Posts Tagged ‘information’
Monday, March 8th, 2010
March 8th, 2010
by By Linda Bentley
A man who fails to register with SS before turning 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed
ARLINGTON, Va. – On Sept. 7, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” and stated, “I had to sign up for Selective Service (SS) when I graduated from high school … And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.”
Some people did keep in mind that he graduated in 1979 and noted the registration requirement was suspended in April 1975 by President Gerald Ford and wasn’t reinstituted until 1980 by President Jimmy Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The Military Selective Service Act required men born in the calendar year 1961 to register on any of the six days beginning Monday, July 28, 1980.
On Oct. 13, 2008, J. Stephen Coffman, a retired federal agent, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the SS for a copy of Obama’s SS registration form.
His FOIA request was processed on Oct. 29, 2008, two days after the SS claimed it was received.
Coffman received a copy of Obama’s registration form along with a copy of the computer inquiry screen, which showed an access date of Sept. 9, 2008, several weeks prior to Coffman’s request.
It was accompanied by a letter from Richard S. Flahavan, associate director for public affairs and intergovernmental affairs, who stated, “Also, the enclosed computer inquiry screen indicates that his registration number is 61-1125539-1, as previously provided to you.”
The computer printout shows a transaction date of Sept. 4, 1980 (the date Obama’s July 29, 1980 registration was entered into the system) with a last action date of Sept. 4, 1980, signifying nothing else had been received or entered since the original Sept. 4, 1980 registration form.
Coffman found it peculiar his request, according to the computer printout date, was processed on Sept. 9, 2008, several weeks prior to submitting his request.
On Feb. 9, 2009, Kenneth Allen submitted a FOIA request for the same records. He received a response, also from Flavahan, dated March 4, 2009.
Flavahan said a copy of Obama’s SS registration was enclosed along with “the resultant automated file screen,” adding, “Mr. Obama did indeed register with the Selective Service and was assigned Selective Service Number 61-1125539-1 on Sept. 4, 1980.”
The 10-digit Document Locator Number (DLN) 0897080632 is printed or stamped across the top right hand corner of the registration form.
The computer printout provided to Coffman displayed an 11-digit DLN of 8089 708 0632.
The computer printouts provided to both Allen and Coffman are both dated Sept. 9, 2008.
The copy of the registration form provided to Allen and Coffman are identical.
However, Allen’s computer printout is titled “Registrant File Inquiry Report” while Coffman’s is titled “RIMS History Inquiry Screen.”
And, the DLN on the computer printout received by Allen, also an 11-digit number, reads: 0897 080 6320.
So, while Coffman’s printout had an eight added to the beginning, Allen’s had a zero added to the end.
Once issued, DLNs do not change.
Even though the inquiry screen indicates Allen’s request was processed on Sept. 9, 2008, just like Coffman’s, it reflects a last action date of June 25, 1991, showing a Form 50 change letter had been received and entered then. Records provided to Coffman reflected no such action.
The post office round date stamp on Obama’s registration form also raised legitimacy concerns. The stamp displays “USPO Honolulu, HI Makiki Sta.” with “Jul 29 80” stamped in the center of the circle on three lines. However, the two-digit year is stamped off center as if it should have been a four-digit date.
Last week Sonoran News received a response to a FOIA request for 17 SS records for the purpose of making comparisons.
Every single one of them has a four-digit year stamp, including two registrations processed at the very same post office, one within days of Obama’s.
In fact, Bruce Henderson, now deceased, whose birthday was also in August 1961, registered on Aug. 2, 1980 at the Makiki station and his SS number is 61-1125522-7, just 27 numbers apart from Obama’s.
The 10-digit DLN on his registration form reads: 0897080613 and the 11-digit DLN on the computer printout reads: 0897 080 6130, indicating a zero had been added to the end.
Henderson’s registration was also entered in the same batch as Obama’s on Sept. 4, 1980.
Our FOIA request was initially made in October 2009, but after receiving neither a response nor an acknowledgement, a subsequent request was made in December 2009 via certified mail, the receipt of which was promptly acknowledged.
The request was fulfilled by Paula Sweeney from the office of public and intergovernmental affairs and the computer printouts are dated Jan. 15, 2010 and Jan. 20, 2010.
Every single one of the registrations processed in 1980 had a zero added to the end of the DLN on the computer printout, a practice that appears to have changed subsequent to that time.
In fact, a registration dated March 1, 1982 with a 10-digit DLN of 2120360884 stamped on the registration form, has an 11-digit DLN of 8212 036 0884 entered in the computer, which appears to be consistent with registrations added after 1980, and possibly not until 1982.
It became obvious records were created after the fact for Obama and were later changed. However, the computer access date is frozen on Sept. 9, 2008; two days after Obama appeared on Stephanopoulos’ show saying he registered with SS in 1979 when the requirement was nonexistent.
The mistakes made by adding to and changing the fraudulently created record after Coffman’s FOIA request was fulfilled but before the Allen’s was received, provides an audit trail of the fraud.
It would appear Flahavan, who processed both requests, should have caught the glaring incongruities. Instead, he got cocky in his letter to Allen by proclaiming, “Mr. Obama did indeed register with Selective Service …”
The SS website proclaims, “Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.”
It goes on to say, “Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed,” including federal student loans or grant programs.
A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the executive branch of the federal government, which includes president of the United States.
Registration is also a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the United States before his 26th birthday.
If Obama arrived in Hawaii as a citizen of Indonesia, as his school records and mother’s divorce records indicate, and he didn’t register with SS, he could have been barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship and may not be one now.
However, those covering up Obama’s tracks have done a sloppy job, which means there really is a conspiracy to defraud the American people, not just a theory.
American Grand Jury has known about this Obama conspiracy for a year now. Here are 2 images of the fraudulent Selective Service documents pulled from our Evidence Archives (used in our American Grand Jury hearings):
PS: Check out the Obama signature on the form and compare to BO’s “known” signature. They don’t match. Barack Obama DID NOT submit this Selective Service application. It is a forged signature and an attempt at a coverup to make it look like Obama registered.
Posted by Bob Filed in Barack Obama, Obama Eligibility Fraud
4 Comments »
March 8th, 2010
Miki Booth is the kind of conservative Patriot that we need in Congress. She has guts, loves our Country and believes a “Free America is a strong America.” American Grand Jury is happy to endorse Miki Booth as the ‘MOST CONSERVATIVE’ candidate we know.. Miki previously lived in Hawaii but now calls the GREAT STATE OF OKLAHOMA her home.
She has a great story to tell about the Obama ‘Birth Certificate’ Eligibility crisis. Reprinted (again) from World Net Daily article.
By Chelsea Schilling
 NASHVILLE – Just as a tea-party convention crowd gathered to discuss strategy for the movement, one woman stepped forward to the microphone – holding up two Hawaiian long-form birth certificates and a copy of President Obama’s purported short-form certification of live birth – and, referencing the short form, she told the crowd, “This piece of junk is what you get when you don’t have one of these!”
The crowd went wild, clapping and cheering.
When the forum was over, tea partiers scrambled around a table to see and photograph her original documents.
The woman, Miki Booth, originally from Hawaii, is running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Oklahoma’s second district as an independent constitutional conservative. She had presented original long-form birth certificates belonging to her son and husband, dated 1981 and 1949.
“They are the ‘vault’ copies of the original ones filled out at the hospital and sent to the Hawaii State Department of Health Vital Statistics Office,” Booth told WND. “It is from this office that the newspapers get their stats for births, deaths and marriages to announce in the newspapers.”
Her husband, Fred, and son, Alan, were born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii – the same hospital declared as Obama’s birthplace in a purported letter from the president.
“If he is going to claim he was born in Kapi’olani like my husband and my son, then I want him to show proof,” Booth said, explaining that a certification of live birth only shows that a live baby was born – and not necessarily in Hawaii.
“What he’s given us perpetuates the mystery of what he’s covering up and gives us more reason to not trust him,” she said.
Booth presented this 1981 long-form Hawaiian birth certificate belonging to her son. It contains information about the doctor, birth hospital, time of delivery and other information.
Asked what she thought of the crowd’s overwhelmingly positive reaction when she presented the documents, Booth said, “I was pleased but not surprised, since I get that reaction every time I do it. I think people really appreciate when someone shows them they’re not stupid. They know what’s going on.”
Most of the convention attendees appeared to rally around WND founder Joseph Farah as he presented his speech at the national convention Friday, referencing the eligibility issue. They gave him a standing ovation at the end of his speech. However, a small number of people suggested the topic shouldn’t have surfaced at a tea party event.
“I would say those people have bought into the notion that it’s a dead issue since it was ‘proved’ to them that Obama was born in Hawaii,” Booth explained. “What proof were they convinced by? Bill O’Reilly saying so? Newscasters saying so? ACORN saying so? The Internet copy?”
Booth also presented this 1949 long-form Hawaiian birth certificate belonging to her husband. It contains information about the birth attendant, birth hospital, time of delivery and other information.
She continued, “I wonder if these same people think we shouldn’t question his record of what passport he traveled to Pakistan with – or his Occidental records of foreign student funding and his Columbia records or his Harvard records or his Punahou records.”
read the entire story here on World Net Daily..
http://MikiBoothforCongress.com/
Posted by Bob Filed in AGJ Editorial, AGJ Joins Forces, Announcements
2 Comments »
March 7th, 2010
image from Robert Hefner…
Posted by Bob Filed in Satire from AGJ
8 Comments »
March 7th, 2010
Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said Thursday that he does not know if President Barack Obama is either a citizen or a Christian…
…“I know he is a socialist”, Broun said. “You look at his own writings. He said when he was in college he leaned to Marxist tendencies and is linked to Marxist professors. He joined Marxists clubs. And look at who he’s put in his administration, they’re devout socialists.”
“America has to stand up and decide if we want to be a socialist nation or if we’re going to be a free nation,” he said.
source…
Comments by Commander Charles Kerchner:
While Obama’s religion has nothing to do with his constitutional eligibility to be the President and commander of our military, his exact citizenship status absolutely does. And that status has never been fully and publicly vetted in depth via seeking the sealed and hidden early life original paper documents for Obama by anyone. But even if Obama can prove he is a “citizen of the U.S.” what he needs to prove for constitutional standards is if he is a “natural born Citizen” of the U.S., which is what the constituion requires. Not all citizens of the U.S. are eligible to be the President. Read this essay by Atty Mario Apuzzo, an Article II constitutional expert, of NJ. – Ret. Navy Commander Charles Kerchner, Protect our Liberty
Posted by Bob Filed in Barack Obama, Eligibility Attorneys
13 Comments »
March 7th, 2010
Based on emails exchanged between State employees it has been proven that those making requests under the Freedom of Information act are being denied service requests if they are preceived to be anti-Obama. This is a criminal offense. State employees cannot discriminate against any US citizen seeking public information.
The Post and Email recently did a major story on this:
The incriminating evidence was found in an inadvertent disclosure of emails between Ms. Janice S. Okubo, Communications Director for the Department, and Kenneth David, Supervisor of the Vital Statistics Office.
It appears that David took it upon himself to do background checks on those making UIPA requests and on that basis suggested to Okubo to deny responding to their lawful requests for the release of government documents, requests which they made on the basis of the grants of rights of access accorded them by the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA).
Following this email exchange, the Department of Health discriminated against citizens whom it perceived to have “a hidden agenda.” The term “hidden agenda” was coined by David to refer to citizens who questioned Obama’s legitimacy to hold the office of president: a clearly political view, on which basis they could not be lawfully denied access.
read the complete story here…
 Subject: FW: Per Dr. Okubo
From: vr-info
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 1:50 PM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Cc: Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.
Subject: Re: Per Dr. Okubo
Hi, Janice,
I checked online for a “Kathleen Gotto” and I came across this letter that I presume she wrote http://blogtalkradio.com/MenifeeValleyRadio/blog/2008/11/15/Letter-to-the-US-Supreme-from-Kathleen-Gotto-This-is-a-vital-issue-to-us-all who accused Obama of “…who almost got away with stealing the Presidency…” I doubt that any answer I might send her would satisfy her since she has the same agenda as Rob Lamb (who accused me of lying and that I should be fired). Although Rob Lamb did not mention Obama’s name, he can be found online as another person who has a hidden agenda. It is interesting that in all of Rob Lamb’s emails he did not mention Obama’s name even once.
Aloha,
Ken
Posted by Bob Filed in Press Release
10 Comments »
March 6th, 2010
Things have changed drastically on Wall Street. I called my stockbroker this morning and asked him what I should be buying.
He said, ‘Canned goods and ammunition.’
“Broker recommendation” sent to us by Monica in VA, an American Grand Jury member..
Posted by Bob Filed in Public Sentiment
16 Comments »
March 6th, 2010
This is typical Obama.. cannot lead the country so he reacts by throwing people under the bus. Blames everyone else for his own failures.. THE WORSE prez in the HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.
Here is the article from PajamasMedia
by Richard Pollock
This has not been a good week for Attorney General Eric Holder. He is now in the doghouse — or perhaps somewhere worse — after the White House was reported to be “nearing a decision” to reverse Holder on trying terrorists in a civilian court in New York City. According to the Washington Post, “President Obama’s advisers” are about to revoke Holder’s controversial decision and send the terrorists to a military tribunal. The Post also says they may scuttle plans for any civilian trials for terrorists.
The Post says the decision is being made by the president’s “advisers” — Holder, apparently, has had little input on the reversal. If true, this morning’s report is a direct repudiation of the AG.
Holder’s decision has been sheer disaster for Democrats in New York, and the political backlash in one of the country’s most liberal states was not lost on the White House. The decision has also been unpopular throughout the nation, and at least one prominent activist who lost a family member on September 11 has asked for Holder’s resignation.
Deborah Burlingame told PJM:
I think its time for Holder to step aside, because he’s botched so much at this point.
Frankly I would like [to see] the taking of the detainee policy out of the Department of Justice and putting it back [with] the Department of Defense, where it belongs.
Eric Holder went about it in a wholly incompetent way, including choosing the venue. He knew it was problematic and yet he did not consult with people in New York City. He sprung this decision on them and earned their disfavor from the very beginning. I think he wanted the decision to be a fait acompli so the people could not object to it. And eventually it was his undoing.
Senator Grassley told PJM that it was difficult for Americans to swallow the idea of granting greater legal rights to terrorists than to our own troops who face a military court martial:
The administration has had a difficult time justifying the rationale for giving the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on America more rights than our men and women in military, fighting to protect our homeland, who are court martialed.
Comment by American Grand Jury:
I don’t think Obama has the huevos to remove Eric Holder. Eric is the chief Administration’s “Muslim sympathizer” and legal bottle washer in charge of defending the Usurper. Obama needs Holder to bite the bullet and take the heat so Obama can continue to act like a spoiled child..
Posted by Bob Filed in Anti-Obama Press, Barack Obama
5 Comments »
March 6th, 2010
 The Missouri State House has passed House Joint Resolution 48 (HJR48). The legislation, known as the “Missouri Health Care Freedom Act” seeks to make public policy for the state that every person within the state of Missouri is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty by the federal government of the United States of America.
Here’s the official summary of the bill:
Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment prohibits any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system. Individuals and employers may pay directly for lawful health care services without being subject to fines or penalties, and health care providers can accept payment for health care services from individuals or employers without being subject to fines or penalties. The purchase or sale of health care insurance in private health care systems cannot be prohibited by law or rule.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution codifies in law that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers – and that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserve “to the States, respectively, or to the People.”
The founders, during the time of the Constitution’s ratification, made clear that a vast majority of regulatory powers would be left in the states – including social services, agriculture, mining, and more.
The resolution passed by a vote of 113-40, and is awaiting transmittal to the State Senate.
In an update to supporters, the resolution’s primary sponsor, State Rep. Jane Cunningham, pledged to see the effort through:
I sincerely appreciate all those who have come out and shown their support, and all those who have shown an interest in the issue. Each of you has my word that I will fight tirelessly until our constitutional rights in Missouri are fully protected from federal encroachment.
source: The Tenth Amendment Center…
hat-tip: Phil at News.TheRightSideofLife.com..
American Grand Jury
Tags: Alan, america, Barack, Bill, Birth, Bob Filed, Chelsea Schilling, Christian, citizen, Columbia, Commander Charles Kerchner, Commander Kerchner, Crowd, Eligibility, Fred, Freedom Of Information Act, Ga., Hawaii, Honolulu, Hospital, husband, information, inquiry screen, Invasion Of Afghanistan, Joseph Farah, linda bentley, Mario Apuzzo, Miki, Miki Booth, military selective service, Nashville, NJ, oklahoma, Pakistan, president gerald ford, president jimmy carter, President Obama, President. Read, Rep. Broun, Rep. Paul Broun, ROBERT HEFNER, son, soviet invasion of afghanistan, state, this week with george stephanopoulos, U.S., U.S. House, week with george stephanopoulos Posted in headlines | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
Sunday, March 7th, 2010
Here is a very interesting 2 minute news piece on the Amnesty bill. If you have any doubts that the govt isnt actively assisting this central bankster engineered economic collapse this video should leave no doubt. For years the govt has been leaving the border wide open to allow an essentially unrestricted flow of illegal aliens: Their goals:
1.Depress the wages of American workers who must compete with illegals willing to work for a fraction of what natives use to earn.
2.To bankrupt the cities and States who are required to provide emergency room services, police, fire and ambulance services.
3. To sow internal division and strife by allowing a large group of unassimilated foreigners to reside in the United States and then stoking their resentment against native citizens through foundation-funded trouble makers like La Raza.
4.Letting in foreign criminals to sow havock and then further bankrupt the cities and States who must pay the costs of the courts and incarceration in jails and prisons.
The mistake that most American make when trying to analyze political issues is assuming that the Federal government has the best interests of the American people at heart. What the majority of Americans dont realize is that the Federal government for decades has been controlled by foreign offshore banking interests who control our Central Bank. These interests have been stealing TRILLIONS which they use to control the puppets in Congress, the White House, and the MainStreamMedia. As the global information revolution like YouTube, blogs, websites, e-mail, etc. exposes this organized crime sydicate the United States with its history of Liberty, Consitituion , and armed populace must be brought down so we dont turn off the tell-a-vision, organize politically, and go after these criminals.
More information at http://www.InvoluntaryServant.Blogspo…
Tags: ambulance services, amnesty, amnesty bill, Bill, dont, economic collapse, emergency room services, federal, global information revolution, government, GOVT, Illegal Aliens, information, minute, native citizens, news, offshore banking, piece, trouble makers, United States, unrestricted flow Posted in Laws, The soon to be former USA, finance, nation, the bad, the former republic that was America, the ugly, video, world | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
Saturday, March 6th, 2010
by Permanent Mission of Iran to the IAEA
Global Research, March 6, 2010
IAEA – 2010-03-02
IAEA Information Circular
INFCIRC/786
Date: 2 March 2010
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT (PDF)
in response to Report of the Director General on implementation of Safeguards in Iran (GOV/2010/10)
IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano delivering his opening statement to the Board of Governors. (Photo: D. Calma/IAEA)
Communication dated 1 March 2010 received from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency regarding the implementation of safeguards in Iran
Explanatory note
by the
Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the IAEA
on the
Report of the Director General on implementation of Safeguards in Iran
(GOV/2010/10)
1- The report (GOV/2010/10) is not balanced and factual since it has not duly reflected the cooperation, letters and explanations of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the questions of or communication made with the Agency.
2- The report, in contradiction to the Agency’s statutory mandate, contained tremendous confidential technical details which create a lot of confusions for various groups of readers, diplomats, experts and the public at large.
3- The only new development since the last report by the former Director General is the successful enrichment activity up to 20% in order to produce the required fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor after Iran was disappointed due to lack of a responsible response to its legitimate request. But the lengthy text of the historical background and repeating obsolete issues such as alleged studies, so called American laptop, with details has created confusion for the public. The alleged studies, including baseless allegation on Green Salt Project, high explosive testing and missile re-entry vehicle, had been raised over 4 years ago, thus is not a new issue. The Safeguards Department has claimed that the intention of this report is to refresh the memories of the members of the Board of Governors at the cost of public confusion and damaging the Agency’s credibility. Despite there has been no any other new development, this DG report (GOV/2010/10) complies with parts of the past DG’s reports
which have been chosen selectively and incompletely, specifically focused on unproved and baseless allegations, so called alleged studies, and possible military dimension.
4- Pursuant to the official communication by Iran dated 7th February 2010 in which it officially notified the Agency about its decision to start enrichment activities up to 20%, Iran did not start the activity until the Agency officially had acknowledged the receipt of its notification and informed Iran on the same day that the inspectors have already been instructed to be present at FEP in Natanz on 9th February 2010. [Quote from the letter of the Agency by the Director of the Division of Operations B, Department of Safeguards, dated 8 February 2010: “I refer to your letter dated 8 February 2010 (Ref.M/137/315/5009) and I would like to inform you that our inspectors have been instructed to be at FEP on the 9th February 2010 to detach seal at the 30B cylinder containing LEU, maintain continuity of knowledge during re-batching to a 5B cylinder and seal both the 30B and 5B cylinder after the verification”]
The centrifuges used for this purpose were already under full scope safeguards including 24 hours surveillance of the Agency’s camera and the routine inspections. Iran however decided to inform the Agency before taking any action and also to invite the inspectors to be present at the time of commencement of the 20% activity. Therefore, the text of paragraph 11 of the report is in contrary to the factual arrangement and is misleading.
5- The fact that all declared nuclear materials is accounted for and is remained peaceful and under the Agency full scope surveillance is not reflected and is a missed essential element of this report.
6- Mixing the notions of “all nuclear material”, “declared nuclear material” and the issue of “assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material” in the context of Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) and Additional Protocol, respectively, in a non-professional manner, has undermined the full cooperation of Iran in accordance with its CSA obligation and has misled the public.
7- The facts that the material of the alleged studies has lack of authenticity, that no nuclear material was used and no components were made as declared by the former Director General in respect of baseless alleged studies, are missing parts in this report.
8- The report lacks any reference to the fact that the United States did not permit the Agency to deliver to Iran the material related to the alleged studies, associated to the so called American laptop, thus the Agency’s verification activities were jeopardized and its credibility damaged, since the Agency was obliged to deliver the material to Iran in accordance with the Work Plan (INFCIRC/711) agreed upon by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Agency. One could easily notice the criticism of the former Director General in this respect.
9- It should be recalled that there were only six past outstanding issues which had been included in the agreed Work Plan (INFCIRC/711) and that all of them have been resolved. Also the part IV. 1 of the Work Plan
reads as follows: “These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran’s past nuclear program and activities.” Therefore, no new issues should be raised such as “possible military dimension”.
10- According to the Work Plan agreed upon by Iran and the Agency on 21 August 2007 (INFCIRC/711), the Alleged Studies have been fully dealt with by Iran and the item in the Work Plan is concluded. Any
expectation of another round of substantive discussion or the Agency’s request for providing information and access is absolutely in contravention with the spirit and the letter of such an agreement which both parties have been committed to. It should be recalled that the agreed Work Plan is the outcome of fruitful and intensive negotiations by three top officials in charge of Safeguards, Legal and Policy Making Organs of the Agency with Iran and eventually acknowledged by the Board of Governors. Therefore, it is highly expected that the Agency respects its agreement with Member States, otherwise the mutual trust and confidence which is essential for the sustainable cooperation shall be put in jeopardy.
II- SPECIFIC REMARKS
1- Comments on paragraphs 8 to 13 of the report on starting enrichment up to 20%:
All 20% enrichment activities have been declared to the Agency before taking any action. After official communications and in the presence of the Agency inspectors and under continuous surveillance of the Agency,
the activities to produce up to 20% enrichment uranium in order to provide required material for the Tehran Research Reactor fuel were started. In this respect, immediately pursuant to the instruction for launching fuel
production for the Tehran Research Reactor, the DIQ of PFEP facility was updated on 7 February 2010 and submitted to the IAEA before taking any action. Iran notified the IAEA through a letter that was responded and
confirmed by the Agency on the same day (8 February 2010), that a small cylinder containing LEU was introduced to PFEP and connected to its feeding line in the presence of the Agency inspectors on 9th February
2010 and remained under the Agency’s seal and surveillance. Moreover, the IAEA monitoring system, including cameras and seals are in place since 2003 and, therefore, the connection of the LEU cylinder to the system, besides the presence of the Agency inspectors, is also covered by continuous monitoring of the Agency’s cameras as well as Agency seals. As a matter of fact, all the safeguards measures have been completely met for 20% enrichment process.
A draft safeguards approach for PFEP was presented in 2003. This draft was discussed through subsequent meetings and has not yet been finalized besides there was no need to stop the enrichment activities. Nevertheless,
basically the foreseen measures are implemented and the Agency was informed of the 20% enrichment activities in advance and therefore there was no need to stop the work of this activity before finalizing the safeguards approach agreement while safeguards measures are in place.
As explained above, this facility is running as before under the Agency surveillance, Agency inspectors access, performing Agency’s inspections, visual inspectors’ observations, Agency’s cameras and seals application while the safeguards approach review and its facility attachment is under discussion.
2- Comments on paragraphs 19-24 of the report regarding Heavy Water Related Projects:
1- UNSC resolutions against Islamic Republic of Iran had been issued illegally and have no legal basis; therefore they are not obligatory to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
2- The Agency’s requests are even beyond the illegal UNSC resolutions since it just requesting to suspend the heavy water-related projects and the suspension be verified by the Agency. The resolutions have not requested the collection of information such as origin of the drums and production, taking DA samples, weight and amount of heavy water, etc. These are beyond the illegal UNSC resolutions and create ambiguities that whether the Agency’s intention is gathering information for other purposes.
3- The Islamic Republic of Iran has officially announced on several occasions that no suspension including heavy water production is accepted. It has announced that the Agency be sure that the activities are continuing. Therefore, verification of suspension is not required. And it is not clear that why the Agency keeps intending to collect detailed information by requesting to have access to facilities and non nuclear materials.
4- Having considered that the Safeguards Agreement between the Agency and the Islamic Republic of Iran (INFCIRC/214) is governing the relation between the Agency and Iran it constitutes the legal basis for
cooperation and the Agency’s requests should be based on that Agreement. Thus, it is not clear why the Agency’s requests goes beyond the Safeguards Agreement and even beyond the Additional Protocol, although the latter is not being implemented by Iran.
5- Accordingly, the Agency’s request to take DA samples from the Heavy Water stored at UCF has no justification referred to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/214). However, the Agency inspectors
were allowed to perform their attribute test in order to confirm that they are not nuclear materials.
3- Comments on paragraph 28-35 of the report regarding design information (code 3.1)
1- Modified code 3.1 of Subsidiary Arrangement: Iran was implementing voluntarily the modified code 3.1 since 2003, but because of the illegal UNSC resolutions against Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities, the implementation of modified code 3.1 was suspended. However, Iran currently is implementing code 3.1 of Subsidiary Arrangement.
2- In respect of FFEP DIQ (Fordow Site), Iran is committed to declare a facility to the Agency 180 days prior to introducing nuclear materials to it. However, Iran has voluntarily informed 18 months prior to introduction
of materials to the site. Iran, in addition, provided its DIQ, granted unlimited access to the facility, held meetings and provided detailed information, permitted taking swipe samples and reference photos which under the provision of code 3.1 of 1976, Iran is not obliged to do so.
3- In respect of providing information on other new facilities, Iran will inform the Agency in accordance with the code 3.1 of 1976 and will provide the Agency with the required design information in its due time.
4- Any request of Design Information on Darkhovain NPP, Arak IR40, new enrichment facilities, etc, by the Agency should be in accordance with the code 3.1 of 1976.
4- Comments on paragraphs 37 of the report about Pyroprocessing R&D activities and Agency’s request for providing information in this respect:
In fact there is not pyroprocessing R&D activity and the question raised has been a misinterpretation by the Agency inspectors on the scope of a research on studying electrochemical behaviour of uranyl nitrate in ionic liquid media. Therefore, requesting information on non-existed activity is meaningless.
5- Comments on paragraph 39 of the report about requesting access to additional locations (Additional Protocol):
The Additional Protocol is not a legally binding instrument and is voluntary in nature. Hence, many Member States including Iran are not implementing this voluntary protocol. Requesting Iran to ratify or implement the Additional Protocol, being a non-legally binding instrument, is in contravention with international law and the sovereign decision of any Member State. Therefore, suspension of implementation of the Additional Protocol does not constitute violation of its NPT Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/214) and any request by the Agency in
the framework of the Additional Protocol is not legally justified.
Although the Islamic Republic of Iran voluntarily implemented the Additional Protocol for more than two and a half years, a few western countries in an opposite direction to this and other voluntary measures carried out by the Islamic Republic of Iran, illegally conveyed Iran’s nuclear issue to the United Nations Security Council. Afterwards, Iran’s voluntary measures were suspended based on the law adopted by the Iranian Parliament. Therefore, Iran should not be blamed for, but those countries which conveyed the issue to the UN Security Council instead.
6- Comments on paragraph 40-45 of the report on Possible Military Dimension:
1- Referring to the para 54 of the former DG report GOV/2008/4 that reads “However, it should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it
have credible information in this regard” that clearly rejected use of nuclear material and credible information in alleged studies. Therefore, the first sentence of para 40 of GOV/2010/10 is obviously contradicting the above assessment of the Agency. And also creating any linkage between the peaceful nuclear materials in Iran with absence of possible military dimension is absolutely wrong.
2- In section E of GOV/2010/10, there are claims based on baseless allegations. The Agency should not judge without investigation of all aspects of the allegations but, regrettably, it has done so. It has also to be recalled that the para 24 of the former DG report GOV/2008/15 says “It should be noted that the Agency currently has no information – apart from the uranium metal document – on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies” which is missing in this report and even in fact in contradiction with the judgment in this report.
3- It has to be recalled that pursuant to the negotiations between the former Director General and the then Secretary of Supreme National Security Council of Iran in 2007, the Islamic Republic of Iran took an
important initiative in July 2007 to resolve all outstanding issues and remove any ambiguity concerning the nature of its peaceful nuclear activities in the past and present. It should be emphasized that the main objective of the subsequent Work Plan that was agreed between Iran and the Agency on 21 August 2007 (INFCIRC/711), was to resolve, in a step by step manner, all outstanding issues once and for all and to prevent the endless process from being dragged any further.
4- On the basis of the Work Plan, the Agency provided the Islamic Republic of Iran with a list of six outstanding issues as reflected in part II of INFCIRC/711. The six outstanding issues were: 1) Plutonium Experiments, 2) P1-P2 Centrifuges, 3) Source of Contamination in an equipment of a technical university, 4) Uranium Metal Document, 5) Polonium 210 and 6) Gachine Mine.
5- It was never the understanding of Iran and IAEA to categorize the so-called “Alleged Studies” summarily referred to in part III of INFCIRC/711 as an outstanding issue, otherwise the parties should have addressed it in part II of INFCIRC/711. One has to bear in mind the fact that the issues such high explosives and re-entry missile are outside the domain of the IAEA statutory mandate.
6- Moreover, if the so-called Alleged Studies were an outstanding issue, Iran and IAEA should have developed and agreed on a detailed modality for dealing with it as they did with respect to the six outstanding issues addressed in part II of INFCIRC/711. As a result, Iran and IAEA decided to make a short reference to the Alleged Studies in part III of INFCIRC/711 and to agree on a different approach for addressing it as follows:
“Iran reiterated that it considers the following Alleged Studies as politically motivated and baseless allegations. The Agency will however provide Iran with access to the documentation it has in it possession … As a sign of good will and cooperation with the Agency, upon receiving all related documents, Iran will review and inform the Agency of its assessment.” (Emphasis supplied).
7- According to the above understanding, the Agency was required to submit all documentation to Iran and then Iran was only expected to “inform the Agency of its assessment”. No visit, meeting, personal interview, swipe sampling were foreseen for addressing this matter. Notwithstanding the above and based on good faith and in a spirit of cooperation, Iran went beyond the above understanding by agreeing to hold discussions with the IAEA, provide necessary supporting documents and inform the Agency of its assessment. Meanwhile, by refusing to
submit all documentation to Iran concerning the so-called Alleged Studies, IAEA did not fulfil its obligation under part III of INFCIRC/711.
8- In the former DG reports of November 2007 and February 2008, it has been stated that all six outstanding issues had been resolved and the Islamic Republic of Iran had responded to all questions about the outstanding issues in accordance with the Work Plan. Following the successful implementation of the Work Plan which led to the resolution of all six outstanding issues, the Government of the United States being dissatisfied about the results, began a political campaign on a part of the Work Plan entitled the Alleged Studies. Therefore, by interfering in the work of the IAEA and exerting various political pressures the Government of the United States attempted to spoil the cooperative spirit between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA.
9- In spite of the fact that the so called Alleged Studies documents had not been delivered to Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran carefully examined all the materials which have been prepared by US Government for power point presentations by the Agency, and informed the Agency of its assessment. In this context I recall the following important points:
i. The Agency has not delivered to Iran any official and authenticated document which contained documentary evidence related to Iran with regard to the Alleged Studies.
ii. The Government of the United States has not handed over original documents to the Agency since it does not in fact have any authenticated document and all it has are forged documents. The Agency didn’t deliver any original documents to Iran and none of the documents and materials that were shown to Iran have authenticity and all proved to be fabricated, baseless allegations and false attributions to Iran.
iii. How can one make allegations against a country without provision of original documents with authenticity and ask the country concerned to prove its innocence or ask it to provide substantial explanations?
iv. The Agency has explicitly expressed in a written document dated 13 May 2008 that: “… no document establishing the administrative interconnections between “Green Salt” and the other remaining subjects on Alleged Studies, namely “Highly Explosive Testing” and “Re-entry Vehicle”, have been delivered or presented to Iran by the Agency”. This written document proves that in fact the documents related to the Alleged Studies lack any internal consistency and coherence in this regard. It is regrettable that this explicit fact expressed by the Agency has never been reflected in the DG reports.
10- Taking into account the above-mentioned facts, and that no original document exists on the Alleged Studies, and there is no valid and documentary evidence purporting to show any linkage between such fabricated allegations and Iran, and no use of any nuclear material in connection to the Alleged Studies (because they do not exist in reality), also bearing in mind the fact that Iran has fulfilled its obligation to provide information to the Agency, and its assessment, and the fact that former DG already indicated in his reports in June, September and
November 2008 that the Agency has no information on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies, therefore this subject must be closed.
11- If it was intended to raise other issues in addition to the Alleged Studies (Green Salt, Re-entry Missile, High Explosive Test) such as possible military dimension, since all outstanding issues have been incorporated in the exhausted list prepared by the IAEA during the negotiations, then it should have been raised by the Agency in the course of the negotiations on the Work Plan. One can clearly notice that no issue and item entitled “possible military dimension” exists in the modalities.
12- According to the former DG report of GOV/2009/55, the Agency expressed that the authenticity of the documentation that forms the basis of the Alleged Studies cannot be confirmed. This proved the assessment
of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the Alleged Studies are politically motivated and baseless allegations.
13- In accordance to the first paragraph of chapter IV of the Work Plan which reads that “These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran’s past nuclear program and activities”, introducing a new issue under the title of “possible military dimension” is contrary to the Work Plan.
14- Paragraph 5 of Chapter IV of the Work Plan reads: “The Agency and Iran agreed that after the implementation of the above Work Plan and the agreed modalities for resolving the outstanding issues, the implementation of safeguards in Iran will be conducted in a routine manner.”
15- In Paragraph 3, chapter IV of the Work Plan, the Agency has acknowledged that “the Agency’s delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities”. On this basis, while the Work Plan has been implemented, the Agency is obliged to confirm the exclusive peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities.
16- The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Agency have fully implemented the tasks agreed upon in the Work Plan; in doing so, Iran has taken voluntary steps beyond its legal obligation under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement.
17- The report GOV/2009/55 confirmed that Iran has completed its obligation on the Alleged Studies by informing the Agency its assessment, the Agency is hereby highly expected to announce that the safeguards implementation in Iran shall be conducted in a routine manner in accordance with the last paragraph of the work Plan (INFCIRC/711).
7- Comments on paragraph 48-49 of the report about suspension:
Uranium enrichment and heavy water research reactor are not suspended, since there is no logical and legal justification to suspend such peaceful activities which are in the framework of the IAEA’s Statute and the NPT and under surveillance of the Agency. It should be reminded that Iran implemented suspension for more than 2.5 years voluntarily, as a non-legally binding and confidence building measure.
III- Iran’s full cooperation with the Agency
The report prepared by the Safeguards department of the Agency for the new Director General on Implementation of the Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic
Republic of Iran, despite of deficiencies explained above, once again confirmed Iran’s cooperation with the Agency. The following are examples of Iran’s cooperation which are reflected in the report (GOV/2010/10):
A) Full-scope safeguards of the nuclear enrichment activities and materials in Natanz:
1. “The nuclear material at FEP (including the feed, product and tails), as well as all installed cascades and the feed and withdrawal stations, are subject to Agency containment and surveillance.” (para 5)
2. “The results of the environmental samples taken at FEP as of 21 November 2009 indicate that the maximum enrichment level as declared by Iran in the relevant Design Information Questionnaire (DIQ) (i.e. less than 5.0% U-235 enrichment) has not been exceeded at that plant.” (para 6)
3. “Since the last report, the Agency has successfully conducted 4 unannounced inspections at FEP, making a total of 35 such inspections since March 2007.” (para 6)
4. “Between 14 and 16 September 2009, the Agency conducted a PIV at the PFEP, the results of which confirmed the inventory as declared by Iran.” (para 7)
5. “On 14 February 2010, Iran, in the presence of Agency inspectors, moved approximately 1950 kg of low enriched UF6 from FEP to the PFEP feed station.” (para 12)
6. “The Agency inspectors sealed the cylinder containing the material to the feed station. Iran provided the Agency with mass spectrometry results.” (para 12)
B) Verification activities in Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP)
7. “The Agency met with Iran between 25 and 28 October 2009, at which time it carried out design information verification (DIV) at FFEP…” (para 14).
“Since 26 October 2009, the Agency has conducted five DIVs at FFEP.” (para 17)
8. “During three of these five DIVs, the Agency took environmental samples.” (para 17)
C) Reprocessing Activities
9. “The Agency has continued to monitor the use and construction of hot cells at the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) and the Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production (MIX) Facility.” (para 18)
10. “The Agency carried out an inspection and a DIV at TRR on 11 November 2009, and on 23 January 2010 at the MIX facility. There were no indications of ongoing reprocessing related activities at those facilities.” (para 18)
D) Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP)
11. “On 13 January 2010, the Agency carried out a DIV at the Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP). It confirmed that no new process equipment had been installed at the facility and that no new assemblies, rods or pellets had been
produced since May 2009.” (para 22)
E) Other areas
12. “On 8 February 2010, the Agency carried out a DIV at the IR-40 reactor at Arak. The Agency verified that the construction of the facility was ongoing.” (para 23)
13. “Under cover of a letter dated 11 February 2010, Iran submitted an updated DIQ for UCF…” (para 25)
14. “Under cover of a letter dated 13 December 2009, Iran submitted an updated DIQ for UCF which included, inter alia, the layout of the laboratory.”(para 26)
15. “On 17 January 2010, the Agency carried out an inspection and a DIV at UCF.” (para 27)
16. “The total amount of uranium in the form of UF6 produced at UCF … remains subject to Agency containment and surveillance.” (para 27)
17. “On 9 January 2010, the Agency conducted a DIV at the Jaber Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Research Laboratory (JHL) in Tehran….” (para 37)
18. The continued cooperation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Agency has resulted that “the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran…” (para 46)
Global Research Articles by Permanent Mission of Iran to the IAEA
Tags: Agency, Alleged, Board Of Governors, Director General, document pdf, enrichment activity, Gov, IAEA, INFCIRC, information, Iran, Islamic Republic, islamic republic of iran, issue, legitimate request, lengthy text, Part, Protocol, report, republic of iran, research reactor, respect, salt project, statutory mandate Posted in world | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
Saturday, March 6th, 2010
By Philip Giraldi
View all 20 articles by Philip Giraldi
Published 03/06/10
The Scottish poet Robert Burns wrote "Oh what a gift a gift to gie us, to see ourselves as others see us." Burns could not have possibly predicted a hubris ridden twenty-first century America not much given to introspection, but there were certainly enough examples of over mighty kings and princes in his own time for him to draw upon. Burns’ enduring wisdom about people and their ways is particularly relevant in our own time–something that might give pause to all Americans as Washington’s political class blunderingly continues to seek to remake the world in its own image. A bit of Burnsian self-criticism might also help the many pundits who inhabit the media talk shows, bombarding the American public with their wisdom explaining why things are the way they are and why we citizens should be satisfied that a state of continual warfare in pursuit of a dubious new world order, is the best we can hope for.
It is particularly interesting to follow the pieces written by the many opinion shapers in the print media. Many were cheerleaders for Iraq, became doubters when the war went sour, climbed on the bandwagon of the surge, and now are accomplices in Washington’s attempt to subdue Afghanistan. The most subtle of the pundits are those like Tom Friedman and David Brooks of the New York Times who appear to be reasonable but are nevertheless agents of the consensus politics crafted by the Washington elite from both parties, hardly ever advocating what might actually be good for the American people. David Ignatius of the Washington Post is another example and particularly appealing as he exudes calmness and "let us reason together" in his articles and op-eds, unlike his more strident opinion page colleague Charles Krauthammer. Ignatius is, nevertheless, no disinterested observer. He is a classic Washington "insider," an embedded media source with the US commands in Iraq and Afghanistan and his unique access to information is the prize he gets for saying the right things. One of his more recent offerings, "Buying the Vote: Iran is backing candidates — In Iraq" (Feb 25), is a replay of the enemy is Iran theme that has proven popular in the mainstream media, so popular indeed that a large majority of Americans now think incorrectly that Iran already has a nuclear weapon and have concluded that it is a threat that has to be dealt with by force of arms.
Ignatius should pay attention to Robert Burns. He does not even conceal that his information comes from the US Commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno. Odierno/Ignatius make the following four points to illustrate Iranian hostility: First, "Iran provides money, campaign materials, and political training to various individuals and political parties in Iraq." Second, "Iran interferes in Iraq’s political process, urging alliances that not all Iraqi politicians favor, in an effort to consolidate power among parties supported by Iran." Third, "Iran supports de-Baathification efforts engineered by Ahmed Chalabi for the purpose of eliminated potential obstacles to Iranian influence." And fourth, "According to all source intelligence, Ahmed Chalabi visited Iran at least three times since last year."
The Baath Party was the ruling political grouping under Saddam Hussein and, because it was part of the dictatorial regime, what role it should play at the present time is hotly debated in Iraq. The Baaths were predominantly Sunni Muslims. Ahmed Chalabi, is a leading Shi’ite politician who has lately been blamed for efforts to limit the Sunni influence, acting in collusion with the rulers in Iran, who are also Shi’ites.
The situation is extremely confusing, but even Ignatius concedes that in spite of their best efforts Iranians are not particularly popular in Iraq and being linked to them is in all likelihood a vote loser rather than a gainer. Ignatius and Odierno might also note that if you substitute the United States for Iran in all the charges they are leveling against the Mullahs you will find that everything applies pretty much equally well. The US Embassy is heavily engaged in the elections both supporting and promoting candidates that are deemed to be pro-American–it was behind the initial and catastrophic de-Baathification program of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003-4–and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden have visited Iraq numerous times to tell Iraqi leaders what to do. It is particularly ironic that Ahmed Chalabi, who was the darling of the Pentagon neocons, has gone from hero to villain. Ignatius once enjoyed easy access to Chalabi through his neocon friends. Now Odierno and Ignatius regard Chalabi as a dupe of Tehran whereas in reality Chalabi is what he has always been–a promoter of himself and his personal political interests.
So the wheel turns. The United States decides it must interfere in the Middle East for reasons of its own security based on phony allegations about weapons of mass destruction. It smashes Iraq, destroys its government, and produces a vacuum which powerful neighbor Iran seeks to fill insofar as possible. What exactly did Washington expect to happen–Switzerland on the Tigris? Iran has a great deal to lose if a hostile government were to emerge in Baghdad. After all, it lives in the neighborhood and shares an 875 mile border with a country that has often been viewed as an enemy. Iraq’s war of aggression against Iran, producing over a million Iranian casualties between 1980 and 1988, is a recent memory. Iran is also surrounded by a sea of hostile predominantly Sunni Muslim states backed by American firepower, meaning that it is impelled to protect itself by establishing friendly and even client relationships with other Shia groups in the region. The United States has much less at stake. It only wants Iraqi elections to bring a certain measure of stability so plans to withdraw US forces can proceed, enabling a focus on the new big war in neighboring Afghanistan. Even there it is hedging its bets with Odierno stating recently that Washington would be prepared to stay in Iraq if the political situation does not stabilize, whatever that means. Ultimately it makes little difference to the US who is on top in Iraq as long as they sell their oil on the international market and are not openly hostile or permitting the country to be used as a base for groups like al-Qaeda.
David Ignatius is by no means unique. The mainstream media is full of self-described experts who need tension and war to bolster their own self-esteem so that they will continue to appear as well-informed and well-paid interpreters of today’s world. They artfully package threats against the US national interest in such a way as to make it seem as if a war against dark forces can and should go on and on forever, eventually involving Washington in every corner of the globe. Until the money and manpower run out. Ironically, none of the hawks are actually willing to put their own lives on the line to support the policies they so passionately embrace. None have any actual experience of warfare beyond riding around in a Pentagon protected bubble with a platoon of infantrymen to guard them. Run through the list of media neocons and pro-war journalists if you will. You will not find one who has done military service yet all are constantly in full chickenhawk battle array, boasting about how much they love America’s armed forces. Their quest for military glory is in truth hostile to everything the American Republic has ever stood for, dedicated to creating a narrative that will ultimately lead to more wars against every Muslim country left standing, shedding other Americans’ blood and eviscerating the US economy until there is nothing more to give.
Copyright © 2010 Campaign for Liberty
Also by Philip Giraldi:
The War on Terror Is Anti-Conservative 02/26/10
National Insecurity 01/29/10
Yemen and the War of the Worlds 01/07/10
Obama’s New Years Resolutions 01/01/10
Changing the Narrative for War 12/29/09
View all 20 articles by Philip Giraldi
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=666
Tags: access, Afghanistan, Ahmed Chalabi, america, Charles Krauthammer, Clinton, consensus politics, David Brooks, David Ignatius, disinterested observer, General Ray Odierno, gift, Ignatius, information, Iran, Iraq, Joe Biden, Odierno, Opinion, Philip Giraldi, poet robert burns, Quot, Robert Burns, Saddam Hussein, scottish poet, Secretary of State Hillary, Source, Tehran, Time, Tom Friedman, United States, US, Vice, Vote, Washington, washington elite, Wisdom, world Posted in The soon to be former USA, activism, mainstream media, nation, the former republic that was America, war, world | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
Saturday, March 6th, 2010
Courageous insiders, gagged, hounded and ignored
by James Corbett
Global Research, March 5, 2010
The Corbett Report
When losing a discussion on the facts of 9/11, a so-called 9/11 "debunker" will often rely on an old canard to "prove" that 9/11 could not have been an inside job: "So many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the squealers from spilling the beans," write self-satisfied defenders of the government story. According to the logic of this argument, if there are no 9/11 whistleblowers then 9/11 was not an inside job.
So what if there are 9/11 whistleblowers? What if these whistleblowers come from every level of government and private industry, individuals who have even had their cases vindicated by internal government reports? As you are about to see, there are numerous such whistleblowers and each one is a thorn in the side of those who want to pretend that the 9/11 Commission represents the sum total of knowledge on the 9/11 attacks.
That is precisely why these whistleblowers are not lauded by legislators or trumpeted by the media, but actively suppressed by government officials and the corporate media alike. These courageous insiders have been sidelined, gagged, hounded from their positions and ignored to the point where their stories are virtually unknown among the general public. And that is exactly why it is vital for the alternative media to make these stories known by bypassing the filters and control of the establishment media.
In an effort to draw more attention to the critical issues and troubling questions raised by the testimony of these insiders, The Corbett Report has just released a documentary exploration of key government and corporate whistleblowers, including a discussion of whistleblower protection and what the public can do to facilitate a wider distribution and awareness of this information. Download an mp3 audio file of the documentary or listen to it in the player below:
The 9/11 Whistleblowers
The 9/11 Commission – The myth that the 9/11 commission report represents an adequate investigation into the events of 9/11 is perhaps best exposed by the commissioners themselves, 6 out of 10 of whom have questioned the commission and its conclusions personally (namely Kean and Hamilton, Kerrey, Roemer,Lehman and Cleland). Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean once famously remarked that the Commission was "set up to fail." Commission members considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military’s complete lack of response on that day. One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been "deliberately compromised by the president of the United States."
911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey claims 911 was a 30 year conspiracy:
Richard Andrew Grove – In 2000, Richard Andrew Grove was working for Silverstream Software, a software development company specializing in enterprise architecture software. By October of that year he had landed the firm their largest client in the company’s history: Marsh & McLennan. He was invited to a staff meeting in Marsh’s offices on the 98th floor of the World Trade Center. It was the 11th of September, 2001. And everyone who was in attendance at the meeting died there that day. Grove, who had been late for the meeting, survived. His remarkable story, as well assubsequent events, led him to start piecing together how 9/11 helped financial institutions and insurance companies cover up billions of dollars in fraud by eliminating those who were asking questions about it.
Richard Grove, Wall Street Whistleblower
Sibel Edmonds – In the wake of 9/11, Sibel Edmonds heeded the FBI’s call for Middle Eastern language experts to support their counterterrorism unit. Fluent in Turkish and Azerbaijani and conversational in Farsi, she joined the FBI as a translator on September 15, 2001. She soon discovered gross negligence and criminal conspiracy in the FBI and State Department, including deliberately mistranslated documents in the Bureau’s possession before 9/11 that contained information about the attacks, nuclear spies being facilitated by top government officials and foreign operatives who were taken in for questioning after 9/11 being released because they were connected to those spy rings. A 2005 report from the Office of the Inspector General determined that none of Edmonds’ allegations can be refuted. In 2009, Edmonds revealed that Osama Bin Laden had been working for U.S. intelligence right up to the day of 9/11.
Sibel Edmonds: Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11 PT1
William Bergman – In August 2001 the Federal Reserve Board of Governors issued a non-routine supervisory letter warning Fed banks to be vigilant in monitoring suspicious activity reports. At the same time, the United States’ economy was experiencing its largest June-August spike in M1 money supply since 1947, with more than $5 billion being added to the currency in circulation over that period. Piecing this information together at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago two years later, economist Bill Bergman wondered if the sudden infusion of currency might have been an indicator of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, as those with assets in danger of being frozen in the wake of such an attack would naturally want to liquidate their holdings before an investigation could occur. When Bergman wrote to the Board of Governors to ask for clarification as to why they had issued their supervisory letter, he was told that he had committed "an egregious breach of protocol in calling the Board staff and asking the question."
Coleen Rowley – When the so-called "20th hijacker" Zaccharias Moussaoui was detained on August 15th, 2001, agents in the Minneapolis FBI field office immediately sought a criminal warrant to search his belongings. Management at the FBI dealing with the request threw up numerous obstacles to the agents, and even withheld information from them, including the now-infamous Phoenix Memowritten by an agent in Arizona warning of terrorists training in flight schools for a possible upcoming attack. The request was denied and agents were prevented from searching Moussaoui’s laptop, which contained information that would have tipped the FBI off to the 9/11 plot. The Minneapolis field office Chief Counsel,Coleen Rowley, has been very public with her disgust at the conduct of FBI management during the case and its subsequent review, and she has supported causes like NYC CAN which seek to re-open the 9/11 investigation.
9/11 Redux: Coleen Rowley
J. Michael Springmann – A 20-year veteran of the State Department’s Foreign service, J. Michael Springmann served 18 months as the head of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 1988-89. During that time he repeatedly rejected visa applications from unqualified individuals only to have his decisions overturned by the head of the consulate. When he returned to Washington, he discovered that the Jeddah consulate was being used as a place for funnelling Afghan mujahedeen into the U.S. for training, facilitated by the CIA on behalf of their asset, Osama bin Laden. The Jeddah consulate would be the very office that issued 15 of the alleged 9/11 hijackers’ visas to enter the United States. After numerous complaints up the chain of command, Springmann’s contract with the State Department was not renewed.
Jeddah, Visa Express & J. Michael Springmann
Robert Wright – In the 1990s, Special Agent Robert Wright of the FBI’s Chicago field office spearheaded an investigation into terrorist financing codenamed Vulgar Betrayal. The investigation uncovered information about Yassin Al-Qadi, a terrorist financier who would go on to be designated a global terrorist financier by the U.S. treasury in the wake of 9/11. Vulgar Betrayal led to information about the African embassy bombings in 1998 and resulted in the seizure of $1.4 million of terrorist financing. Despite the investigation’s remarkable success, however, Wright was taken off of Vulgar Betrayal in 1999 and reduced to a paper pusher. In 2002, Wright went public with information about how his investigations had been systematically starved for funds, hindered and obstructed by FBI management and revealed that he believes 9/11 could have been prevented if he had been allowed to continue his investigation. The Bureau prevented him from releasing a book about his experience. He was threatened with legal action if he revealed any details about what he had been investigating.
VIDEO: Robert Wright Judicial Watch briefing
Indira Singh – As a risk management consultant for J.P. Morgan in 2001, Indira Singh was tasked with implementing the next generation of risk management software for the firm. Working for one of the largest financial institutions in the world, Singh wanted to choose a reputable software vendor for the task, one with a proven track record of working with the sensitive information of important clients. She solicited a presentation from Ptech, an enterprise architecture software firm whose clients included some of the most sensitive departments in the U.S. government, including the FBI, the Department of Defense, the Treasury, the IRS, the US Navy and the White House. After performing due diligence on the company, Singh discovered that it had been started in part by funds from Yassin Al-Qadi (the same Specially Designated Global Terrorist that Robert Wright’s investigation had been focused on). She discovered many other disturbing links between Ptech officers and suspected terrorist organizations. Ptech had been conducting tests on the interoperability of FAA and NORAD computer systems in the event of an emergency on the morning of 9/11. When she tried to bring this information to the FBI in Boston she was told by one agent that she was in a better position to investigate the case than the Bureau was.
Indira Singh Testimony
James Corbett is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by James Corbett
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17961
Tags: 9 11 Attacks, Al-Qadi, alternative media, Arizona, Bill Bergman, Chicago, Chief Counsel, Coleen Rowley, Commission, Commissioner Bob Kerrey, consulate, corporate whistleblowers, day, edmonds, establishment media, Fbi, Global Research, government reports, Grove, Hamilton, industry individuals, information, investigation, J. Michael Springmann, James Corbett, Jeddah, kean, Marsh, Max Cleland, Minneapolis, Office, Phoenix, private industry, Quot, Richard Andrew Grove, Richard Grove, Robert Wright, Saudi Arabia, Special Agent Robert Wright, squealers, Thomas Kean, U.S., United States, wall street, William Bergman, year Posted in Government sponsored terrorism, Israel, The soon to be former USA, false flags, mainstream media, nation, the former republic that was America, video, world | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
|
|
