Saturday, February 4, 2012

Indonesian pilot arrested for alleged drug use | Asian Correspondent

Indonesian pilot arrested for alleged drug use | Asian Correspondent
By AP News Feb 04, 2012

SURABAYA, Indonesia (AP) — Indonesian police say they have arrested an airline pilot on suspicion of using illegal drugs three hours before flying.

Narcotics agency director Brig. Gen. Benny Mamoto says Lion Air pilot Syaiful Salam was arrested early Saturday in his hotel room in Surabaya city with a small amount of crystal methamphetamine in his possession.

He says a urine test showed Salam had also consumed the drug. The pilot was scheduled to fly three hours later.

Salam is the fifth Lion Air pilot to be arrested for alleged drug use in two months.

Airline officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

In November, Lion Air announced the biggest order ever from Boeing – 230 planes with a list price of $ 21.7 billion.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Iran begins naval exercises near Gulf strait

Iran begins naval exercises near Gulf strait

Ali Akbar Dareini, The Associated Press, Tehran | Sat, 02/04/2012 
Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard began naval maneuvers Saturday in the latest show of force near the strateg Strait of Hormuz, the critical Gulf oil tanker route that Tehran has threatened to close in retaliation for tougher Western sanctions.

Plans for new Iranian war games in the Gulf have been in the works for weeks. But they got under way following stern warnings by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei about any possible U.S. or Israeli attacks against Tehran's nuclear facilities.

The month-long maneuvers also come after Western forces boosted their naval presence in the Gulf led by the American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

Iran has so far made no attempts to disrupt shipping through the strait, the route for one-fifth the world's crude oil. The U.S. and allies have said they would respond swiftly to any attempts at a blockade.

Last month, Iran's navy wrapped up 10 days of exercises in the Gulf, but the Revolutionary Guard - which is directly under control of the supreme leader - represents a significantly stronger military force and controls key programs such as missile development. Iranian state media announced the new maneuvers, but gave no further details.

Khamenei, in a speech nationally broadcast on Friday, staked out a hard line after suggestions by Israel that military strikes are an increasing possibility if sanctions fail to rein in the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

He pledged to aid any nation or group that challenges Israel and said any military strikes would damage U.S. interests in the Middle East "10 times" more than they would hurt Iran. The comments also may signal that Tehran's proxy forces - led by Lebanon's Islamic militant group Hezbollah - could be given the green light to revive attacks on Israel as the showdown between the archfoes intensifies.

The West and its allies fear Iran could use its uranium enrichment labs - which make nuclear fuel - to eventually produce weapons-grade material. Iran insists it only seeks reactors for energy and medical research.

Israel has so far publicly backed the efforts by the U.S. and European Union for tougher sanctions that target Iran's crucial oil exports. But Israeli leaders have urged even harsher measures and warn that military action remains a clear option despite Western appeals to allow time for the economic pressures and isolation to bear down on Iran.

Although Israel has raised the strongest hints over a military campaign, Khamenei reserved some of his strongest comments for Israel's key U.S. ally.

"A war itself will damage the U.S. 10 times" more in the region, said Khamenei.

Khamenei claimed Iran would only emerge stronger from a conflict. "Iran will not withdraw. Then what happens?" asked Khamenei. "In conclusion, the West's hegemony and threats will be discredited" in the Middle East. "The hegemony of Iran will be promoted. In fact, this will be in our service."

On Thursday, Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, suggested the world is increasingly ready to consider a military strike if sanctions fail. The head of the country's strategic affairs ministry, Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon, also suggested Iran's main military installations are still vulnerable to airstrikes - even as Iran starts up a new uranium enrichment facility deep in a mountainside bunker south of Tehran.

Yaalon's comments appear to reinforce earlier suggestions by other Israel officials that the window for a possible attack is closing and Israel would need to strike by summer to inflict significant setbacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity under standing guidelines.

At Ramstein Air Base in Germany, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said sanctions remain the best approach to pressure Iran. But he told U.S. airmen Friday that Washington keeps "all options on the table and would be prepared to respond if we have to."

Khamenei answered by repeating Iran's declarations that it will never roll back its nuclear program, which he had earlier said was now part of the country's "identity" and a cornerstone of its technological endeavors. On Friday, Iran said it successfully sent a small satellite into orbit in the third such launch in recent years, state media reported.

Khamenei affirmed that Iran had assisted groups such as Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas - a well-known policy rarely stated explicitly by Iranian leaders - and said that Tehran would assist anyone else who challenges Israel.

"From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this," said Khamenei, using the phrase widely used by Iran's leader to describe Israel.


Friday, February 3, 2012

Drumbeats of War: Israel says Iranian Missiles Aimed at US | Common Dreams

Drumbeats of War: Israel says Iranian Missiles Aimed at US | Common Dreams

Drumbeats of War: Israel says Iranian Missiles Aimed at US

'Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again.'

- Common Dreams staff

The war drums for war on Iran grew louder today.

Iranian missiles “aimed at America,” said Israeli Deputy PM Moshe Yaalon, Thursday, February 2, 2012. Israel is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in US politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this fall.

In Israel, Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon said that Iran is “getting ready to produce a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers... That's the Great Satan. It was aimed at America, not at us."

And, the Israeli IDF Intelligence Chief Aviv Kochavi said Iran already has enough uranium to build 4 nuclear bombs and could build one within a year.

Also today, Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR) blasted ABC News for "a blatantly propagandistic report on the supposed threat from Iran."

Just yesterday, a "bipartisan" task force of conservative Democrats and neo-conservatives who served in the Bush administration urged President Obama to prepare for an "effective surgical strike against Iran's nuclear program."

See (below) a comparison of today with the 2002-2003 propaganda campaign preceding the US war on Iraq.

* * *

Gareth Porter is reporting at Inter Press Service today:

Dempsey Told Israelis US Won't Join Their War on Iran Without Prior Agreement

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders Jan. 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers.

Dempsey's warning, conveyed to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, represents the strongest move yet by President Barack Obama to deter an Israeli attack and ensure that the United States is not caught up in a regional conflagration with Iran.

But the Israeli government remains defiant about maintaining its freedom of action to make war on Iran, and it is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in U.S. politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this fall.

Obama still appears reluctant to break publicly and explicitly with Israel over its threat of military aggression against Iran, even in the absence of evidence Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon.

Dempsey's trip was highly unusual, in that there was neither a press conference by the chairman nor any public statement by either side about the substance of his meetings with Israeli leaders. Even more remarkable, no leak about what he said to the Israelis has appeared in either U.S. or Israeli news media, indicating that both sides have regarded what Dempsey said as extremely sensitive.

* * *

The New York Times is reporting today:

Israel Warns Iranian Missiles Might Threaten U.S.

A senior Israeli official said on Thursday that the missile testing site near Tehran that was destroyed in a huge explosion three months ago was developing missiles with a range of some 6,000 miles aimed at the United States.

The official, Moshe Yaalon, a deputy prime minister and minister for strategic affairs, said the explosion, at a Revolutionary Guard missile base, hit a system “getting ready to produce a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers.”

“That’s the Great Satan,” he said, invoking the term Iran often uses to refer to the United States. “It was aimed at America, not at us.

* * *

The Jerusalem Post reports:

IDF Intelligence Chief: Iran has Uranium for 4 Nuclear Bombs; Can Make Bomb Within a Year

Iran has created a stockpile of enriched uranium that could be used to manufacture four nuclear weapons, head of the IDF's Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi said on Thursday.

Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, Kochavi said that once Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made the decision to go to the so-called "breakout stage" and begin enriching uranium to military-grade levels, it would take the Iranians a year to make a crude device and another year or two to manufacture a nuclear warhead that can be installed on a ballistic missile. [...]

"Iran's motivations are: to create hegemony in the region; deterrence; and to become an international player," Kochavi said. "They claim that they are developing the program for peaceful purposes but our intelligence shows without a doubt that Iran is continuing its work on developing a nuclear weapon."

* * *

A Timeline of our recent coverage of the US/Israel threat to aattack Iran

  • 2/1/2012 - The neocon Bipartisan Policy Center calls on the US do "whatever it takes" to stop a nuclear Iran: "Iran could develop nuclear weapons capability in 2012."
  • 1/31/2012 - US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper announced that "Iranian officials... are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States"
  • 1/31/2012 - Israeli President Shimon Peres: "Iran's "evil" leaders cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons"
  • 1/29/2012 - Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned "time was running out" for an attack on Iran.
  • 1/28/2012 - Pentagon Seeks Mightier 'Bunker Buster' Bomb vs. Iran
  • 1/27/2012 - The largest-ever joint military exercise with the United States and Israel scheduled.
  • 1/26/2012 - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "They have this excuse that Iran is dodging negotiations while it is not the case."
  • 1/11/2012 - Iran Accuses Israel, US of Assassinating Nuclear Scientist
  • 12/31/2011 - Obama Signs New Iran Sanctions Into Law
  • 12/27/11 - Iran Threatens to Stop Gulf Oil If Sanctions Widened
  • 12/4/2011 - Iran Military Shoots Down US Drone: State TV
  • 11/21/2011 - The Obama administration declared the Islamic Republic of Iran a "primary money laundering concern"
  • 11/6/2011 - Israel's Peres Warns Attack on Iran Getting 'Closer'
  • 11/5/2011 - US Military Official: We Are Concerned Israel Will Not Warn Us Before Iran Attack

* * *

A Reminder: The propaganda campaign that preceded US war on Iraq.

  • 11/26/2001 - GW Bush declares, "Saddam is evil."
  • 12/9/2001 - VP Dick Cheney on Meet the Press: "Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists." Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague.
  • 3/24/2002 - Saddam "is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."—VP Dick Cheney on CNN
  • 8/26/2002 - "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends…and against us." — VP Dick Cheney
  • 9/7/2002 - GW Bush claims a new UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon.
  • 9/8/2002 - Page 1 New York Times story by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon cites anonymous administration officials saying Saddam has repeatedly tried to acquire aluminum tubes "specially designed" to enrich uranium. "The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud."
  • 9/8/2002 - Tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs…we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."—Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice on CNN
  • 9/8/2002 - "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."—VP Dick Cheney on Meet the Press
  • 9/10/2002 - Dept. of Homeland Security issues 'Orange terror alert.'
  • 9/13/2002 - VP Dick Cheney tells Rush Limbaugh: "What's happening, of course, is we're getting additional information that, in fact, Hussein is reconstituting his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs."
  • 9/18/2002 - GW Bush calls Saddam's offer to let inspectors back into Iraq "his latest ploy."
  • 9/19/2002 - Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Saddam "has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, and mustard gas."
  • 9/24/2002 - Britain releases dossier to public saying Iraq could launch biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes.
  • 9/25/2002 - "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."—GW Bush
  • 9/25/2002 - Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice says: "High-ranking detainees have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development."
  • 9/26/2002 - In a Rose Garden speech, GW Bush says: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."
  • 9/27/2002 - Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld calls link between Iraq and Al Qaeda "accurate and not debatable."
  • 9/28/2002 - GW Bush's address to nation: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given."
  • 10/7/2002 - GW Bush delivers a speech in which he says, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Also says Iraq is exploring ways of using drones to target the US, although Iraq's drones have a reach of only 300 miles.
  • 10/11/2002 - Congress—including all serious Democratic contenders—votes to grant GW Bush power to go to war.
  • 11/8/2002 - UN Security Council passes Resolution 1441 offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations." Iraq agrees and UN weapons inspectors return.
  • 11/27/2002 - Weapons inspections begin in Iraq.
  • 12/7/2002 - Iraq submits a 12,200-page declaration to the UN documenting all its unconventional arms. US discredits the report because it does not mention the tubes or the Niger uranium.
  • 1/9/2003 - Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s IAEA, echoes DOE's view that the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq are likely for artillery rockets, not centrifuges. A senior Bush official responds, "I think the Iraqis are spinning the IAEA."
  • 1/9/2003 - After nearly two months, UN's Hans Blix says his inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq.
  • 1/28/2003 - In State of the Union, GW Bush says "the 16 words": "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush adds Saddam has "tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" and has "mobile biological weapons labs."
  • 1/29/2003 - "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country."—Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld
  • 1/31/2003 - Notes of meeting between GW Bush and Tony Blair make clear Bush intends to invade Iraq even if UN inspectors found no evidence of WMD. Bush told Blair he'd considered "flying U2 reconnaissance planes…over Iraq, painted in UN colors" to tempt Iraqi forces to fire on them, which would constitute a breach of UN resolutions. [Date the details of this meeting became public: 2/3/2006]
  • 2/5/2003 - In UN speech, UN Ambassador Colin Powell says, "Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Cites accounts of mobile weapons labs; that Saddam's son Qusay has ordered WMD removed from palace complexes; that key WMD files are being driven around Iraq by intelligence agents; that bioweapons warheads have been hidden in palm groves; that a water truck at an Iraqi military installation is a "decontamination vehicle" for chemical weapons; that Iraq has drones it can use for bioweapons attacks; and that WMD experts have been corralled into one of Saddam's guest houses.
  • 2/6/2003 - GW Bush says an Iraqi drone loaded with bioweapons could strike US mainland.
  • 2/7/2003 - Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld ups war length estimate: "It could last…six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
  • 2/7/2003 - Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warns of Al Qaeda "credible threats" and raises the terror alert level to orange.
  • 2/8/2003 - In radio address to the nation, GW Bush warns that "firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories" for germ warfare.
  • 2/10/2003 - Department of Homeland Security advises Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves against radiological or biological attack.
  • 2/14/2003 - Hans Blix again tells UN Security Council that Iraq appears to be cooperating with inspectors.
  • 2/15/2003 - Largest demonstrations in history. In 600 cities worldwide, millions protest war.
  • 2/23/2003 - "UN weapons inspectors are being seriously deceived…It reminds me of the way the Nazis hoodwinked Red Cross officials."—Bush adviser Richard Perle
  • 2/27/2003 - US diplomat John Brady Kiesling resigns, citing the "distortion of intelligence" and "systematic manipulation of American opinion."
  • 2/27/2003 - Deputy Sec. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz tells congressional hearing: "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators…the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark."
  • 3/16/2003 - VP Dick Cheney on Meet the Press: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
  • 3/20/2003 - 'Shock & Awe': US launches disastrous "Operation Iraqi Freedom" war on Iraq. No WMDs are ever found. Over a million Iraqis die; nearly 5,000 US troops die, 100,000 wounded.

(Timeline adapted from Mother Jones)

# # #

ACLU Suit Demands Release of US Government's 'Assassination Memos' | Common Dreams

ACLU Suit Demands Release of US Government's 'Assassination Memos' | Common Dreams

ACLU Suit Demands Release of US Government's 'Assassination Memos'

- Common Dreams staff

The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act to demand that the US government release basic — and accurate — information about the government’s targeted killing program.


In a statement, the ACLU said:

Our government’s deliberate and premeditated killing of American terrorism suspects raises profound questions that ought to be the subject of public debate. Unfortunately the Obama administration has released very little information about the practice — its official position is that the targeted killing program is a state secret — and some of the information it has released has been misleading.

Our suit overlaps with the one recently filed by The New York Times insofar as it seeks the legal memos on which the targeted killing program is based. But our suit is broader. We’re seeking, in addition to the legal memos, the government’s evidentiary basis for strikes that killed three Americans in Yemen in the fall of 2011. We’re also seeking information about the process by which the administration adds Americans to secret government “kill lists.” We think it’s crucial that the administration release the legal memos, but we don’t think the memos alone will allow the public to evaluate the lawfulness and wisdom of the program.

* * *

Reuters reports:


Some officials, including President Obama, have spoken on the record about the program. They have publicly claimed responsibility for killing al-Awlaki, and they have more generally defended the government’s right to kill citizens after a secret non-judicial process (Illustration by Bloomberg View )

The lawsuit asked a federal judge to order the agencies to produce any records that may have been generated in order to legally justify the targeted killing of U.S. citizens overseas.

"Despite requests from legal scholars, human rights organizations, members of the media, and elected officials, the U.S. government has not disclosed the process by which it adds names to so-called 'kill lists;' the standards under which it determines which Americans may be put to death; or the evidentiary bases on which it concludes that those standards were satisfied in any particular case," the lawsuit said.

A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The New York Times has filed a similar lawsuit. Both cases are before U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon.

The case is ACLU v. U.S. Dept of Justice et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No.12-0794.

* * *

Agence France-Presse references the three specific incidents referred to in the ACLU's request, reporting:

Anwar al-Awlaqi, the first US citizen to be put on a US list of militants targeted for assassination, was killed September 30 in an air strike in Yemen.

US officials accused Anwar al-Awlaqi of being a leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and linked him to two 2009 incidents: a US army major charged with shooting dead 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas, and a Nigerian student accused of trying to blow up a US airliner.

President Barack Obama said in September that Awlaqi's killing was a "major blow" to Al-Qaeda's Yemeni outfit, and marked "another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat Al-Qaeda and its affiliates."

The lawsuit also mentions US citizen Samir Khan, killed in the same attack on Awlaqi, as well as Awlaqi's 16-year-old son, Denver-born Abderrahman al-Awlaqi, killed in October in a separate suspected US air strike in Yemen.

* * *

Writing at Salon.com this morning, Glenn Greenwald says there's one main comment to be made on these developments:

...If you think about it, it is warped beyond belief that the ACLU has to sue the U.S. Government in order to force it to disclose its claimed legal and factual bases for assassinating U.S. citizens without charges, trial or due process of any kind. It’s extraordinary enough that the Obama administration is secretly targeting citizens for execution-by-CIA; that they refuse even to account for what they are doing — even to the point of refusing to disclose their legal reasoning as to why they think the President possesses this power — is just mind-boggling. Truly: what more tyrannical power is there than for a government to target its own citizens for death — in total secrecy and with no checks — and then insist on the right to do so without even having to explain its legal and factual rationale for what it is doing? Could you even imagine what the U.S. Government and its media supporters would be saying about any other non-client-state country that asserted and exercised this power?

And, Greenwald argues, one of the most important aspects to observe is the way the Obama administration champions the assassination program in various public venues when it serves their political and foreign policy goals, but 'exploits its secrecy powers' when challenged over the legality of its program by human rights and civil liberties groups like the ACLU:

Obama can go on TV shows and trigger applause for himself by boasting of the Awlaki killing. He can publicly accuse Awlaki of all sorts of crimes for which there has been no evidence presented. He can dispatch his aides to anonymously brag in newspapers about all the secret evidence showing Awlaki’s guilt and showing how resolute and tough the President is for ordering him executed. Justice Department and Pentagon officials scamper around in the dark flashing snippets of evidence about Awlaki to reporters like Temple-Raston so that they dutifully march forward to defend the government’s assassination program. Obama officials will anonymous insist in public that they have legal authority to target citizens for killing without trial.

But when it comes time to account in a court or under the law for the legal authority and factual basis for what they have done — in other words, when it comes time to demonstrate that they are actually acting legally when doing it — then, suddenly, everything changes. When they face the rule of law, then the program is so profoundly classified that it cannot be spoken of at all — indeed, the administration cannot even confirm or deny that it exists — and it therefore cannot be scrutinized by courts at all.

And finally:

This selective, manipulative abuse of secrecy reveals its true purpose. It has nothing to do with protecting national security; that’s proven by the Obama administration’s eagerness to boast about the program publicly and to glorify it when it helps the President politically. The secrecy instead has everything to do with (1) preventing facts that would be politically harmful from being revealed to the American public, and (2) shielding the President’s conduct from judicial review. And this cynical abuse of secrecy powers extends far beyond the Awlaki case; as the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer wrote in an excellent LA Times Op-Ed last year: “where the state’s ostensible secrets are concerned, it has become common for government officials to tell courts one thing — nothing — and reporters another.”

This line of critique directly mirrors the complaint by the ACLU in their statement yesterday:

The government’s self-serving attitude toward transparency and disclosure is unacceptable. Officials cannot be allowed to release bits of information about the targeted killing program when they think it will bolster their position, but refuse even to confirm the existence of a targeted killing program when organizations like the ACLU or journalists file FOIA requests in the service of real transparency and accountability. One news report indicates that the Obama administration may be planning to release more information about the targeted killing program. Let’s hope that’s true. The public has a right to know the evidence and legal basis for the deliberate targeted killing of U.S. citizens. So chilling a power must be opened to public scrutiny and debate.

# # #

Abu Sayyaf relies on kidnapping to survive

Abu Sayyaf relies on kidnapping to survive

MANILA, Philippines—With funding from the Middle East drying up and a decade of US-backed military pressure taking a toll, Islamic extremists in Mindanao are relying on kidnapping for their survival, experts say.

The kidnapping-for-ransom stings offer the extremists a vital source of income, with the best targets the brave or foolhardy foreigners who ignore travel warnings and drift into the most lawless parts of the south, they say.

The dangers were highlighted on Wednesday when two European men on a bird watching trip were kidnapped in Tawi-Tawi where the Al Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf and other militant groups are known to operate.

Their abductions bring to seven the number of foreigners believed to be being held by militants in the south, with one of them — an elderly Japanese man — not heard of since the middle of 2010.

“They (extremists) look at these foreigners as potential hostages and walking dollars,” said Rommel Banlaoi, executive director of the Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research, a Manila-based think-tank.

But while the kidnappings of foreigners often grab the headlines, many more Filipinos are abducted then quietly released after ransoms are paid.

The Abu Sayyaf carries out most of the kidnappings of foreigners, although smaller gangs are also known to snatch targets and sell them to the militants, according to Banlaoi and other security experts.

Banlaoi said that, based on his group’s study, about 90 percent of the Abu Sayyaf’s funding was now sourced from kidnapping and extortion activities.

Ransom payments are then used to buy more arms, pay off members, hire new recruits or bribe community elders to turn a blind eye to their crimes.

“They have simply realized that kidnap-for-ransom activities is an enterprise to finance their movement,” said Banlaoi, one of the few security analysts to have visited the militants in their strongholds.

The Abu Sayyaf first carried out mass abductions in the 1990s, and in the early part of the following decade launched kidnapping raids that netted them dozens of local, European and American hostages.

The militants’ beheaded several of their hostages when ransoms were not paid, including an American.

However the Abu Sayyaf’s brazenness made the group a prime target in the US-led global war on terror.

A rotating force of 600 US Special Forces was deployed to the southern Philippines at the beginning of 2002 to help train local troops in how to deal with the militant threat.

The campaign has had many high-profile successes, including the killing of a range of Abu Sayyaf leaders.

The US global campaign also led to funds from one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers and other Middle East sources drying up, said a Philippine police intelligence officer who asked not to be named.

“When the US launched its global war on terror, home grown jiadis found themselves with limited funds. They had to resort to other creative means, like KFR (kidnap-for-ransom),” the officer said.

The Abu Sayyaf’s numbers have declined from about 1,500 fighters in the late 1990s to just a few hundred today, according to Banlaoi.

Richard Jacobson, operations director at risk consultancy Pacific Strategies Assessment, said the remaining Abu Sayyaf were now focused on survival rather than their original avowed aim of establishing an Islamic state.

“Most ASG (Abu Sayyaf) elements have abandoned their terror credentials and have reverted to criminal activities such as kidnapping and extortion,” Jacobson told Agence France-Presse.

He said they were aided by lawlessness in the south, where warlords hold political posts and a much larger Muslim rebel group has been waging a separatist insurgency for decades.

“Essentially, some southern parts of the Philippines are assessed to be lawless territories… (where) the central government has very limited influence and capacity.”

For this reason, many foreign governments regularly issue advisories warning their citizens from travelling to parts of the southern region of Mindanao.

Like the two kidnapped Europeans, 53-year-old Australian Warren Rodwell ignored those warnings.

The ex-soldier decided to live last year in a southern town where kidnappings of locals had taken place, and reportedly told local authorities that he would be able to take care of himself if anyone tried to kidnap him.

But gunmen pulled Rodwell from his home in December, and the following month a video of him in captivity was made public in which he said his abductors wanted $2 million for his release.

He has not been heard from since.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Hawkish Group Report Pushes for Military Action Against Iran | Common Dreams

Hawkish Group Report Pushes for Military Action Against Iran | Common Dreams
Common Dreams staff

A report released today from the neoconservative Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Project calls for stepped-up rhetoric and military actions against Iran.


Report states U.S. must make clear "its willingness to use force" (photo: REUTERS/Stringer)

The report (pdf), co-authored by a 13-member bipartisan task force including John Hannah, Former National Security Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, General (ret.) Charles Wald,
Former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command, Mortimer Zuckerman, and Ambassador Eric Edelman, Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy under George W. Bush, is skeptical of talks with Iran and doubts the effectiveness of sanctions. The group states that the U.S. must do "whatever it takes" to stop a nuclear Iran and encourages Israel beefing up its military capabilites.

Reuters reports today:

There is little evidence to suggest that U.S. President Barack Obama has any significant interest in the possibility of a military strike against Iran, though his administration has repeatedly said that all options are on the table.

To a lesser degree there has also been debate about a U.S. attack, an idea advocated by former Pentagon defense planner Matthew Kroenig in his recent Foreign Affairs Magazine article, "Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option."

The BPC report repeats the drumbeat for war with its report today. From the executive summary:

Unless the United States soon takes a more assertive leadership role, Iran could develop nuclear weapons capability in 2012 and Israel is likely to feel compelled to take unilateral military action against Iran. We must stop the clock.

Doing so will require demonstrating resolve to do whatever it takes to prevent a nuclear Iran. While we hope for a peaceful settlement, we recognize that additional leverage is required to enable it. For that reason we endorse the triple-track approach called for in previous BPC reports: diplomacy, robust sanctions, and credible, visible preparations for a military option of last resort. To augment the latter we call on U.S. leaders to enhance Israeli military capabilities so as to put additional pressure on the Iranian regime. At this late date, it is only the threat of force, combined with sanctions, that affords any realistic hope of an acceptable diplomatic resolution.

The group is skeptical of any benefits of sanctions:

With the impact of additional sanctions questionable, additional pressure on the Iranian regime to negotiate in good faith can come from the credible threat of military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Realistically, that threat can come only from the United States or Israel. Regrettably, senior Obama administration officials have suggested that there is little or no likelihood that the United States would ever actually use force, and they have conveyed opposition to an Israeli strike as well.

The group foresees military action like this:

Should these measures – in conjunction with diplomatic and economic pressures already being pursued – not compel Tehran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military is capable of launching an effective surgical strike against Iran’s nuclear program. An air campaign would last several weeks and target both key military and nuclear installations. It would not target civilian facilities, and ought to initiallylimit ground troops to Special Forces. Such action would only set back Iranian nuclear development, but not destroy Iranian nuclear knowledge. Still, it might persuade Tehran that the costs of continuing its nuclear program are too high. The fallout of Israel’s strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility in 1981 may be instructive; although it was estimated that the attack would set back Iraq’s nuclear program three years, Baghdad never rebuilt the reactor, though it did continue a covert nuclear program. Thus, taking military action would require continued vigilance in the years that follow, both to retain the ability to strike previously undiscovered sites and to ensure that Iran does not revive its military nuclear program.

Writing on Al Jazeera today, Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, writes:

...the international discourse on nuclear weapons is so distorted that it is a rarity to encounter criticism of its discriminatory application, its double standards as between nuclear and non-nuclear states, and its geopolitical style of selective enforcement. In this regard, it should be appreciated that the threat of military attack directed at Iran resembles reliance on the so-called Bush Doctrine of preventive war that had been used to justify aggression against Iraq in 2003, and represents a blatant geopolitical override of international law.

Wikileaks Founder Faces Extradition; Shadows of US Intention Loom | Common Dreams

Wikileaks Founder Faces Extradition; Shadows of US Intention Loom | Common Dreams
Common Dreams staff

The first day of Julian Assange's appeal hearing has come to a close after his legal team made arguments against efforts to extradict the Wikileaks' founder to Sweden. Assange's Lawyer, Dinah Rose QC, argued that the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued against Assange is invalid. A Swedish prosecutor had requested the warrant, not a judge, which Rose is arguing delegitimizes the arrest. The two-day hearing will continue tomorrow as the Swedish prosecution is set to offer rebuttal.

Dissenter/FireDogLake has been providing updates throughout the day:

The European arrest warrant (EAW) system has been the focus of the hearing. The hearing opened with Dinah Rose QC of Assange’s legal team arguing, according to Alexi Mostrous, that European arrest warrants are “built on trust and a streamlining of such proceedings is to be balanced by protection of rights.” She went over European extradition law going all the way back to 1957. She cited a case before the European Court of Human Rights on whether a Swedish public prosecutor is “proper judicial authority.” And said that High Court judges nor Swedes have produced a definition of “judicial authority.”

Rose called the lower court’s ruling “inconsistent” with “judicial authority” and said it was obvious such authority must be independent of the executive and other parties. [...]

Should Assange lose the case, he will be extradited for trial in Sweden, where he will face not only a 'closed door' hearing, but also possible 'surrender' to the US. John Pilger provides additional analysis at the New Statesman:

"The Obama administration's determination to crush Assange is revealed in secret Australian government documents, released under Freedom of Information, which describe Washington's pursuit of WikiLeaks as "unprecedented"." -- John PilgerThe consequences, if [Assange] loses, lie not in Sweden but in the shadows cast by America’s descent into totalitarianism. In Sweden, he is at risk of being “temporarily surrendered” to the US, where his life has been threatened and he is accused of “aiding the enemy” with Bradley Manning, the young soldier accused of leaking evidence of US war crimes to WikiLeaks.

The connections between Manning and Assange have been concocted by a secret grand jury in Virginia that allowed no defence counsel or witnesses, and by a system of plea-bargaining that ensures a 90 per cent conviction rate. It is reminiscent of a Soviet show trial.

The Obama administration's determination to crush Assange is revealed in secret Australian government documents, released under Freedom of Information, which describe Washington's pursuit of WikiLeaks as "unprecedented". It is unprecedented because it subverts the First Amendment of the US constitution, which protects truth-tellers such as WikiLeaks. In 2008 Barack Obama said, "Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." Obama has since prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers as all previous US presidents.

* * *

Back to London, The Guardian reports:

Assange was earlier greeted outside the UK's highest court by supporters playing protest songs and holding placards demanding his release from bail conditions. Inside a packed court 1, Assange listened and took notes as (Assange's lawyer, Dinah) Rose, argued that the formation of a European framework decision on crossborder extradition arrangements showed "decisions with serious implications for personal liberties should only be taken by independent judicial authorities".

She said: "The words 'judicial authority' can only be understood as meaning an independent judge or a person executing equivalent power."

She said that to include public prosecutors in the concept of what is a judicial authority was "contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law".

* * *

The Guardian has provided live updates throughout the day and will do so again tomorrow here.

* * *

Sky News is providing a live stream of the hearing here.

# # #