Author Topic: New Yorker article about the iraq war crimes  (Read 7984 times)

gerald boggs

  • Guest
New Yorker article about the iraq war crimes
« on: May 10, 2004, 05:12:05 PM »
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2

This is, in my opinion, a very well writen article.

Anonymous

  • Guest
New Yorker article about the iraq war crimes
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2004, 11:04:06 PM »
Very interesting.  Hersch has had a hard on for Rumbo for a long time and this piece packs quite a punch.  It has been hard to stay on top of this story while on the road, but this piece gives  what seems to be a very good summary.

The consequences of all this for our mission there seem to be catastrphic.

Anonymous

  • Guest
New Yorker article about the iraq war crimes
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2004, 05:36:35 PM »
Sorry, nothing to do with sticks and fighting, but this week New Yorker is out.  For those of you that form your views by listening to the Savage Nation and watching Fox News, this will provide a nice contrast.  BBC online is pretty good too.

Anonymous

  • Guest
New Yorker article about the iraq war crimes
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2004, 10:47:12 PM »
Umm, aren't you referencing the piece that Gerald recommended in starting this thread?

Anyway, during my travels abroad sometimes the BBC is what I can get and I would regard it as mcuh more skewed than FOX.  FOX may sneer at the opposing point of view, but at least they often pressent it.  Plus the BBC has done some things for which it has had to apologize for its own lack of integrity.

The Abu G. prison scandal has its origen in our terrible lack of intel and a desire to do something about it.  NOT arguing that what happened at AG was right or productive, but this following piece discusses intel in a very interesting way:

-------------------------

Improvements in Western Intelligence

By Fred Burton

Western tensions over the safety of corporate assets in the
Middle East -- particularly in Saudi Arabia -- have ratcheted
higher during the past month amid a stream of government security
warnings and several deadly attacks and militant shootouts.

Though the concerns and the level of violence within Saudi Arabia
are hardly unprecedented, the credibility of alerts issued by the
United States and other Western governments is on the rise.
Consider the following examples:

*  April 13: The United States issued a Warden Message cautioning
Westerners about threats against diplomatic and other official
facilities and neighborhoods in Riyadh. Two days later, a U.S.
travel warning "strongly urged" Americans to leave the kingdom.
On April 19 and 20, Saudi officials announced seizures of
vehicles carrying explosives. On April 21, a car bomb was
detonated in front of a Saudi intelligence facility in Riyadh,
killing several people.

*  April 27: Jordanian officials claimed to have foiled an al
Qaeda chemical bomb plot targeting the country's intelligence
services. The plot allegedly involved trucks packed with 20 tons
of explosives.

*  April 29: The U.S. State Department issued a worldwide
caution, warning of deep concerns over the safety of U.S.
interests abroad -- and noting that government officials have not
ruled out a nonconventional al Qaeda attacks in the United States
or elsewhere. On May 1, gunmen killed five Westerners --
including two Americans -- at the offices of Swiss oil contractor
ABB Lummus in Yanbu. The shooters later were praised in a
statement, purportedly from al Qaeda's top official in Saudi
Arabia, carried on the Islamist Web site Sawt al-Jihad.

*  European security services recently have announced several
militant roundups and "foiled plots" against specific targets. On
April 21, British newspapers reported the discovery of a bombing
plot against a football stadium -- possibly the field used by
Manchester United -- and the arrest of 10 suspects. A well-placed
counterterrorism source later told Stratfor that the sweep -- the
second major roundup in Britain in less than a month -- was
conducted less to thwart a specific attack than as a very public
pre-emptive action to reassure citizens of their safety. On May
4, Turkish police said they detained 16 suspected members of the
al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Islam, accused of planning bombing
attacks against the NATO summit that is scheduled to take place
in Istanbul in June.

The contrast with past intelligence warnings is stark: In
December 2003, the State Department authorized the voluntary
departure of diplomats' family members -- but more than a month
after the bombing of a Western housing compound in Riyadh killed
17 people. A similar communique, which ordered the departure of
nonessential U.S. personnel and their dependents, was issued May
13, 2003 -- a day after another housing compound bombing that
claimed 34 lives.

Taken together, the recent incidents indicate the United States
and its allies are armed with increasingly actionable
intelligence from their sources in the Middle East, Pakistan and
elsewhere. Although al Qaeda might remain, in the intelligence
community's words, a "ghost" or an elusive hydra, the community's
failures prior to the Sept. 11 attacks no longer can justify
ongoing complacency toward its warnings about the risks of
attacks. The government alerts also cannot be dismissed merely as
attempts to elicit "chatter" or otherwise improve officials' view
into the threat from radical Islam.

These events indicate that at least some parts of the U.S.
counterterrorism community have reached a crucial milestone in
their operational and analytical capabilities -- which aids their
ability to predict al Qaeda's next moves and other emerging
threats. It is in light of this assessment that threats issued
specifically against the domestic United States, in addition to
Western assets overseas, could be viewed as credible.

Security Cooperation: An Improving View

One of the first questions this assessment raises is whether this
same level of intelligence capability exists globally, or merely
in a few isolated regions?

While it is clear some weaknesses remain -- for example,
Washington had no warning prior to the March 11 train bombings in
Madrid -- it appears that U.S. counterterrorism collection has
improved greatly in the past few months. Sources in Washington
tell Stratfor that both human intelligence and technical
collection capabilities -- such as wiretaps and other methods --
significantly have increased in conjunction with coordinated
intelligence and law enforcement efforts around the world.
Western intelligence services and analytical think tanks -- such
as MI6, the Center for Strategic International Studies and the
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation -- along with the
services of "friendly" Middle Eastern nations such as Jordan,
specifically have aided Washington's tactical and strategic
capabilities and helped in interdicting attacks.

Moreover, foiled attacks and post-op investigations in other
countries, such as Britain and Spain, have yielded a flurry of
data: Pocket litter from detainees, phone numbers, forensic
evidence, fingerprints, travel documents and other items can be
shared with allied intelligence services to generate new leads
for counterterrorism officials to run down.

It is conceivable these achievements prompted the allegedly
planned or actual attacks against the allied intelligence
services in Riyadh and Amman in recent weeks.

The U.S. Risk Environment

For its part, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security also has
grown increasingly proactive in the wake of the March 11 attacks
in Spain, turning its passenger screening efforts to the nation's
rail system -- doubtless armed with intelligence that indicated
rail and bus lines were vulnerable to a Madrid-style strike.
Trusted law enforcement sources tell Stratfor they are watching
for threats to bomb buses during the summer travel season (likely
as the result of human intelligence reports or interrogation of
al Qaeda suspects), though some commercial bus lines still do not
employ luggage-screeners.

Stratfor previously predicted that a terrorist attack is
possible, if not likely, within the United States prior to the
November presidential elections. Logic reinforces this view from
both a geostrategic and tactical standpoint.

Though it has not achieved its goal of ousting any secular
governments within the Muslim world, al Qaeda learned in Spain
that it is possible, with a well-timed attack, to overturn a
sitting government in the Western Hemisphere; in its view, few
prizes could be greater than forcing U.S. President George W.
Bush out of office. U.S. government officials appear to support
this view: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice recently
said the opportunity for terrorists to impact the presidential
election would "be too good to pass up," and the April 29 warning
issued by the State Department also concludes that al Qaeda might
attempt "a catastrophic attack" within the United States.

Where might such an attack occur?

In light of the recent plots targeting the Jordanian and Saudi
intelligence services, it would seem that CIA headquarters in
Langley, Va., or Britain's MI6 headquarters could be targets --
though they would not be easily struck. Langley, for example, has
an excellent standoff perimeter to protect it from Oklahoma City-
style truck bombings. Militants would need some way of getting
past those defenses -- such as a fuel-laden aircraft or a Jordan-
style tactical operation, using a designated team to eliminate
guards and move the truck bomb within striking distance of the
buildings.

Much more vulnerable targets, in our view, are likely to be found
in Washington, D.C. (a symbolic city, where the brain trust of
"Crusader" actions against the Middle East is found); New York
City (the nation's economic hub, and home to a large Jewish
population); and Texas -- Bush's backyard -- though visible
targets are more easily found in major cities such as Houston or
Dallas than in the capital city of Austin.

West Coast cities such as Los Angeles -- where several plots
reportedly have been foiled -- also cannot be discounted as
targets: Al Qaeda has shown a propensity in the past to return
time and again to favored fishing holes. Such cities also are
home to major corporations, which carry political, symbolic and
strategic value: Al Qaeda believes that if the U.S. economy
crashes, the war effort overseas could not continue. In one of
the most recent tape recordings attributed to him, Osama bin
Laden specifically mentioned some American corporations as likely
targets.

Though there is no hard evidence, logic argues that the next
major attack within the United States or allied countries could
just as easily be a "dirty bomb" -- a possibility noted in the
April 29 State Department warning as well as by foreign security
services -- as a Madrid-style transportation bombing. Trusted
U.S. government sources say this is a viable attack scenario; and
it is not inconceivable that some type of chemical agent could be
dispersed through the use of an improvised explosive device. The
Jordanian authorities and the alleged leader of the foiled plot
in Amman claimed that attack was to have a chemical component,
though that claim is questionable. At any rate, chemicals such as
ammonia, chlorine or sodium cyanide are easily obtained when
compared to radioactive material or even anthrax, with its proven
panic potential.

The "shock and awe" psychological effects of such an attack would
ripple throughout the country and resonate as a great success
with Islamist radicals around the world -- a credibility coup for
which al Qaeda has been searching in order to further its own
political goals in the Middle East.

The point is not that al Qaeda could have new means or motives to
launch a dirty bomb attack -- this has been a U.S. fear, and
perceived risk, since Sept. 11. Rather, it is that the U.S.
intelligence community's increasingly proactive track record --
combined with the specificity of targets mentioned in recent
warnings and growing consensus about the window of opportunity
for a fresh attack -- lend a new aura of credibility and urgency
to ongoing warnings.

In the war against militant Islam, it seems the United States no
longer is flying completely blind.

Counterterrorism and security expert Fred Burton recently joined
Stratfor's executive staff. Click here
(http://stratfor.com/corp/Corporate.neo?s=MED) for more details
about his background and new role with Stratfor.

gerald boggs

  • Guest
New Yorker article about the iraq war crimes
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2004, 12:17:22 PM »
Sorry, that was me on the post.  Not the same article, but a follow-up by the same auther.  I agree the BBC can be skewed, however as you can see from the last two major screw-ups, people get fired.  I need to point out the BBC I'm recommending is the on-line BBC and the BBC radio that one gets outside of Britain.  After three months of listen/watching the BBC inside of Britain, I could only make the comparision of Tabloid news.  I started making jokes that the purpose of the BBC televisionand radio was to dull the minds of the British so as to make them more complient.  Aside from their news programs, if you like soaps, the British soups are really good.  They can suck you right in if you're not careful.
     I disagree on the Fox presenting the opposing view.  I find that they present it in such a way as to help make their point of view stronger. I do confess a limited experience with Fox news, having no television, I only get to watch it while I staying at hotels.  The opinion I formed from my limited experiences was that Fox was a well organized propaganda tool for the present administration and its supporters.   Of course, if you only listen to NPR, you coming away with a half-filled bowl.

Last:  You know it's getting bad when the Army times gets on the band wagon.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php

C-Heretic Dog

Anonymous

  • Guest
New Yorker article about the iraq war crimes
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2004, 11:05:26 PM »
Woof Gerald:

Your point distinguishing BBC on-line is noted and I will keep an eye open for the difference.  My impression of the BBC was hardened during several days.  Often quite dishonest I thought.  

As for their firing the people who got caught, true enough-- but my impression is that it was only because they got caught.  The BBC hunted Tony Blair with accusations of "sexing up" pre-war military intel but when the truth came out it was that the sexing up had been done by the BBC.  As I read the denouement of the story, it seemed clear that the whole organization had a strong hard on for TB and would do what it took to get at him.

Not that FOX can't be pretty biased too-- but at least they are not subtle about it LOL.  That said, amidst the Barbie Doll prompter readers I have run into some pretty scintilating conversations on FOX, anchor Brit Hume seems good, and often the business coverage is not bad at all.

As for NPR, I sometimes catch it while in the car in the early evening,it can be interesting, but what they don't get is a lot.  For a govt. funded organization, their out there left-is-sgood-right-is-bad bias is inappropriate.

What I do like A LOT is www.stratfor.com  It costs a tidy bit of money, but for those who want to transcend the great media ganzfeld of blather, it is very impessive.