Taranis shows the UK’s advanced engineering, research, technology and innovation sector at its world-beating best.’

Taranis is an informal partnership of the UK MoD and industry  British engineering firms including BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, QinetiQ and GE Aviation.

Rolls-Royce will focus on the next generation propulsion system for the Taranis demonstrator.

READ FULL STORY HERE

Stop NATO
April 10, 2010

Prompt Global Strike: World Military Superiority Without Nuclear Weapons
by Rick Rozoff

A war can be won without being waged. Victory can be attained when an adversary knows it is vulnerable to an instantaneous and undetectable, overwhelming and devastating attack without the ability to defend itself or retaliate.

What applies to an individual country does also to all potential adversaries and indeed to every other nation in the world.

There is only one country that has the military and scientific capacity and has openly proclaimed its intention to achieve that ability. That nation is what its current head of state defined last December as the world’s sole military superpower. [1] One which aspires to remain the only state in history to wield full spectrum military dominance on land, in the air, on the seas and in space.

To maintain and extend military bases and troops, aircraft carrier battle groups and strategic bombers on and to most every latitude and longitude. To do so with a post-World War II record war budget of $708 billion for next year.

Having gained that status in large part through being the first country to develop and use nuclear weapons, it is now in a position to strengthen its global supremacy by superseding the nuclear option.

The U.S. led three major wars in less than four years against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq from 1999-2003 and in all three cases deployed from tens to hundreds of thousands of “boots on the ground” after air strikes and missile attacks. The Pentagon established military bases in all three war zones and, although depleted uranium contamination and cluster bombs are still spread across all three lands, American troops have not had to contend with an irradiated landscape. Launching a nuclear attack when a conventional one serves the same purpose would be superfluous and too costly in a variety of ways.

On April 8 American and Russian presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreement in the Czech capital of Prague to reduce their respective nation’s nuclear arsenals and delivery systems (subject to ratification by the U.S. Senate and the Russian Duma). Earlier in the same week the U.S. released its new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) which for the first time appeared to abandon the first use of nuclear arms.

The dark nuclear cloud that has hung over humanity’s head for the past 65 years appears to be dissipating.

However, the U.S. retains 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 2,200 (by some counts 3,500) more in storage and a triad of land, air and submarine delivery vehicles.

More ominously, though, Washington is forging ahead with a replacement for the nuclear sword and shield – for blackmail and for deterrence – with a non-nuclear model that could upset the previous “balance of terror” arrangement that has been a criminal nightmare for six decades, but for sixty years without a massive missile war.

The new sword, or spear, entails plans for conventional first strike weapon systems employing the same triad of land, air and sea components – with space added – and the shield is a worldwide network of interceptor missile deployments, also in all four areas. The Pentagon intends to be able to strike first and with impunity.

The non-nuclear arsenal used for disabling and destroying the air defenses and strategic, potentially all major, military forces of other nations will consist of intercontinental ballistic missiles, adapted submarine-launched ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles and bombers, and super stealthy strategic bombers able to avoid detection by radar and thus evade ground- and air-based defenses.

Any short-range, intermediate-range and long-range missiles remaining in the targeted country will in theory be destroyed after launching by kinetic, “hit-to-kill” interceptor missiles. Should the missiles so neutralized contain nuclear warheads, the fallout will occur over the country that launches them or over an adjoining body of water or other nation of the U.S.’s choosing.

A Russian commentary of three years ago described the interaction between first strike and interceptor missile systems as follows:

“One can invest in the development of a really effective ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] system and first-strike weapons, for example, in conventional high-accuracy systems. The final goal is to create a capability for a disarming first strike (nuclear, non-nuclear or mixed) at the enemy’s strategic nuclear potential. ABM will finish off whatever survives the first blow.” [2]

The long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review Report of earlier this month asserts the Pentagon’s plans for “maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent and reinforcing regional security architectures with missile defenses….” [3]

It also confirms that the addition of “non-nuclear systems to U.S. regional deterrence and reassurance goals will be preserved by avoiding limitations on missile defenses and preserving options for using heavy bombers and long-range missile systems in conventional roles.”

At an April 6 press conference on the Nuclear Posture Review with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Gates said “we will maintain the nuclear triad of ICBMs [Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles], nuclear-capable aircraft and ballistic-missile submarines” and “we will continue to develop and improve non-nuclear capabilities, including regional missile defenses.” Mullen spoke of “defend[ing] the vital interests of the United States and those of our partners and allies with a more balanced mix of nuclear and non-nuclear means than we have at our disposal today.” [4]

The Pentagon’s Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report of February 1 stated “The United States will pursue a phased adaptive approach to missile defense” and “develop capabilities that are mobile and relocatable.”

Furthermore, “the Administration is committed to implementing the new European Phased Adaptive Approach within a NATO context. In East Asia, the United States is working to improve missile defenses through a series of bilateral relationships. The United States is also pursuing strengthened cooperation with a number of partners in the Middle East.” [5]

The Quadrennial Defense Review Report of February spoke of similar plans.

The Review “advances two clear objectives. First, to further rebalance the capabilities of America’s Armed Forces to prevail in today’s wars, while building the capabilities needed to deal with future threats.”

It states “The United States remains the only nation able to project and sustain large-scale operations over extended distances” with “400,000 U.S. military personnel…forward-stationed or rotationally deployed around the world,” and which is “enabled by cyber and space capabilities and enhanced by U.S. capabilities to deny adversaries’ objectives through ballistic missile defense….”

One of its key goals is to “Expand future long-range strike capabilities” and promote the “rapid growth in sea- and land-based ballistic missile defense capabilities.” [6]

The U.S. is also intensifying space and cyber warfare programs with the potential to completely shut down other nations’ military surveillance and command, control, communications, computer and intelligence systems, rendering them defenseless on any but the most basic tactical level.

The program under which Washington is developing its conventional weapons capacity to supplement its previous nuclear strategy is called Prompt Global Strike (PGS), alternately referred to as Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS).

Global Security Newswire recently wrote of the proposed START II that “Members of Russia’s political elite are worried about what the agreement says or does not say about U.S. ballistic missile defense and ‘prompt global strike’ systems….” [7]

In fact the successor to START I says nothing about American interceptor missile or first strike conventional attack policies, and as such says everything about them. That is, the new treaty will not limit or affect them in any manner.

After the signing ceremony in Prague on April 8 the U.S. State Department issued a fact sheet on Prompt Global Strike which stated:

“Key Point: The New START Treaty does not contain any constraints on current or planned U.S. conventional prompt global strike capability.”

By way of background information and to provide a framework for current U.S. military strategy it added:

“The growth of unrivaled U.S. conventional military capabilities has contributed to our ability to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks….The Department of Defense (DoD) is currently exploring the full range of technologies and systems for a Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) capability that could provide the President more credible and technically suitable options for dealing with new and evolving threats.” [8]

Describing the constituent parts of PGS, the State Department press release also revealed:

“Current efforts are examining three concepts: Hypersonic Technology Vehicle, Conventional Strike Missile, and Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. These projects are managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Center, and Army Space and Missile Defense Command respectively….[The START II] warhead ceiling would accommodate any plans the United States might develop during the life of this Treaty to deploy conventional warheads on ballistic missiles.”

In language as unequivocal as the State Department has been known to employ, the statement added:

“New START protects the U.S. ability to develop and deploy a CPGS capability. The Treaty in no way prohibits the United States from building or deploying conventionally-armed ballistic missiles.”

The Department of Defense “is studying CPGS within the context of its portfolio of all non-nuclear long-range strike capabilities including land-based and sea-based systems, as well as standoff and/or penetrating bombers….” [9]

The non-nuclear missiles referred to are designed to strike any spot on earth within sixty minutes, but as the main proponent of PGS, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine General James Cartwright, recently boasted, “At the high end,” strikes could be delivered in “300 milliseconds.” [10]

Speaking of the air force third of the GPS triad – nuclear-armed cruise missiles fired from B-52 bombers, X-51 unmanned aircraft that can fly at 5,000 miles per hour, the Blackswift “spaceplane” – Cartwright has also said that current conventionally armed bombers are “too slow and too intrusive” for many “global strike missions.” [11]

On January 21 Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn called for placing the Pentagon “on a permanent footing to fight both low-intensity conflicts to maintaining air dominance and the ability to strike any target on Earth at any time….The next air warfare priority for the Pentagon is developing a next-generation, deep-penetrating strike capability that can overcome advanced air defenses….” [12]

In a Global Security Network analysis titled “Cost to Test U.S. Global-Strike Missile Could Reach $500 Million,” Elaine Grossman wrote:

“The Obama administration has requested $239.9 million for prompt global strike research and development across the military services in fiscal 2011….If funding levels remain as anticipated into the coming years, the Pentagon will have spent some $2 billion on prompt global strike by the end of fiscal 2015, according to budget documents submitted last month to Capitol Hill.” [13]

The land-based component of PGS, Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles with a conventional payload, will “initially boost into space like a ballistic missile, dispatch a ‘hypersonic test vehicle’ to glide and maneuver into a programmed destination, which could be updated or altered remotely during flight.” [14]

Last month Defense News featured an article with the title “U.S. Targets Precision Arms for 21st-Century Wars,” which included this excerpt:

“To counter…air defenses, the Pentagon wants to build a host of precision
weapons that can hit any target from thousands of miles away. Known as a family of systems, these weapons could include whatever the Air Force chooses as its next bomber, a new set of cruise missiles and even, someday, hypersonic weapons developed under the Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike program that would give the speed and range of an ICBM to a conventional warhead.” [15]

A recent Washington Post report on PGS quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warning that “World states will hardly accept a situation in which nuclear weapons disappear, but weapons that are no less destabilizing emerge in the hands of certain members of the international community.” [16]

The same source added “the Obama administration…sees the missiles as one cog in an array of defensive and offensive weapons that could ultimately replace nuclear arms,” and quoted the Pentagon’s Cartwright as affirming: “Deterrence can no longer just be nuclear weapons. It has to be broader.” [17]

The following day Britain’s Independent ran a story the following quotes from which should disabuse anyone hoping that Washington’s “post-nuclear world” will be any safer a one.

Referring to PGS intercontinental ballistic missiles with (at least in theory) conventional warheads, the newspaper warned that:

“Once they are launched, there could be difficulty in distinguishing their conventional payloads from nuclear ones. That in turn could accidentally trigger a nuclear retaliation by Russia or another similarly-armed power.

“Another danger is that if nuclear weapons are no longer at issue, there would be a bigger temptation for American military commanders to become more cavalier about ordering strikes. And unless intelligence can be fully relied upon, the chances of striking mistaken targets are high.” [18]

U.S. officials have discussed the prospect of launching such missiles at a lower altitude than nuclear ICBMs would travel, but it would take an almost limitless degree of trust – or gullibility – on behalf of Russian or Chinese military officials to depend upon the assurance that ICBMs heading toward or near their territory were in fact not carrying nuclear weapons at whatever distance from the earth’s surface they were flying.

In 2007, the year after the Pentagon first announced its Prompt Global Strike plans, a Russian analyst wrote that “the Americans are not particularly worried about their nuclear arsenal” and “have been thoroughly calculating the real threats to their security to be ready to go to war, if need be, in real earnest,” adding “The 20th century saw two world wars and a third one is looming large.”

“Despite the obvious threat to civilization the United States may soon acquire orbital weapons under the Prompt Global Strike plan. They will give it the capacity to deal a conventional strike virtually anywhere in the world within an hour.” [19]

Elaine Grossman wrote last year:

“Once it is built, the Conventional Strike Missile is expected to pair rocket boosters with a fast-flying ‘payload delivery vehicle’ capable of dispensing a kinetic energy projectile against a target. Upon nearing its endpoint, the projectile would split into dozens of lethal fragments potentially capable against humans, vehicles and structures, according to defense officials….” [20]

A comparably horrifying scenario of the effects of a PGS attack, this one from the sea-based version, appeared in Popular Mechanics three years ago:

“In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president’s command to launch. When the order comes, the sub shoots a 65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles.

“At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident’s four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet.

“Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel.

“Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods – each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.” [21]

This April 7 former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces General Leonid Ivashov penned a column called “Obama’s Nuclear Surprise.”

Referring to the U.S. president’s speech in Prague a year ago – “The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War” – and his signing of the START II agreement in the same city this April 8, the author said:

“No examples of sacrificial service of the US elites to mankind or the peoples of other countries can be discovered in US history over the past century. Would it be realistic to expect the advent of an African-American president to the White House to change the country’s political philosophy traditionally aimed at achieving global dominance? Those believing that something like that is possible should try to realize why the US – the country with a military budget already greater than those of all other countries of the world combined – continues spending enormous sums of money on preparations for war.” [22]

Specifically in reference to PGS, he detailed that “The Prompt Global Strike concept envisages a concentrated strike using several thousand precision conventional weapons in 2-4 hours that would completely destroy the critical infrastructures of the target country and thus force it to capitulate.

“The Prompt Global Strike concept is meant to sustain the US monopoly in the military sphere and to widen the gap between it and the rest of the world. Combined with the deployment of missile defense supposed to keep the US immune to retaliatory strikes from Russia and China, the Prompt Global Strike initiative is going to turn Washington into a modern era global dictator.

“In essence, the new US nuclear doctrine is an element of the novel US security strategy that would be more adequately described as the strategy of total impunity. The US is boosting its military budget, unleashing NATO as a global gendarme, and planning real-life exercises in Iran to test the efficiency of the Prompt Global Strike initiative in practice. At the same time, Washington is talking about a completely nuclear-free world.” [23]

1) Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind
Stop NATO, December 10, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama-doctrine-eternal-war-for-imperfect-mankind
2) Alexander Khramchikhin, The MAD situation is no longer there
Russian Information Agency Novosti, May 29, 2007
3) Nuclear Posture Review Report
United States Department of Defense
April 2010
http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf
4) United States Department of Defense
American Forces Press Service
April 6, 2010
5) United States Department of Defense, February 1, 2010
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/1002BMDR.pdf
6) United States Department of Defense, February 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 2010
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200700.pdf
7) Global Security Newswire, April 2, 2010
U.S. Department of State, April 9, 2010
9) Ibid
10) Defense News, June 4, 2009
11) Ibid
12) Defense News, January 22, 2010
U.S. Extends Missile Buildup From Poland And Taiwan To Persian Gulf
Stop NATO, February 3, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/u-s-extends-missile-buildup-from-poland-and-taiwan-to-persian-gulf
13) Global Security Network, March 15, 2010
14) Ibid
15) Defense News, March 22, 2010
16) Washington Post, April 8, 2010
17) Ibid
18) The Independent, April 9, 2010
19) Andrei Kislyakov, Defense budget: nuclear or conventional?
Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 20, 2007
20) Global Security Newswire, July 1, 2009
21) Noah Shachtman, Hypersonic Cruise Missile: America’s New Global Strike
Weapon
Popular Mechanics, January 2007
22) Strategic Culture Foundation, April 7, 2010
23) Ibid
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================
READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

by Rick Rozoff

——-
U.S. and NATO military expansion along Russia’s western and southern flanks diminishes the need for Cold War era nuclear arsenals and long-range delivery systems appreciably. Washington can well afford to reduce the number of its nuclear weapons and still maintain decisive worldwide strategic superiority, especially with the deployment of an international interceptor missile system and the unilateral militarization of space. And the use of super stealth strategic bombers and the Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike project for conventional warhead-equipped strike systems with the velocity and range of intercontinental ballistic missiles to destroy other nations’ nuclear forces with non-nuclear weapons.
——-

On March 26th U.S. President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev reached an agreement on a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 1) of 1991.

The new accord, if it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, will reportedly reduce U.S. and Russian active nuclear weapons by 30 per cent and effect a comparable reduction (to 800 on each side) in the two nations’ delivery systems: Intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic long-range bombers and ballistic missile submarines.

After a phone conversation between the two heads of state to “seal the deal,” Obama touted it as “the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades.” [1]

The START 1 agreement expired almost four months earlier, on December 5 of last year, and its replacement has been held up by, among other matters, Russian concerns over increasingly ambitious American interceptor missile system plans for Eastern Europe, on and near its borders.

Judging by the lengthy ordeal that has been the Obama administration’s health care initiative – so far the bill has only been passed in the House (by a 219-212 vote) where his party has a 257-178 majority – and the opposition it confronts in the Senate, a new nuclear arms accord with Russia will be a captive to domestic American political wrangling at least as much as less important and potentially controversial issues traditionally are.

Though even if approved by both houses of Congress there will be nothing to celebrate in Moscow. (Or in Iran, which will be the main target of Washington’s next “disarmament” drive after the momentum gained from Friday’s announcement.)

The new treaty would reduce both nations’ deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550, but the U.S. only acknowledges currently possessing 2,200 in storage while in fact having 3,500.

On the day of the telephone conversation between Obama and Medvedev, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher stated there would be “no constraints” on the expansion of American and allied nations’ interceptor missile deployments, a new treaty notwithstanding.

Three days earlier Russian Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Nikolai Makarov was interviewed by one of his country’s major newspapers and warned: “If the Americans continue to expand their missile defenses, they will certainly target our nuclear capability and in this case the balance of forces will shift in favor of the United States.” [2]

On March 27 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated, “Nothing in this treaty contains clauses which would make it easier for the U.S. to develop a missile shield which would pose a risk to Russia,” [3] but neglected to add that nothing would prohibit it either.

Perhaps Lavrov needs to listen more closely to Ellen Tauscher.

It is a matter of speculation why Russia’s political leadership consistently defers to the U.S. on issues ranging from the war in Afghanistan to so-called missile shield deployments near its northwest frontier, and from the Pentagon acquiring new military bases in the Black Sea nations of Bulgaria and Romania to NATO establishing a cyber warfare facility (politely named Cooperative Cyber Defence Center of Excellence) in neighboring Estonia.

Whatever combination of perceived comparative military weakness, over-willingness to oblige, national inferiority complex, eagerness to be seen as the junior partner of the world’s only superpower and fear of the results of confrontation actuates Russia’s government, the policy of accommodation has only left its nation more isolated, encroached upon by U.S. and NATO military presence, and regarded as a less than dependable ally by other nations prepared to challenge bids by the U.S. to achieve global dominance. In short, it doesn’t work. Not for Russia and not for the world at any rate. It is splendidly effective for the U.S. and NATO, however.

On the very day that an Obama administration beset by a series of foreign policy frustrations, setbacks and debacles scored a public relations victory at Russia’s expense, the Pentagon announced that it was allotting funds from a $350 million war chest “set aside for countries that need help developing their counterterrorism activities, conducting stability operations, or assisting U.S. forces” to Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Croatia, and Hungary, ostensibly “to help build those countries’ military capabilities for the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan.” [4]

The first four nations border Russia and the other two are not too far from its western border.

A report from a pro-government Georgian news source dispensed with public relations pabulum and described the development in less evasive terms:

“The Pentagon said on Friday it would build the military capabilities of Georgia and the Baltic states bordering Russia to ready them for operations in Afghanistan.

“The Pentagon announcement came on the same day U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sealed an agreement on a landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty that they are to sign on April 8 in Prague.

“In notifications sent to Congress, the Pentagon said military assistance programs for Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia and Hungary were designed to build their capacities `to conduct stability operations alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan,` Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

“Russia defeated Georgia`s military bid to retake a pro-Moscow region from rebels in a five-day war that rekindled tension between the Kremlin and the West. Russia has since accused Washington of re-arming the Georgian ‘war machine.’” [5]

The operative phrases are “build the military capabilities of Georgia and the Baltic states bordering Russia,” “conduct stability operations alongside U.S. forces,” and “re-arming the Georgian war machine.”

The day before the Obama-Medvedev conversation Russian Information Agency Novosti reported on a poll conducted by the Levada Center independent polling and sociological research organization on the attitude of Russians toward the U.S. The results showed that only 9 per cent of those contacted viewed the U.S. as promoting “peace, democracy and order” in the world, while 73 per cent viewed Washington as “an aggressor seeking to establish control over all countries.” [6]

A poll Medvedev, Lavrov and others in the Kremlin may want to pay some attention to if for no other reason that to pretend to represent the interests and the opinions of their people.

The survey also showed that a majority of Russian citizens saw no value in improving relations with the U.S. After all, why cultivate friendlier contacts with a nation, whose head of state last December boasted of it being “the world’s sole military superpower” and which have a record $708 billion military budget next year, when it is an aggressive power bent on dominating your own country and every other one on the planet?

It would be ludicrous to attribute the above-documented sentiments, almost a full generation after the breakup of the Soviet Union and 25 years after Mikhail Gorbachev became its last leader, to the residual effects of “anti-American propaganda.” (Though in the unlikely event Western news media notice the poll that is how they can be depended upon to construe its results and meaning.)

In fact any informed and impartial populace attending to world developments in the post-Cold War period would reach a similar conclusion, and no doubt outside of the “Euro-Atlantic family,” as NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen while in a maudlin mood recently deemed it, comparable percentages could be expected worldwide if people truly spoke their minds.

Well-founded Russian suspicions of U.S. global geopolitical objectives can only be reinforced by several recent developments.

The Pentagon is dispatching a first contingent of 100 troops to run a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile battery in Poland next month, 35 miles from Russian territory.

On March 26 it was reported that the defense ministers of the pro-American governments of Latvia and Poland – both neighboring Russia – “called on NATO to locate more of the alliance’s facilities in central and eastern Europe,” with Polish defense chief Bogdan Klich adding, “We are aware that NATO institutions are unequally distributed between Western and Central Europe.” [7] Central Europe is the current designation for what was formerly called Eastern Europe. A nation makes that geographical leap when it joins NATO.

While delivering a presentation on his bloc’s new Strategic Concept in the Polish capital on March 12, NATO chief Rasmussen twice employed the Western mantra of “Europe whole, free and peace.”

Ten days later Polish Chief of General Staff General Franciszek Gagor presided over a ceremony for the deployment of his nation’s seventh contingent of troops to NATO’s Afghan war front – Poland will soon have 2,600 soldiers there, its largest-ever overseas military deployment – and said “the experience gained in the mission has tangibly accelerated the modernization of the Polish armed forces.” [8]

Last autumn Defense Minister Klich divulged plans to spend $16.2 billion (12.4 billion euros) “to modernize Poland’s armed forces,” with fourteen new programs including “air defense systems, combat and cargo helicopters, naval modernization, espionage and unmanned aircraft, training simulators and equipment for soldiers….” [9]

Seven years ago the Polish government signed a contract to purchase 48 U.S. F-16 fighter jets, reported to be the most expensive arms deal in the nation’s history.

Why Poland requires a modernized army nineteen years after the end of the Warsaw Pact and moreover in a Europe “whole, free and at peace” was not addressed.

What in fact is the case is that the war in Afghanistan is a mechanism employed by the U.S. and NATO to provide wartime combat training to the armed forces of several nations bordering Russia – Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Norway and Mongolia – for contingency plans far closer to home. Last August Georgian Defense Minister Davit (Vasil) Sikharulidze “told The Associated Press in an interview that…training by the U.S. Marine Corps will not only give his troops the skills necessary to fight alongside NATO allies in Afghanistan, but also could come into play if another war broke out between Georgia and Russia.” [10]

Recently Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis visited NATO headquarters in Brussels where he was summoned over the bloc’s 21st century global military doctrine to be formally adopted in Lisbon, Portugal this December.

Azubalis “stressed that the Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty, which sets out the principle of collective defence, had to remain the key element of the new Strategic Concept,” and said “it is necessary for NATO to be more visible in member states, when organizing exercises and trainings, and when developing infrastructure.” He also “highlighted the importance of U.S. nuclear presence in Europe and stated that an appropriate NATO’s policy had to be implemented with regard to new threats.” [11]

So-called collective defense under the rubric of NATO’s mutual military assistance clause, moving NATO bases and military equipment to Russia’s borders, and maintaining American nuclear weapons in Europe have nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan or defense against such new NATO casus belli as global warming, rising sea levels, water shortages, piracy, a drop in food production and others identified by the bloc’s secretary general last autumn in London.

Also last week the armed forces of Estonia and Lithuania participated in the opening exercises of the Baltic Battalion Project (BALTBAT) Intelligent Eagle 10 operation in preparation for the two nations’ forces serving with the NATO Response Force, “a high-readiness and technologically advanced allied force made of land, air and maritime components capable of quick deployment at any time in any place for a full spectrum of operations.”

The maneuvers were “conducted in several phases: surveillance of a fictitious operation area and the elaboration on an operation plan and preparation for combat action training….” [12]

At the same time a NATO “group of experts” delegation arrived in the Estonian capital of Tallinn to deliver a presentation on the Alliance’s Strategic Concept. Next month, April 22-23, NATO is to hold a meeting in Tallinn with the foreign ministers of 56 nations, 28 full members and an equal amount of military partners from around the world. The gathering “will mark the first time that the new Strategic Concept is discussed at the ministerial level.” [13]

The U.S. Navy announced on March 23 that it was sending personnel from its military station in Rota, Spain to Latvia to lay the groundwork for the Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) 2010 exercises later this year. “BALTOPS is an operation sponsored by Commander, United States European Command, and is an exercise aimed to promote a mutual understanding of maritime interoperability between U.S. Navy, NATO, and non-NATO participants.” [14]

Two years ago NATO opened a so-called cyber defense installation in Estonia, as the bloc itself described it at the time “after a major cyber attack on Estonian public and private institutions prompted NATO to conduct a thorough assessment of its approach to cyber defence.” The alleged perpetrators were Russian of course.

“At their meeting in October 2007 Allied Defence Ministers called for the development of a NATO cyber defence policy which was adopted [in] early 2008.” [15]

Last week Jamie Shea, NATO’s Director of Policy Planning, identified what he called cyber attack capabilities as “the fifth dimension of warfare after space, sea, land and air….” [16]

Prominent Western, especially U.S., officials have been demanding a NATO Article 5 response to cyber attacks for the past three years.

Late this month a U.S. warship, the guided missile cruiser USS Vicksberg, joined a Norwegian counterpart for anti-submarine exercises, after which the two ships “proceeded above the Arctic Circle.” The exercises included “a series of complex Air Defense Exercises (ADEX) supported by Norwegian F-16 squadrons out of [the] Bodo Main Air Station.” [17]

In the Black Sea region, American ambassador to Georgia John Bass recently assured the government of former State Department fellowship recipient and New York resident Mikheil Saakashvili of continued Pentagon support in two spheres: Ongoing training of the Georgian armed forces by U.S. Marine Corps personnel stationed in the country (by all indications permanently) and “improvement of defense systems and support structures.” [18]

Shortly afterward Saakashvili appeared at a joint press conference at NATO headquarters with Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

The Georgian leader’s comments included:

“We are the biggest per capita contributor to the Afghan…to the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force]….But we also are willing to engage in training their troops in Georgia and on site in Afghanistan.”

The NATO chief said:

“I have reiterated to the president that NATO’s policy towards Georgia has not changed. We will continue to support Georgia in its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. NATO is fully committed to Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our Allies stick to their policy of non-recognition of the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia….I can assure you that there will be no change of the wording of what the NATO summit decided at the Bucharest Summit in 2008. And you will recall that we decided that Georgia as well as Ukraine will become members of NATO….And we have no intention whatsoever to change this wording. So the NATO position is unchanged.” [19]

On the same day it was reported that Georgia’s State Minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration, Giorgi Baramidze, said his government “is pushing for rapid entry into NATO with plans to meet membership requirements within the next three years….” [20]

In February the governments of fellow Black Sea nations Romania and Bulgaria confirmed their willingness to accede to U.S. requests to base intermediate-range interceptor missiles on their territories. Shortly after the countries’ NATO accession six years ago the Pentagon secured the permanent use of four new military bases in Romania and three in Bulgaria.

Last week the Romanian government disclosed it was purchasing 24 second-hand F-16 multirole jet fighters from the U.S. “to modernise its air force.” [21]

Concurrently, the nation’s foreign minister, Teodor Baconschi, met with NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, reiterating “the NATO open door policy” toward Georgia, Ukraine and the Balkans and a commitment “to the diversification of partnership relations with NATO countries in the Western Balkans and in the Black Sea region.”

The two also insisted that “bilateral cooperation with the U.S. in the field of anti-missile defence represents one of Romania’s contributions to the development of a NATO anti-missile defence system, to be based on the principles of indivisibility of security of the Alliance and allied solidarity, as stated at the Summit in Bucharest and reaffirmed at the Summit in Strasbourg-Kehl.” [22]

Also last week, Romania’s President Traian Basescu called on members of parliament to pass a new national security law in view of three recent developments: The nation’s absorption into NATO, the deployment of U.S. military personnel to bases in the country, and “developments related to the anti-missile shield.” [23]

On the same day it was reported that the Bulgarian Defense Ministry had “approved a memorandum to exchange military personal staff with the U.S. navy.

“The memorandum sets up a bilateral program in the framework of which the navies of Bulgaria and the U.S. will have the opportunity to exchange experience and experts.” [24]

U.S. and NATO military expansion along Russia’s western and southern flanks diminishes the need for Cold War era nuclear arsenals and long-range delivery systems appreciably. Washington can well afford to reduce the number of its nuclear weapons and still maintain decisive worldwide strategic superiority, especially with the deployment of an international interceptor missile system and the unilateral militarization of space. And the use of super stealth strategic bombers and the Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike project for conventional warhead-equipped strike systems with the velocity and range of intercontinental ballistic missiles to destroy other nations’ nuclear forces with non-nuclear weapons.

Russia has only its nuclear capability to resort to in the event of a major attack on its territory, as it has no bases beyond its borders except for minor ones in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Armenia and Transdniester. Surely none in nations facing the United States.

1) Wall Street Journal, March 26, 2010
2) Russian Information Agency Novosti, March 23, 2010
3) Russian Information Agency Novosti, March 28, 2010
4) Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, March 26, 2010
5) Rustavi 2, March 27, 2010
6) Russian Information Agency Novosti, March 25, 2010
7) Polish Radio, March 26, 2010
Polish Radio, March 22, 2010
9) Polish Radio, October 27, 2009
10) Civil Georgia, August 21, 2009
11) Baltic Course, March 25, 2010
12) Baltic Course, March 23, 2010
13) Eesti elu, March 23, 2010
14) Navy Newsstand, March 24, 2010
15) North Atlantic Treaty Organization, May 14, 2008
16) Defense News, March 23, 2010
17) United States European Command, March 22, 2010
18) Trend News Agency, March 22, 2010
19) North Atlantic Treaty Organization, March 25, 2010
20) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, March 25, 2010
21) Reuters, March 23, 2010
22) The Financiarul, March 24, 2010
23) The Financiarul, March 25, 2010
24) Focus News Agency, March 25, 2010
===========================
Stop NATO

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

The world is one major cyber event away from total restriction of the net

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, March 5th, 2010

The latest attack on the free internet comes in the shape of suggestions by former director of national intelligence under George W. Bush, Mike McConnell, who writes in an op-ed that the web should be “re-engineered” in order that it can be completely controlled and managed by U.S. intelligence.

Last week McConnell testified to Congress that the country was in the midst of a cyberwar that it was losing. He believes that a coming cyberattack will cause more economic damage to the U.S. than the 9/11 attacks.

With this in mind mind McConnell penned a piece carried by the Washington Post, in which he urged that financial transactions, power grids, air and ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration systems were all under imminent threat from cyber terrorist attacks.

McConnell called for a return to a Cold War mentality of deterrence, writing that the U.S. should make it clear that any cyber attack would be met with immediate and unequivocal retaliation.

“We need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace, identify intrusions and locate the source of attacks with a trail of evidence that can support diplomatic, military and legal options — and we must be able to do this in milliseconds.” he wrote.

“More specifically, we need to re-engineer the internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment — who did it, from where, why and what was the result — more manageable,” McConnell added.

McConnell’s comments prompted Wired to hit back, labeling him “the biggest threat to the open internet”, and commenting that cyberwar hype is being used as a pretext to destroy the freedom of the web:

“He’s talking about changing the internet to make everything anyone does on the net traceable and geo-located,” Ryan Singel writes, “so the National Security Agency can pinpoint users and their computers for retaliation if the U.S. government doesn’t like what’s written in an e-mail, what search terms were used, what movies were downloaded.”

As Singel points out, McConnell now works for defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group – the global private equity investment firm that enjoyed business links with the Bin Laden family prior to 9/11.

Booz Allen Hamilton now has huge billion dollar contracts with the NSA concerning cybersecurity. It is hardly surprising that McConnell has long pushed for the NSA to become the lead agency authorized to monitor and guard all government and private networks.

“Make no mistake, the military industrial complex now has its eye on the internet.” Singel warns. “Never shy of extending its power, the military industrial complex wants to turn the internet into yet another venue for an arms race. And it’s waging a psychological warfare campaign on the American people to make that so.”

Singel even suggests that a false flag cyber attack could be just around the corner, in order to provide the perfect pretext for a complete take over of the net:

“Now the question is: Which of these events can be turned into a Gulf of Tonkin-like fakery that can create enough fear to let the military and the government turn the open internet into a controlled, surveillance-friendly net.” he writes.

Such musings echo warnings from experts such as Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University, who stated in August 2008 that “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.

Lessig noted that former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke had told him personally that there was already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an “i-Patriot Act” if you will, and that the Justice Department is waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.

The U.S. military also has some $30 Billion invested in it’s own mastering the internet projects.

In 2009 the Cybersecurity Act was introduced, proposing to allow the federal government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications.

Fast forward to the present, and the bill looming in the Senate legislates for handing the president emergency powers over the internet in the event of a cyber attack or other national emergency.

Earlier this week, the Obama administration lifted the veil on a highly-secretive set of policies it says are designed to defend the U.S. from cyber attacks. The core program revolves around a “Cyber Shield” that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to dig into all internet communications.

DHS’s top cybersecurity official has revealed to CNET that the department may eventually extend its Einstein technology, originally created for federal networks, to non-government infrastructure. It has emerged that the NSA is intimately involved with the program.

All of these moves in the U.S. are being mirrored in the Australia, the U.K. and the rest of Europe.

Meanwhile, if you’re wondering where the funding for such programs is going to come from,Microsoft executive Scott Charney has a suggestion for you:

“You could say it’s a public safety issue and do it with general taxation,” Charney noted at security conference in San Francisco earlier this week. That’s right, a tax on the internet to go with total restriction and NSA monitoring.

If we do not act now to educate more people about the ongoing attack on the free and open internet, and how we can act to protect it by blocking restrictive legislation and programs, we may soon find ourselves referring to a “post i-9/11 society”.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair first alluded to a cyberwar, implying that it would be triggered by China and would jeopardize the entire world internet infrastructure.

He later affirmed rather bluntly that the U.S. intelligence community has authority to target anyone, including American citizens, for assassination anywhere in the world if they present a direct terrorist threat to the United States and to other Americans.

In particular, Admiral Dennis C. Blair, CIA Director Leon Pannetta, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Ronald Burgess and Acting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research John Dinger each stated that Al Qaeda is preparing an attack against United States territory in the next three to six months, by adapting their methods in ways that make it difficult to detect.

At the domestic level, this declaration aims to prepare US public opinion for a new cataclysm and a possible throwback to neo-conservative policies. But vis-à-vis the rest of the world, it is meant to counter the rumour disseminated by certain Middle East mainstream newspapers such as Kheyan (Iran), Al-Binaa (Lebanon) or Al-Wataan (Syria) to the effect that, in order to relaunch the “clash of civilizations”, the Hebrew State is planning to organize a new 9/11 which would be pinned on Al-Qaeda. However, according to the same sources, the Iranian and Turkish intelligence services have observed Israeli agents involved in reconnaissance activities not in the United States, but in Europe. Tel-Aviv is apparently looking into the possibility of striking a highly symbolic religious target, like Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris or St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. This attack would justify a new crusade against Islam.

==

View the video of the full hearings here.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

voltairenet.org

1-21-2010

The escalating clash between Google and the People’s Republic of China comes in the context of rapidly deteriorating relations between the two countries on a broad front. Google is part of a cartel of Internet companies which notoriously works closely with the US intelligence community for political purposes, including the subversion and overthrow of foreign governments. We need only recall the central role of Twitter in the CIA’s attempted coup d’état in Iran last summer [1]. Political manipulation by means of the Internet is an indispensable part of the CIA’s recipe for color revolutions, velvet revolutions, people power coups, and postmodern coups [2]. When the Internet is introduced into previously authoritarian countries, it is often possible to dupe, manipulate, and stampede large numbers of enthusiastic young people who are not politically sophisticated. The results are often disastrous. In Georgia, a color revolution installed into power the madman Sakaashvili, who has already started one war [3]. Yushenko, the beneficiary of the Orange Revolution of 2004, has just been massively repudiated by voters after a catastrophic presidency. The hangover of disillusionment surrounding Obama is related to the fact that he took power in something of the same way. The Chinese government therefore feels that there are valid reasons to prevent Western intelligence agencies from massively pumping black propaganda into China using the Internet. This is in any case a purely domestic Chinese issue, and Americans in particular ought to focus on putting their own house in order before starting to give lectures to the rest of the world. On the morning of January 4, it was reported by the Los Angeles Times that the Great Firewall maintained by the Chinese government to filter Internet content had momentarily come down. Was this the handiwork of the United States, or did China believe that it was the handiwork of the United States? About 10 days later, Google, Adobe, and Northrop Grumman accused Chinese hackers of entering their sites to gather information. The Chinese government has informed Google if they insist on violating Chinese law, they cannot continue to operate, and Google has announced their imminent departure from the Chinese market. Rumors of espionage swirl around the Google offices in China. Many press accounts allege that Google is opposed to censorship in principle. This is pure baloney. Google supports censorship to the extent that it is dictated by the United States intelligence community. Analysts and researchers delving into questions about the September 11 attacks or the London 7/7 bombings of 2005 are familiar with the many ways that Google attempted to hinder public access to facts and analysis that were not part of the official narrative. Google has been fundamentally hostile to anyone criticizing the US government official versions of these false flag terror provocations. To say that Google is opposed to censorship is therefore monumental hypocrisy. US-Chinese relations are now rapidly deteriorating towards a new Cold War or something worse. The entire foreign policy of the United States is strongly motivated by anti-Chinese considerations. Pakistan is targeted for destruction in large part because it could function as an energy corridor between Iran and China, to the benefit of the latter [4]. What is done by the United States in Yemen [5], Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, and many other points across the globe is fundamentally dictated by a desire to checkmate China. The news is that China is fighting back far more effectively. At the recent Copenhagen climate change conference, the basic strategy of the US and the British was to use the big lie of global warming to institute a world carbon dictatorship which could then be used to strangle the economic development of China, India, and other developing sector nations. As accounts in the British Guardian have pointed out, Chinese Prime Minister Wen directed a successful blocking operation with the help of countries such as Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and others, personally snubbing Obama several times in the process. When it comes to sanctions against Iran, the Chinese are signaling that they will block them in the UN Security Council, and they are also circumventing them in various ways. China has now passed Germany to become the world’s largest exporter, and is estimated to possess about 2.5 trillion dollars of foreign exchange, much of it denominated in dollars. A trade war between China and the United States over such issues as tires and steel is now a distinct possibility. The US is keeping up a ceaseless whining about the alleged dirty float of the Chinese currency unit, the renminbi. The US is on the verge of a major arms sale to the Republic of China on Taiwan, something which Beijing is bound to oppose. Even worse is the visit of the Dalai Lama to Obama’s White House, which is now reported as imminent. The Dalai Lama, although lionized by a gaggle of Hollywood degenerates, is in fact a notorious Western intelligence asset who was the figurehead of a brutal regime of feudal oppression which kept the majority of the population as serfs and a significant minority as slaves. The United States government continues to transfer significant sums of money to the sinister Rebiya Kadeer and her “World Uighur Congress,” which the Chinese government accuses of being responsible for the murder spree in Xinjiang province (Chinese Turkestan) in July of 2009 [6] for which two dozen death sentences have now been handed down. A British citizen accused of functioning as a drug pusher has just been executed by the Chinese, who have not forgotten the three Opium Wars waged against them by London for the purpose of forcing deadly narcotics onto the Chinese market. More important perhaps than any other single concrete disagreement have been the new self-assurance, self-confidence, and assertiveness of the Chinese government emerging after the bankruptcy of the United States and British banking systems in the fall of 2008. For a number of decades, Chinese diplomacy was typically extremely cautious, with a very low profile and a low-key approach. Prime Minister Wen’s successful operations in Copenhagen are a clear indication that major changes are afoot in this department. The Chinese evidently see Google as a symbol of arrogance and hegemonism which they are no longer disposed to tolerate. Webster G. Tarpley Author, journalist, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy (www.tarpley.net). His most recent books are Obama, The Postmodern Coup,The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, Barack Obama: The Unauthorized Biography and 9/11 Synthetic Terror. He is a member of the Axis for Peace conference.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

The China-Google dispute

By Alex Lantier
23 January 2010

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s January 21 speech on internet freedom marks a major escalation of Sino-American tensions. Amid a censorship dispute between China and the search engine firm Google, Clinton unveiled a global policy of Internet-driven regime-change, under the guise of freedom of speech.

On January 12, Google posted a statement, “A New Approach to China,” on its blog. It charged that a series of cyber security attacks originating from a computer in Taiwan were being controlled from China. These attacks targeted dozens of US defense and communications firms—including Northrop Grumman, Adobe Systems and Juniper Systems—and the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

Google said it was taking the “unusual step” of reporting the attacks because they went “to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech.” The company threatened to undo internet censorship programs it had installed at Beijing’s request on its Chinese Google.cn search engine. It noted this might “well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.”

The US government did not immediately comment, and international media were initially skeptical of Google’s position. A Financial Times video asked for the motives behind Google’s threat to leave China, noting that Google had not shut its operations in Pakistan after that country blocked all access to Youtube, a Google subsidiary, amid allegations of vote fraud in its February 2008 election. A Wall Street Journal article called Google’s decision “provocative.”

In a January 15 piece, “After Google’s Stand on China, US Treads Lightly,” the New York Times cited James A. Lewis of the US Center for Strategic and International Studies: “Everything we are learning is that in this case the Chinese government got caught with its hand in the cookie jar. Would it hold up in court? No.”

The Times added that the event laid bare “the degree to which China and the United States are engaged in daily cyberbattles, a covert war of offense and defense on which America is already spending billions of dollars a year.”

This comment underlines the real state of US relations with China, which the US views as a rising strategic competitor. Washington is occupying Afghanistan, a country bordering China’s troubled western region of Tibet, and is launching attacks into Pakistan, China’s main ally in the Indian subcontinent. The US is expected to soon resume large-scale weapons sales to the Taiwanese regime, China’s historical rival, and US alliances with India, Australia and Japan implicitly aim to block China.

Sino-American economic interdependence—the US is China’s biggest export market, and China is the single largest holder of US government debt—is also destabilizing global politics. The US has repeatedly demanded that Beijing increase the value of its currency, undermining China’s export competitiveness and costing millions of jobs in China. In the aftermath of Obama’s trip to Asia last year, US officials have increasingly pushed for punitive tariffs on Chinese exports.

It was in this context that Clinton delivered her speech. Though the US press focused its attention on her remarks on the China-Google dispute, Clinton’s comments were part of a far broader agenda. She delivered the hour-long speech to a high-level gathering, including several senators and foreign ambassadors. Clinton said “representatives of our International Visitor Leadership Program on internet freedom from China, Colombia, Iran, Lebanon and Moldova”—all countries hosting or targeted by US intelligence efforts—were also present.

Clinton attacked Chinese Internet censorship, saying, “Even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls. Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech.”

This was, however, only a cover for the assertion of a global mandate for Washington to destabilize or overthrow governments worldwide. Clinton praised the Twitter and Internet organizing behind US-backed “color revolutions,” including most recently the June 2009 Green Revolution that unsuccessfully tried to overturn the reelection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She noted, “In Iran and Moldova and other countries, online organizing has been a critical tool for advancing democracy and enabling citizens to protest suspicious election results.”

Other US-backed “color revolutions” include the 2003 Rose Revolution that installed President Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia, the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine that placed President Viktor Yushchenko in power, and the failed 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan and 2006 Denim Revolution in Belarus.

Clinton reserved the right to engineer such “revolutions” anywhere in the world: “The United States is committed to devoting the diplomatic, economic and technological resources necessary to advance [Internet] freedoms. We are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and every interest that spans the globe… We will work with partners in industry, academia and nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals.”

She cited as an example the possibility of extending State Department funding to create mobile phone applications to “allow people to rate government ministries,” and “also to ferret out and report corruption.”

Clinton singled out China for criticism: “There are so many people in China now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century.” She said the US would raise its differing views with China “candidly and consistently” in the coming period.

Immediately after this public rebuke of Beijing, she issued the following remarkable warning: “Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a foundation for global progress. Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it’s critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same sets of facts and opinions.”

Taken at face value, such comments suggest that US-China relations have become so tense that Washington foresees the risk of war unless the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does an about-face and allows pro-US political tendencies to freely express their views. This would include religious and pro-democracy activists, as well as Tibetan or Xinjiang separatist groups.

Stripped of its cynical rhetoric, Clinton’s speech is a US challenge to the CCP’s monopoly of political power in China, and a threat to use “color revolution” methods against Beijing, or any other state, should it refuse to bow to Washington’s strategic interests.

In the lead-up to Clinton’s speech, Chinese officials had played down the importance of the dispute with Google. Vice-Foreign Minister He Yafei told China’s state wire service Xinhua that the Google dispute should not be “over-interpreted” or linked to US-China relations.

After Clinton’s speech, however, Chinese media took a harsher tone. Yesterday, the Chinese People’s Daily ran an editorial calling US Internet plans a “shot in the arm for US hegemony.” It charged Washington with having a stranglehold on Internet infrastructure, and with using Twitter and other communications resources to destabilize regimes in Iran and Libya.

The Global Times, another state-run Chinese newspaper, wrote: “The hard fact that Clinton has failed to highlight in her speech is that the bulk of the information flowing from the US and other Western countries is loaded with aggressive rhetoric against those countries that do not follow their lead.” It added, “Countries disadvantaged by the unequal and undemocratic information flow have to protect their national interest, and take steps towards this. This is essential for their political stability as well as normal conduct of economic and social life.”

Though it carefully censors news of popular protest, the Chinese state press is well aware of massive discontent in China, and fears that it could come under the control of political forces hostile to the CCP. The number of “mass incidents” —that is, protests, strikes or riots, typically repressed by mass police or paramilitary actions—reached 120,000 in 2008, up from 90,000 in 2006 and 74,000 in 2004.

According to some estimates, the figure for 2009 could be 230,000. A Chinese Academy of Social Sciences study in December found that of the 77 major “mass incidents” in 2009, 30 percent were spread by the Internet and mobile phones.

In this context, Clinton’s speech amounts to a threat that the State Department might try to seize upon and direct protests to undermine the Chinese government—as it already has done in Eastern Europe, the ex-USSR and the Middle East.

One does not have to be a supporter of the Beijing Stalinist regime to realize the reactionary character of such plans. The “color revolution” regimes have all proven to be unpopular and anti-democratic pawns of Washington, with Yushchenko being voted out in the recent Ukrainian election. In China—an enormous state, riven by internal ethnic, regional and class divisions—such a policy by the US would pose the risk of unleashing large-scale violence and civil war.

READ ENTIRE STORY HERE

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

The National Security Agency (NSA) acknowledged having worked with Microsoft on the development of Windows 7, as testified on 17 November 2009 by Richard Schaeffer, the NSA’s information assurance director, before the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

The cooperation between the NSA and Microsoft has been an open secret since a the judiciary agreement was reached between the U.S. Government and the computer giant. It is however the first time that official mention of this has been made.

In terms of cyber security, over and above the issue of protection from external intrusions, the crux of the matter lies in who the doorkeeper is. In other words, while it is NSA’s prerogative to have sole security access control over the most-widely used software equipment inside the United States, the fact remains that Windows 7 is marketed globally. Undoubtedly, this opens up considerable opportunities for U.S. cyber espionage beyond its borders.

As for Microsoft, while it has denied that the NSA has the possibility to access Windows 7, it is not in a position to guarantee it.

To date, no state is known to have barred Windows 7 software in order to protect its citizens from U.S. espionage.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

(WMR) — National Security Agency (NSA) sources have reported to WMR that the signals intelligence agency’s warrantless wiretapping program was more widespread than originally reported and that it began shortly after the 2001 inauguration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, some six months prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio reported that NSA requested that his firm take part in the warrantless wiretapping program in a February 27, 2001, meeting but that he told NSA that Qwest would refuse to participate. AT&T, BellSouth, SBC, Sprint, and Verizon all agreed to participate in the wiretapping program, which resulted in such a large database of intercepted calls, faxes, and e-mails, that NSA recently announced it was building a huge 1 million square feet data warehouse at a cost of $1.5 billion at Camp Williams in Utah, as well as another massive data warehouse in San Antonio. The cover story is that the warehouses are part of NSA’s new Cyber Command responsibilities. NSA sources have told WMR that the warehouses are to store the massive amount of intercepts collected by the ongoing Terrorist Surveillance Program, an above top secret program once code named STELLAR WIND by the NSA.

Nacchio was later convicted on 19 counts of insider trading of Qwest stock and sentenced to six years in federal prison. Nacchio maintained that his prosecution and conviction was in retaliation for his refusal to participate in the illegal NSA surveillance program. NSA also canceled a major contract with Qwest over its refusal to wiretap calls without warrants.

President Obama ordered his Justice Department’s attorneys to press U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker to toss out a lawsuit brought against the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretap program, details of which were revealed by AT&T engineer Mark Klein. Our NSA sources revealed that Obama has asked the lawsuit to be dismissed because the warrantless wiretapping program is as robust in collecting massive amounts of intercepted communications without a warrant under Obama as it did during the Bush-Cheney administration. Obama also backs immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies participating in the illegal surveillance operations. The Justice Department is using the draconian State Secrets Privilege to battle against lawsuits against the telecommunication carriers.

NSA collects domestic communications by installing specialized eavesdropping equipment, including traffic analyzers, at over 25 telecommunications facilities around the United States, including where Klein worked at AT&T’s central office in the SBC Building at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco and at major switching facilities in Bridgeton, Missouri; San Jose; San Diego; Seattle; Los Angeles (1150 South Olive Street, as well as the Beverly Hills central office that targets the area’s rich and famous celebrities); Chicago (227 West Monroe Street); New York (Lower Manhattan at 33 Thomas Street, 375 Pearl Street, and 811 10th Avenue); Northern Virginia/Washington, DC; Miami; Atlanta (Midtown Center); Houston; Minneapolis; Detroit (1365 Cass Avenue); Jacksonville, Florida; Philadelphia; Kansas City; Dallas (One AT&T Plaza); Memphis; Pittsburgh; Bedminster, New Jersey; Boston; Nashville (333 Commerce Street); Baltimore; Cleveland (Huron Road Building); and Denver.

One of the first targets of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program in February 2001, a few weeks after Bush’s inauguration, was Iraqi-Americans and other Arab-Americans, as well as resident aliens from Arab countries in the United States. The warrantless wiretapping of the Arab-American community coincided with “surge operations” directed by NSA against the communications of Saddam Hussein and his top government officials in Iraq and other countries.

The NSA warrantless wiretapping program soon grew to include millions of Americans, including elected and appointed government officials, federal judges, anti-Bush celebrities and clergy, and even intelligence and law enforcement officials. WMR previously reported that a joint NSA-CIA database code-named FIRST FRUITS maintained a database on the intercepted phone calls of U.S. journalists.
READ FULL STORY HERE

Using Cash Sign Of Terrorist, According To FBI

Feds demand tattoo shops rat on customers

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Friday, October 30, 2009

Are you in the market for a patriotic tattoo, maybe the Gadsden flag? Forget about it. Unless you want the local tattoo artist to inform on you.

The FBI, in league with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (part of the Department of Justice), has launched a program that harks back to East Germany’s Stasi.

In Philadelphia, the FBI has instructed tattoo shops to rat out their customers if they demand privacy, insist on paying with cash, engage in “suspicious behavior,” make “anti-US” comments, or request tattoos that are “extremist symbols.”

According to the MIAC report, the Gadsden flag is a “militia symbol.” The Department of Homeland Security’s Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment report characterizes militias as “white supremacists,” domestic terrorists and a threat to the president. MIAC is part of the federal “fusion” effort now underway around the country.

It is not merely “extremist symbols.” In addition, the FBI literature instructs tattoo shops to be on the look-out for people who change hair color, style of dress, or shave beards between visits. Suspicious people also include those with missing fingers or hands, chemical burns, strange orders or bright colored stains on clothing.

Read the handout below for more absurd “extremist” indicators according to the FBI.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

GAO report says feds should regulate Internet traffic to cope with overloads

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The government is being encouraged to prepare to block websites and Internet traffic in the event of a worsening swine flu pandemic that results in network congestion, a move that represents a potential end run around the agenda to regulate the world wide web.

A report by the General Accountability Office warns that a severe pandemic, or a worsening of the H1N1 outbreak, could result in 40 percent absentee rates at work and school, meaning that the Internet would be overloaded with people working from home as well as bored children sucking up bandwidth via online gaming.

Securities exchanges already have back-up systems to cope with such a scenario but the same cannot be said for general commerce, warns the report, adding that the federal government, specifically Homeland Security, should be given the power to block certain websites and regulate Internet traffic.

“Private Internet providers might need government authorization to block popular websites, the report states, or to reduce residential transmission speeds to make way for commerce,” according to a Reuters article.

“DHS has not developed a strategy to address potential Internet congestion,” the report said.

The GAO report also highlights the lack of knowledge about whether the public, other federal agencies, as well as Internet Service Providers would co-operate with any directive to regulate the Internet during a pandemic.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Jerald Levine hinted that the feds would be eager to regulate the web and block websites in the event of a pandemic, stating, “An expectation of unlimited Internet access during a pandemic is not realistic.”

READ FULL STORY HERE

Question from No Lies News Editor: how do we know that when a cybersecurity attack occurs it is not a false flag attack from our own intel agencies who are already practising cyberwarefare???

Obama Administration Seeks “Emergency Control” of the Internet

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE