French Intel's Inflitration of Al-Qieda made it "Transparent"

Hello everyone, I'm back, and I'm slowly coming out of vacationing (its just go FUN) but this story, however, prompted my return. The following is from the Liberal site The Democratic Underground, about a story who was extremely mistranslated by Newsweek from a French Magazine has been challenged, and the poster gives the blockbuster news that that story REALLY contained. It shows we more than likely recieved info before 9/11 that something was coming. And when this story ponits out the same french paragraph, and shows how the "mis" translation went, it is ludcirous. Here is the original post on the DU:

"I assume it's because so few Americans read French. I guess a wire service wrote a blurb about the French story, and American papers are summarizing the blurb rather than the original le Monde story.

I'm amazed at this Newsday "translation," of the Le Monde report that appeared Monday:





"But the French warning hinted at a plot in Europe, not the United States, and there was no suggestion of suicide attacks or multiple planes. One former official said al-Qaida may have leaked misinformation to divert intelligence agencies from the bigger, deadlier plot to come on Sept. 11, 2001.

The warning was another example of how intelligence agents sensed al-Qaida was hard at work in the months leading up to Sept. 11 but were unable to piece together fragmented warnings into a coherent plot.



Now compare that to what the Le Monde article actually says. I’ve tried to translate the French into idiomatic English so that it is easier to understand it. Words in brackets <> are either inserted to make sense or alternative translations of specific words:



Dès janvier 2001, la direction d'Al-Qaida se montre néanmoins transparente aux yeux – et aux oreilles – des espions français. Les rédacteurs détaillent même les désaccords entre terroristes sur les modalités pratiques du détournement envisagé. Jamais ils ne doutent de leur intention. Provisoirement, les djihadistes privilégient la capture d'un avion entre Francfort et les Etats-Unis. Ils établissent une liste de sept compagnies possibles. Deux seront finalement choisies par les pirates du 11-Septembre : American Airlines et United Airlines (voir fac-similé). Dans son introduction, l'auteur de la note annonce : "Selon les services ouzbeks de renseignement, le projet d'un détournement d'avion semble avoir été discuté en début d'année 2000 lors d'une réunion à Kaboul entre des représentants de l'organisation d'Oussama Ben Laden…"

By January 2001, Al-Qaida’s direction, however, has become transparent to the eyes - and the ears - of French spies. The writers even detail the operational disagreements between terrorists about how they envision the hijackings. They never doubt the intentions. For a while, the jihadists focus on hijacking a plane between Frankfurt and the United States. They draw up a list of seven possible airline companies. The pirates of 9/11 finally chose two: American Airlines and United Airlines (see facsimiled). In his introduction, the author of the note announces: “According to the Uzbek service’s information, the hijacking project seems to have been be discussed at the beginning of 2000 at a meeting in Kabul between representatives of Usama Bin Laden’s organization…”

Des espions ouzbeks renseignent donc les agents français. A l'époque, l'opposition des fondamentalistes musulmans au régime pro-américain de Tachkent s'est fédérée dans le Mouvement islamique d'Ouzbékistan, le MIO. Une faction militaire de ce parti, emmenée par un certain Taher Youdachev, a rejoint les camps d'Afghanistan et prêté allégeance à Oussama Ben Laden, lui promettant d'exporter son djihad en Asie centrale. Des livrets militaires et des correspondances du MIO, trouvés dans des camps afghans d'Al-Qaida, en attestent.

The Uzbek spies thus inform the French agents. During this period, Islamic fundamentalist opposition to the pro-American policy of Tachkent, united to form the Islamic Movement of Ouzbékistan, the MIO. A military faction of this party, created by a certain Taher Youdachev, joined the camps in Afghanistan and pledged allegiance to Osama Bin Laden, promising him to export jihad to Central Asia . Military records and correspondences of the MIO, found in Afghan Al-Qaida camps, confirm this.

Alain Chouet a gardé en mémoire cet épisode. Il a dirigé jusqu'en octobre 2002 le Service de renseignement de sécurité, la subdivision de la DGSE chargée de suivre les mouvements terroristes. Selon lui, la crédibilité du canal ouzbek trouve son origine dans les alliances passées par le général Rachid Dostom, l'un des principaux chefs de guerre afghans, d'ethnie ouzbek lui aussi, et qui combat alors les talibans. Pour plaire à ses protecteurs des services de sécurité de l'Ouzbékistan voisin, Dostom a infiltré certains de ses hommes au sein du MIO, jusque dans les structures de commandement des camps d'Al-Qaida. C'est ainsi qu'il renseigne ses amis de Tachkent, en sachant que ses informations cheminent ensuite vers Washington, Londres ou Paris.

Alain Chouet recalls this episode. Until October 2002, he was the director the Security Information Service, the subdivision of the DGSE charged with tracking terrorists' movements. According to him , the credibility of the Uzbek channel originated in the past alliances of General Rachid Dostom, one of the principal Afghan warlords, who is also an ethnic Uzbek, and who was then fighting the Taliban. In order to please his protectors in the Uzbek security service, he infiltrated some of his men in the heart of the MIO up to the very command structure of the al Qaeda camps. Thus, he informed his friends in Tachkent with the knowledge that his information would proceed onwards to Washington, London or Paris.

La formulation de la note française de janvier 2001 indique clairement que d'autres sources corroborent ces renseignements sur les plans d'Al-Qaida. Selon un dispositif bien huilé en Afghanistan, la DGSE ne se contente pas d'échanges avec des services secrets amis. Pour percer les secrets des camps, d'une part elle manipule et "retourne" des jeunes candidats au djihad originaires des banlieues des grandes villes d'Europe. D'autre part, elle envoie des hommes du service action auprès de l'Alliance du Nord du commandant Massoud. Sans compter les interceptions des téléphones satellitaires.

The formulation of the French note of January 2001 states clearly that other sources corroborate this information within Al-Qaida. According to the well oiled machine in Afghanistan, the DGSE was not satisfied with exchanges with friendly secret services. In order to pierce the secrecy of the camps, it on the one hand, manipulated and “turned” young male applicants for jihadist from the suburbs of large European cities, and on the other hand it stationed with the Northern Alliance commander Massoud . Not to mention intercepting satellite telephones.



The revelation here is the level of penetration into al Qaeda. The French have Uzbeks posing as jihadists in the command structure of al Qaeda; they have European born or based Muslims posing as jihadists in the al Qaeda camps; they are listening to their satellite conversations.

They have such sweeping and deep penetration of al Qaeda, that al Qaeda had become “transparent” to French intelligence. They even listen in to the jihadists debates about which airlines to strike and which airline routes to hijack. Their eyes and ears are there when it is decided months before 9/11 to hit American Airlines and United Airlines.

This is almost the complete opposite of the English language description of the article, which claims that the French had some information, but couldn’t put the pieces together.

All of this information was passed to the CIA Station Chief in Paris, Bill Murray, one of the highest ranking overseas CIA officers, one who is embedded in the heart of NATO’s intelligence structure – and incidentally who apppears to be a stand up guy who later would try to quash the Niger yellow cake hokum, a guy who thereafter retired (or was retired) from the agency, but is reluctant to talk to the press because his CIA “contracts” could be withdrawn in revenge.

Also unprecedented in the French report is the disclosure that the forces of Northern Alliance warlord General Rashid Dostum were a significant source of intelligence on al Qaeda before 9/11. You may recall that Gen. Dostum has been a destabilizing force in post Taliban Afghanistan, and was responsible for the massacre of surrendered Taliban forces after the seige of Kunduz, in which up to 1,000 surrendered insurgents were loaded in shipping containers and allowed to die of thirst and exposure, and many of the remainder were raked with machine gun fire when they screamed for water.

Other aspects of the English language translation and summary of the French news story are laughable. The Newsday version is that "But the French warning hinted at a plot in Europe, not the United States, and there was no suggestion of suicide attacks or multiple planes."

The original French version is that "And initially a surprise: the high number of notes devoted only to the threats of Al-Qaida against the United States, in the months before the suicide attacks in New York and Washington. Nine reports/ratios entirely on this subject between September 2000 and August 2001.

Do they think that we're that stupid? That everyone in the United States is too lazy to look at Le Monde's website, and that even if we did, not one of us can read French?

Now for my own speculation about why this Le Monde report is so important. If both French intelligence and the lowly Uzbek intelligence service and a Northern alliance warlord, Rashid Dostum, have penetrated al Qaeda up to the command structure, and if other friendly middle eastern intelligence services also warned the US of the 9/11 attacks, is it reasonable to believe these other intelligence agencies also penetrated al Qaeda so completely?

Is it reasonable to assume that Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi or even Palestinian Authority intelligence might also have slipped some operatives into the Afghan al Qaeda camps to keep an eye on what was going on there? Might the Mossad during the closing era of good feelings between the Barak administration and the Palestinian Authority have slipped an operative or two into the al Qaeda camps? Wouldn't the Russians have slipped in a few "turned" or make believe Chechens and the Chinese a few fake Uyghurs? Might actual penetration of al Qaeda have been the source of the many warnings by foreign intelligence agencies about the impending attacks, and if so, were they more concrete than we have been led to believe?

Considering that even the lone American, John Walker Lindh, was able to walk into the training camps and get training, can we conclude that prior to 9/11 al Qaeda recruited indiscriminately and that its counter intelligence capacity was pathetic?

If Uzbek intelligence was so good, and the Uzbekistan was in the tight embrace of the US, what intelligence might the US have been receiving in Tachkent?

Also note that the French story completely discredits assertions by both the Clinton and Bush administrations that they had no human intelligence on the ground, in the camps. Apparently, the west did. This makes sense as disinformation: of course both administrations would not want to disclose to the enemy that they had intelligence sources fairly high up in the al Qaeda structure, because such operatives might have been outed and killed, and al Qaeda would have taken counter measures to avoid such infiltration.

This might explain away one of the raps against the Clinton administration -- namely, that when they had bin Laden located in the camps, the military had to get clearance at the highest levels (ie the president) in order to launch cruise missiles. The Le Monde reporting explains why: a missile could easily have killed friendly intelligence operatives within the camp command structures. If my speculation is correct, an errant cruise missile would have slaughtered a virtual United Nations of friendly intelligence operatives.

The Le Monde report does not disclose what is in the French intelligence reports closer to 9/11. So, I suspect that there will be follow up reporting by the author, Guillaume Dasquiéfrom, on the 328 page dossier.

Also of interest is why someone in French intelligence leaked this dossier now. A post in the other thread asks why the mainstream media is picking up on this old news. It's not old news. Someone in French intelligence has decided to drop a bombshell now.

The set up of the French article is almost funny: Guillaume Dasquié walks into the office of Emmanuel Renoult, private secretary of the director of French intelligence, plops down the 328 page dossier, and the private secretary deplores this breach of intelligence and refuses to comment. Dasquie then confronts the former private secretary of the director of central intelligence with the 328 page dossier, who (presumably gulps hard first and) blurts out something to the effect of, but of course no one could have imagined that hijacked planes would be used as missiles ... The western press duly reports in English that the Le Monde news story confirms that prior to 9/11 no one in French intelligence suspected that planes would be used as missiles. My capacity to grasp French irony in print may be limited, but I don't think that's the meaning Dasquie had in mind.

I wonder if someone in French intelligence finally smells blood in the water across the pond in Washington."

Out for a Bit

Sorry for the lack of posts, I have been on a much needed break, but I will be back shortly. Love ya guya!
Chris

BREAKING: Atty General Shopping

Washington Insiders have confirmed that the White House is shopping around for "possible" canditates.  Also, a real good source told me more emails are coming out and they believe the Attorney General will be gone by the end of the week.....start circulating that resume my friend!

technorati tags:Attorney, General, Gonzolaz, Resign, Removed, Fired

Blogged with Flock

President's Speech: Something Missing

Here is the following, in its whole, the speech President Bush made marking the start of the fifth year of the Iraq war.  See if you can find something that stands out.....because its NOT there!

 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Four years ago today, coalition forces 
  launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to remove Saddam Hussein from power.  They 
  did so to eliminate the threat his regime posed to the Middle East and to the 
  world.  Coalition forces carried out that mission with great courage and 
  skill.  Today the world is rid of Saddam Hussein and a tyrant has been held to 
  account for his crimes by his own people. 
   
  
  
 
     Nearly 12 million Iraqis have voted in free elections under a democratic 
  constitution that they wrote for themselves.  And their democratic leaders are 
  now working to build a free society that upholds the rule of law, that 
  respects the rights of its people, that provides them security and is an ally 
  in the war on terror. 
   
  
  
 
     At this point in the war, our most important mission is helping the Iraqis 
  secure their capital.  Until Baghdad's citizens feel secure in their own homes 
  and neighborhoods, it will be difficult for Iraqis to make further progress 
  toward political reconciliation or economic rebuilding, steps necessary for 
  Iraq to build a democratic society. 
   
  
  
 
     So with our help, Iraq's government is carrying out an aggressive plan to 
  secure Baghdad.  And we're continuing to train the Iraqi security forces so 
  that they ultimately take full responsibility for the security of their own 
  people. 
   
  
  
 
     I've just received an update on the situation from Iraqi Prime Minister 
  Maliki.   My conversation with the Prime Minister followed a briefing earlier 
  this morning that included Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates, along with 
  General Petraeus and Ambassador Khalilzad, who participated by video 
  conference from Iraq. 
   
  
  
 
     Prime Minister Maliki and General Petraeus emphasized that the Baghdad 
  security plan is still in its early stages, and success will take months, not 
  days or weeks.  Yet, those on the ground are seeing some hopeful signs.  The 
  Iraqi government has completed the deployment of three Iraqi army brigades to 
  the capital, where they've joined the seven Iraqi army brigades and nine 
  national police brigades that were already in the area. 
   
  
  
 
     The Iraqi government has also lifted restrictions that once prevented 
  Iraqi and coalition forces from going into areas like SadrCity.  American and 
  Iraqi forces have established joint security stations.  Those stations are 
  scattered throughout Baghdad and they're helping Iraqis reclaim their 
  neighborhoods from the terrorists and extremists. 
   
  
  
 
     Together, we've carried out aggressive operations against both Shia and 
  Sunni extremists; carried out operations against al Qaeda terrorists.   We've 
  uncovered large caches of weapons and destroyed two major car bomb factories 
  that were located on the outskirts of Baghdad. 
   
  
  
 
     I want to stress that this operation is still in the early stages, it's 
  still in the beginning stages.  Fewer than half of the troop reinforcements we 
  are sending have arrived in Baghdad.  The new strategy will need more time to 
  take effect.  And there will be good days, and there will be bad days ahead as 
  the security plan unfolds. 
   
  
  
 
     As we help the Iraqis secure their capital, their leaders are also 
  beginning to meet the benchmarks they have laid out for political 
  reconciliation.  Last month, Iraq's Council of Ministers approved a law that 
  would share oil revenues among Iraqi people.  The Iraqi legislature passed a 
  $41 billion budget that includes $10 billion for reconstruction and capital 
  improvements.  And last week, Prime Minister Maliki visited Ramadi, a city in 
  the Sunni heartland, to reach out to local Sunni tribal leaders. 
   
  
  
 
     There's been good progress.  There's a lot more work to be done, and 
  Iraq's leaders must continue to work to meet the benchmarks that have set 
  forward. 
   
  
  
 
     As Iraqis work to keep their commitments, we have important commitments of 
  our own.  Members of Congress are now considering an emergency war spending 
  bill.  They have a responsibility to ensure that this bill provides the funds 
  and the flexibility that our troops need to accomplish their mission.  They 
  have a responsibility to pass a clean bill that does not use funding for our 
  troops as leverage to get special interest spending for their districts.  And 
  they have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and 
  without delay. 
   
  
  
 
     It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best 
  option is to pack up and go home.  That may be satisfying in the short run, 
  but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating.  If 
  American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a 
  contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country.  In time, 
  this violence could engulf the region.  The terrorists could emerge from the 
  chaos with a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they had in Afghanistan, 
  which they used to plan the attacks of September the 11th, 2001.  For the 
  safety of the American people, we cannot allow this to happen. 
   
  
  
 
     Prevailing in Iraq is not going to be easy.   General Petraeus says that 
  the environment in Iraq is the most challenging that he has seen in his more 
  than 32 years of service.  He also says that he has been impressed by the 
  professionalism and the skill and determination of our men and women in 
  uniform.  He sees in our troops "a true will to win and a sincere desire to 
  help our Iraqi partners achieve success." 
   
  
  
 
     Four years after this war began, the fight is difficult, but it can be 
  won.  It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through. 
  I'm grateful to our servicemen and women for all they've done and for the 
  honor they brought to their uniform and their country.  I'm grateful to our 
  military families for all the sacrifices they have made for our country.  We 
  also hold in our hearts the good men and women who've given their lives in 
  this struggle.  We pray for the loved ones they have left behind. 
   
  
  
 
     The United States military is the most capable and courageous fighting 
  force in the world.  And whatever our differences in Washington, our troops 
  and their families deserve the appreciation and the support of our entire 
  nation. 
   
      Thank you. 
   
      END 
      11:38 A.M. EDT 
   
  
  

 
  
Well, what would it be my friends?  SHOULD have been in the very first paragraph. 
 
  
.
  
.
  
.
  
.
  
.
  
.still no?
  
.
  
.
  
.
  
.
  
.WMD!  Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mushroom Cloud, Biological and Chemical Weapons, ANY of these would have been correct (as well as all of them). 
  

technorati tags:Bush, Speech, Something, Missing

Blogged with Flock

White House Now Issuing "Hopes"

Today, White House Spokesman Tony Snow, when asked wether embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez would stay on during the entire Bush term, Tony issued a weak little "Well, we hope so." Now, since members of the Cabinet, after confirmed by the Senate, serves at the pleasure of the President (although I'm sure right about now, that phrase sends chills down his back as many times as we have heard it in the past few days), then either Bush and/or the rest of the Cabinet (or majority) do NOT have confidence in him anymore OR they are worried about impeachment of Gonzalez. The "Texas Click" finally seems to be thinning....rather rapidly.

technorati tags:Gonzales, Alberto, Attorney, General, Impeachment, Prosecutors

Blogged with Flock

A Constitutional Question: Someone Please Clarify

Since the major news broke Monday about Sibel Edmond's case (that, I mind you, is extremely explosive, but nevertheless it has been blacklisted my every major TV, Print, and Internet (with the exception of Raw Story, LOVE YA!), I have been thinking (and you don't understand, when I set my mind to think about an issue, I try to see it from every possible angle, which can be time consuming, and in the midst of my thinking (which can be dangerous sometimes :-D) a Constitutional question came up about Sibel Edmonds and similar Whistleblowers cases concerning Congress. It is my understanding that Congress (The House of Representatives as well as the Senate) is one of three EQUAL branches of Government. It is also my understanding that it is the Constitutional requirement, in which they all take a vow to protect and defend, to have oversight of the Executive Branch, the second Separate but Equal Branch of Government who, if I'm not mistaken, has a wide scope in the control of ALL Classified Information, and the third Separate but Equal Branch being the Judicial System, basically being an arbitrator and interpreting the laws, as well as the Constitution, and making sure justice is administered. In Edmonds case, it seems that there has been a total breakdown (but there is a light at the end of the tunnel still burning bright) of the system. The Executive Branch, through then Attorney General John Ashcroft, eventually placed three separate rarely used "State Secret Privilege" to issue a gag order and deny her the Justice she is entitled to, as an American Citizen who has valiantly served her country, under our Constitution. Before we go any further, I would like to divert your attention to the State Secret Privilege for a minute. This privilege, conferred onto the Executive Branch by the Judicial Branch is not even a law, but an interpretation of a case, to be specific United States v. Reynolds. Since the Wikipedia article explains it much better than I ever could, and any Wikipedia article is copyright free, so here it is in full (its short, don't worry):

United States v. Reynolds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) is a landmark legal case in 1953 that saw the creation of the State Secrets Privilege, an unofficial but judicially-recognized extension of presidential power.

The widows of 3 crew members of a B-29 Superfortress bomber that had crashed in 1948 sought accident reports on the crash, but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission.

In 2000, the accident reports were declassified and released, and were found to contain no secret information. They did, however, contain information about the poor state of condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in the landmark case.

Now, isn't it amazing how there were in fact no secrets in their, the government got this abusive privilege by covering up an embarrassing Air Force accident. Okay, back to my question: How can the Executive Branch of Government block Sibel Edmonds from speaking with any Member of Congress, especially the Intel Committee Members who would definitely have the clearance. Although she has talked some in classified sessions, that's the problem, Congress is being complicit in the cover up by not holding pubic hearings (yet!). And, if there is a Member of the House of Representatives who knows any of the gagged material that Sibel Edmonds cannot legally tell, he or she may reveal this information on the Floor of the House without fear of persecution, no matter what is said. So, I guess I'm asking am I right in all of my aspects of Constitutional analysis, since I am no Constitutional expert.

White House Says VETO for Whistleblower Protection

And of course, it is obviously to save their own embarrassment and possible criminal conviction of many in our Government, elected and un-elected, and that would just be too shameful for our Country (oh yeah, and its also to "protect certain US Business Interests" although I wonder if a majority of the citizens benefit from this "business protection" or if its the people with the money (DUH!)). I received this email from Sibel, and it is basically a statement issued by the Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget, stating all these unconvincing reasons why they disagree with the material of the bill and states that "senior advisers to the President will recommend a veto" which is basically a confirmation of a veto. Here is the text, in full:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503



March 13, 2007

(House)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 985 – Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007

(Rep. Waxman (D) CA and 24 cosponsors)



The Administration supports accountability and transparency in the
implementation of Federal programs. However, the Administration
strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 985 because it could compromise
national security, is unconstitutional, and is overly burdensome and
unnecessary. Rather than promote and protect genuine disclosures of
matters of real public concern, it would likely increase the number of
frivolous complaints and waste resources. If H.R. 985 were presented
to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the
bill.



H.R. 985 would expand, for the first time, whistleblower protections
to employees at national security agencies who disclose classified
information to Congress. H.R. 985 would permit an employee to make an
individualized determination – without further review and perhaps
without all relevant information – to disclose classified information.
Such an independent, uncoordinated decision to disclose classified
information could jeopardize not only national security programs, but
also the security of the people involved in such programs. The
President now has the necessary authority to control the circumstances
under which others receive classified and national security
information to ensure such information is not disclosed or used in a
way that would jeopardize national security. By vesting subordinate
Executive branch officials with a right to disclose classified
information outside of the Executive branch without receiving official
authorization from the President or his official designee, the bill
would impede the President's necessary coordination function. In
addition, in any litigation concerning a whistleblower, if the
government invokes the state secrets privilege, H.R. 985 would require
that the matter at issue be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. This
essentially would require the agency to choose between protecting
national security information in court or conceding lawsuits.
Finally, H.R. 985 would allow administrative and judicial review of
Executive branch security clearance determinations, a prerogative that
must be within the Executive branch's discretion for the protection of
national security programs and personnel.



The expanded definition of protected disclosures in H.R. 985 also
would upset the delicate balance between whistleblower protection and
the ability of Federal managers to manage the workforce by permitting
employees to bring a whistleblower complaint in response to almost
every adverse employment action. The existing protections guaranteed
by the Whistleblower Protection Act are sufficient to promote and
protect genuine disclosures of matters of public concern by offering
protection from adverse personnel actions to employees who report
government wrongdoing to those in a position to remedy the problem.
The proposed expansive definition has the potential to convert any
disagreement over an issue or contrary interpretation of a law between
employees, no matter how trivial or frivolous, into a whistleblower
disclosure. The proposed expansive definition also would permit
employees to impede legitimate investigations (even those by
Inspectors General) by arguing that such investigation itself was an
adverse action against the whistleblower. Instead of providing
further protection to those with legitimate claims, who are covered by
the existing law, the proposed definition likely will increase the
number of frivolous claims of whistleblower reprisal, compromise
legitimate investigations into wrongdoing, and create protections for
disgruntled employees whose jobs would not otherwise be secure.



H.R. 985 also would permit employees to engage in judicial forum
shopping in having their claims resolved. Whistleblowers already have
the right to seek corrective action for an unlawful personnel action
from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and are afforded judicial
review before the Federal Circuit. H.R. 985 would allow employees to
have their claims heard de novo in any federal district court, which
could result in two trials (rather than one) for each employee's
complaint, and might result in divergent local district court
interpretations and split circuit court decisions.



* * * * *


Well, Mr. President, may I ask if you and your Administration so disapprove of this bill, but you do support Whistleblower protection and Government transparency (which, I'm not sure if you've been notified, but your Administration has been the MOST non-transparent Administration in history, especially when it comes to National Security Whistleblower Sibel Edmond's case, who has been gagged with a state secrets gag order an unprecedented THREE times), then I ask that you and your Administration get in a little meeting and draw up COMPREHENSIVE National Security Whistleblower Protection as well as increased Government Transparency Bill, and release it for all of us to see who are pretty well informed of your antics in these issues, as well as other Professionals, and see if it musters up (I'm very doubtful though, but the offer is there).

A Drop of Water in the US-Iran Diplomatic Freeze

It seem's like maybe a DROP of water fell off the big ice block that is U.S.-Diplomatic relations. US and Iranian diplomatic enjoys spoke to each other directly, one-on-one, (if I'm not mistaken, the VERY frist time this has happened since the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979) even though the talks were confined to Iraq's security, which U.S. officials say Iran is playing a huge role in supplying weapons to Iraqi Insurgents. This one on one session is a potentional HUGE breakthrough in US-Iranian relations (although, if you put it in the context of history, Japan was talking "peace" with us, even giving us a medal from their country, all the while planning, and finally executing the attack on Pearl Harbor, but, that is diplomacy for you) This conference happened in Baghgdad and gathered all the regional powers, and the US of course, and the conference's theme was "How to End Iraq's Violence." Here is a dencently lenghtly quote from the AP article:

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said he exchanged viewswith Iranian delegates "directly and in the presence of others" at thegathering led by Iraq's neighbors and the five permanent members of theU.N. Security Council.

He declined to give details of the contacts - calling them only"constructive and businesslike and problem-solving" - but noted that heraised U.S. assertions that Shiite militias receive weapons andassistance across the border from Iran.

Thechief Iranian envoy, Abbas Araghchi, said he restated his country'sdemands for a clear timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces,which he insisted have made Iraq a magnet for extremists from acrossthe Muslim world.

"Violence in Iraq is good for no country in the region," said Araghchi,deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, at apost-meeting news conference.

Araghchi said he did not meet privately with Khalilzad, but that alld ialogue "was within the framework of the meeting" - which he said had"very good interaction by all the delegations."

Even our Ambassador is quoted as agreeing that this is the first step in unfreezing relations (however, if you intend to get that Ice really melting, your going to have to bring how a big fire (and NO, I don't mean a bomb) and really start using the State Department for what it is for: diplomacy betweeen the US and ALL (Reminder to Secretary of State Rice as well as all those others that work there under her: ALL means talking to your enemies as well, infact, talking to your enemies, in my opinion, is more important than talking to old, rock solid allies).

Here is one more quote that the AP through in to give us ALL some hope (and when I say ALL, I mean everyone without the mentality of Ann Coulter "Let's invade their countires, kill their leader's and convert them to Christianity," you know, the normal people not a member of the American Enterprise Institute): "The discussions were limited and focused on Iraq and I don't want to speculate after that" Ambassador Khalilzad said."

technorati tags:Iran, US, Relations, Unfreezing, Iraq, Baghdad, Tehran, Khalilzad

Blogged with Flock

Open Letter to ANY Major Media Outlet

To whom it may concern:

There was a time in our history where the newspapers (and if there were the internet and such back then, I'm sure they would be included too) and later on, TV news stations, was the watchdog for the people, the one's who kept tabs on our Government and exposed the officials/agencies who did wrong. They used their first amendment right to the fullest, and it didn't matter what party the fallout of a story would effect. Today, I hate to say, the media are in the pockets of the very people they are supposed to be watching. The media still has a total blackout on the blockbuster story of the two FBI Whislteblowers coming foward, revealing that the FBI abused FISA warrents and confirmed the story of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. Its amazing that no one will touch this story. I just want to know why!

Washington Rocked, Libby Convicted

Former Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney, "Scooter" Libby, has been convicted on 4 of the 5 charges stemming from the Valarie Plame Investigation, more on this story as it develops....