UPDATE 18 March: The New York Times has discovered the story, “Pentagon Sees a Threat From Online Muckrakers”.
—
For those of us looking for the story behind the story, Wikileaks has been a valuable source since 2007. Its revelations are not limited to one Government or case; rather, in the name of openness, it has been a site for exposure of the misdeeds and manipulations of those in power from China to the US to the United Nations.
In its latest scoop, Wikileaks reveals how the US Government tried to cripple the activities of….Wikileaks. The website summarises a 32-page classified (Secret/No Foreign Dissemination) report from the US Army:
The report recommends, “The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site.”….As an odd justificaton for the plan, the report claims that “several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website”.
The opening of the report:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org, a publicly accessible Internet Web site, represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security (INFOSEC) threat to the US Army.
2100 GMT: Chahrshanbeh Suri. An activist reports a conversation with a relative in Gisha in Tehranm, who said basiji were roaming the streets on their bikes and tried to stop people celebrating. Told of a report that said nothing political had happened tonight, the relative answered, “In Iran everything is political.”
2010 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. More temporary releases — Behzad Nabavi, a leader of the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution Party serving a five-year term for “crimes against national security”, and journalist and economist Saeed Laylaz have been freed until 4 April. Laylaz posted $500,000 bail.
2000 GMT: Chahrshanbeh Suri Reza Sayah of CNN reports, via a Tehran witness, that police are spray painting passing cars that toss firecrackers out of windows. Basiji used tasers and batons to chase away 300 partiers near Mehr Park in Farmanieh.
2133 GMT: More Death Penalties or Old News? There’s chatter tonight about a supposed announcement of “six death sentences” for protesters on Ashura (27 December), featured on The New York Times website.
We’re being careful about this. Our perception is that the announcement is merely the restatement of death sentences which have already been announced by the Tehran Prosecutor General’s office, rather than — as the NYT piece indicates — a new set of capital punishments.
2130 GMT: We’ve posted a separate entry on the developing story of the ban on the Islamic Iran Participation Front.
1945 GMT: Resisting the Empire of Lies. Responding to the Government’s assertion that it has been banned (see 1650 GMT), the reformist party Islamic Iran Participation Front calls on all political and social activists to continue their social struggles and not to “give in to the empire of lies”. The IIPF claimed that the attempted ban reveals the “weakness of the government” and that civil institutions and activists will “grow and expand” their activities.
1940 GMT: Power, Money, and Oil. The engineering firm owned by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps has been awarded an $850 million oil pipeline contract.
2110 GMT: Not-Over-The-Top Statement of Today. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying to a Congressional committee, reveals that the current manoeuvres over Iran’s uranium enrichment are just like the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis:
My reading of what happened with President Kennedy is that it’s exactly what he did. It was high-stakes diplomacy. It was pushing hard to get the world community to understand, going to the UN, making a presentation, getting international opinion against the placement of Russian weapons in Cuba, making a deal eventually with the Russians that led to the removal of the weapons.
That is the kind of high-stakes diplomacy that I’m engaged in, that other members of this administration are, because we take very seriously the potential threat from Iran.
2100 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. After all the political positions (take your pick) he adopted at the Assembly of Experts, Hashemi Rafsanjani used a ceremony at the tomb of the late Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a warning about “uninformed individuals” (who are they?): “These individuals shirk from their responsibilities and make irrelevant declarations, thus causing the leadership to bear the responsibility of all the actions that the people reject.”
1935 GMT: Diplomatic Poses (cont.). Well, I guess Washington had to strike its own posture given the statements of President Ahmadinejad and his Syrian counterpart Bashir al-Assad in Damascus today (1335 GMT). Here’s State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley:
As the secretary [Hillary Clinton] reiterated yesterday, we have expressed our concern directly to President (Bashar) Assad about Syria’s relationship with Iran. This is ultimately a decision that Syria has to make, but as President Assad assesses Syria’s long-term interests, he need only look around the region and recognize that Syria is increasingly an outlier.
We want to see Syria play a more constructive role in the region. One step would be to make clear what Iran’s need to do differently and unfortunately there was no evidence of that today.
The key here is that it is a spokesman making the statement, not the President, not the Secretary of State. Yes, of course, the US would prefer that Damascus put Iran into isolation. But they know that, given the regional dynamics, Syria will not publicly cut off Tehran. So the real diplomacy will take place away from these statements.
1925 GMT: Back from a lengthy academic break — the US Ambassador to Britain was in Birmingham today — to catch up on the full force of Iranian propaganda. Here is the “confession” of Jundullah leader Abdolmalek Rigi, tailor-made to put the US as the main sponsor of his terrorism:
After Obama was elected, the Americans contacted us and they met me in Pakistan.They met us after clashes with my group around March 17 in (the southeastern city of) Zahedan, and he (the US operative) said that Americans had requested a meeting.
I said we didn’t have any time for a meeting and if we do help them they should promise to give us aid. They said they would cooperate with us and will give me military equipment, arms and machine guns. They also promised to give us a base along the border with Afghanistan next to Iran.
They asked to meet me and we said where should we meet you and he said in Dubai. We sent someone to Dubai and we told a person to ask a place for myself in Afghanistan from the area near the operations and they complied that they would sort out the problem for us and they will find Mr. Rigi a base and guarantee his own security in Afghanistan or in any of the countries adjacent to Iran so that he can carry on his operations.
They told me that in Kyrgyzstan they have a base called Manas near Bishkek, and that a high-ranking person was coming to meet me and that if such high-ranking people come to the United Arab Emirates, they may be observed by intelligence people but in a place like Bishkek this high-ranking American person could come and we could reach an agreement on making personal contacts. But after the last major operation we took part in, they said that they wanted to meet with us.
The Americans said Iran was going its own way and they said our problem at the present is Iran…not al-Qaeda and not the Taliban, but the main problem is Iran. We don’t have a military plan against Iran. Attacking Iran is very difficult for us (the US). The CIA is very particular about you and is prepared to do anything for you because our government has reached the conclusion that there was nothing Americans could do about Iran and only I could take care of the operations for them.
One of the CIA officers said that it was too difficult for us to attack Iran militarily, but we plan to give aid and support to all anti-Iran groups that have the capability to wage war and create difficulty for the Iranian (Islamic) system. They reached the conclusion that your organization has the power to create difficulties for the Islamic Republic and they are prepared to give you training and/or any assistance that you would require, in terms of telecommunications security and procedures as well as other support, the Americans said they would be willing to provide it at an extensive level.
Ebrahim Yazdi, former Foreign Minister and head of the Freedom of Movement Iran, underwent open heart surgery soon after his 10-day release yesterday. His family said that the surgery was a success.
The chief author of the Bush administration’s “torture memo” told Justice Department investigators that the president’s war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be “massacred,” according to a report by released Friday night by the Office of Professional Responsibility.
The views of former Justice lawyer John Yoo were deemed to be so extreme and out of step with legal precedents that they prompted the Justice Department’s internal watchdog office to conclude last year that he committed “intentional professional misconduct” when he advised the CIA it could proceed with waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects.
Last Thursday Ian Cobain of The Guardian of London posted the dramatic article, “CIA working with Palestinian security agents: US agency co-operating with Palestinian counterparts who allegedly torture Hamas supporters in West Bank”. The sensational headline both illuminates and distorts the wider story.
For years, the US Government has been pursuing a strategy of bolstering the Palestinian (West Bank) administration of Mahmoud Abbas by providing funding, equipment, and training for the security services of the Palestinian Authority. Ostensibly, this support was part of a US strategy of moving towards an Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” by reassuring Israel that the West Bank security services were under responsible American oversight as they developed.
This policy was reinforced after Hamas’ ascendancy to power in Gaza in 2006 and its defeat of Abbas’ party, Fatah, in Gazan battles in 2007. Now US aid had become part of a low-grade civil war, bolstering Fatah/Palestinian Authority capabilities against their rivals. Part of that support inevitably was for repressive measures employed by the West Bank security services against “insurgents”, usually linked to Hamas.
David Rose exposed the relationship between the US military and CIA with the Palestinian Authority/Fatah agencies in April 2008 in a Vanity Fair article. Cobain’s piece confirms that this relationship will continue in the Obama Administration: the US is now locked into support of an Abbas regime, no matter how unstable or repressive it becomes, because there is no alternative both in the pursuit of talks with Israel and in the effort to contain Hamas.
Palestinian security agents who have been detaining and allegedly torturing supporters of the Islamist organisation Hamas in the West Bank have been working closely with the CIA, the Guardian has learned. Read the rest of this entry »
Julian Mercille, our colleague at University College Dublin, investigates the politics and conflict behind Afghanistan’s drug production and profits, involving not only the Taliban but also other Afghan groups, the US military, and NATO forces:
As United States President Barack Obama and his advisors debated future troop levels for Afghanistan – which resulted in the decision to send an additional 30,000 troops – a new report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) muddied the water on one of the most important issues in the debate – the effects of Afghanistan’s drug production.
The report, entitled “Addiction, Crime, and Insurgency: The Transnational Threat of Afghan Opium,” gives the false impression that the Taliban are the main culprits behind Afghanistan’s skyrocketing drug production. It also implies that drugs are the main reason why the Taliban are gaining in strength, absolving the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of their own responsibility in fomenting the insurgency.
In fact, the United States and its Afghan allies bear a large share of responsibility for the drug industry’s dramatic expansion since the invasion. Buried deep in the report, its authors admit that reduced levels of drug production would have little effect on the insurgency’s vigor. Read the rest of this entry »
Just a bit of historical reflection, which may or may not be connected with events of today. I suspect a lot of readers and viewers will be familiar with the first of these interviews, in which President John F. Kennedy declared about the conflict in South Vietnam, “In the final analysis, it is their war.”
I doubt many are familiar with the follow-up, however. A week later, President Kennedy made clear to another interviewer:
What I am concerned about is that Americans will get impatient and say, because they don’t like events in Southeast Asia or they don’t like the Government in Saigon, that we should withdraw. That only makes it easy for the Communists. I think we should stay.
We should use our influence in as effective a way as we can, but we should not withdraw.
2 SEPTEMBER 1963: PRESIDENT KENNEDY WITH WALTER CRONKITE OF CBS
MR. CRONKITE. Mr. President, the only hot war we’ve got running at the moment is of course the one in Viet-Nam, and we have our difficulties here, quite obviously. Read the rest of this entry »
UPDATE 18 March: The New York Times has discovered the story, “Pentagon Sees a Threat From Online Muckrakers”.
Last Thursday Ian Cobain of The Guardian of London 
Julian Mercille, our colleague at University College Dublin, 
Entries (RSS)